Churko v. Law Society of Saskatchewan

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Judge: Ball, J.
• Citation: (2011), 388 Sask.R. 22 (QB),2011 SKQB 327
• Date: 07 September 2011
• Subject Matter: BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS,STATUTES

Churko v. Sask. Law Soc. (2011), 388 Sask.R. 22 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.111

Casey Regan Churko (applicant) v. The Law Society of Saskatchewan (respondent)

(2011 Q.B.G. No. 1342; 2011 SKQB 327)

Indexed As: Churko v. Law Society of Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Ball, J.

September 7, 2011.

Summary:

The applicant, a lawyer associated with Merchant Law Group (MLG), notified the Executive Director of the respondent Law Society that he wished to act as principal to a student-at-law. The Executive Director referred the applicant's request to the Admissions & Education Committee of the Law Society (Committee) for further review because of concerns about whether MLG was "a suitable working environment for the training and development of students-at-law." The applicant applied for judicial review of the Executive Director's decision to refer the matter to the Committee.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 349

Admission to practice or as student-at-law - Qualifications - Suitability to act as a principal - [See Statutes - Topic 1415 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 7605

Regulation - General - Interpretation of regulatory legislation - [See Statutes - Topic 1415 ].

Statutes - Topic 1415

Interpretation - Construction where meaning is not plain - Ambiguity - Choice of meaning to attain purpose of Act - A lawyer associated with Merchant Law Group (MLG), notified the Executive Director of the respondent Law Society that he wished to act as principal to a student-at-law - The Executive Director referred the lawyer's request to the Law Society's Admissions & Education Committee for further review because of concerns about whether MLG was "a suitable working environment for the training and development of students-at-law." - The lawyer applied for judicial review - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench reviewed rule 152 of the Law Society's Code of Professional Conduct - The court held that the word "involvement", in the phrase "review the member's involvement with the Society including, without limitation" in rule 152(2), was ambiguous - The purpose and intent of the Legal Profession Act was best served by adopting a liberal and expansive interpretation - This led the court to conclude that the Executive Director had the authority under rule 152(2) to consider matters that went beyond those enunciated in clauses (a) to (g) of rule 152(2) (a view confirmed by the words "without limitation"), but more importantly, that he was authorized to refer concerns about the articling student's potential working conditions in the member's law firm to the Committee for inquiry under rule 152(3) - See paragraphs 1 to 27.

Words and Phrases

Involvement - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench interpreted the meaning of this word as found in rule 152(2) of the Law Society of Saskatchewan's Code of Professional Conduct - See paragraphs 25 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, appld. [para. 15].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 17].

Cebryk v. Paragon Enterprises (1984) Ltd. et al. (2010), 362 Sask.R. 280; 500 W.A.C. 280; 2010 SKCA 146, appld. [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 17].

Law Society of Saskatchewan, Code of Professional Conduct, rule 152(1), rule 152(2), rule 152(3) [para. 7].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), p. 3 [para. 19].

Counsel:

Gordon Kuski, Q.C., for the applicant;

Timothy Huber, for the respondent.

This application was heard by Ball, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following decision on September 7, 2011.