Maurice v. Priel, McKeague and Walker, (1989) 96 N.R. 178 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 03, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 96 N.R. 178 (SCC);58 DLR (4th) 736;[1989] SCJ No 37 (QL);77 Sask R 22;15 ACWS (3d) 17;96 NR 178;[1989] 1 SCR 1023;1989 CanLII 89 (SCC);36 Admin LR 169;[1989] 3 WWR 673;EYB 1989-67947;JE 89-808

Maurice v. Priel (1989), 96 N.R. 178 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

L. Ted Priel, David McKeague and Harvey Walker v. Gene Arthur Francis Maurice

(No. 20707)

Indexed As: Maurice v. Priel, McKeague and Walker

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.

April 27, 1989.

Summary:

The Law Society of Saskatchewan appointed a hearing committee under the Legal Profession Act to hear and determine a complaint against the applicant Maurice, currently a superior court judge, of conduct unbecoming a barrister and solicitor between the years 1974 to 1981. Maurice was appointed to the bench in 1981 and the complaint was filed in 1987. Maurice applied directly to the Court of Appeal for an order prohibiting the society from conducting the hearing on the ground that the society lacked jurisdiction to conduct the hearing. Maurice alleged that upon his appointment to the bench he ceased to be a member of the Law Society and therefore was not subject to the provisions of the Legal Profession Act.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Tallis, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported in [1988] 1 W.W.R. 491; 60 Sask.R. 241, allowed the application. The Court of Appeal held that the Law Society did not have jurisdiction over the complaint because the judge was not a member of the Law Society. The court held that the expression "member of the society" as used in s. 54 of the Act meant a member of the society at both the time of the impugned conduct and at the time of the disciplinary proceedings. The committee of the Law Society appointed to hear the complaint appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5103

Discipline - Member of the society - What constitutes - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed who constitutes a "member of the society" under the Legal Profession Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. L-10 - The Supreme Court held that a Saskatchewan superior court judge ceased to be a "member of the society" upon his appointment to the bench and accordingly was not governed by the provisions of the Act - See paragraphs 9 to 15.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5182

Discipline - Disciplinary powers - Jurisdiction of disciplinary body - A complaint was filed against a Saskatchewan superior court judge with the Law Society, alleging unbecoming conduct between 1974 and 1981, prior to his 1981 appointment to the bench - The complaint was filed in 1987 - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that upon his appointment to the bench the judge ceased to be a member of the society and therefore the Act became inapplicable-The court affirmed that the society only had jurisdiction over those who were members both at the time of the impugned conduct and the time of the disciplinary proceedings and specifically rejected the argument that the society could retain jurisdiction over former members on public policy grounds; the court refused to deal with the argument that its decision could lead to abuse since members could resign from the society just before disciplinary hearings were commenced - See paragraphs 11 to 16.

Courts - Topic 454

Judges - Discipline - Respecting preappointment conduct - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5182 above].

Courts - Topic 454

Judges - Discipline - Respecting preappointment conduct - A complaint was filed against a Saskatchewan superior court judge with the Law Society, alleging unbecoming conduct between 1974 and 1981, prior to his 1981 appointment to the bench - The complaint was filed in 1987 - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the Law Society lacked jurisdiction to discipline the lawyer respecting his pre-appointment conduct - The court refused to consider the issue of whether the Judicial Council would have jurisdiction over a judge for breaches of professional misconduct committed while he was a practising lawyer - The court noted, however, that a judge may, subject to statutory time limitations, be civilly sued for acts committed while practising as a lawyer and remained answerable for any criminal acts committed before judicial appointment - See paragraphs 17, 19.

Cases Noticed:

Re Law Society of Upper Canada and Robinette, [1954] 2 D.L.R. 692, appld. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Judges Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. J-1, sect. 36 [para. 10].

Legal Profession Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. L-10, sect. 3 [paras. 7, 12]; sect. 7 [paras. 8, 13]; sect. 54 [paras. 6, 8]; sect. 55, sect. 57 [para. 8].

Rules of the Law Society of Saskatchewan, rule 84 [para. 12].

Counsel:

S. Halyk, Q.C. and G. Blue, for the appellants;

G.L. Gerrand, Q.C., for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Halyk Brent Dovell, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the appellants;

Gerrand & Company, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on February 3, 1989. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on April 27, 1989, when the following opinions were filed:

Cory, J. (Lamer, Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 20;

La Forest, J. - see paragraph 21.