Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat

Hearing: March 21, 2001
Judgment: October 18, 2001


Full case name:	Law Society of British Columbia v. Jaswant Singh Mangat, Westcoast Immigration Consultants Ltd., and Jill Sparling
Citations:	[2001] 3 S.C.R. 113, 2001 SCC 67
Ruling:	Appeal dismissed.

Court membership

Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel

Case opinions

Unanimous opinion by: Gonthier J.

Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that a non-lawyer may be given the power to practice law under a federal statute even if it is contrary to a provincial legal profession legislation.

1 Background
2 Opinion of the Court
3 See also
4 External links

[edit] Background

Ms. Reyat was an immigration consultant for Solidarity Ltd. who had been trained in law outside of Canada and was not a member of any provincial bar. As part of her work she had appeared before the Immigration and Refugee Board on behalf of her clients. The Law Society of Manitoba discovered her conduct and brought an application to get a permanent injunction against Reyat from engaging in the practice of law in violation of section 33 of the Law Society of Manitoba Act.

Reyat conceded that she was practicing law. However, her conduct was sanctioned by section 69(1) of the Immigration Act, which allowed non-lawyers to represent clients before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The issues before the Supreme Court were:

whether ss. 30 and 69(1) of the former Immigration Act were ultra vires the federal government, and
whether then s. 26 of the Legal Profession Act, which prohibited non-lawyers to engage in the practice of law, is inoperative or inapplicable to persons acting under ss. 30 and 69(1) of the Immigration Act.

[edit] Opinion of the Court

Justice Gonthier wrote the opinion for the majority. He held that the sections of the Immigration Act was a valid subject matter of the federal government, and that Reyat was allowed to practice law in front of the Board under the provisions of the Immigration Act.

Given the clear overlap of laws, Gonthier considered whether to apply the paramountcy doctrine or the inter-jurisdictional immunity doctrine to resolve the conflict. He found that the paramountcy doctrine was more appropriate as there was a clear double aspect in the law.^[1]

The first part of the paramountcy test asks whether there is an operational conflict where the provincial law frustrates the purpose of the federal law. Gonthier found that the purpose of the federal law was to authorize non-lawyers to appear as counsel in immigration tribunals for a fee, but the provincial law made exercise of the authority impossible. Consequently, the paramountcy doctrine can be invoked and the provincial law was held to be inoperative to the extent of the conflict.