Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

Judicial review of Law Society of Saskatchewan complaint decisions brought by Ms. Birgit Soldan, involving her allegations against a lawyer who represented her in a wrongful dismissal matter. Whether the presiding judge should disqualify himself based on alleged bias arising from surname similarity to a law firm and past professional involvement with the Law Society. The proper judicial centre for hearing the application, with Ms. Soldan arguing Melfort was appropriate due to her residence while the Law Society contended Regina was correct as the Law Society's headquarters location. Procedural compliance requirements including the rejection of an oversized brief of law exceeding page limits and the admissibility of affidavit evidence in a judicial review application. Deference owed to judicial discretion in granting an adjournment at first appearance when opposing counsel had scheduling conflicts. Venue determination under The King's Bench Act, 1990, based on where the cause of action arose, where the defendant resides, and where business is conducted.

The Application for Judicial Review and Related Procedural Challenges

Ms. Birgit Soldan initiated this matter by filing complaints with the Law Society of Saskatchewan against a lawyer on November 30, 2022, regarding her dissatisfaction with the lawyer's representation in a wrongful dismissal claim and the lawyer's subsequent withdrawal from her case. The lawyer in question was affiliated with Robertson Stromberg LLP, a firm based in Saskatoon. Over the course of approximately two and a half years, the Law Society processed Ms. Soldan's complaints through its multi-stage review process, with multiple designated complaints officers and counsel reviewing her allegations.

The Complaint Review Process and Decisions

The Law Society's complaint procedure involved several layers of review. Initially, Lawrence Zatlyn, K.C., was designated as Complaints Officer and determined on March 2, 2023, that no further action should be taken on the complaint, finding it premature. Ms. Soldan requested a review of this decision, and Ronni Nordal, K.C., appointed as Designate Complaints Counsel, upheld the Zatlyn Decision on June 20, 2023. When Ms. Soldan provided new information and additional documentation in April 2024, the Law Society appointed Jeff Hirsch, K.C., as designated complaints counsel to review her renewed complaint. On October 15, 2024, Mr. Hirsch issued his decision finding that the allegations in Ms. Soldan's complaint lacked substance or a factual basis and directing that no further action be taken. Ms. Soldan requested an appeal and review of this decision, but on January 13, 2025, the Complaints Review Committee confirmed that no further action should be taken, finding Mr. Hirsch's decision reasonable and supported by the analysis.

The Judicial Review Application and Venue Transfer

Following exhaustion of the Law Society's internal review process, Ms. Soldan filed a Notice of Application for Judicial Review on February 12, 2025, at the Judicial Centre of Melfort, Saskatchewan, seeking to quash both the Hirsch Decision and the Committee Decision. Ms. Soldan, a self-represented litigant, resided in Kinistino, Saskatchewan, which falls within the Judicial District of Melfort. However, the Law Society filed a Notice Requesting Transfer of Action to the Judicial Centre of Regina on April 11, 2025, and Justice Danyliuk issued a fiat on April 25, 2025, confirming the transfer to Regina and providing directions to the parties.

Procedural Motions and Robertson J.'s Hearing

On May 15, 2025, Ms. Soldan filed an Originating Application for Judicial Review, with a proposed return date of May 27, 2025. Rule 3-50(1) of The King's Bench Rules requires that an Originating Application be filed at least 14 days before the hearing date, meaning the application would be filed late regardless of the chosen return date. On May 22, 2025, the matter was scheduled for chambers before Robertson J. in Regina Civil Chambers. Mr. Randall Sandbeck, K.C., who represented the Law Society, was unavailable due to a teaching commitment, a fact known to Ms. Soldan since May 5, 2025. Mr. Sandbeck's partner, Mr. Virgil Thomson, appeared on his behalf and requested an adjournment to the following week. Ms. Soldan opposed the adjournment but was unable to provide alternative dates when other options were proposed. Robertson J. granted an adjournment sine die, explaining that as a first appearance, one-week adjournment, and the Law Society's entitlement to be represented by counsel supported the decision. The court encouraged the parties to agree on a mutually suitable return date.

The Applications Heard by Robertson J.

On May 26, 2025, Ms. Soldan filed a Notice of Motion for Reconsideration, seeking multiple remedies. On September 23, 2025, Justice Currie adjourned the applications to October 21, 2025, granting Ms. Soldan leave to appear by telephone. On October 21, 2025, Robertson J. heard Ms. Soldan's applications, with decision reserved. Ms. Soldan sought an order disqualifying Robertson J. for bias, reconsidering the May 22 adjournment, excluding the Law Society's brief of law filed May 21, 2025, changing venue back to Melfort, and declaring that venue must be resolved prior to the main judicial review.

The Bias Challenge

Ms. Soldan challenged Robertson J.'s impartiality based on three grounds: his surname similarity to the Robertson Stromberg LLP law firm, his past involvement with the Law Society as a lawyer through educational seminars and discipline committee work, and his alleged dissatisfaction with his decision to grant the adjournment. Robertson J. dismissed the bias challenge, stating that he had never practiced with Robertson Stromberg LLP and that any blood relationship with the Robertsons of that firm was so distant as to be unknown to him. The court noted that it is settled law that prior adverse decisions do not create a reasonable apprehension of bias without something more. Regarding past involvement with the Law Society, the court held that all Saskatchewan judges were once lawyers who were involved with the Law Society in varying ways and to varying degrees, which does not constitute disqualifying bias. If it did, courts could not adjudicate disputes involving the Law Society. The court further noted that judges speaking at educational seminars sponsored by the Law Society, with Chief Justice approval, constitutes part of the voluntary service expected of judges in support of the rule of law and does not create bias.

The May 22, 2025 Adjournment Decision

Regarding reconsideration of the adjournment, Robertson J. found the issue was moot since the court could not go back in time to change that decision. However, the court reviewed the circumstances and found that the adjournment was a routine exercise of judicial discretion. Ms. Soldan had been mistaken in suggesting the adjournment conflicted with Justice Danyliuk's fiat, which explicitly stated that nothing in the procedural fiat would restrict a future chambers judge from freely adjudicating the application. A decision to adjourn is given a high standard of deference on appeal, and Robertson J. stood by that decision.

The Brief of Law Filing Issue

Regarding Ms. Soldan's request to exclude the Law Society's brief of law filed May 21, 2025, the court found that although it was filed one day late for the May 22, 2025 chambers date, Justice Danyliuk's explicit statement that nothing in the procedural fiat would restrict the future chambers judge from freely adjudicating the application precluded rejection on this basis. Furthermore, the late filing became moot once the adjournment was granted. This application was dismissed.

The Venue Analysis

The court conducted a comprehensive analysis of the proper judicial centre under The King's Bench Act, 1990, and The King's Bench Rules, examining three statutory factors. First, as to where the cause of action arose, the court found that the judicial review decision challenges the Hirsch Decision and the Committee Decision as decisions of the Law Society located in Regina. Ms. Soldan's argument that the cause of action arose in Melfort was based on the underlying subject matter of her complaints, not the cause of action itself, which is the originating application for judicial review. Although the Hirsch Decision was written by a lawyer in Winnipeg, Manitoba, that would not make Winnipeg the proper venue. Second, regarding where the defendant resides, the court found that the Law Society of Saskatchewan's principal and registered office is in Regina, so within the Judicial Centre of Regina. Ms. Soldan sent her complaint letters to that address. Third, concerning where the defendant carries on business, while the Law Society's headquarters are in Regina, it similarly carries on business throughout Saskatchewan as a membership society governing members practicing throughout the province, making this factor neutral. The court declined to exercise its discretionary transfer power, noting that convenience between parties has already been decided by the Legislature in preference to the defendant's location. Convenience can be considered in relation to non-parties, such as where witnesses reside, but judicial review applications are argued on the record, making this consideration irrelevant. The court concluded that the Judicial Centre of Regina is the proper venue and dismissed the application for change of venue.

Procedural Requirements for the Judicial Review Hearing

The court addressed procedural compliance for General Application Practice Directive No. 9, which applies to judicial review applications and provides a two-stage process to reduce litigation costs and expedite dispute resolution. The first stage involves reviewing the application to ensure it is ready for hearing, and the second stage is a hearing on the merits. The court rejected Ms. Soldan's brief of law filed May 23, 2025, because it was 72 pages, far exceeding the 40-page limit set by Rule 13-38.1(1)(a) of The King's Bench Rules. The court directed that Ms. Soldan serve and file a compliant brief of law using at least 12-point type and 1.5 line spacing to prevent evasion of page limits through reduced font size and spacing. The court set filing deadlines for briefs of law: Ms. Soldan must file her brief 45 days before the hearing date, the Law Society must file 21 days before the hearing date, and Ms. Soldan may file a reply brief not exceeding 10 pages 14 days before the hearing date. The court also made an exception to allow the parties to agree that the record is complete, with the Law Society undertaking to assemble documents into binders for the parties and hearing justice. The Regina Local Registrar was directed to schedule a hearing date for the judicial review application on the merits.

Outcome and Costs

The Law Society of Saskatchewan was successful in opposing all of Ms. Soldan's applications. The court dismissed the applications for disqualification of the judge, reconsideration of the adjournment, exclusion of the Law Society's brief of law, and change of venue. The court ordered Ms. Soldan to pay costs fixed at $300 to the Law Society of Saskatchewan, payable forthwith. While this decision addressed procedural motions and directions for the judicial review hearing to proceed, no final judgment has been rendered on the substantive merits of Ms. Soldan's underlying challenge to the Law Society's complaint decisions. The case is now properly positioned in the Judicial Centre of Regina with clear procedural directions for the parties to follow as they prepare for the hearing on the merits of the judicial review application.