The BC Trial Lawyers Association claimed that the law was passed 'with little consultation'
The Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia and the Law Society of British Columbia have both filed Notices of Appeal regarding the dismissal of their constitutional challenge to the Legal Professions Act.
BC Supreme Court chief justice Ronald A. Skolrood upheld the legislation, passed in 2024 and set to replace the LSBC with a new regulatory body, in a ruling last April 29. Skolrood said the law “does not improperly undermine the independence of the bar and is not ultra vires the provincial legislature. Nor does it violate the Charter.”
However, the TLABC argued in a statement that the LPA was passed “with little consultation and after an abbreviated debate in the Legislative Assembly.” It warned that the law would “radically reshape” the BC legal profession’s regulation, such that lawyers’ independence is at risk.
“We were very pleased that the chief justice found that the independence of the bar is an unwritten constitutional principle. However, we believe the court erred in finding that what the government has done here does not violate lawyer independence, and this is why we are now asking the Court of Appeal to consider the matter,” said Rebecca McConchie, TLABC’s president, in the statement.
She said lawyers had raised serious concerns about their freedom from “unreasonable” government control in client representation.
“We have seen serious threats to the independence of the legal profession and to judicial independence in other parts of the world. We need to be vigilant about preventing that from happening here in British Columbia and in Canada,” McConchie said.
A team from Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, including counsel Gavin Cameron, assisted the TLABC with the case. Per the association, the team had committed to representing TLABC in the Court of Appeal proceedings.
The LSBC named the BC attorney general and the lieutenant governor in council of BC as defendants in its appeal. The body seeks an order setting aside the decision being appealed, an order granting judgment in the proceeding, a declaration that the LPA is unconstitutional, and an order for the costs of the approval and of the proceeding. Alternatively, it asked for the matter to be remitted to the BC Supreme Court.
“The provincial government has maintained that an aim of the legislation is to increase public confidence in the regulation and oversight of lawyers, and to increase access to justice. However, the decision noted that the government offered no clear rationale for the significant changes the Act brings to the regulation of lawyers and failed to justify why it was overturning 150 years of self-regulation, in the face of widespread opposition from the bar,” the LSBC said in a statement. “The impact of this decision on the public’s right to impartial legal advice free from external influences, and the importance of upholding the rule of law, are of such fundamental importance that the Law Society believes further consideration by the appellate courts is warranted.”
