Alberta Court of King's Bench deems regulator's actions within scope of authority
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench has dismissed the judicial review application of a Law Society of Alberta (LSA) member who challenged the LSA’s steps to establish a continuing professional development (CPD) program and amend its Code of Conduct.
Under the new CPD program, the LSA made its members develop a learning plan referring to the professional development profile for Alberta lawyers, which listed nine domains the LSA deemed important to maintaining legal practice, and use a CPD tool to submit the plan.
The LSA’s benchers selected an online course called “The Path: Your Journey Through Indigenous Canada” for its members’ mandatory Indigenous cultural competency education.
In Song v The Law Society of Alberta, 2025 ABKB 525, an LSA member filed an application assailing the LSA’s decisions to:
- Enact rules 67.2, 67.3, and 67.4 of the Rules of the Law Society of Alberta, which addressed the CPD program and mandatory CPD
- Amend Part 6.3 of the Code of Conduct, which dealt with discrimination, harassment, and sexual harassment
The applicant alleged that the LSA exceeded its statutory authority under Alberta’s Legal Profession Act, 2000 (LPA). He claimed that the impugned rules, Part 6.3 of the Code, the profile, and the CPD tool were ultra vires and in breach of his rights under ss. 2(a) and (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta refused the judicial review application.
Intra vires
The court ruled that the impugned rules, including the mandatory CPD requirements, and Part 6.3 of the Code were intra vires because they fell within a reasonable interpretation of the LSA’s scope of authority under the LPA.
First, the court determined that the LSA’s broad rule-making authority in s. 7(1) of the LPA reasonably covered the impugned rules, imposed to raise the legal profession’s cultural competence and support practitioners through all practice stages.
The court added that generally requiring training and specifically requiring Indigenous cultural competency training aligned with the LPA’s text, context, and purpose.
Next, the court held that amending Part 6.3 to establish ethical standards for lawyers to refrain from discrimination, harassment, and sexual harassment:
- fell reasonably within the LSA’s authority under s. 6(l) of the LPA
- aligned with the Alberta Human Rights Act, 2000; Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2020; and other legislation
The court explained that the LSA amended Part 6.3 to ensure that Alberta’s Code aligned with the Federation’s Model Code and combat ongoing discrimination and harassment issues within the legal profession.
The court concluded that the LSA enacted the impugned rules and amended Part 6.3 for the greater societal good.
No Charter breaches
The court saw no infringement of the applicant’s ss. 2(a) or (b) Charter rights. The court determined that the applicant failed to establish a breach of his s. 2(a) Charter rights to freedom of conscience and religion.
First, the court noted that the applicant discussed “Political Objectives” and “theories,” which merely reflected his perception of the LSA’s reasons for enacting the impugned rules and amending Part 6.3 of the Code.
Second, the court explained that the profile was not a checklist and did not require the LSA’s members to show competency in all nine listed domains.
Third, the court found that obliging lawyers to complete a form describing their CPD plan, which could include any of the competencies identified in the profile, did not amount to a Charter violation.
Fourth, the court said “The Path” did not require lawyers to believe the program’s content.
Next, the court ruled that the applicant failed to show an infringement of his s. 2(b) Charter rights to freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression.
The court held that the Code’s provision that lawyers should not engage in speech or other conduct discriminating against or harassing others did not breach s. 2(b).
The court pointed out that it could determine whether there was an infringement of the applicant’s s. 2(b) Charter rights if he later participated in conduct offending the Code’s provisions and deserving of sanctions.
Appeal is a possibility
In a news release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett called the decision a significant step backward for the rule of law.
“By largely refusing to look at the evidence or consider the arguments, the Court effectively immunized the Law Society’s political adventure from any judicial oversight,” Blackett said. “If the Law Society wants to convert the profession into an ideological super-legislature, it seems the Court won’t interfere. Our only hope is firm legislation.”
The JCCF noted that an appeal was under consideration.
