Background
The Law Society of British Columbia and the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, together with lawyer Kevin Westell, challenged the Legal Professions Act, S.B.C. 2024, c. 26. The legislation replaces the separate self-governance and self-regulation of lawyers with a single regulator for lawyers, notaries public, and paralegals. The plaintiffs alleged that the legislation unconstitutionally undermined the independence of the bar.
After the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the constitutional claims in 2026 BCSC 779, both plaintiff groups appealed. Kevin McLean, a twice-disbarred former lawyer previously declared a vexatious litigant, applied for leave to intervene. His application also requested orders addressing matters such as summary determination of the appeals and the Law Society’s standing, based largely on his longstanding grievances concerning regulatory proceedings against him.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Horsman, sitting in chambers, dismissed McLean’s application to intervene. He had no direct interest because the appeals would not affect his own legal rights or obligations. He also failed to qualify as a public-interest intervener because he did not represent a broad constituency or offer a unique perspective capable of assisting the Court with the constitutional issues.
The Court found that McLean was attempting to use the appeals to revisit historical grievances against the Law Society and that his submissions were prolix, largely incomprehensible, and disconnected from the issues on appeal. The Registry was directed not to file his unauthorized second argument. Because none of the responding parties requested costs, the Court made no costs order.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant seeking intervener status must demonstrate a direct legal interest or satisfy the requirements for public-interest intervention.
- Personal grievances arising from earlier regulatory proceedings do not justify intervention in a separate constitutional appeal.
- Proposed interveners must offer relevant assistance and comply with the procedural rules governing their applications.
Why It Matters
The ruling reinforces that intervention is intended to help an appellate court decide the issues properly before it, not to provide a forum for collateral disputes. Even where an appeal raises significant constitutional questions about regulation of the legal profession, an applicant must establish a legitimate connection to those questions and a useful contribution to their resolution.