Background
The Law Society of British Columbia and the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, together with lawyer Kevin Westell, appealed the dismissal of their constitutional challenges to British Columbia’s Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act. Bill 21 replaces the self-governance of lawyers with a single regulator for lawyers, notaries public, and paralegals. The trial judge held that independence of the bar is an unwritten constitutional principle but concluded that Bill 21 did not infringe it and rejected the additional Charter challenges.
Twelve organizations sought leave to intervene in the two appeals. Their proposed perspectives included access to justice, legal-profession regulation, criminal defence, Indigenous legal professionals, international standards, paralegals, notaries, remedies, and the relationship between health conditions, professional competence, and section 7 of the Charter.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Horsman, sitting in chambers, granted all 12 applications on terms. The Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia and the Law Foundation of British Columbia received leave in both appeals based on direct interests. Nine organizations received public-interest intervener status in both appeals, while Workers for Ethical Substance Use Policy received public-interest intervener status only in the Trial Lawyers Association appeal.
The Court confined every intervener to specified issues and limited each factum to 10 pages. Interveners must make best efforts to avoid duplication, may not raise new issues, and may not add to the record. Lawyers Rights Watch Canada was barred from advancing a proposed international-law-based duty-to-consult argument because it was not an issue that an intervener should introduce for the first time on appeal. Whether any intervener may make oral submissions was left to the panel hearing the appeals.
Key Takeaways
- Public-interest interveners must offer a distinct and useful perspective without expanding the appeal, duplicating the parties’ arguments, or introducing new evidence.
- A direct interest requires that the proposed intervener’s own legal rights or obligations may be affected; concern about precedent alone is insufficient.
- The ruling concerns participation in the pending appeals and does not decide whether Bill 21 is constitutional.
Why It Matters
The ruling ensures that the appellate panel considering Bill 21 will receive perspectives from a broad range of organizations affected by or knowledgeable about legal-profession regulation, while preserving the parties’ control over the litigation and keeping the appeals within their existing scope.
The merits appeals may determine whether constitutional independence of the bar requires lawyer self-governance and self-regulation, or instead protects the substantive ability of lawyers to serve clients and the administration of justice regardless of the regulatory model.