Canada: Supreme Court Of Canada Decides Green v. Law Society Of Manitoba: To Cpd Or Not To CPD

Last Updated: April 7 2017
Article by Jeff Beedell

Most Read Contributor in Canada, October 2018

On March 30, 2017, the SCC dismissed the appeal of Sidney Green, a lawyer called to the Bar of Manitoba in 1955 and a Life Bencher who did not comply with his Law Society's minimum 12 hours of annual continuing professional development ("CPD") requirement. The SCC decided 5-2 (Abella and Côté JJ. dissenting) that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness and the impugned CPD rules were valid in light of the Law Society's mandate under its Act.1

Failure to self-report compliance

Since 2008, lawyers in Manitoba have been required to file an annual report with the Law Society of Manitoba ("LSM") reporting their voluntary CPD activities.

Upon study of the uneven results of voluntary CPD, effective January 1, 2012, the benchers of the LSM imposed mandatory CPD.  Mr. Green failed to report any CPD activities in his annual report for 2012 and again for 2013. After the second year of non-compliance, the LSM sent Mr. Green a letter inviting him to advise if the information was incorrect and indicating that extensions of time would be considered but that if the CPD requirement was not fulfilled within 60 days and no extension was obtained, there would be an automatic administrative suspension until the CPD was met and a reinstatement fee paid. Such an administrative suspension involves no disciplinary charges or proceedings.

Mr. Green's sole response to this letter, warning of an administrative suspension sanction, was to bring an application for declaratory relief and to request a stay of the automatic suspension until its determination. Although the LSM initially suspended Mr. Green's practicing certificate, it then agreed to not enforce the suspension until the litigation was resolved.  Mr. Green was unsuccessful before both the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench and the Manitoba Court of Appeal but the SCC granted leave to appeal in December 2015 and heard the appeal in November 2016.

Lawyer challenged validity and fairness of enforcing mandatory CPD

Mr. Green conceded in the Court of Appeal that the LSM has the power to make rules to set up a CPD program. In the SCC, Mr. Green, represented by Charles Huband and Kevin Williams of Taylor McCaffrey LLP, challenged the validity of the rules under which the LSM had suspended his practicing certificate on two grounds. First, he argued that The Legal Profession Act, C.C.S.M., c. L107 did not explicitly permit the LSM to enact mandatory CPD rules or to enforce those rules with the imposition of a suspension. Secondly, he argued that the rules violated the principles of natural justice because they gave the LSM authority to impose a suspension without a right of hearing or appeal.

Rocky Kravetsky, in-house counsel for the LSM, submitted that the CPD rules were an authorized and reasonable condition of the right to practice law as a profession. He argued that the object and purpose of the Legal Profession Act ("LPA") of Manitoba is to provide the delivery of legal services with competence, integrity and independence, and that the enactment of mandatory CPD is within the authority found in the ordinary meaning of the LPA, as are the consequences for failure to comply. The LSM saw no procedural unfairness in the application of its CPD rule which was not premised on a finding of misconduct or incompetence but simply non-compliance.

The Federation of Law Societies of Canada ("FLSC") was granted intervener status and made written and oral submissions in support of the authority of law societies to enforce such administrative suspensions as a necessary incident of law society regulatory jurisdiction. Neil Finkelstein and Brandon Kain, counsel for the FLSC argued that in exchange for the legal profession having the privilege of self-regulation, law societies have a statutory obligation to protect the interests of the public with respect to the services of their members. In pursuing their public protection mandate, the SCC has previously concluded that law societies are entitled to deference by the courts in respect of the articulation and enforcement of professional standards. As such, the FLSC argued that a law society's decision that it possessed a CPD-related administrative suspension power under its grant of power by legislation should only be set aside if unreasonable. And while only Ontario expressly authorizes a CPD-related administrative suspension power, the FLSC submitted that such a power is necessarily incidental to an effective CPD program in all the provinces and territories.

SCC Majority upholds the Rule

Wagner J. for the majority opens:

"[1] A lawyer's professional education is a lifelong process. Legislation is amended, the common law evolves, and practice standards change as a result of technological advances and other developments. Lawyers must be vigilant in order to update their knowledge, strengthen their skills, and ensure that they adhere to accepted ethical and professional standards in their practices."

He characterizes the nature of Mr. Green's claim:

"[18]      Mr. Green has challenged the impugned rules because he has no interest in complying with them....He argues that the impugned rules are unfair because they impose a suspension without a right to a hearing or a right of appeal. Yet Mr. Green has not applied for judicial review of the Law Society's decision to suspend him. He has not complained that the Law Society treated him unfairly. Mr. Green is challenging these rules on these procedural grounds, not for fear of injustice."

Dealing first with the question of the applicable standard of review, and reasoning that the rules made by law societies are akin to bylaws passed by municipal councils, Wagner J. states that the legislature has given the LSM a broad discretion to regulate the legal profession  and its elected benchers are accountable to members of the legal profession. Citing Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District), 2012 SCC 2 as specific guidance, he concludes that the LSM's rules reflect broad policy considerations and the benchers act in a delegated legislative capacity that is entitled to deference.

To determine whether the impugned rules are reasonable, he adopts a two-step approach: (1) considering whether the purpose, words, and scheme of the Act to support an expansive construction of the LSM's rule-making authority, and (2) assessing whether the particular rules are unreasonable because they permit the imposition of a suspension for failure to meet the minimum CPD requirement.

Having no difficulty finding that the establishment of mandatory CPD standards is compatible with the Law Society's public interest purpose and duties under the Act, a point conceded by Mr. Green contrary to his position in the courts below, Justice Wagner writes:

"[46] To ensure that those standards have an effect, the Law Society must establish consequences for those who fail to adhere to them. As a practical matter, an unenforced educational standard is not a standard at all, but is merely aspirational.

[47] A suspension is a reasonable way to ensure that lawyers comply with the CPD program's educational requirements. Its purpose relates to compliance, not to punishment or professional competence. Other consequences, such as fines, may not ensure that the Law Society's members comply with those requirements. An educational program that one can opt out of by paying a fine is not genuinely universal. I am mindful of the fact that in making these mandatory rules, the Law Society was responding to the reality that many lawyers in Manitoba had not complied with the CPD program when it was voluntary.

[48] To ensure consistency of legal service across the province, the possibility of a suspension effectively guarantees that even lawyers who are not interested in meeting the educational standards will comply. Mr. Green submits that, in his opinion, the CPD activities that were made available to him would not have been helpful to him in his practice. But it is not up to Mr. Green to decide whether CPD activities are valuable or adequate. The legislature has decided that the Law Society must impose educational standards on practising lawyers (s. 3(2)) and that it is for the Law Society to determine the nature of those standards.

[49].... The right to practise law is not a common law right or a property right, but a statutory right that depends on the principles set out in the Act and the rules made by the Law Society. As this Court has stated, "the Law Society has total control over who can practise law in the province, over the conditions or requirements placed upon those who practise and, perhaps most importantly, over the means of enforcing respect for those conditions or requirements": Pearlman, at p. 886.  The Law Society has not interfered with Mr. Green's rights. It is merely doing what the statute requires it to do: regulate the education of lawyers in the public interest."

Justice Wagner notes that the Rules do not automatically impose a suspension on a lawyer who fails to complete the necessary CPD hours. Instead, the CEO of the Law Society "may" send a letter to a member advising that the lawyer has 60 days to comply. In this case, the CEO waited a full year before exercising his discretion to send such a letter, effectively waiving Mr. Green's non-compliance for the first year of mandatory CPD, and had Mr. Green complied within the 60 days no suspension would have occurred. Moreover, the CEO held open the prospect of a time extension and had the discretion to withdraw the letter within the 60-day period if circumstances so justified.

Justice Wagner concludes:

"[52] In light of the administrative nature of the suspension and the discretion the CEO has under the Rules when imposing a suspension, I conclude that the fact that the impugned rules do not provide for a right to a hearing or a right of appeal does not make them unreasonable."

SCC Minority would have set aside the Rule

In Justice Abella's vigorous dissent, she accepts the LSM's authority to require 12 hours of mandatory CPD but finds the automatic suspension for non-compliance to be unreasonable "because it gratuitously ...impairs the public confidence in the lawyer." She finds it incongruous that for more serious complaints of professional misconduct or incompetence, a suspension can only be imposed after at least some minimum procedural protections are assured and a range of lesser penalties have been considered, whereas for what she considers to be "the least serious disciplinary breach possible – failing to attend classes" a suspension is imposed automatically.

She writes that:

"[81] A Law Society must, as a result, exercise its mandate in a way that not only protects the ability of lawyers to act professionally, but that also reinforces the public's perception that lawyers are behaving professionally. The flip side is that a Law Society cannot enact rules which unreasonably undermine public confidence in lawyers.

...

[91] It is as close to a victimless breach as it is possible to imagine, yet it is the only breach that attracts the automatic loss of the ability to practise law. It alone attracts automatic suspension, regardless of justificatory circumstances. This makes it arbitrary.

She concludes that: "[97]...It is undeniably in the public interest to sanction lawyers for breaches of professionalism; it is in no one's interest to sanction them arbitrarily."

Decision consistent with other jurisprudence

In addition to the jurisprudence cited in the Reasons, this decision is consistent with the Court's previous upholding of administrative penalties in other regulatory contexts.

In Cartaway Resources Corp. (Re), 2004 SCC 26, the Court upheld the power of the B.C. Securities Commission to impose administrative penalties against regulated securities brokers for breach of prospectus requirements. The Court found this consistent with the mandate of the Securities Commission to protect the public interest and applied a reasonableness standard of review.

More recently, in Guindon v Canada, 2015 SCC 41, the Court upheld administrative monetary penalties ("AMPS") under the Income Tax Act for false statements made in donation receipts. Again, the Court accepted that the legislation authorized the imposition of such AMPs in the public interest in order to encourage honest tax reporting and that this was a reasonable scheme to maintain compliance within a limited sphere of activity.

This decision also reinforces the opinion of the Court in Ernst v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2017 SCC 1, a case in which Ms. Ernst claimed Charter damages for breach of her freedom of speech rights and argued the regulator's immunity clause was unconstitutional. In Ernst the SCC clearly  signaled that, where available, judicial review is a more timely and effective route to relief. As Justice Wagner states, Mr. Green's challenge of the procedural fairness of the CPD rules should have been pursued by way of judicial review of the specific decision by the Law Society and not by way of an application for a general declaration that the impugned rules were invalid under the Act. If the Law Society's decision were procedurally unfair, the decision could have been quashed as a normal judicial review remedy. In other words, questions of procedural fairness should be determined on a case-by-case basis and cannot be generically asserted in a vacuum.

Implications

Had the SCC gone so far as to say that LSM had no authority to impose mandatory CPD without express statutory wording, the effect would have been to invalidate these requirements virtually everywhere in Canada except Ontario, until legislative amendment. More generally, it would also have diminished the extent to which regulatory bodies can rely on a general authority to make rules to fulfill their stated purposes.

If the opinion of Justice Abella had prevailed and the SCC declared the automatic suspension power invalid, lawyers would have still had to meet their minimum CPD hours but the LSM and most other law societies in Canada would have had to establish different enforcement procedures that were proportional to the circumstances. Conceivably, law societies could have turned to their statutory disciplinary process which would necessarily leave non-compliant lawyers practising for a longer time without sanction and may have well lead to cases being resolved by lesser sanctions, essentially creating a licence cost to ignore the rules.

Instead, the SCC has upheld the LSM model and, subject to closer review by other law societies in Canada, it appears that mandatory CPD is here to stay and administrative sanctions including an automatic suspension will remain effective tools for enforcement of these requirements.

Footnotes

1.  Green v Law Society of Manitoba, 2017 SCC 20

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions