The Canadian Bar Association is an intervenor in the Law Society of BC and the Trial Lawyers Association of BC's constitutional challenges to the Legal Professions Act.
Supporting all orders set out in the notices of application, the CBA argues that the Act unconstitutionally interferes with lawyer-client relationships and erodes protections for the independence of the bar, including its ability to self-regulate. This interference prevents lawyers from fulfilling their constitutionally protected role within the justice system, undermining public confidence and access to a free and fair justice system.
Stay up to date on the litigation with the timeline below.
Summary Trial Concludes
The BC Supreme Court hearing of the constitutional and Charter challenges to B.C.’s Legal Professions Act officially concluded after eleven days. The Court heard arguments on whether there is a constitutional requirement for an independent bar or only independence of individual lawyers, and whether the elimination of self-governance constitutes intrusion on independence. Further arguments were made about sections 2, 7 and 8 Charter infringements and whether they could be justified. The CBA intervened to argue that lawyers play a unique and indispensable role in the justice system, that the independence of the bar is essential to lawyers' ability to fulfill their role, and that the LPA unduly interferes with the independence of the bar. The decision is now under reserve.
CBABC extends our gratitude to CBA counsel Michael Feder, KC, Connor Bildfell and Lindsay Frame, along with the McCarthy team for their outstanding support and advocacy on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association.
Day 11
Oct 28, 2025
October 28 marked the close of submissions in the LPA trial. The Attorney General of British Columbia maintained that the LPA is constitutional, arguing its investigatory powers and governance framework are consistent with Charter principles and that any invalid provisions could be severed without striking down the entire Act. The AGBC is represented by Emily Lapper, Trevor Bant, Sergio Ortega and Karin Kotliarsky.
In reply, TLABC highlighted concessions confirming that independence of the bar is constitutionally protected, contending that the LPA erodes that independence and exacerbates stigma impacting lawyers’ mental health. LSBC characterized the legislation as an unprecedented intrusion on self-governance, emphasizing that independence of the bar is a structural constitutional requirement rather than a matter of policy discretion.
Chief Justice Skolrood pressed both sides on the scope of independence, questioning whether eliminating self-governance constitutes intrusion and whether independence can be equated with self-governance. The AGBC maintained that degree matters and a functional approach is the only requirement, while LSBC and TLABC emphasized that structural independence is essential. The Chief Justice acknowledged the quality of both the oral and written submissions and emphasized the need for a careful and thorough review before rendering a decision, thereby reserving judgment.
Oct 28, 2025
The Law Society of BC submitted supplemental reply submissions
Day 10
Oct 27, 2025
The AGBC addressed the individual impugned provisions of the LPA, the Indigenous Council, and Charter arguments for ss. 2(d) and 7. Among the arguments made, the AGBC said lawyers should not decide whether to recommend regulations under s. 4(2)(b)(v) because they are self-interested and might act improperly. Further AGBC argued that public confidence does not depend on self-regulation and in fact the public distrusts lawyers because they are self-regulated.
The Chief Justice interjected several times to point out that (a) the Province says “don’t assume that appointees are beholden to government” but is assuming electors are beholden to the electorate and (b) the Province’s rationale for not giving lawyers a majority—that they will act out of self-interest and anti-competitively—is assuming that they will act ultra vires despite the Province’s insistence that we cannot assume the AG would make ultra vires regulations.
Regarding the Indigenous Council, the AGBC argued that the Council can only block the initial rules and cannot create or block amendments after the initial rules are approved. With respect to section 7(b)'s support of Reconciliation and the implementation of UNDRIP, the AGBC said that DRIPA makes this a legal requirement, not a policy choice.
The AGBC argued against all the Charter arguments. Noting that the regulator can only require medical treatment as a condition of continuing to practice, the AGBC cited a long list of cases that this is purely an employment matter and thus a purely economic interest, which does not engage section 7. Further, the AGBC argued there is no possibility of imprisonment from refusing to comply—section 198 does not make it an offence to refuse to comply when interpreted properly, only when interfering with someone`s compliance.
The AGBC’s submissions will continue on Oct 28 with reply submissions expected to follow.
Day 9
Oct 24, 2025
The AGBC continued submissions focusing on two main themes: (1) the constitutional limits of relying on unwritten principles to challenge legislation, and (2) the meaning of “lawyer independence” under the Charter. AGBC argued that the Law Society’s position overextends both doctrines by seeking to constitutionalize self-governance and self-regulation as mandatory features of lawyer independence.
AGBC emphasized that under Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34, unwritten constitutional principles—such as democracy and the rule of law—cannot be used to invalidate or narrow legislative powers under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Charter, while protecting functional lawyer independence, does not prescribe any particular regulatory model. To reinforce this point, AGBC presented extensive comparative evidence showing that other jurisdictions, including Québec, Australia, and New Zealand, maintain lawyer independence under co-regulatory frameworks involving government oversight. AGBC asserted that the plaintiffs’ claim that self-regulation is constitutionally required lacks legal and evidentiary foundation.
The AGBC’s submissions will continue Oct 27.
Day 8
Oct 23, 2025
The Attorney General of BC argued that judicial independence is determined using a functional approach, and the same should be done with lawyer independence. They went through the history of law society-like regulatory bodies in each province to argue that independence of the bar is not an unwritten principle of the Constitution.
Chief Justice Skolrood asked questions regarding the history of lawyer regulation in several provinces. He wanted to confirm whether the government, courts or lawyers were in control of discipline and admission. The AGBC went over several cases that, in their view, support the proposition that self-governance is a policy choice that emanates from the legislature and that, while this is one way to achieve lawyer independence, it is not the only way. The Chief Justice also asked clarifying questions to confirm the Supreme Court of Canada has not rejected a broader definition of lawyer independence.
Day 7
Oct 22, 2025
The Attorney General of BC presented submissions emphasizing that, while lawyer independence is a fundamental principle, the central issue is whether the new LPA infringes on that independence to a constitutionally impermissible degree. The AGBC argued that the LPA does not violate constitutional protections, challenging the plaintiffs’ and intervenors’ assertions that self-governance and self-regulation are constitutionally required and asserting that the LSBC's definitions were vague and impractical. Drawing on comparative models from other jurisdictions, the AGBC maintained that lawyer independence is a functional principle rooted in the ability to provide impartial and culturally competent legal advice and advocacy—not in any specific governance structure.
The AGBC further argued that Reconciliation is not just policy, but a constitutional imperative supported by DRIPA, which passed unanimously in the BC Legislature.
Day 6
Oct 21, 2025
CBA
The CBA argued that the administration of justice, a key feature in the structure of our Constitution, is possible only with an independent bar. The CBA said lawyers play a unique and indispensable role in the justice system, that the independence of the bar is essential to lawyers’ ability to fulfill their role, and that the LPA unduly interferes with the independence of the bar.
Specifically, the CBA outlined the undue influence in six points, arguing that the LPA: 1) eliminates self-governance, preventing lawyers from making rules and policies governed by an elected majority; 2) removes lawyers’ democratic participatory rights; 3) prescribes professional standards lawyers must meet such as misconduct and conduct unbecoming rather than leaving it to the regulator; 4) exposes lawyers to forced counselling or medical treatment without considering capacity and without a tie to legal practice; 5) gives Cabinet the power to make new professions even if they impair the independence of the bar; and 6) removes the regulator’s public interest mandate.
The Court was advised to look at the cumulative impact of the provisions, as it is greater than the sum of its parts.
Other Intervenors
In the afternoon of October 21, the remaining Intervenors made submissions. The Indigenous Bar Association argued that while the LPA mandates the regulator to have regard to certain principles including Reconciliation, the LPA does not prescribe the form, substance or process and therefore is not government interference. Further, the IBA argued the role of the Indigenous Council does not constitute government interference because Reconciliation is not only a Crown obligation but a broader Canadian societal concern. The IBA was represented by Declan Redman and David Wu.
Brent Olthuis, KC for the Law Foundation of BC urged the Court not to take a piecemeal approach to the LPA and indicated support for the interim injunction until the Court makes a final determination on constitutionality. Lynda Troup for the Law Society of Manitoba agreed with the CBA’s submission that having notaries and paralegals on the Board is a false equivalent and does not maintain the independence of the bar. The Law Society further argued that a lawyer majority of one on the Board creates a structure where the independence of the bar on the Board is dependent on who shows up, and then compared Manitoba’s model for its Board, which maintains lawyer control, to the LPA structure that diminishes lawyer influence.
The Society of Notaries Public, represented by Ian Knapp, argued that the concept of independence applies broadly to all legal professionals, not just lawyers, and that notaries perform much of the same work as solicitors. They also argued that constitutional protections should apply to functions performed and should not be based on a specific profession. The Society acknowledged that some provisions of Bill 21 may be problematic for both lawyers and notaries but argued they can be severed.
The Attorney General begins submissions October 22.
Day 5
Oct 20, 2025
The court heard cross-examination of Dr. Poonam Puri, an expert in governance and public policy offered by the Law Society of BC. TLABC then concluded its submissions arguing that the LPA undermines s 7 and 8 Charter protections in how it proposes to address the mental health of lawyers introducing mandatory disclosure and coercive treatment measures that conflate mental illness with incompetence. Further, the new regulator—dominated by non-lawyers and government appointees—would enable warrantless searches of lawyer premises, compelled disclosure of privileged information, and forced medical examinations or treatment without judicial or medical oversight
TLABC argued that none of the infringements can be justified as reasonable limits in a free and democratic society. Less intrusive alternatives—such as suspension powers and existing Law Society mechanisms—already achieve public-protection goals without undermining constitutional rights or professional independence. TLABC is represented by Gavin Cameron, Tom Posyniak and Laura Abrioux.
Day 4
Oct 17, 2025
The court heard the cross-examination of Dr. Philip Girard, a legal historian expert witness for the Province. The Law Society of BC then concluded its submissions. LSBC's counsel are Craig Ferris, KC, Laura Bevan, Jonathan Andrews and Nicole Welsh.
Throughout this week, Chief Justice Skolrood actively engaged counsel with questions. In particular, he explored the distinction between individual and institutional lawyer independence, the implications of the co-governance model with the Indigenous Council, and the tension between government policy objectives and the need to preserve an independent legal profession.
TLABC began its submissions by highlighting the relevant law under sections 2(d), 7, 8, 10 (b) and 11 (d) of the Charter. Next week TLABC will continue its argument that the LPA violates the Charter.
Day 3
Oct 16, 2025
The Law Society of BC argued that the new LPA's co-governance model with the Indigenous Council goes beyond consultation and may effectively transfer core regulatory powers to non-lawyers, contrary to the constitutional principle of an independent bar. LSBC distinguished between voluntary Reconciliation efforts and legislated mandates, arguing that the latter compromise lawyer independence, especially when lawyers may be required to litigate on these very principles.
LSBC contended that the LPA removes the public-interest mandate by excluding references to the administration of justice and duties to the court and that these omissions alter the regulator’s purpose from protecting the public interest to implementing government policy.
Day 2
Oct 15, 2025
The Law Society of BC reviewed the evidence about legal self-governance in Canada and the “business” of self-regulation in British Columbia—its governance by elected Benchers, rule-making authority and proactive regulatory initiatives. LSBC argued that provincial legislatures are constitutionally constrained from enacting laws that erode independence of the bar. Further, LSBC argued the current model has effectively served the public interest with no evidence of regulatory failure to justify the creation of a new government-led regulator.
Day 1
Oct 14, 2025
Chief Justice Skolrood began hearing arguments on the constitutional challenges to the Legal Professions Act. The Law Society opened submissions framing the case as engaging the unwritten constitutional principle of an independent bar, essential to the rule of law and the administration of justice. LSBC said meaningful self-regulation requires that lawyers choose their own governing body of lawyers. Without self-regulation, institutional safeguards fall short of protecting the independence of lawyers from government influence.
LSBC is anticipated to continue its submissions through Oct 17. TLABC begins next week.
Oct 3, 2025
The Law Society of BC and the Trial Lawyers Association of BC submitted their reply arguments
Sep 26, 2025
The Attorney General of BC stated in a letter that the Legal Professions Act will not take effect while the chief justice's decision is under reserve
Sep 15, 2025
The Province has submitted written arguments
Jul 31 - Aug 21, 2025
Plaintiffs and intervenors, including the Canadian Bar Association, have submitted written arguments in the constitutional challenges to the Legal Professions Act.
May 23, 2025
Province of BC submits its response to Law Society of BC and Trial Lawyers of BC applications
Apr 4-22, 2025
Feb 25, 2025
Supreme Court of BC releases
Jun 17, 2024
Supreme Court of BC releases Decision on Injunction
Jun 7, 2024
Province of BC responds to and
May 17 & 21, 2024
and submit Notices of Civil Claim to the Supreme Court of BC
