WANG v LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA

This was an Appeal of a Chambers Justice’s Order striking the Appellant’s application for Judicial Review of a decision of the Law Society of Alberta (the “Law Society”).

The Appellant filed a complaint about a lawyer with the Law Society more than five years after the underlying events were alleged to have occurred. Noting the significant delay, the Law Society’s Executive Director summarily dismissed the complaint pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8, which was upheld by the Appeal Panel of the Law Society (the “Complaint Dismissal”).

The Appellant then filed an Originating Application for Judicial Review of the Complaint Dismissal (the “Application”). The Law Society applied to strike the Application for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The Chambers Justice held that the Appellant, as a complainant in professional disciplinary proceedings, lacked standing to seek Judicial Review of the merits of the Complaint Dismissal and the Application was struck.

The Court of Appeal held that the standard of review for whether a pleading discloses a cause of action is correctness, while the decision to strike is reviewed for reasonableness. Writing for the Court, de Wit J.A. held that a complainant in professional disciplinary proceedings is not a party to those proceedings and has limited rights. The Court confirmed that a complainant has no standing to seek Judicial Review of the merits of a regulator’s decision, including a decision not to proceed with discipline.

The Court acknowledged that limited standing may arise where procedural fairness is at issue. However, de Wit J.A. found that the Application challenged only the merits of the Complaint Dismissal and did not raise allegations of procedural unfairness, and the record disclosed no basis for such a claim. The Court held that the Chambers Justice correctly applied the governing law and reasonably exercised discretion to strike the Application.

In the result, the Court dismissed the Appeal, directed that no costs were payable, and invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c) for the Court to prepare the resulting Order.