Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Administrative law - Judicial review - Appeals - Principle of adequate alternative remedy - Barristers and Solicitors - Disciplinary hearings - Whether there is confusion surrounding the doctrine of adequate alternative remedy - Whether there is uncertainty caused by conflicting appellate level decisions involving the application of Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561.

A Hearing Committee of the Law Society of Alberta found Matthew Merchant guilty of six citations. The hearing was adjourned to argue the issue of sanctions. During the adjournment, the Chair of the Hearing Committee telephoned a lawyer who was a complainant and witness in the proceedings. Mr. Merchant had stated in the course of the hearing that he had sent a letter of apology to the complainant, and the Hearing Chair asked the complainant whether the letter of apology had been received. The complainant advised that he had received the letter. When the hearing reconvened, the Committee ordered the immediate disbarment of Mr. Merchant. The telephone conversation between the Hearing Chair and the complainant was not made known during that proceeding. Subsequent to the completion of the hearing, the prosecutor telephoned the complainant to advise him of the result. At that time, the complainant told the prosecutor about the telephone conversation with the Hearing Chair. The prosecutor then wrote to counsel for Mr. Merchant and advised him of the call. Notwithstanding a right of appeal in the Alberta Legal Profession Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-8, Mr. Merchant brought an application for judicial review for an order quashing or setting aside the findings of the Hearing Committee, on the basis that the fact and content of the telephone call between the Chair and the complainant gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Queen’s Bench granted Mr. Merchant’s application for judicial review, quashing the findings of the Law Society’s Hearing Committee because of a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the Law Society’s appeal, quashed the order of the Court of Queen’s Bench and dismissed Mr. Merchant’s application for judicial review.