Case information

Securities — Administrative law — Judicial review — Proper forum for adjudicating constitutional questions and issues of solicitor-client privilege — Prematurity — Adequate alternative remedies — British Columbia Securities Commission commencing administrative proceedings against applicant, arising from allegations of unregistered trading and advising — Applicant commencing separate court proceeding to challenge constitutionality of provision of Securities Act, and to advance claim for damages under Privacy Act — Applicant’s court proceeding stayed pending completion of administrative proceeding — Whether administrative law doctrines of prematurity and adequate alternative remedy should be collapsed into single overarching test — Whether administrative body has jurisdiction over claims of solicitor-client privilege where governing statute does not expressly confer such jurisdiction —Whether strong case that court is appropriate forum is established where remedy sought engages equal or greater expertise and exclusive remedial jurisdiction of court — Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418, s. 144 — Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 373

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.

In 2022, the respondent British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Commission”) commenced an administrative proceeding against applicant Jean Andre Lamarche. The Commission issued a notice of hearing which alleged that Mr. Lamarche had engaged in unregistered trading and advising contrary to the Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418 (the “Act”).

Mr. Lamarche commenced a claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, alleging that a provision of the Act was unconstitutional, and seeking punitive damages, Charter damages, and damages under the Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 373.

The Commission applied for an order to stay the constitutional claims pending completion of its administrative proceeding under the Act, and to strike Mr. Lamarche’s claims for punitive damages and Privacy Act damages without leave to amend.

The chambers judge allowed the Commission’s application. The constitutional claims were stayed and the claims for punitive damages and Privacy Act damages were struck without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Lamarche’s appeal in part. The court set aside the order striking the punitive damages and Privacy Act damages claims, but held that those claims should be stayed until the administrative proceeding was complete.