Case information

Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Jurisdiction — Variation and rescission of orders — Whether hearing panel erred in law by declining to exercise jurisdiction to hear application to vary order disbarring lawyer — Legal Profession Act, S.N.S. 2004, c. 28, s. 45(4)(m)

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 2017, a disciplinary panel (the “Panel”) found that the applicant, a Black lawyer, had engaged in professional misconduct. It disbarred the applicant and prohibited him from applying for re-admission to the bar for five years. In all relevant respects, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the Panel’s decision on the merits and on sanction. At the hearing and on appeal, the applicant argued that the Panel’s investigation was racially motivated; these arguments were rejected and the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to this Court was dismissed.

In September 2023, the applicant, eligible to apply for readmission under the terms of the Panel’s disposition, instead applied to vary that disposition under the Legal Profession Act. He argued that the 2021 acknowledgment from the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society of systemic racism, in addition to the treatment of white lawyers in subsequent disciplinary decisions resulted in a violation of his s. 15 Charter rights.

The Panel held that its jurisdiction to vary its own orders requires a material change in circumstances. In this case, the applicant has not demonstrated such a change in circumstances. The subsequent cases involving white lawyers are distinguishable on their facts and the applicant’s remaining arguments are restatements of the ones he made at his original hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the Panel did not err in law. The procedure the Panel adopted was procedurally fair and there was no evidence to support a claim of racial bias. The Legal Profession Act grants the Panel discretionary jurisdiction to vary its own orders in the event of a material change in circumstances. The change in circumstances must be relevant to the objects of the legislation. There was no such change in this case.