LaBelle v. Law Society of Upper Canada

LaBelle v. Law Society of Upper Canada Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2001-11-07 Docket numbers C35757 Judges Catzman, Marvin Adrian; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael James Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20011107 DOCKET: C35757 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: ELLEN LaBELLE (Plaintiff/Appellant) –and– THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA, ROBERT HOWE, JENNIFER MACKINNON, HUGH BRENNAN (Defendants) –and– THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO (Defendant/Respondent) BEFORE: CATZMAN, ABELLA and MOLDAVER JJ.A. COUNSEL: Ellen LaBelle, the appellant in person Walter Myrka, for the respondent HEARD: November 2, 2001 RELEASED ORALLY: November 2, 2001 On appeal from the order of Justice Colin McKinnon dated January 8, 2001. ENDORSEMENT [1] We appreciate the candour and civility with which the appellant made her submissions in this court, and we are not unsympathetic to the depth of her concerns. In our view, however, the appeal cannot succeed. [2] The appellant’s allegations against the respondent in the statement of claim essentially assert that the Attorney General is liable to her for failing to obtain action upon her complaints of improper conduct on the part of the various solicitors arising in connection with the proceedings in which custody of her daughter was awarded to her spouse. [3] Mr. Justice McKinnon struck out the operative paragraphs of the statement of claim and dismissed this action against the Attorney General. Other orders have now dismissed this action against all of the defendants except the respondent. [4] Although we agree with the order made by Mr. Justice McKinnon, we have reservations about his interpretation of s. 13 of the Law Society Act as set out in paras. 40 and 41 of his reasons. It is sufficient to dispose of this appeal to find, as we do, that the Attorney General is not charged by the Act with the responsibility to investigate complaints against lawyers in this province. That role has been given by the Legislature to the Law Society of Upper Canada. The function assigned to the Attorney General by s. 13 of the Act – to serve as guardian of the public interest – does not obligate the Attorney General to direct such investigations or to cause them to be directed, nor does it confer upon the appellant, in the circumstances of the present case, a cause of action against the Attorney General for failing to direct or to compel the direction of such investigations. [5] The appeal is dismissed. Signed: “M.A. Catzman J.A.” “R.S. Abella J.A.” “M.J. Moldaver J.A.”