The Law Society of British Columbia v. Parchment

The Law Society of British Columbia v. Parchment

The court found on the materials, including Brown J.'s findings, that Parchment had performed acts falling within the statutory definition of the practice of law, had held himself out as a legal advocate for inmates, and had not discharged the onus of showing he received no compensation; therefore there was 'reason...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 BCSC 2257
Parties
Petitioner: The Law Society of British Columbia; Respondent: O'Neil Constantine Parchment; Intervenor: Attorney General of British Columbia
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunction Under the Legal Profession Act (unauthorized Practice) / Oral Reasons for Judgment on Application (final Injunction Pronounced)
Outcome
Permanent injunction granted against the respondent prohibiting him from engaging in the practice of law as defined in the Legal Profession Act; costs reserved for later determination
Legal Topics
Unauthorized Practice of Law, Injunctions, False Representation, Vexatious Litigant, Practice of Law Definition
Source Language
english
Legal Profession Regulation Civil Injunctions Administrative Law Civil Procedure Unauthorized Practice of Law Injunctions False Representation Vexatious Litigant +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Law Society of British Columbia

Petitioner

O'Neil Constantine Parchment

Respondent

Attorney General of British Columbia

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Application for Injunction Under the Legal Profession Act (unauthorized Practice) / Oral Reasons for Judgment on Application (final Injunction Pronounced)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law as defined by s.1 and s.15 of the Legal Profession Act
  2. 2 Whether the respondent falsely represented himself as a lawyer or held himself out as entitled to practise law
  3. 3 Whether there is reason to believe the respondent has breached or will breach the LPA such that an injunction under s.85 is warranted

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the materials, including Brown J.'s findings, that Parchment had performed acts falling within the statutory definition of the practice of law, had held himself out as a legal advocate for inmates, and had not discharged the onus of showing he received no compensation; therefore there was 'reason to believe' he breached s.15 of the Legal Profession Act and a permanent injunction was necessary to protect the public and the administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Permanent injunction granted against the respondent prohibiting him from engaging in the practice of law as defined in the Legal Profession Act; costs reserved for later determination

Orders

  • The respondent O'Neil Constantine Parchment is permanently prohibited and enjoined from engaging in the practice of law as defined in s.1 of the Legal Profession Act, including appearing as counsel or advocate, drawing or settling documents, settling claims for or in expectation of a fee, gain or reward, and from...
  • The respondent is enjoined from commencing, prosecuting or defending proceedings in any court on behalf of others except where permitted by the prior order of Mr. Justice Grauer dated June 12, 2015 (Victoria Registry Action No. 133175).