Kootnekoff v. Tarrant

Kootnekoff v. Tarrant

The appeal is dismissed because the Legal Profession Act vests exclusive authority to lay and prosecute offences under that Act in the Law Society (and authorized officers), so the appellant lacked standing to lay the information; additionally there was no evidence of corrupt or dishonest conduct by the Judicial Justice of the Peace to support criminal prosecution or contempt, so the information against both respondents was properly quashed.

Citation
2003 BCSC 166
Parties
Informant; Appellant: Frank Kootnekoff; Defendant; Respondent; Prosecutor (peace Officer): D.J. (Don) Tarrant; Defendant; Respondent; Judicial Justice of the Peace: Joan Hughes
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Provincial Court Process Hearing Concerning Alleged Offences and Unauthorized Practice of Law Arising From Traffic Prosecution / Appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; information quashed as against both respondents
Legal Topics
Unauthorized Practice of Law, Standing to Lay an Information, Contempt, Judicial Immunity, Offence Act Procedure, Enforcement Scheme of Legal Profession Act
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Administrative Law Regulatory Law Traffic Law Professional Regulation Unauthorized Practice of Law Standing to Lay an Information Contempt +3 more

Case Brief

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Kootnekoff

Informant; Appellant

D.J. (Don) Tarrant

Defendant; Respondent; Prosecutor (peace Officer)

Joan Hughes

Defendant; Respondent; Judicial Justice of the Peace

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Provincial Court Process Hearing Concerning Alleged Offences and Unauthorized Practice of Law Arising From Traffic Prosecution / Appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a private informant has standing to lay an information alleging unauthorized practice of law under the Legal Profession Act
  2. 2 Whether a peace officer prosecuting a traffic matter is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law
  3. 3 Whether a Judicial Justice of the Peace can be criminally prosecuted or held in contempt on the facts alleged

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Legal Profession Act vests exclusive authority to lay and prosecute offences under that Act in the Law Society (and authorized officers), so the appellant lacked standing to lay the information; additionally there was no evidence of corrupt or dishonest conduct by the Judicial Justice of the Peace to support criminal prosecution or contempt, so the information against both respondents was properly quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; information quashed as against both respondents

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Information quashed