| Commentary |
| January 24, 2011
Glen P. Robbins
1355 Honeysuckle Lane,
Coquitlam, B.C.,
V3E 2N6
Elizabeth B. Lyall
Fasken Martineau
2900-550 Burrard Street,
Vancouver, B.C.,
V6C OA3 |
| Attention: Elizabeth B. Lyall |
| I am writing with respect to your letter which I received on January 23, 2011. |
| It is my distinct impression that both The Law Society of B.C. and yourself are attempting to run some type of interference, in order to cover up the fact that the defendants under S106413 are doing poorly and have been caught in circumstances that range from incompetence to negligence to potential criminal behaviour. |
| Please consider this my letter of NOTICE to your client The Law Society of BC (and to you) of my intention to seek redress from them. |
| Let’s talk about Elizabeth Lyall. Elizabeth Lyall is the past President of the Canadian Bar Insurance Association (CBIA) which for lawyers apparently “is their (sic) one-stop shop for all of their (sic) protection needs.” |
| Isn’t this interesting? We have one defendant whose lawyer is with the Law Society of BC - and the Lawyer’s Insurance Trust Fund, and another who could be in criminal trouble. We have one defendant’s lawyer who has worked for years in insurance with the Law Society of BC (Jack Webster QC), whose client (Ellis) has run for political office with the Law Society of BC and who has longstanding ties to the Kinsella family and with schools associated with the Brown family, both known ties to Gordon Campbell. |
| Now, one of the Board of Directors of CBIA - in fact the former Past President, Elizabeth Lyall has been hired by the Law Society of BC. Were you aware that Ms. Lyall’s association has: |
| “For over a quarter of a century -- been providing a wide range of insurance products designed for the specific needs of legal professionals, law firm staff and their families.” |
| In fact these insurance interests are so entrenched that:
“At all times, their (sic) Board of Directors, comprised of 24 lawyers from across Canada, actively oversees all activities to ensure that they are in the best interest of the legal profession.” |
| But the CBIA is different from other insurance providers. Here’s why:
“One such exception is that the insurance program offered through The Canadian Bar Association (that means BC Bar as well!). This program combines the extreme low cost of a group insurance plan with the superior benefits of an individual contract." |
| It is interesting to note that Ms. Lyall has written a lot on insurance, specifically insurance in disability claims. Essentially the CBIA sells insurance to lawyers - and Ms. Lyall allocates much of her professional time making sure that the insured - regular people cross all the T’s and I’s or she is going to make sure they aren’t covered by the insurance they paid for. |
| Ms. Lyall - I would suggest you are in an extreme conflict here. |
| What’s more interesting is this: It would seem that Ms. Lyall and former Special Prosecutor Bill Berandino have some knowledge of the theme of our interaction - that is, who can act and when in a court of law. Ms. Lyall and The Law Society of BC are attempting to force me to sign documents that are a direct attempt to take away my civil rights and they know this. After all weren’t they legal counsel for The Law Society of BC v. M and Westcoast - who “admitted that they were engaged in the practice of law within the meaning of section 1 of the Legal Professions Act. |
| M and Westcoast won at Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. They were allowed to collect legal fees and act just like lawyers and Elizabeth Lyall knows this - let’s explore what she knows or ought to know: |
| “The respondent(s) “M” was an immigration consultant carrying on his work through an immigration company (“Westcoast”). He had not studied law in Canada and was not a member of the B.C. Law Society. “M” and other Westcoast employees engaged in a number of activities involving immigration proceedings including appearing as counsel or advocate on behalf of aliens, for or in the expectation of a fee from the persons for whom the acts were performed, before the Immigration and Refugee Board (“IRB”).” |
| The Law Society of BC (under Lyall then - under Lyall now) “brought an application seeking a permanent injunction against “M” and Westcoast to prevent them from engaging in the ongoing practice of law, in contravention of the B.C. Legal Professions Act. The Judge issued the injunction on the grounds that section 30 and 69(1) of the Immigration Act did not authorize the practice of law.” |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL SET ASIDE THE INJUNCTION obtained by the Law Society of B.C. |
| “The central issues raised by this Appeal are whether sections 30 and 69(1) of the Immigration Act are intra vires Parliament, and whether Section 26 of the Legal Professions Act, which prohibits a person, other than a member of the Law Society in good standing or a person listed in the exceptions to engage in the practice of law, is constitutionally inoperative to persons acting under sections 30 and 69(1) of the Immigration Act.” |
| “The pith and substance of sections 30 and 69(1) of the Immigration Act is the granting of certain rights to aliens in the immigration administrative process. The provisions provide right to aliens to be represented in proceedings before the Adjudicative and the Refugee Divisions by their barristers or solicitors or other counsel for a fee. It also allows aliens to have the benefit of the documents prepared by such counsel for use in these proceedings. Determining whom aliens may choose to represent pertains to procedural right of those individuals.” |
| “Such a matter falls within Parliament’s jurisdiction over naturalization and aliens pursuant to section 91(25) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The federal legislation of jurisdiction and naturalization includes the power to establish a tribunal like the “IRB” since that jurisdiction includes the power to make decisions as to who constitutes an alien and who ought to be naturalized. Flowing from this jurisdiction is the authority to provide for the powers of such a tribunal and its procedure including that of appearance before it.” |
| “The subject matter of sections 30 and 69(1) of the Immigration Act also falls within the provincial jurisdiction over civil rights in the province. Sections 30 and 69(1) relate to the legal profession and therefore professions in general.” |
| “The provinces have legislative authority to regulate the practice of law under sections 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867 as part of their jurisdiction over professional regulation. Lawyers are an integral part of the administration of justice, and this to that extent provincial legislation in relation to lawyers may very well derive its authority from sections 92(14) as much as section 92(13)” |
| “Insofar as appearing before the “IRB” in the capacity of counsel involves the practice of law, the subject matter is as much covered by section 26 of the Legal Professions Act s it is by sections 30 and 69(1) of the Immigration Act.” |
| “Since the subject matter of the representatives of aliens by counsel ---has federal and provincial aspects, the federal and provincial statutes and rules or regulations in this regard will coexist insofar as there is no conflict. Where there is conflict, the federal legislation will prevail according to the patrimony doctrine.” |
| “The existence of a double aspect to the subject matter of sections 30 and 69(1) favours the patrimony doctrine rather than the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. |
| “The paramouncy doctrine safeguards the control by Parliament --- and preserves the principle of a unified control of the legal profession by the various law societies throughout Canada.” |
| “The immigration Act must prevail over the Legal Profession Act.” |
| “Since the Provisions of the Immigration Act at issue are valid and paramount over the provisions of the Legal Professions Act, an injunction against “M” and Westcoast (sic) cannot be granted.” |
| “Based on this analysis, the Supreme Court of Canada found that section 26 of the Legal Professions Act was inoperative against non-lawyers who collect fee acting -- for the purposes of representing clients in federal immigration matters. In other words despite the fact that “M” was admittedly practicing law, the Law Society of BC was powerless.” |
| Ms. Lyall, you know this legal case. Are you now suggesting a person whose family has been in Canada since before Confederation cannot represent his wife over the family home they have owned for 20 years - while the rights of aliens or those who represent them have ‘paramouncy’. |
| What a sick and tangled web you weave - in my opinion. |
| Like I said - The Law Society of BC is helping other lawyers some of whom have strong historical connections to that body and to insurance - when it ought to be staying out of it - in my opinion - if I still have any Constitutional rights myself as a citizen of good standing in this country. |
| Sincerely,
Glen P. Robbins |
| -30- |
