LaBelle v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al.
[Indexed as LaBelle v. Law Society of Upper Canada]
56 O.R. (3d) 413
[2001] O.J. No. 4263
Docket No. C357571
Ontario Court of Appeal
Catzman, Abella and Moldaver JJ.A.
November 2, 2001.
- Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed with costs December 5, 2002 (Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.). S.C.C. File No. 29120. S.C.C. Bulletin, 2002, p. 1754.
Professions -- Barristers and solicitors -- Attorney General -- Liability -- Plaintiff's complaint to Law Society of Upper Canada about conduct of her lawyers in child custody litigation dismissed -- Plaintiff then turning to Attorney General for Ontario for assistance -- Attorney General taking position that complaint had to be dealt with by Law Society -- Plaintiff bringing action against Attorney General claiming that Attorney General failed to serve as guardian of public interest as set out in s. 13 of Law Society Act -- Claim struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action -- Section 13 of Law Society Act confined to Attorney General's function as bencher of Law Society and not imposing on Attorney General obligation to usurp discipline function of Law Society -- Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13.
NOTE: An appeal of the judgment of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (C. McKinnon J.), reported at 2001 CanLII 28255 (ON SC), 52 O.R. (3d) 398, to the Court of Appeal for Ontario was dismissed on November 2, 2001. The endorsement of the court was as follows:
Ellen LaBelle, the appellant in person. Walter Myrka, for respondent.
1BY THE COURT: -- 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.
2The 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.
3Mr. 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.
4Although we agree with the order made by Mr. Justice McKinnon, we have reservations about his interpretation of s. 13 of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, 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.
5The appeal is dismissed.