Court File and Parties

Citation: Hamid v. Canadian Centre for Professional Legal Education, 2024 ONSC 7024 Divisional Court File No.: 668/23 Date: 2024-12-16 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Khalid Hamid, Applicant And: Canadian Centre for Professional Legal Education, Respondent

Before: Shore J.

Counsel: Applicant self-represented Anastasia-Maria Hountalas, for the Respondent Jennifer L. King and John Wilson, for the Proposed Respondent, The Law Society of Manitoba

Heard at Toronto: In Writing

Endorsement

[1] This is a motion to determine whether Ontario has jurisdiction to hear this application for judicial review of the decision of the Canadian Centre for Professional Legal Education ("CPLED").

Background:

[2] The Applicant, Khalid Hamid, is a resident of Ontario and a qualified lawyer outside of Canada. He seeks qualification to practice law in Manitoba Canada. Hamid received a Certificate of Qualification from the National Committee on Accreditation; a prerequisite to enter the bar admission course.

[3] The Respondent, CPLED, is a designated education provider for the bar admission course on behalf of the Law Societies of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba. The company is based in Calgary, Alberta.

[4] Hamid enrolled in the CPLED bar admission course offered online through virtual learning, intending to be called to the bar in Manitoba. Successful completion of the course, including the Practice Readiness Education Program ("PREP"), administered by CPLED, is a prerequisite for registration with any Law Society in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, or Manitoba.

[5] Hamid failed his three attempts to pass the PREP. He appealed to CPLED's Appeal Committee. On October 26, 2023, the Appeal Committee dismissed his appeal.

[6] Hamid brought this application for judicial review of the appeal decision.

[7] Hamid seeks to file an amended application and wants to add the Law Society of Manitoba ("LSM") as a party to the proceedings because he was attempting to be called to the bar in Manitoba. In his amended application, Hamid seeks:

(a) An order quashing CPLED's appeal decision, dated October 26, 2023,

(b) A declaration that CPLED and the LSM have failed in their statutory duties towards the Applicant under two Manitoba statutes, and one Manitoba regulation; and

(c) In the alternative, an order remitting the matter back to the panel for reconsideration.

[8] CPLED and LSM submit that this Court lacks both the statutory authority and jurisdiction to hear the application.

[9] For the reasons below, I find that this Court does not have jurisdiction to judicially review this decision, a decision taken under Manitoba legislation, and the application is dismissed.

Analysis:

[10] This Court does not have jurisdiction to judicially review a decision made under the legislation of another province.

[11] As a statutory court created by s. 18 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43 ("CJA"), the Divisional Court only has jurisdiction, power, and authority in Ontario. As a constitutional matter, provinces cannot legislate beyond their territorial boundaries, and the statutes of one province do not have the force of law in another province. This constitutional limit grounds an interpretive presumption that provincial statutes are not intended to apply extra-territorially.

[12] The Divisional Court also has jurisdiction to perform judicial review, as set out in the Judicial Review and Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.J.1 ("JRPA"), and specifically, with respect to the exercise or purported exercise of defined "statutory powers." The exercise of "statutory powers" referred to in the JRPA, does not include powers exercised by extra-provincial bodies under other provincial statutes. Ontario courts do not have the authority to grant administrative law remedies with respect to extra-provincial officials carrying out duties under extra-provincial statutes.

[13] In Re Anaskan and The Queen (1977), 1977 1199 (ON CA), 15 OR (2d) 515 (C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Court does not have any power to grant administrative law remedies with respect to a Saskatchewan official carrying out duties and responsibilities under Saskatchewan statutes, even if the appellant was physically present in Ontario. The Court cannot quash the orders or decisions made by courts or tribunals in other Provinces, whose powers come from their provincially enacted statutes.

[14] In Dr. Rashidan v. The National Dental Examining Board of Canada, 2020 ONSC 4174, the Divisional Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. The applicant was seeking to qualify as a dentist in British Columbia and had no intention of qualifying in Ontario. The Board's authority arose in British Columbia. The authority to deal with judicial review would therefore be found in British Columbia's legislation, and not Ontario's.

[15] The Applicant seeks qualification in Manitoba. Neither CPLED nor the LSM are regulated by Ontario legislation. The "statutory powers" exercised by CPLED and LSM that the Applicant refers to stem from Manitoba's Legal Profession Act and Fair Registration Practices in Regulated Professions Act.

[16] While the Applicant also raises the issue of breach of contract, it is outside this Court's authority on an Application for Judicial Review. However, even if the issue was within jurisdiction, I find no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

[17] When considering whether this Court has jurisdiction under the common law, both parties submitted that the test to be applied is whether there is a real and substantial connection between the issue and the place (as between nations see: Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1 SCR 572 and as between provinces see: Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792, 417 DLR (4th) 467, and College of Optometrists of Ontario v. Essilor Group, 2019 ONCA 265, 145 OR (3d) 561 (C.A.): also see Dr. Rashidan, at para. 14).

[18] Jurisdiction must be established primarily on the basis of objective factors that connect the legal situation or the subject matter of the litigation to the forum: see Club Resorts, at para. 82. However, in determining whether there is a real and substantial connection, the court must first consider whether there is a presumptive connecting factor.

[19] The only connection to Ontario is that the Applicant lives here. However, the physical presence of one party in the jurisdiction is not, on its own, a sufficient presumptive factor: Club Resorts, at para. 86. Once a presumption is established, it can still be rebutted, which is easily done in this case. The presumption of jurisdiction in this case would be inappropriate.

[20] The Applicant was not attempting to qualify as a lawyer in Ontario. Neither CPLED nor the LSM carry on business, or purport to carry on business in Ontario. CPLED does not provide training or exams for law societies outside of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan. The LSM does not and cannot qualify lawyers outside of Manitoba. A judicial review of their decisions could only be a review regarding the laws in Manitoba. As the Applicant properly identifies, their decisions would be subject to review under Manitoba's Legal Profession Act and Fair Registration Practices in Regulated Professions Act. Neither of their decisions would be subject to judicial review under the JRPA.

[21] I find that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this application. I find that there is no real and substantial connection between the issues at stake and Ontario. Manitoba is the proper forum for the Applicant's application.

[22] Neither party sought costs nor filed a Bill of Costs, as required by the Practice Direction. There shall be no order as to costs.

Shore J.

Date: December 16, 2024