A self-represented applicant brought a constitutional challenge to s. 5(4) of the Law Society Act, alleging that the Law Society’s ownership of a professional liability insurer created an unconstitutional conflict that undermined lawyer regulation and violated multiple Charter rights.
The court held that the applicant’s argument rested on an incorrect legal premise that a breach of professional conduct rules necessarily results in civil negligence liability.
Relying on Supreme Court authority, the court confirmed that disciplinary rules do not create civil causes of action and do not determine negligence liability.
The applicant also failed to provide evidence that the regulator declines to investigate misconduct for financial reasons or that the statutory provision infringed any Charter rights.
The application was dismissed.
