of self regulation? - The Law Society of Upper Canada

For example, in Nova Scotia in the early 2000s it was decided that it was necessary to
modernize the legal regime governing the legal profession, as the Barristers and
Solicitors Act was fast closing in on its one hundred and fiftieth birthday. Not once in the
process was there any serious discussion of the appropriateness, or otherwise, of self
regulation. 6
This is especially noteworthy because, at the same time, the Government of
Nova Scotia was putting a great deal of emphasis on its “Competitiveness and
Compliance Initiative” with its “Better Regulation, Everyone’s Business” seal of
approval. 7 By contrast, in all the other previously mentioned jurisdictions, there have
been extended discussions, protracted consultations and passionate (sometimes vitriolic)
debates on the topic. While it may be tempting to suggest that this is hardly surprising in
a small (perhaps insular) province like Nova Scotia, it seems that the situation in every
other jurisdiction in Canada is the same…the status quo of self regulation is entrenched
and unassailable. 8
In this modest paper we attempt to unpack this mystery in several stages. First, to
explain why such an inquiry might be justified we briefly identify a number of situations
and circumstances which suggest that not all is well in Canada. Second, to demonstrate
that options are available and that change is possible, we briefly outline the emergence of
valuable rights [i.e. for lawyers]; and is directed toward the protection of vulnerable interests [i.e., of the
public]”: Pearlman, supra note 2 at para. 39.
6 Richard Devlin & Jocelyn Downie, “Self-Regulation in the Shire” The Society Record (February 2004)
18.
7 See e.g., “Competitiveness and Compliance Initiative: Annual Report 2006” online: Nova Scotia
Environment and Labour .
8 A second example of the power of the self-regulation zeitgeist is to be found in the debate over the
regulation of paralegals in Ontario. Despite the fact that former Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory
recommended in an independent report that paralegals should be permitted to establish their own regulatory
regime, the Law Society of Upper Canada insisted that it should have regulatory authority over paralegals
[Ontario Ministry for the Attorney General, A Framework for Regulating Paralegal Practice in Ontario by
Peter Cory. (Toronto: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 2000)]. The government of Ontario
rejected Justice Cory’s analysis and accepted the position advocated by the L.S.U.C.. On May 1 st , 2007, the
Law Society of Upper Canada became responsible for the regulation of paralegals in the province through
an amendment to the Law Society Act: Access to Justice Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, C. 21.
4