R. v. Cross, 2022 BCPC 177

Citation: R. v. Cross 2022 BCPC 177 Date: 20220906 File No: FC1369299 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. DAVID ALLAN CROSS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G.J. BROWN Counsel for the Crown: F. Lepine Appearing for the Defendant: J. Maddock, Applying to Appear as Agent with Mr. Cross Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Date of Hearing: July 29, 2022 Date of Judgment: September 6, 2022 INTRODUCTION

[ 1 ] Mr. Cross is charged under a federal violation ticket with failing to comply with a condition of his entry into Canada, contrary to s. 58 of the Quarantine Act , SC 2005, c 20 . I understand that the specific concern was that he was not wearing a mask. Mr. Cross has a number of defences to the charges. [ 2 ] However, the narrow issue before me is whether Mr. Jeremy Maddock can appear as agent for Mr. Cross in the trial of this matter. Mr. Maddock has a law degree but he has not been called to the bar. The Federal Crown strongly opposes Mr.

Maddock acting as agent, arguing that such activity contravenes a Supreme Court injunction. [ 3 ] Mr. Maddock, on the other hand, submits that the Law Society of British Columbia has provided a “no action” letter allowing him to provide certain services to disputants, including appearing as their agent in court. [ 4 ] Our Court very much supports initiatives which promote access to justice, and there is a need for disputants in these sorts of matters to have legal assistance. However, Mr. Maddock faces a number of obstacles in his quest to be an agent for Mr. Cross.

ISSUE [ 5 ] The issue in this case is as follows: Can Mr. Maddock appear in Court as Mr. Cross’ agent in this Quarantine Act ticket case? The issue here involves an analysis of not only the Supreme Court injunction, but also the effect of the “no action” letters provided by the Law Society. BACKGROUND [ 6 ] Recently, proponents have been able to send to the Law Society proposals to participate in the Innovation Sandbox program, in an attempt to address unmet need for legal advice and assistance. These services would otherwise contravene the Legal Profession Act , SBC 1998, c 9 .

If the Law Society finds that a proponent can deliver service in a competent and ethical manner and that the proponent has met other evaluation criteria, a “no action” letter will be issued by the Law Society. The letter usually indicates that the Law Society will not prosecute or seek an injunction against the proponent, so long as they provide the services as set out in the letter. [ 7 ] Mr. Maddock has applied to be a proponent under the Sandbox program, but he previously was in litigation with the Law Society, see Maddock v. Law Society of British Columbia , 2020 BCSC 71 .

At the conclusion of the Supreme Court’s decision, Justice Shergill issued an injunction. Justice Shergill’s decision speaks for itself, but I will summarize some salient points. [ 8 ] Mr. Maddock is a self-employed legal consultant. He provides legal research to lawyers, drafts legal documents and arguments, and attends court on traffic violation tickets under the Motor Vehicle Act , RSBC 1996, c 318 . He obtained a law degree, but has never been a practicing member of the Law Society. [ 9 ] After extensively reviewing Mr.

Maddock’s activities on several files, Justice Shergill concluded that the Legal Profession Act prohibits Mr. Maddock from representing clients for a fee on non-criminal traffic matters before any court, and the precise conclusion is at paragraph 123: [123] I conclude that s. 15(1) of the LPA prohibits Mr. Maddock from representing clients for a fee on non-criminal traffic-related offences before any court. To the extent Mr.

Maddock seeks to appear as agent on such matters under the Offence Act without remuneration, such an appearance would be at the discretion of the court so long as he was not in violation of s. 15(5) of the LPA . [ 10 ] In her decision, Justice Shergill goes on at paragraph 158 to grant the following injunction: 1.

Subject to s. 15(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession Act , S.B.C. 1998, c. 9 , until such time as he becomes a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia, Jeremy Maddock is permanently prohibited and enjoined from engaging in the practice of law as defined in s. 1 of the Legal Profession Act , including:

a) appearing as counsel or advocate;

b) drawing, revising, or settling i. a petition, memorandum, notice of articles or articles under the Business Corporations Act , or an application, statement, affidavit, minute, resolution, bylaw or other document relating to the duration, registration, organization, reorganization, dissolution or winding up of a corporate body, ii. a document for use in a proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial, iii. a will, date of settlement, trust deed, power of attorney or a document relating to a probate or a grant of administration or the estate of the deceased person, iv. a document relating in any way to a proceeding under a statute of Canada or British Columbia, and v. an instrument relating to real or personal estate that is intended, permitted or required to be registered, recorded or filed in a registry or other public office;

c) doing

an act or negotiating in any way for the settlement of, or settling, a claim or demand for damages,

d) agreeing to place at the disposal of another person the services of a lawyer,

e) giving legal advice,

f) making an offer to do anything referred to in paragraphs (

a) to (e),

g) making a representation that he is qualified or entitled to do anything referred to in paragraphs (

a) to (e), for or in the expectation of a fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect, from the person for whom the acts are performed; and 2. Until such time as he becomes member in good standing of the Law Society, Jeremy Maddock is permanently prohibited and enjoined from commencing, prosecuting or defending a proceeding in any court, except if representing himself as an individual party to a proceeding, acting without counsel, solely on his own behalf. [ 11 ] That injunction was granted on January 21, 2020. Mr.

Maddock applied for a stay of the injunction order pending appeal, but that stay application was dismissed. I understand the appeal is now set to be heard in December of this year. [ 12 ] On January 26, 2021, Mr. Maddock applied under the Law Society’s Innovation Sandbox program. He made two proposals, and in the latter one, he proposed to assist violation ticket disputants as “agent” pursuant to s. 57(2) of the Offence Act , RSBC 1996, c 338 .

These proposed services would include reviewing violation tickets, obtaining disclosure from ticketing officers, negotiating with ticketing officers about possible resolution, and if necessary, cross-examining ticketing officers and making submissions to Court. [ 13 ] On April 12, 2021, the Law Society wrote a letter authorizing Mr. Maddock to engage in certain activities, pending consideration of Mr. Maddock’s sandbox proposals. The Law Society agreed not to enforce the injunction while the sandbox proposals were under consideration, and it allowed Mr.

Maddock to provide advice and representation to disputants regarding violation tickets in Provincial Court. At that time, the Law Society proposed adjourning Mr. Maddock’s appeal of the injunction. [ 14 ] On July 30, 2021, the Law Society wrote a letter indicating they had reviewed Mr. Maddock’s proposals to provide services and they had agreed to a “no action” letter. The proposal to offer services was expressed as follows: You propose to offer the following services: 1.1 Research and writing services as a home-based contract employee, under the supervision of practicing lawyers, such services to include:

a) Conducting legal research;

b) Reviewing and summarizing disclosure;

c) Drafting pleadings;

d) Drafting legal arguments; and

e) Submitting any documents prepared by you for the review and approval of the supervising lawyer. 1.2 You propose to offer the following services to motor vehicle violation ticket disputants:

a) Reviewing violation tickets;

b) Providing information about the dispute process;

c) Obtaining disclosure from ticketing officers;

d) Negotiating possible resolution with ticketing officers; and

e) Drafting legal arguments. [ 15 ] The letter goes on to confirm that the Law Society will not initiate action to prevent Mr. Maddock from providing the services so long as certain conditions, such as monthly reporting and an indemnity, are met. [ 16 ] Unlike Mr. Maddock’s proposal letter, the last Law Society letter of July 30, 2021 does not refer to services such as cross- examination and making submissions in court.

The earlier Law Society letter did speak of “representation to disputants regarding violation tickets’’ in Provincial Court. [ 17 ] However, there was a Law Society email dated August 13, 2021, which attached the July 30 letter and stated that the Law Society Executive Committee had reviewed and approved Mr. Maddock’s proposal related to his attendance before the B.C. Provincial Court. The Law Society was then in discussion with the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court regarding Court protocols. The letter indicated that once the protocols were finalized, the Law Society would issue Mr.

Maddock a no action letter related to court work. I have been told nothing about a further no action letter. [ 18 ] Also, unlike the earlier Law Society letter of April 12, 2021, the last Law Society letter of July 30 makes no reference to the existing injunction. CAN MR. MADDOCK APPEAR AS AGENT IN THIS QUARANTINE ACT TICKET CASE? [ 19 ] The answer is no for several reasons. Mr. Maddock cannot appear as agent in this matter. [ 20 ] First, I cannot be seen to facilitate a breach of Justice Shergill’s injunction granted January 21, 2020. That injunction clearly states that until Mr.

Maddock becomes a member of the Law Society, he is prohibited from engaging in the practice of law, including

appearing as counsel or advocate. I am a judge toiling in the vineyards of justice in Provincial Court, and I am bound by orders of a superior court. The Supreme Court order has not been varied or overturned at this time. [ 21 ] It is true that Justice Shergill carved out an exception at paragraph 123 of her Reasons, by indicating that Mr. Maddock could appear as agent on traffic matters under the Offence Act without remuneration and at the court’s discretion. There are two problems here. One, Mr. Maddock told me he was charging a modest fee. Two, this is not a traffic matter under the provincial Offence Act .

This is an alleged offence under federal legislation, the Quarantine Act . [ 22 ] The secondary issue revolves around the Law Society’s “no action” letters to Mr. Maddock and whether they could allow him to appear as agent in this case. To begin with, I do not consider a letter from the Law Society sufficient for me to skirt around a Supreme Court injunction, which has already been granted. That injunction would have to be varied to accord with any Law Society letter. [ 23 ] Perhaps as importantly, I do not view the “no action” letters and emails as authorizing Mr.

Maddock to act as an agent in this Quarantine Act case. The governing letter is now the one dated July 30, 2021, even though Mr. Maddock focussed on the previous letter. The July 30, 2021 letter and related email of August 13 in no way authorize Mr. Maddock to appear in court on a federal Quarantine Act matter. The letter itself refers to an offer of services to “motor vehicle violation ticket disputants” and actually makes no reference to appearing in court as agent or otherwise. [ 24 ] I understand some of Mr.

Maddock’s confusion because the August 13, 2021 email suggests approval for court work pending finalization of court protocols. I have been given no further “no action” letters specifically related to court work, and in any event, Mr. Maddock’s own proposal only spoke of court work for violation tickets under the Offence Act , not federal legislation. CONCLUSION [ 25 ] In short, the injunction prevents Mr. Maddock from appearing as agent in this Quarantine Act matter, and even if the injunction did not exist, the letters from the Law Society do not authorize his appearance on this file as agent.

I agree with the Federal Crown’s objection, and Mr. Maddock cannot appear as agent in this Quarantine Act matter. In that event, I understand Mr. Cross will be retaining counsel. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge G.J. Brown Provincial Court of British Columbia