CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat

supreme Court of Canada case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionOct 22, 2025
Entity authorityQ16210571 ↗
Source-derived summary

Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113, 2001 SCC 67 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that a non-lawyer may be given the power to practice law under a federal statute even if it is contrary to provincial legal profession legislation.

Background

The respondent, Jaswant Mangat, was an immigration consultant carrying on his work through an immigration consulting company ("Westcoast"). He had not studied law in Canada and was not a member of the B.C. Law Society. Mangat and other Westcoast employees engaged in a number of activities involving immigration proceedings, including appearing as counsel or advocate on behalf of aliens, for or in the expectation of a fee from the persons for whom the acts were performed, before the Immigration and Refugee Board ("IRB").

The Law Society brought an application seeking a permanent injunction against Mangat and Westcoast to prevent them from engaging in the ongoing practice of law, in contravention of B.C.’s Legal Profession Act. Mangat and Westcoast admitted that they were engaged in the practice of law within the meaning of s. 1 of the Legal Profession Act, but contended that their conduct was sanctioned by ss. 30 and 69(1) of the federal Immigration Act, which permit non-lawyers to appear on behalf of clients before the IRB. The judge issued the injunction on the grounds that ss. 30 and 69(1) of the Immigration Act did not authorize the practice of law. Alternatively, she would have granted the injunction on the basis that the provisions were ultra vires Parliament.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat” is supreme Court of Canada case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Society, British and Columbia, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2001—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Society, British and Columbia is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “supreme Court of Canada case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Oct 22, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q16210571. The first chronological checks are 2001.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat primary sources, Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat archive and Society research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.