Rehabilitation Supports Admission

The Law Society of British Columbia Hearing Panel has found an applicant for admission eligible notwithstanding a significant criminal history.

This hearing as to the Applicant’s character and fitness is required as a result of the Applicant’s significant history of criminal conduct, commencing in 1999 when she was approximately 15 years old and continuing until 2007.  The Applicant’s conduct resulted in a number of criminal charges and a conviction, as set out in greater detail below…

The Applicant was born on April 2, 1984 and was raised in Alberta.

 In 1999, at around age 15, the Applicant began to socialize with students at her high school who were members of a gang.  These students were involved in selling illegal drugs.

Through her association with these students, the Applicant began to use drugs, including “crystal meth”.  The Applicant also began to sell drugs, primarily marijuana.

In 2000, the Applicant left home and moved in with her then boyfriend.  While that relationship was not a healthy one, because her boyfriend did not use “hard drugs” the Applicant decided to quit using crystal meth.

Despite no longer using crystal meth, the Applicant continued to drink alcohol, use marijuana and sell drugs.

As a result of these activities, on August 14, 2002, the Applicant was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime.

 On June 26, 2006, the Applicant was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, possession of marijuana, and possession of the proceeds of crime.

In August 2006, the Applicant was charged with possessing the proceeds of crime, possessing a weapon, and breaching a recognizance.

On October 14, 2006, the Applicant was charged with 20 criminal counts, including breach of a recognizance; possession of a firearm, possession of stolen property, and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine.

On April 5, 2007, the Applicant made the Consumer Proposal.

 In 2007, the Applicant was charged with failure to comply with a recognizance.

On May 17, 2010, the Applicant pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and was sentenced to 20 months community imprisonment with certain conditions.

In 2013, the Applicant began attending law school at the University of Victoria Law School.  From 2015 to 2017, the Applicant completed her law degree at the University of British Columbia (“UBC”).

The Applicant has received an offer of articles from a Vancouver law firm (the “Firm”) if she is admitted to the LSAP.

The Applicant was served by the Law Society with the requisite notice of this hearing.

The order sets out in detail both the circumstances of the crimes and the substantial rehabilitation. 

The Applicant’s evidence with respect to her changed attitude toward the law is significant in this matter.  The Applicant’s last criminal act, breaching her recognizance by travelling to Fort McMurray in 2007, came after the transformative experiences she described having while incarcerated.  The Applicant’s evidence in respect of this conduct was that, even after she had determined to change the direction of her life, she still had disregard for the law. 

In other circumstances, such conduct may have been more concerning for the Panel.  However, the Applicant’s explanation that, through her legal studies, she has come to respect the law and is now ashamed of her prior attitude is credible and compelling.

The Panel accepts the submissions of both parties that the Applicant has been honest and forthright in this hearing.  We accept her evidence generally as being credible…

This is also not a matter like that in Re: Applicant 9, where the panel expressed concerns that the applicant still suffered from the issues that gave rise to his past misconduct. 

Here, the Applicant confirmed that there is no longer anything enticing to her about her prior life.  She testified that she has worked too hard to abandon her achievements or to disappoint her family again.  Her evidence in this respect, like the rest of her testimony, was credible and convincing.

 Based on all of the evidence, the Panel accepts that the Applicant has genuinely rehabilitated herself and that her circumstances are akin to those of the applicants in Gallant and Mangat.  We adopt and endorse the observations made by each of those panels that:

… rehabilitation from a criminal past such as this is not only possible, but is to be encouraged.  It is in the public interest to admit lawyers from diverse backgrounds with a view to meeting the legal needs of and protecting all sectors of society.

 For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Applicant has satisfied the onus of demonstrating, on a balance of probabilities, that she is of sufficiently good character and repute to be admitted into the LSAP without conditions, and subsequently to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor if and when she has completed the LSAP.

(Mike Frisch)