The Court of Appeal denied Kalo’s application for an order that the Respondent Law Society immediately accept him, on a without prejudice basis, into its admissions program pending the outcome of his avenues of appeal wherein he was disputing the Law Society’s decision to reject him for admission

24. November 2009 0

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Admission to profession – Training requirements – Competence – Judicial review – Appeals – Jurisdiction of court – Remedies – Injunctions – Availability

Kalo v. Law Society of Manitoba, [2009] M.J. No. 342, Manitoba Court of Appeal, September 29, 2009, M.A. Monnin J.A.

The Applicant (Kalo) is a foreign-trained lawyer who wanted to practice law in Manitoba. In late 2008, he applied for enrolment in the Canadian Centre for Professional Legal Education program (the “CPLED Program”) administered by the Respondent, Law Society of Manitoba (the “Law Society”). The CPLED Program was a prerequisite, along with a period of articles at a law firm, to admission as a member of the bar of Manitoba.

As part of an application to the CPLED Program, Kalo had to provide proof that he is of good moral character. The Law Society had concerns about Kalo’s moral character and the Law Society, in the summer of 2009, concluded that Kalo did not adequately show that he was of good moral character. Accordingly, the Law Society denied his application for admission into the CPLED Program and articles. In addition, the Law Society denied Kalo’s request for immediate without prejudice enrolment into the CPLED Program pending the outcome of his avenues of appeal.

Kalo, pursuant to the Law Society’s Rules, appealed the two decisions to the Admissions and Education Committee (the “Committee”). A hearing was held in late August 2009 to review the two decisions. Kalo made several motions during the course of the appeal. The hearing panel dismissed all of Kalo’s motions. One of the motions was another request that he be admitted to the CPLED Program on a without prejudice basis pending the outcome of his appeals. This motion was denied and the Committee indicated that it was denying his appeal but it would provide written reasons at a later date rather than dismiss the appeal summarily.

Kalo filed an appeal of the Committee’s decision in the Court of Appeal. In the context of that appeal, he brought the within application for an order that the Law Society admit him into the CPLED Program immediately, on a without prejudice basis, pending the outcome of his appeals. In the within application, he argued that section 76 of the Legal Profession Act empowered the Court of Appeal to grant the relief he seeks in his motion (and his appeal as well).

The Law Society’s position, on both the substantive appeal and the within motion, was that the Court of Appeal, not having inherent jurisdiction, did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Committee.

The Court of Appeal agreed with this decision insofar as the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to hear the within motion. The Court of Appeal specifically stated that it was not making a decision as to whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal itself.

Kalo’s application was denied.

This case was digested by Scott J. Marcinkow of Harper Grey LLP. If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact him directly at or review his biography at

To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.