Top court overturns decision to scrap tax on legal fees

The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday overturned the lower court victory of a Vancouver activist who died during his crusade to scrap a tax on legal fees in British Columbia.

The topcourt announced Friday it had overturneda 2005 B.C. Supreme Court decision in favour of lawyer Dugald Christie, who had arguedthat the tax discriminates against the poor by making it harder for them to hire legal counsel.

The federal government and seven provinces joined B.C. in its appeal of the decision, arguing to the top court that almost all jurisdictions in Canada, except for Ontario and Alberta, tax legal services.

Christie garnered significant attention to his cause by attempting to cycle from B.C. to Newfoundland and Labrador. But in July 2005, more than two months after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Christie was struck by a van on the Trans-Canada Highway east of Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., and died.

Christie's friend Darrell Roberts, who is also a lawyer,took upChristie's battle against the tax after his death.

"It’s the end of the line," Roberts told CBC News Online Friday following the court'sdecision. "Obviously, I'm very disappointed."

In 1993, B.C. passed the Social Service Tax Amendment Act, whichrequired a seven per cent levy on all legal services.

Activist 'liked to enter the fray'

Christie, who gave up a career as a successful corporate lawyer to take cases for poor clients pro bono in 1997, closed his practice for more than a year after the province seized more than $6,000 in unpaid Social Service Tax.

He then took the province to court, arguing neither he nor his clients could pay the tax because he worked almost exclusively for people on low income.

Christie challenged the constitutionality of the act, arguing it impedes or denies access to justice, contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"This case was part of his overall goal to make justice more affordable and practically available to all Canadians," Roberts said.

The court said Friday in its decision that Christie's charter argument was broad and, if upheld, would create "a huge change that would alter the legal landscape and impose a not inconsiderable burden on taxpayers."

But Roberts took issue with the judgment, saying he and Christie never suggested avastlegal aid system was a right under the Constitution.

"The judgment has come down on an issue that we didn’t argue," he said. "Our position was that the governments do not have the right to add an extra cost burden to legal services."

But he added Christie was"a unique individual" who"liked to enter the fray" and would have been happy to see the case argued before the court.

"At least we got to do that,"Roberts said.