McFarlane v Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner

The appellant, McFarlane, appealed a decision of the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner to the Tribunal. The dispute concerned McFarlane's allegations that the Commissioner had acted improperly in handling a complaint McFarlane had lodged. The Tribunal was comprised of Peek, Parker, and Doyle JJ.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether McFarlane's complaint against the Commissioner disclosed any reasonable cause of action or was frivolous and vexatious, warranting summary dismissal. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if McFarlane's assertions regarding the Commissioner's conduct, including alleged falsification of grounds for closing a complaint, interference with legal procedures, and personal acquaintance with legal practitioners, constituted grounds for a charge of unsatisfactory or unprofessional conduct.

The Tribunal reasoned that several paragraphs of McFarlane's complaint lacked factual basis and did not allege any misconduct by the Commissioner. For instance, statements of fact without an allegation of misconduct, or allegations concerning third parties, were struck out. The Tribunal found McFarlane's explanations for his claims of "incompetent and unfounded" reasons for decision and that the Commissioner's "integrity is in question" to be vague and lacking in material support. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that McFarlane harboured a deep grievance against another practitioner, and his complaint against the Commissioner was a thinly disguised attempt to relitigate that grievance, constituting vexatious and multiple proceedings on the same issue.

Consequently, the Tribunal summarily dismissed the charge against the Commissioner, finding it to be frivolous, vexatious, and without apparent merit. The Tribunal noted that it did not need to determine the jurisdictional question of whether it had the power to consider a charge against the Commissioner, given the dismissal on other grounds.