Court cannot sanction breach of statute or justify a quasi-criminal offence

Lameman v. Alberta, 2012 ABCA 59 deals with a very specific issue relating to practice but in so doing states a useful general principle – a Court does not have inherent jurisdiction to permit a statute to be breached.  Arguments referring to relief from forfeiture will not work – absent statutory authority a Court cannot authorize a breach of statute:

 

 

[35]           Therefore, what is proposed here would be a breach of statute, a quasi-criminal offence. Section 35 of the Legal Profession Act makes it an offence to disobey s 106 and surrounding sections. Neither the Rules of Court nor any inherent powers of the court empower it to sanction committing an offence. SeePurba v Ryan, 2006 ABCA 229 (CanLII), 2006 ABCA 229, 379 AR 251 (para 56); Baxter Student Housing v College Housing Co-op1975 CanLII 164 (SCC), [1976] 2 SCR 475, 480, 5 NR 515 (para 5), 57 DLR (3d) 1, 4. Even if they gave such a power, it would be contrary to all principle for the court to exercise it. See Glover v Glover (#1) (1980) 29 OR (2d) 392, 399 (CA), affd 1981 CanLII 64 (SCC), [1981] 2 SCR 561, 43 NR 271;Hartley v Matson (1901) 32 SCR 575, 580; Re Barclay & Barclay, [1922] 1 WWR 52, 57 (Alta CA); Montgomery v Peters reflex, (1957) 22 WWR 188, 191 (Alta CA); JU v Regl Dir of Child Welfare, 2001 ABCA 125 (CanLII), 2001 ABCA 125, 281 AR 396 (paras 6-7), lv den 283 NR 398 (SCC); Van de Perre v Edwards, 2001 SCC 60 (CanLII), 2001 SCC 60, [2001] 2 SCR 1014, 275 NR 52 (paras 48-50 or 47-49); Hansraj v Ao,2004 ABCA 223 (CanLII), 2004 ABCA 223, 354 AR 91 (para 66); Anthony M McWilliams Designs v Fowler, 2004 ABCA 370 (CanLII), 2004 ABCA 370, 357 AR 284 (paras 6-11); Wilbur v Foothills Hosp, 2005 ABCA 220 (CanLII), 2005 ABCA 220, 367 AR 191 (paras 14-15); R v Harness,2005 ABCA 245 (CanLII), 2005 ABCA 245, 367 AR 259 (paras 28-32).