Iqaluit lawyer takes Nunavut’s legal services board to court
Alison Crowe applies for judicial review of her exclusion from board’s criminal defence panel
Alison Crowe, seen in a file photo attending the swearing-in ceremony of Chief Justice Susan Cooper in January 2025, is taking the Legal Services Board of Nunavut to court after she was rejected from the board’s criminal panel. (File photo by Arty Sarkisian)
Iqaluit lawyer Alison Crowe is taking the Legal Services Board of Nunavut to court after the board denied her application to join its criminal defence panel.
Crowe is asking a judge to order the board, which is responsible for providing legal aid services in Nunavut, to add her to the panel, which is the board’s roster of private practice lawyers who provide services to legal aid clients.
She is also seeking an order for the legal aid organization to assign cases to her “commensurate with her experience and residency in Nunavut,” and to award her damages for lost income.
The 77-page application package includes a notice signed by Crowe’s lawyer, Craig T. Rogers, an affidavit signed by Crowe and email correspondence with representatives from the legal services board.
Crowe has lived and practised law in Iqaluit since 2014, but her Nunavut experience dates back to the 1980s.
In 2024, she was appointed as a justice of the peace. With that new role, she resigned from the Law Society of Nunavut and withdrew from the legal services board’s criminal panel.
Last June, however, Crowe returned to private practice. She was readmitted to the law society and applied to return to the legal services board’s criminal panel.
In November, she was informed her application was denied by the board in a letter signed by co-chairperson Tim Zehr, following a review of her previous tenure on the panel.
“A number of concerns were raised, including your interpersonal skills, your ability to work with Inuk staff and some questionable interactions with staff lawyers and judges,” Zehr wrote.
Crowe declined Nunatsiaq News’ request for an interview about her legal challenge because her case is before courts.
In her affidavit, Crowe said legal aid files count for 80 to 100 per cent of her annual income, and without them she “will be unable to continue to live and work in Nunavut as criminal defence counsel.”
Crowe also mentioned that in 2022, she was the subject of a harassment complaint from Madeleine Redfern, who was then a co-chairperson of the board.
The specific allegations against Crowe stem from comments she made and questions she directed toward Redfern during the 2022 annual general meeting of the Maliiganik Tukisiiniakvik legal aid clinic.
In her application for a judicial review, Crowe included emails from the law firm Dentons, which investigated the harassment complaint. However, she refused to participate in that investigation.
Crowe said she took part in a Government of Nunavut-ordered audit of the legal services board and its leadership in 2023. That audit has not been made publicly available.
Teena Hartman, CEO of the Legal Services Board of Nunavut, also declined to comment due to the ongoing litigation.
In an Iqaluit courtroom Monday afternoon, board lawyer Stephen Bird — who appeared by videoconference — said the board’s response to Crowe’s court submission is in the works.
Bird said the board’s submission may include “sensitive” information from clients and whistleblowers, for which he would request that some details be either redacted or placed under a sealing order, preventing them from being available to the public.
“I can see a great deal of difficulty if this information becomes public,” Bird said.
However, he also agreed to provide unredacted copies to Rogers.
Rogers promised the court “absolute confidentiality” on those details.
Crowe was in the courtroom Monday while her lawyer spoke on videoconference.
The case is set to return to civil court March 9.
Alison Crowe is an outstanding lawyer. She fiercely and unyieldingly defends her clients’ interests. She does not compromise for anyone’s convenience. She ensures that all players in the courtroom keep their eye on the ball: she reminds us all that it is the Crown’s obligation to bring evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and it never falls on the defendant to help the Crown make the case. In short, if you want a defence lawyer, Alison is your best bet.
Aren’t you the territorial ethics officer? Doesn’t this kind of statement appear to be prejudicial?
If he’s the ethics officer I think I’ll believe what he’s saying then. Thank you very much for letting us know that info :).
Seems inappropriate to make such comments when something is about to work its way through the court system. Each party needs the chance to speak. Thats fundamental justice. But in the age of the internet, some people believe the most “likes” should replace the rule of law.
Think you’ve proved why the ethics commissioner is usually prohibited from making personal opinions on matters before the court.
I don’t know Alison Crowe, probably never will; it does seem a bit curious that she has been licenced to practice law in Nunavut by the Law Society and whatever other boards accredit lawyers in Nunavut and Canada, but not allowed to provide services to legal aid clients.
The whole matter sounds like it’s the outcome of a personal conflict of Tim Zehr and Madeline Redfern against Crowe. Maybe Jeff P. can give us a bit more insight.
Typical lawyer, and her lawyer friends rushing to the comments section to try to swing public opinion in her favour. There were documented issues. These will come out in the court case, and I bet they won’t look good for Alison. Funny how other legal professionals want us to overlook evidence because she was “a good person” or “is licensed to practice”. Sorry, not good enough for Nunavut to keep accepting bottom-of-the-barrel candidates.
Do you even care to make sense?
The legal community in Nunavut is small and so it’s no surprise they see this situation for what it is; Madeline and her friends on the LSB using their influence to ruin Alison’s career after she had the audacity to expect them to act in an accountable fashion. It’s reprisal plain and simple. There are years of annual reports from the LSB that haven’t been completed and they aren’t getting out of this looking good.
If there were actual practice concerns about Alison, the LSB would have referred them to the Law Society for investigation and action.
Not when the Law Society has a long and documented history of failing to hold their members accountable and of racism against Inuit lawyers.
If you’re going to state that there ia a long and documented history of racism at the Law Society you should at least offer an example.
Otherwise you’re making baseless accusations in bad faith and attempting to paint an entire profession with a broad brush.
Other lawyers rushing to the comments to defend her. Like the thin blue line. Asking the us to ignore the evidence cause she’s a good person.
This article is really helpful and timely as legal aid seeks new board member, one quick search and you can see the drama within. Goodluck finding a member.
Iqaluit is a city, but it is very obviously, also a small town.
My Uncle is 100% inuk he’s been employed by her without any incident!
Why not look into Tim Zehr? First!
Mr Zehr in his letter explaining his decision to keep Ms Crowe off the panel talks about difficulties in her interpersonal skills, her interactions with Inuit staff, and questionable interactions with other staff lawyers and judges. There are two things that trouble me with this:
1. The response in no way alleges that Ms. Crowe failed to diligently and professionally serve the interests of her clients. Isn’t that the most important thing? The clients? It shouldn’t be about the staff and their little issues about dealing with a lawyer that they may perceive to be difficult to deal with. Again, it’s about the clients! And Mr Zehr does not claim at all that they were ill served by Ms Crowe.
2. Mr Zehr’s other big reason for denying Ms Crowe legal aid work is based on questionable interactions with other legal aid lawyers and judges. If these questionable interactions took place, why were they not reported to the lawyers regulatory body, the Law society, for action? That troubles me.
Finally, I’m troubled that Zehr’s letter doesn’t appear to provide concrete examples to support his conclusions in the letter. If you’re going to take away a person’s livelihood, you owe it to them to provide a few concrete examples to support the conclusions you have drawn. Any person faced with losing their livelihood deserves this. I don’t care who they are.
Bottom line: I can’t help but be troubled by this.
Strongest proof yet that lawyers dominate these comments. The article didn’t publish the letter but you know what’s in it. You also forgot something, her refusal to participate in a workplace investigation. So yeah, she’s a troublemaker
I haven’t seen this letter. I just paraphrased what was in the article.
I don’t know Alison Crowe but what I can say is that this story tells me that Nunavut’s self-regulated law society should be looking to merge elsewhere and that changes should be made to move Nunavut into the national mobility agreement with other Canadian law societies so lawyers from the rest of Canada can practice in Nunavut a bit without needing a special license and fees.
.
If you are a senior criminal law practitioner and resident in Nunavut, and you rely on legal aid for 80-100% of your revenue, then it is very clear that the current licensing framework is failing lawyers and the public. The Nunavut Law Society did not opt into the national mobility agreement likely due to some sort of protectionism on the part of territorial lawyers trying to keep all the business, but maybe in part under some guise that it would force a made-in-Nunavut bar of lawyers. Well 25 years later and there is basically no local bar, most lawyers are operating virtually, and those who are here cannot apparently make any living in the private sector. The public is not being protected by these measures.
.
Open the boarders. Nunavummiut deserve access to lawyers from outside the territory. Right now a lawyer licensed in any Province can practice for a few months each year elsewhere in any province from BC to NFLD without added fees and licensing in those jurisdictions.
Thanks, NM. I’m pretty sure all of the Territories opted out of the Mobility Agreement, likely for economic reasons as you suggested. Reciprocally, Territory-licensed lawyers can’t take advantage of the Mobility Agreement to practice elsewhere temporarily.