Law360 Canada ( January 27, 2026, 9:41 AM EST) -- Appeal by O’Donnell and Pel from chambers judge’s order dismissing their application to declare sections of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) unconstitutional. O’Donnell and Pel, who were Ontario and Alberta lawyers, sought to practise in Alberta through their Ontario professional corporation. They practised under that limited liability partnership in Alberta and Ontario. They claimed this deprived them of tax deferral benefits and use of deferred funds and brought a constitutional challenge to ss. 131(3)(c) and 137(1) of the Act as being contrary to ss. 6(2)(b) and 6(3)(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). The chambers judge stated that the Charter did not guarantee an individual’s most advantageous business or tax structure for operation across various jurisdictions. The chambers judge concluded that the impugned sections did not differentiate between resident and non-resident lawyers and requiring a professional corporation to be incorporated in Alberta was not differential treatment. She found ss. 131(3)(c) and 137(1) of the Act were laws of general application that applied across the province and did not create arbitrary or artificial advantages or disadvantages. O’Donnell and Pel argued the chambers judge erred in finding their mobility rights were not engaged and in finding that ss. 131(3)(c) and 137(1) of the Act did not infringe their mobility rights under ss. 6(2)(b) and 6(3)(a) of the Charter....