The fact that Menard says that there are only two choices that the Law Society of British Columbia can make in response to his letter doesn't mean that there are only two choices. His first choice isn't even really a choice, it's just a capitulation from the Law Society agreeing that he's right. Why would they do that when they already have a court injunction prohibiting him from practicing law in British Columbia? They've already won. However the law society does have the actual choice of just ignoring him. They are under no obligation to engage in an endless debate about Menard's interpretation of law.
The court could get involved, as it did with Chief Rock, if Menard violates the court order prohibiting him from practising law in British Columbia. But keep in mind that, as far as I'm aware, he isn't practicing law here. He talks on Facebook about things he's done but he's not (again as far as I'm aware) provided any concrete evidence showing that he's practicing law here. Just comments. So all that the Law Society has as evidence are some Menard Facebook postings. We can use Chief Rock's contempt trial as a template. You can read it here starting at page 24;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=460
Note that The Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia had to do all of the heavy lifting. They had to get the charge laid and they had to present the case in court, not the Crown. They retained a lawyer and had masses of evidence proving that the Chief had violated the injunction ordering him not to practice as a notary. If the Law Society went after Menard they'd have to do the same thing. So I'm guessing that they won't bother to do any investigating of possible Menard legal work in British Columbia unless they start getting complaints accompanied by evidence.
Menard said in respect to the second choice;
We meet before the Human Rights Tribunal, where we seek their guidance on these matters, or you can publicly claim that you are not bound by that Tribunal, nor governed or regulated by the Government, the Courts, or common law. I think that would be rather challenging for you, as there is nothing in the Human Rights Code exempting the Law Society or its members from action under it, and such a position would likely be deeply reprehensible to members of the public.
I'm not an expert on the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal but I very strongly doubt that Menard would get approval for a hearing at the tribunal to 'seek their guidance on these matters'. The issue of provincial legislation requiring practice standards for the professions is not one covered by human rights legislation so it is outside of the jurisdiction of the tribunal. This is the tribunal's website;
http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/index.htm
The Website states that it's mandate is;
Everyone in British Columbia has rights and duties under the Human Rights Code.
The Code’s purposes are to make sure that people can participate equally in the economic, social, political and cultural life of British Columbia. The Code does this by forbidding discrimination based on certain personal characteristics in areas of daily life.
Discrimination refers to poor treatment based on a personal characteristic like race. A person can discriminate even if they do not mean to. Sometimes poor treatment can be justified and then there is no discrimination.
The BC Human Rights Code sets up a process for dealing with complaints of discrimination. The Code makes the BC Human Rights Tribunal responsible for the process.
The process starts with someone making a complaint. The Tribunal decides if the complaint was filed within the time limit and sets out possible discrimination. If so, the Tribunal notifies the respondent. There are options available to the parties. They can agree to settle the complaint. The respondent can respond to the complaint and can apply to have the complaint dismissed. If the complaint is not resolved or dismissed, the Tribunal holds a hearing to decide if there was discrimination.
The tribunal administer's the British Columbia Human Rights Code;
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... 0_96210_01
I've done a quick run through this and I can't find any part addressing Menard's area of complaint. No doubt he'll read this posting and point out on his Facebook page how I'm wrong. The code focuses upon discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression. None of these apply in Menard's complaint. His position seems to be that he has an absolute right to practice law that can't be denied through British Columbia legislation. But the legislation doesn't discriminate based on any factor that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal considers. There is no discrimination because the Legal Profession Act of British Columbia;
http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/ ... 0_98009_01
applies to everyone regardless of their race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or any other characteristic the Human Rights Tribunal considers. It's not discriminatory if the various professional bodies set up educational, ethical and moral standards for membership as long as those standards apply to everyone.So it's my guess if Menard tried to take this to the Human Rights Tribunal it would not be accepted for hearing. Since the Law Society also knows this they won't be concerned about any human rights violations Menard threatens them with.