Mangat and other Westcoast employees engaged in a number of activities involving immigration proceedings, including appearing as counsel or advocate on behalf of aliens, for or in the expectation of a fee from the persons for whom the acts were performed, before the Immigration and Refugee Board ("IRB").

Mangat and Westcoast admitted that they were engaged in the practice of law within the meaning of s. 1 of the Legal Profession Act, but contended that their conduct was sanctioned by ss.

30 and 69(1) of the federal Immigration Act, which permit non-lawyers to appear on behalf of clients before the IRB.

[1] The first part of the paramountcy test asks whether there is an "operational conflict between federal and provincial laws",[2] where "compliance with one is defiance of the other".

Consequently, the paramountcy doctrine could be invoked and the provincial law was held to be inoperative to the extent of the conflict.