Bill 18 removes the requirement that an applicant for admission to the Law Society must be physically present in the Northwest Territories to take and sign the oath or affirmation before a judge of the Supreme Court. Instead, the statute permits the applicant to attend before a judge in person or by an audio-visual method and requires the Clerk or Deputy Clerk to issue a certificate once the signed oath is received and forward it promptly to the Society’s Secretary for enrollment.
The change modernizes the admission process by formally authorizing remote participation and clarifies the post-oath administrative steps that trigger enrollment. For law firms, regulators and court administrators, the amendment alters where and how solemnities happen and shifts certain verification and recordkeeping responsibilities to the court registry and the Society’s Secretary.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Bill amends subsections of section 21 of the Legal Profession Act so that an applicant may take and sign the admission oath either in person or via an audio-visual method before a judge. It also replaces the previous subsection governing certificates with a provision directing the Clerk or Deputy Clerk to issue and promptly send a certificate to the Society once the signed oath is received.
Who It Affects
Newly qualified lawyers applying for admission to the Law Society of the Northwest Territories, judges and registry staff of the Supreme Court, the Society’s Secretary and law firms that onboard lawyers from outside the territory. It also touches technology providers that support audio-visual court appearances in the NWT.
Why It Matters
The amendment removes a geographic barrier to formal admission, enabling remote entry to the local bar and reducing travel burdens. It also creates a clearer administrative trigger for enrollment, which matters to compliance officers, hiring partners, and regulators tracking active membership.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act changes three related pieces of section 21 that together govern how and when an applicant becomes a member of the Law Society. First, it alters the language that previously required applicants to "take and subscribe in the Territories before a judge" to permit attendance before a judge either in person or "by an audio-visual method," and to require that the oath be taken and signed before that judge.
That formally accepts video or similar remote platforms as an alternative to being physically present in the Northwest Territories.
Second, the Bill replaces the prior subsection that described certificate and enrollment mechanics. Under the new wording, once the applicant has taken and signed the oath and the Clerk or Deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court has received the signed document, the clerk must issue a certificate confirming receipt and send it without delay to the Society’s Secretary, who then enrolls the applicant as a member.
This creates a clear, court-led administrative handoff from oath-taking to formal enrollment.Third, the Act tidies up cross-references in subsection 21(4), updating paragraph (a) to reflect the in-person-or-audio-visual alternative and changing wording elsewhere from "taken and subscribed" to "taken and signed." Those edits are mostly mechanical but important: they harmonize the statutory language so that procedural forms, registry practices, and the Society’s enrollment steps align with remote participation.Operationally, the changes remove a physical presence barrier and place the burden of confirming receipt of the signed oath on the Supreme Court registry. The registry must now be prepared to accept, verify and certificate remotely-signed oaths, and the Society must act promptly on the certificate to complete enrollment.
The statute does not prescribe the audio-visual technologies or verification standards, leaving those details to practice directions, registry procedures or the Society’s rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Bill amends subsection 21(2) to allow an applicant to "attend before a judge of the Supreme Court, in person or by an audio-visual method," to take and sign the oath.
It repeals and replaces subsection 21(3) with a provision requiring the Clerk or Deputy Clerk to issue a certificate once the signed oath is received and to send it without delay to the Society’s Secretary for enrollment.
Subsection 21(4)(a) is updated to mirror the in-person or audio-visual attendance option; other phrasing is standardized from "taken and subscribed" to "taken and signed.", The statutory trigger for enrollment becomes the registry’s receipt of the signed oath and certificate issuance, rather than the applicant’s physical presence in the territory.
The Act does not specify which audio-visual technologies, authentication methods, or identity-verification standards must be used for remote oaths, leaving those operational rules to courts or the Society.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Permits oaths before a judge either in person or via audio-visual means
This provision replaces the previous territorial-presence requirement with a dual option: applicants may appear physically or remotely. Practically, that legalizes taking the oath over video-conference or similar platforms and requires the oath to be both taken and signed before the judge who presides. The change is substantive: it removes location as a statutory barrier and anticipates continued use of remote court proceedings.
Registry-driven certificate and timing for enrollment
By repealing the old text and inserting a new certificate process, the Act assigns the Clerk or Deputy Clerk the job of issuing a certificate confirming receipt of the signed oath and forwarding it immediately to the Society’s Secretary. That creates a concrete, court-led administrative step that triggers enrollment and makes the registry the evidentiary linchpin for admission.
Clean-up of cross-references and wording on taking/signing
This subsection updates paragraph (a) to reflect the in-person-or-audio-visual attendance already introduced and standardizes language elsewhere from "taken and subscribed" to "taken and signed." These are drafting fixes that align the rest of section 21 with the new procedural option and reduce ambiguity in forms and recordkeeping.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Applicants living outside the Northwest Territories: they can complete admission without travel, reducing cost and delay when joining the NWT bar.
- Law firms hiring counsel from other jurisdictions: faster onboarding and fewer logistical barriers when bringing newly admitted lawyers into NWT practice.
- The Supreme Court registry (operationally): clearer statutory authority to accept remote appearances and a defined certificate process that can be integrated into registry workflows.
- The Law Society’s Secretary: gains a statutory, court-issued trigger for enrollment which can reduce disputes about when membership formally begins.
- Remote and northern communities: improved access to legal services over time if admission hurdles for local or returning lawyers are reduced.
Who Bears the Cost
- Court registry staff: increased responsibility to receive, verify and certificate remotely signed oaths, with potential need for new procedures, training and technology.
- The Law Society of the Northwest Territories: must update enrollment processes and may need to create guidance on accepting certificates tied to remote oaths.
- Applicants relying on low-quality connectivity: may face practical barriers if courts or the Society require certain audio-visual standards or identity-verification steps.
- Judges: added procedural obligations to supervise remote oath-taking and to ensure proper authentication of signatures during remote sittings.
- Technology vendors and IT budgets (public and private): courts and the Society may need to invest in secure audio-visual systems and document-handling capabilities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances the legitimate public-policy goal of expanding access and reducing travel with the need to preserve the solemnity, security and verifiability of an admission oath; expanding remote options eases entry but pushes hard questions about identity verification, technology standards and registry capacity to non-statutory rules with variable enforcement.
The Act achieves its primary objective with short, targeted edits but leaves several operational questions unanswered. It authorizes audio-visual attendance without specifying authentication standards for the identity of the oath-taker, acceptable forms of electronic signature, or whether scanned, emailed or electronically signed documents suffice.
That gap forces reliance on secondary guidance—court practice directions, registry memoranda or Law Society rules—to set standards, which can create transitional uncertainty.
Another practical tension concerns reliability and access: many NWT communities face connectivity and equipment limits. While the law removes a travel requirement, remote processes will only increase access if registries and the Society provide low-bandwidth options, clear instructions and support.
Finally, the shift of evidentiary weight to the registry (certificate issuance upon receipt of the signed oath) increases the administrative importance of chain-of-custody and recordkeeping; if registries adopt inconsistent verification practices, there is a risk of uneven admission standards or later challenges to the validity of an oath.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.