Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan
Encyclopedia
Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan, 2003 SCC 20 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
on judicial review
for professional disciplinary bodies in Canadian administrative law
. The Court determined that decisions of professional disciplinary committees are reviewed on a standard of reasonableness simpliciter.
Ryan appealed to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal which ordered a new hearing with medical evidence. In the second hearing, Ryan was disbarred again. He appealed again to the Court of Appeal who set aside the committee's decision.
The Supreme Court of Canada
was asked to consider the standard of review that should be applied by the courts to disciplinary bodies and consider whether Ryan's disbarment should be set aside.
On the issue of standard of review, Ryan had argued for a lower standard of review that was closer to correctness. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal had agreed with this contention and ruled that "on the spectrum this standard [of reasonableness] is closer to correctness than patently unreasonable." The court rejected this view and emphasized that there can only three standards of review. Furthermore, the court noted that these standards do not "float" along a spectrum of standards of review, but are instead fixed standards that exist along a spectrum of deference.
A standard of reasonableness was based primarily on the expertise of the committee. The committee was composed of lawyers who understood the interest and were fulfilling the mandate of protecting the public.
Iacobucci was critical of the Court of Appeal's consideration of the accuracy and correctness of the committee's decisions. On a standard of reasonableness the reviewing court should not be re-weighing the evidence or re-trying the case. The standard inquiry involves asking whether "after a somewhat probing examination, can the reasons given, when taken as a whole, support the decision?". This is so because "there will often be no single right answer to the questions that are under review against the standard of reasonableness. For example, when a decision must be taken according to a set of objectives that exist in tension with each other, there may be no particular trade-off that is superior to all others."
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
on judicial review
Judicial review
Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority...
for professional disciplinary bodies in Canadian administrative law
Canadian administrative law
Canadian administrative law is the body of law that addresses the actions and operations of governments and governmental agencies. That is, the law concerns the manner in which courts can review the decisions of administrative decision-makers such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency or minister...
. The Court determined that decisions of professional disciplinary committees are reviewed on a standard of reasonableness simpliciter.
Background
Michael Ryan was found lying to clients about the progress of their cases. Ryan was put to the Discipline Committee of the Law Society of New Brunswick. In his defence he argued that he was suffering from psychological and health problems which drove him to his actions. The committee disbarred him.Ryan appealed to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal which ordered a new hearing with medical evidence. In the second hearing, Ryan was disbarred again. He appealed again to the Court of Appeal who set aside the committee's decision.
The Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
was asked to consider the standard of review that should be applied by the courts to disciplinary bodies and consider whether Ryan's disbarment should be set aside.
Decision
Iacobucci, writing for the Court, allowed the appeal and restored the order for disbarment. The Court held that the proper standard of review is reasonableness simpliciter. On application of the standard, the order of disbarment was found to be reasonable.On the issue of standard of review, Ryan had argued for a lower standard of review that was closer to correctness. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal had agreed with this contention and ruled that "on the spectrum this standard [of reasonableness] is closer to correctness than patently unreasonable." The court rejected this view and emphasized that there can only three standards of review. Furthermore, the court noted that these standards do not "float" along a spectrum of standards of review, but are instead fixed standards that exist along a spectrum of deference.
A standard of reasonableness was based primarily on the expertise of the committee. The committee was composed of lawyers who understood the interest and were fulfilling the mandate of protecting the public.
Iacobucci was critical of the Court of Appeal's consideration of the accuracy and correctness of the committee's decisions. On a standard of reasonableness the reviewing court should not be re-weighing the evidence or re-trying the case. The standard inquiry involves asking whether "after a somewhat probing examination, can the reasons given, when taken as a whole, support the decision?". This is so because "there will often be no single right answer to the questions that are under review against the standard of reasonableness. For example, when a decision must be taken according to a set of objectives that exist in tension with each other, there may be no particular trade-off that is superior to all others."
See also
- List of Supreme Court of Canada cases
- Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British ColumbiaDr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British ColumbiaDr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 19, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian administrative law.-Background:...
2003 SCC 19 (companion case)