Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan

SCCInfoBox
case-name=Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan
full-case-name=
heard-date=October 1, 2002
decided-date=April 3, 2003
citations=2003 SCC 20
docket=28639
history=
ruling=Appeal allowed, order restored
ratio=
SCC=2002-2003
Unanimous=Iacobucci J.
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied=

"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.

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 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 is closer to correctness. Iacobucci rejected this view and emphasized that there can only three standards of review. [ paras. 20, 24, 26]

A standard of reasonableness was based primarily on the expertise of the committee. It 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, fwhen taken as a whole, support the decision?". [para. 47]

References

ee also

* List of Supreme Court of Canada cases
* "Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia" 2003 SCC 19 (companion case)

External links

*