Ryan v. N.B. Law Soc. (2003), 302 N.R. 1 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2003] N.R. TBEd. AP.004
Law Society of New Brunswick (appellant) v. Michael A.A. Ryan (respondent) and Federation of Law Societies of Canada (intervener)
(28639; 2003 SCC 20; 2003 CSC 20)
Indexed As:
Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
April 3, 2003.
Summary:
A lawyer did nothing in pursuit of his clients’ wrongful dismissal claims. Instead, he designed “a large cloak of deceit to cover-up his inactivity”, which included fictitious decisions of the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal, the latter of which he reduced to writing. He eventually confessed. The Discipline Committee of the Law Society of New Brunswick concluded that the lawyer should be disbarred. The lawyer appealed and moved to adduce medical evidence to show that he was under a mental disability that contributed to his improper conduct.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal permitted the lawyer to adduce the medical evidence. The Discipline Committee reaffirmed its decision. The lawyer appealed.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 236 N.B.R.(2d) 243; 611 A.P.R. 243, allowed the appeal and reduced the penalty to one of indefinite suspension, subject to general conditions for possible reinstatement. The Law Society appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the Discipline Committee.
Administrative Law – Topic 3202
Judicial review – General – Scope or standard of review – The Discipline Committee of the Law Society of New Brunswick disbarred a lawyer – He appealed – The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the standard of review in this particular case was “reasonableness” but on the spectrum this standard was closer to correctness than patently unreasonable – This was particularly so where the most serious of sanctions was being considered – The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with this approach – The court stated that “… there are only three standards. Thus a reviewing court must not interfere unless it can explain how the administrative action is incorrect, unreasonable, or patently unreasonable, depending on the appropriate standard.” – The standard of reasonableness simpliciter did not “float along a spectrum according to the case” – See paragraphs 24 to 26 and 43 to 47.
Administrative Law – Topic 3221
Judicial review – General – Unreasonableness of decision attacked (incl. reasonableness simpliciter) – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “A decision will be unreasonable only if there is no line of analysis within the given reasons that could reasonably lead the tribunal from the evidence before it to the conclusion at which it arrived. If any of the reasons that are sufficient to support the conclusion are tenable in the sense that they can stand up to a somewhat probing examination, then the decision will not be unreasonable and a reviewing court must not interfere … This means that a decision may satisfy the reasonableness standard if it is supported by a tenable explanation even if this explanation is not one that the reviewing court finds compelling … This does not mean that every element of the reasoning given must independently pass a test for reasonableness. The question is rather whether the reasons, taken as a whole, are tenable as support for the decision. At all times, a court applying a standard of reasonableness must assess the basic adequacy of a reasoned decision remembering that the issue under review does not compel one specific result. Moreover, a reviewing court should not seize on one or more mistakes or elements of the decision which do not affect the decision as a whole.” – See paragraphs 55 to 56.
Barristers and Solicitors – Topic 5304
Discipline – Disbarment – For professional misconduct – A lawyer did nothing in pursuit of his clients’ wrongful dismissal claims – Instead, he designed “a large cloak of deceit to cover-up his inactivity”, which included fictitious decisions of the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal, the latter of which he reduced to writing – The lawyer eventually confessed – He had two previous reprimands – The Law Society’s Discipline Committee disbarred him -The lawyer appealed and adduced medical evidence to show that he was under a mental disability that contributed to his improper conduct – The Discipline Committee reaffirmed its decision – The lawyer appealed – The New Brunswick Court of Appeal reduced the penalty to one of indefinite suspension, subject to general conditions for possible reinstatement – The Law Society appealed – The Supreme Court of Canada restored the Discipline Committee’s decision – See paragraphs 57 to 61.
Barristers and Solicitors – Topic 5582
Discipline – Appeals – Judicial review – Standard of review – The Discipline Committee of the Law Society of New Brunswick disbarred a lawyer – He appealed – The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the appeal – The Law Society appealed – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the standard of review of a decision of the Discipline Committee was reasonableness simpliciter – See paragraphs 27 to 42.
Cases Noticed:
Law Society of North West Territories v. Jakubowski, [1995] L.S.D.D. No. 48 (N.W.T. Law Soc. Comm. Inq.), refd to. [para. 12].
Markus v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society (1989), 90 N.S.R.(2d) 156; 230 A.P.R. 156 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].
Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 21].
Union des employés de service, local 298 v. Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).
Dr. Q., Re (2003), 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].
Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 21].
Chamberlain et al. v. Board of Education of School District No. 36 (Surrey) (2002), 299 N.R. 1; 175 B.C.A.C. 161; 289 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 24].
Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].
Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 24].
Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) v. Mattel Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 100; 270 N.R. 153; 199 D.L.R.(4th) 598, refd to. [para. 29].
Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 15; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 682; 38 Admin. L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 29].
Asbestos Corp., Société nationale de l’Amiante and Quebec (Province), Re, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 132; 269 N.R. 311; 146 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 29].
Committee for the Equal Treatment of Asbestos Minority Shareholders v. Ontario Securities Commission – see Asbestos Corp., Société nationale de l’Amiante and Quebec (Province), Re.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140, refd to. [para. 29].
Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Judicial Committee, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869; 130 N.R. 121; 75 Man.R.(2d) 81; 6 W.A.C. 81; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 105, refd to. [para. 31].
Law Society of Manitoba v. Savino (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 293; 1 D.L.R.(4th) 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].
Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201, refd to. [para. 31].
Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161; 101 D.L.R. (4th) 673, refd to. [para. 52].
Centre communautaire juridique de l’Estrie v. Sherbrooke (Ville) et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 84; 201 N.R. 61, refd to. [para. 52].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Dyzenhaus, D., The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy, in Taggart, M., The Province of Administrative Law (1997), p. 286 [para. 49].
Stager, David A.A. and Williams, Harry W., Lawyers in Canada (1990), p. 31 [para. 36].
Taggart, M., The Province of Administrative Law (1997), p. 286 [para. 49].
Counsel:
J.C. Marc Richard and Chantal A. Thibodeau, for the appellant;
D. Leslie Smith, Q.C., for the respondent;
Gavin MacKenzie and Adam M. Dodek, for the intervener.
Solicitors of Record:
Barry Spalding Richard, Saint John, New Brunswick, for the appellant;
Allen Dixon Smith Townsend, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the respondent;
Heenan Blaikie, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener.
This appeal was heard on October 1, 2002, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. Iacobucci, J., delivered the following reasons for the court on April 3, 2003.
