The respondent lawyer engaged in egregious professional misconduct, including lying to clients and forging a court decision.
The Law Society's Discipline Committee ordered his disbarment.
The Court of Appeal substituted a sanction of indefinite suspension, applying a standard of reasonableness that it said was 'closer to correctness'.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Law Society's appeal and restored the disbarment.
The Court held that there are only three standards of review (correctness, reasonableness simpliciter, and patent unreasonableness) and that the reasonableness standard does not 'float' along a spectrum.
Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the appropriate standard was reasonableness simpliciter.
Since the Discipline Committee's decision was supported by tenable reasons grounded in the evidence, it was not unreasonable and the Court of Appeal erred in interfering.
