J. C. Marc Richard

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.

The respondent, a Provincial Court judge, made derogatory comments about the residents of the Acadian Peninsula during a sentencing hearing.

A Judicial Council inquiry panel found her comments constituted misconduct but recommended a reprimand, concluding she was still able to perform her duties.

The Judicial Council, however, concluded her remarks created a reasonable apprehension of bias and recommended her removal from office.

The reviewing judge and the Court of Appeal quashed the Council's decision, finding breaches of natural justice and jurisdictional error.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Council's decision was entitled to a high degree of deference, it did not exceed its jurisdiction, and there was no breach of procedural fairness.