The appellant challenged Law Society rules making continuing professional development mandatory and authorizing administrative suspension for non-compliance without an express hearing or appeal process.
The majority held law society rules are reviewed for reasonableness and are valid if consistent with the enabling statute’s purpose, wording, and scheme.
It concluded the Law Society’s broad public-interest mandate and rule-making powers authorized mandatory education standards enforced by temporary suspension.
The majority further held the absence of codified hearing and appeal rights in the rules did not render them unreasonable in this declaratory challenge.
The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent finding automatic suspension manifestly unjust.
