The standard of review on appeal for lawyer professional misconduct: the Canadian perspective

Abstract

ABSTRACT In Groia v Law Society of Upper Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the standard of review to be applied, on appeal from a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel regarding professional misconduct of lawyers. It is argued that the approaches taken by the majority, dissenting judges and dissenting Côté J can be conceptually classified as according some, full and no deference to the Panel’s decision, respectively. This note explores the three approaches by comparing them with the English and Hong Kong approaches. It is submitted that there should not be full deference. The note also explores Côté J’s view on the distinction between ‘in-court’ and ‘out-of-court’ misconduct. Côté J has raised concerns regarding judicial independence and the fundamental right to a fair trial when ‘in-court’ misconduct is involved. These insightful concerns would justify less deference and these concerns can be equally applicable to England and Wales, and Hong Kong.