Case information

Administrative law — Natural justice — Judicial review — Reasonableness of decision — A law society became aware that some of its exams had been compromised and investigated the matter — After investigating, the law society deemed the results of the examination and the participation in the licencing process of certain candidates to be void — The Divisional Court concluded there had been a violation of procedural fairness but the Court of Appeal concluded the decision was procedurally fair and reasonable — What is the minimum duty of a court sitting in judicial review to respond to a request for a substantive review of an administrative decision? — When a decision of a professional regulator impugns the good character of a licensing candidate, does the decision attract exacting procedural protections, or is it administrative in nature? — To what extent can a legislature restrict the common law right to procedural fairness by a statutory provision such as that found in the provision of the Law Society Act that provides that a hearing is not required before any decision is made under the legislative provisions unless specifically required? — Whether the Court of Appeal made any of the errors stated in the applicants’ grounds of appeal, including relying on the evidence tendered by the Law Society of Ontario — Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 1(3).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In November 2021, the respondent Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”) administered licensing examinations to candidates. It later learned that the integrity of those exams had been compromised. The LSO directed one of its departments to review the exams. The review led to anomalies being identified and suggesting that some candidates had advance access to a cheating key that duplicated the exam questions and provided answers. The LSO retained external counsel to investigate the characters of those candidates. Following the investigation, the LSO decided to deem void both the identified candidates’ exam (“exam decision”) and their registrations in the LSO licensing process (“registration decision”). Both the exam decision and the registration decisions were made pursuant to the LSO licensing by-law, rules, and protocols. Some of the identified candidates, including the applicants, brought applications for judicial review. The Divisional Court concluded that the exam decision was reasonable. However, it determined that in making the registration decision, the LSO breached the applicants’ rights to procedural fairness because it made that decision without holding hearings and without making findings as to whether the applicants had engaged in intentional misconduct. The Court of Appeal allowed the LSO’s appeal. It determined that there had been no procedural unfairness on the part of the LSO. The Court of Appeal also dismissed a subsequent motion brought by many of the applicants to re-open the appeal, concluding that its decision did address the reasonableness of the LSO’s decision.