The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan’s decision in Peet v. The Law Society of Saskatchewan, 2014 SKCA 109, demonstrates the persistent appetite of Canadian courts to weigh in on the standard of review, even when faced with the agreement of parties and recent dicta from the Supreme Court of Canada. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Richards held that, in a judicial review of a decision of Discipline Committee of the Law Society of Saskatchewan, the appropriate standard of review is not settled, at least with respect to certain issues:
[38] Mr. Peet and the Law Society both submit that the governing standard of review in this case is the reasonableness standard. In this regard, they refer to this Court's decisions in Merchant v Law Society of Saskatchewan, 2009 SKCA 33 at para 24, [...] and McLean v Law Society of Saskatchewan, 2012 SKCA 7 at paras 11–12, [...].
[39] I am prepared to deal with the appeal on this basis. That said, I would not want to be taken to have foreclosed an argument, in some future case, to the effect that the correctness standard of review applies in relation to constitutional and administrative law questions of the sort advanced in connection with the delay issue in this case. I need not wrestle with that point here because, as will become evident, Mr. Peet's arguments with respect to delay fail even if the standard of review is correctness.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.