2011 NBCA 108, 2011 NBCA 108

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 114-10-CA JOYCE A. RICHARDSON APPELLANT JOYCE A. RICHARDSON APPELANTE - and - - et - LAW SOCIETY OF NEW BRUNSWICK RESPONDENT BARREAU DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK INTIMÉ Richardson v. Law Society of New Brunswick, 2011 NBCA 108 Richardson c.

Barreau du Nouveau-Brunswick, 2011 NBCA 108 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Turnbull The Honourable Justice Bell The Honourable Justice Quigg CORAM : L’honorabl e juge Turnbull L’honorable juge Bell L’honorable juge Quigg Appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Law Society of New Brunswick: March 29, 2010 Appel d’une décision du Comité de discipline du Barreau du Nouveau-Brunswick : Le 29 mars 2010 History of case: Decision under appeal: Decision of the Discipline Committee March 29, 2010 Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Historique de la cause : Décision frappée d’appel : Décision du Comité de discipline Le 29 mars 2010 Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : S.O.

Appeal heard: October 12, 2011 Appel entendu : Le 12 octobre 2011 Judgment rendered: December 15, 2011 Jugement rendu : Le 15 décembre 2011

Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Joyce A. Richardson appeared in person For the respondent: Joël Michaud and Sophie Noël Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelante: Joyce A. Richardson a comparu en personne Pour l’intimé : Joël Michaud et Sophie Noël THE COURT The appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 payable to the respondent. LA COUR L’appel est rejeté avec dépens payables à l’intimé dont le montant est fixé à 2 500 $. The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [ 1 ] On March 29, 2010, the Discipline Committee of the Law Society of New Brunswick, acting pursuant to

Part 10 of the Law Society Act, 1996 , S.N.B. 1996, c. 89 , found the appellant guilty of three breaches of the Law Society of New Brunswick Code of Professional Conduct namely: practicing law in New Brunswick while suspended, practicing law in Ontario while suspended in New Brunswick and failing to fulfil an undertaking. On July 29, 2010, the Discipline Committee imposed the following sanctions: (

a) Pursuant to paragraph 60(1)(

c) of the Act , the Respondent’s right to practise law is suspended for a period of five months beginning September 1, 2010 and for an indefinite period from February 1, 2011 until she has furnished to the Registrar evidence satisfactory to the Registrar that the Respondent has made full restitution to Mr. Aloysius Hayes by paying the principal and interest owing to him on the small claims judgment against her; (

b) Pursuant to paragraph 60(1)(

e) of the Act , the Respondent shall pay to the Society on or before February 28, 2012 the lesser of: (i) $6,000, and (ii) one half of the costs of the inquiry (including in those costs the Discipline Committee proceedings, the costs of the investigation by the Registrar, the costs of the Complaints Committee and the costs of any audit or investigation under

Part 11 of the Act ), either party to be at liberty to apply to a panel of the Discipline Committee for determination of the costs if item (ii) is likely to be the applicable figure; (

c) Pursuant to paragraph 60(1)(

f) of the Act , the Respondent shall undertake that, for a period of not less than two years following her reinstatement to full membership in the Society, she will practise under the supervision of an experienced lawyer approved by the Society; and (

d) If the Respondent fails to comply with any of the foregoing orders, such failure shall constitute “conduct deserving sanction” under paragraph (

e) of the definition of that term in the Act . [Decision of Discipline Committee, p. 13]

[2] In her Notice of Appeal, the appellant contends the Discipline Committee erred on 14 errors in relation to thefindings of guilt and the sanctions imposed. At the outset of her oral presentation, the appellant abandoned the grounds of appealrespecting the findings of guilt related to unauthorized practice in New Brunswick without a license and failing to fulfil an undertaking. She maintained her appeal with respect to the finding that she practiced law in Ontario while suspended in New Brunswick and thesanctions imposed. [3] This Court is a court of review. Retrying cases is not part of our function.

In our view, there is no basis in lawupon which to interfere with the Discipline Committee’s finding that the appellant breached the Code of Professional Conduct. TheCommittee made no reversible error in its findings of fact and credibility or in its application of the relevant law. [4] With respect to the appropriate sanction, courts are reluctant to vary sanctions imposed by a profession’sdiscipline committee: Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan, 2003 SCC 20, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247.

That deference is derived from thelegislated authorization of self-governance and consequent belief that members of the profession, because of their expertise, are the bestjudges of the appropriate penalty for one of their peers. The Discipline Committee’s extensive reasons underlying the sanction areunassailable (see Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Judicial Committee, (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869, [1991] S.C.J. No.66 at paras. 39-40 (QL) and Bouhamdani v. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of New Brunswick, 2004 NBCA 84,[2004] N.B.J.

No. 429 (QL)). [5] There is no basis in law for interfering with the Discipline Committee’s well-reasoned decision. The appealis dismissed with costs of $2,500.00 payable to the respondent. ________________________________ WALLACE S. TURNBULL, J.A. ________________________________ B. RICHARD BELL, J.A. ________________________________ KATHLEEN A. QUIGG, J.A.