What is the legal test for ineffectiveness of counsel?

The general approach to be taken in assessing an ineffectiveness of counsel claim was set out by Major, J. at para. 26 : The approach to an ineffectiveness claim is explained in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1984), per O’Connor J. The reasons contain a performance component and a prejudice component. For an appeal to succeed, it must be established, [page 532] first, that counsel’s acts or omissions constituted incompetence and second, that a miscarriage of justice resulted. Incompetence is determined by a reasonableness standard. The analysis proceeds upon a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. The onus is on the appellant to establish the acts or omissions of counsel that are alleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment. The wisdom of hindsight has no place in this assessment.