|
Conflict of Interest - Lawyers. Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. v. Canada (Food Inspection Agency)
In Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. v. Canada (Food Inspection Agency) (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here from a Federal Court judgment dismissing "an application for judicial review of two related decisions of the respondent, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (the CFIA)" in a high-media case involving the cull of a flock of farmed ostriches.
The court considers an (apparently) solicitor's lien issue, here in the context of giving rise to a solicitor's conflict of interest argument, this in support of an ineffective assistance of counsel argument, this in further support of a fresh evidence motion:[42] We also wish to note, having reviewed the affidavit of the appellant’s principal to determine its admissibility, that the evidence falls far short of what is required to prove ineffective assistance because it does not establish a conflict of interest. Notably, counsel’s security interest also extended to all the appellant’s present and after acquired personal property. The appellant failed to adduce evidence demonstrating that the compensation received from the Minister was the only, or even the most feasible way, for counsel to collect their fees. Additionally, the appellant did not provide any case law or guidance from a provincial law society suggesting that this type of security interest would be inappropriate. Based on the Federal Court decision and record before us, there is nothing that in any way impugns the integrity or performance of counsel before the Federal Court. . Yan v. Hutchinson
In Yan v. Hutchinson (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considers whether a conflict exists when lawyers are involved "both as counsel to (SS: an RHPA) College and as prosecutors in the disciplinary proceedings":[31] Ms. Yan argues that a conflict of interest arises when lawyers act both as counsel to the College and as prosecutors in the disciplinary proceedings, as the lawyers of Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc did in this case. However, it is not unusual or improper for counsel to act both for a regulator and as prosecutors in that regulator’s disciplinary proceedings: Lysons v. Alberta Land Surveyors’ Association, 2017 ABCA 7, at paras. 8-9, leave to appeal refused, 2017 CarswellAlta 1296 (S.C.C.); DeMaria v. Law Society of Saskatchewan, 2015 SKCA 106, at para. 31, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 493. Similarly, it was not improper for the College’s counsel to act for the College before the Discipline Committee and in other hearings, such as before the Ontario Human Rights Commission or the Divisional Court appeal. Their appearance in the disciplinary proceeding, its appeal, and related litigation, is a normal part of their role as counsel for the College.
|
