|
Representation - Lawyers - Removal from Record (2). Harripersad v. Wagner Sidlofsky LLP
In Harripersad v. Wagner Sidlofsky LLP (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court illustrates the new 2025 'open court' restriction provisions of the R15.04 ['Motion by Lawyer for Removal as Lawyer of Record'].
The provisions require the moving counsel to redact information that is solicitor-client privileged or otherwise "prejudicial to the client" from any public filings respecting the motion:[2] Having reviewed the material filed on the motion, including the portions which have been redacted from the public record pursuant to r. 15.04(1.2) and (1.3), I am satisfied that the solicitor-client relationship has broken down to the point that counsel cannot continue to effectively represent the clients. I therefore grant the motion and order that Z Legal P.C. be removed as lawyers of record for the appellant.
....
[5] As the redacted portions of the motion record contain material that is protected by solicitor-client privilege, I am satisfied that a sealing order is necessary based on the principles set out in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 75, at para. 38. . Rosenbaum v. Ibe
In Rosenbaum v. Ibe (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court considered "a motion pursuant to r. 15.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, for an order removing ... the lawyer of record":[5] A breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship due to a loss of confidence is a basis for granting a lawyer’s motion for removal, even where it is opposed by the client: Brown v. Williams, 2023 ONCA 730, at paras. 3-4; Correct Group Inc. v. Cameron, 2024 ONSC 3367, at paras. 9-11; myNext Corp. v. Pacific Mortgage Group Inc., 2018 ONSC 7316, at paras. 22-23; I.K.Z. v. S.N.A., 2015 ONSC 1884, 73 C.P.C. (7th) 193, at paras. 6-9; Kovinich v. Kovinich (2008), 58 C.P.C. (6th) 78 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 40. In fact, an argument could be made that the court must permit removal in such circumstances, based on R. v. Short, 2018 ONCA 1, 139 O.R. (3d) 81, at paras. 33-34:There is no controversy as to the applicable legal principles. If trial counsel seeks to be removed from the record because he has not been paid, the trial judge has a discretion to allow counsel to get off the record. If the trial judge declines to allow counsel to get off the record, counsel must continue to act for the accused, subject of course to being fired by the client. If, however, “ethical” concerns motivate counsel’s application to be removed from the record, the trial judge is obliged to order counsel removed without any inquiry into the particulars underlying the request: Cunningham, [2010 SCC 10, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331] at paras. 48-49, 58; R. v. C.(D.D.), 1996 ABCA 303, 110 C.C.C. (3d) 323, at para. 19, leave to appeal refused: [1996] S.C.C.A. No. 453.
In this context, ethical reasons could refer to a client’s request that a lawyer act illegally or contrary to the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Ethical reasons also extend to circumstances that may not involve any illegality, but which have resulted in a breakdown of the client-solicitor relationship to the point that counsel cannot effectively give legal advice or receive instructions from the client. The phrase “loss of confidence” is often used to describe this latter situation: C.(D.D.), at para. 26; David Layton & Hon. Michel Proulx, Ethics and Criminal Law, 2d ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 2015) at pp. 561-62; Law Society of Upper Canada Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 3.7.2 and commentary. [Emphasis added].
|
