Role of the Defence Counsel: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Counsel's purpose is to "provide professional assistance and advice" which involves allowing him to "exercise his professional skill and judgment in the conduct of the case".<Ref> | Counsel's purpose is to "provide professional assistance and advice" which involves allowing him to "exercise his professional skill and judgment in the conduct of the case".<Ref> | ||
R v Faulkner, [http://canlii.ca/t/fxkvf 2013 ONSC 2373] (CanLII) at para 39<br> | R v Faulkner, [http://canlii.ca/t/fxkvf 2013 ONSC 2373] (CanLII){{perONSC|Code J}} at para 39<br> | ||
</ref> He is responsible to conduct the defence and "exercise independent judgment as to what is in the client's best interests" and decide whether a particular course of action is within counsel's "duties as an officer of the court".<ref> | </ref> He is responsible to conduct the defence and "exercise independent judgment as to what is in the client's best interests" and decide whether a particular course of action is within counsel's "duties as an officer of the court".<ref> | ||
Faulkner{{ibid}} at para 39<br> | Faulkner{{ibid}} at para 39<br> | ||
R v Samra, [http://canlii.ca/t/440t 1998 CanLII 7174] (ON CA) at para 30-33<br> | R v Samra, [http://canlii.ca/t/440t 1998 CanLII 7174] (ON CA){{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}} at para 30-33<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
'''Ethical Standards'''<Br> | '''Ethical Standards'''<Br> | ||
Counsel who violates some ethical standard of the profession does not necessarily equate to a breach of the right to effective counsel. The two must be treated separately.<Ref> | Counsel who violates some ethical standard of the profession does not necessarily equate to a breach of the right to effective counsel. The two must be treated separately.<Ref> | ||
R v GDB, [http://canlii.ca/t/23mt8 2000 SCC 22] (CanLII) at para 5 ("the question of competence of counsel is usually a matter of professional ethics that is not a question for the appellate courts to consider")<br> | R v GDB, [http://canlii.ca/t/23mt8 2000 SCC 22] (CanLII){{perSCC|LeBel J}} at para 5 ("the question of competence of counsel is usually a matter of professional ethics that is not a question for the appellate courts to consider")<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Concerns only for counsel performance, without a prejudice having occurred, can only be addressed by the profession's self-governing body.<ref> | Concerns only for counsel performance, without a prejudice having occurred, can only be addressed by the profession's self-governing body.<ref> | ||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
'''Conduct'''<br> | '''Conduct'''<br> | ||
All counsel are required to treat witnesses, counsel and the court with "fairness, courtesy and respect".<ref> | All counsel are required to treat witnesses, counsel and the court with "fairness, courtesy and respect".<ref> | ||
R v Felderhof, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g269 2003 CanLII 37346] (ON CA) | R v Felderhof, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g269 2003 CanLII 37346] (ON CA){{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Counsel who has been suspended from the bar while conducting trial will not necessarily require a new trial. Overturning the verdict requires that the counsel "ability to effectively represent the [accused] was impaired as a result of that disqualification."<ref> | Counsel who has been suspended from the bar while conducting trial will not necessarily require a new trial. Overturning the verdict requires that the counsel "ability to effectively represent the [accused] was impaired as a result of that disqualification."<ref> | ||
R v Prebtani, [http://canlii.ca/t/219zr 2008 ONCA 735] (CanLII) | R v Prebtani, [http://canlii.ca/t/219zr 2008 ONCA 735] (CanLII){{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Counsel who | Counsel who is intoxicated during trial will result in an overturning of verdict regardless of the impact on the reliability on verdict.<ref> | ||
Prebtani{{ibid}} | Prebtani{{ibid}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
'''Retainer'''<Br> | '''Retainer'''<Br> | ||
Where counsel appears with an accused it is presumed that they have a general retainer. Counsel should tell the court if that is not the case.<ref> | Where counsel appears with an accused it is presumed that they have a general retainer. Counsel should tell the court if that is not the case.<ref> | ||
R v Harrison and Alonso, [http://canlii.ca/t/2f0mg 1982 ABCA 152] (CanLII)<Br> | R v Harrison and Alonso, [http://canlii.ca/t/2f0mg 1982 ABCA 152] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}}<Br> | ||
Salha, [http://canlii.ca/t/1qtx2 2007 ABQB 159] (CanLII), | R v Salha, [http://canlii.ca/t/1qtx2 2007 ABQB 159] (CanLII){{perABQB|Lee J}}, at para 24 | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
==Duty to the Court== | ==Duty to the Court== | ||
Both Crown and defence have a "responsibility in providing relevant case law to assist the court".<ref> | Both Crown and defence have a "responsibility in providing relevant case law to assist the court".<ref> | ||
R v Adams, [http://canlii.ca/t/2f77n 2011 NLCA 3] (CanLII) | R v Adams, [http://canlii.ca/t/2f77n 2011 NLCA 3] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Welsh JA}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
In registering objections, Counsel only need to do it once to extinguish their duty. Renewing objections "ad nauseam" or quarreling with the judge is not obligated.<ref> | In registering objections, Counsel only need to do it once to extinguish their duty. Renewing objections "ad nauseam" or quarreling with the judge is not obligated.<ref> | ||
Redican v Nesbitt, [1924] SCR 135, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ttj9 1923 CanLII 10] (SCC) | Redican v Nesbitt, [1924] SCR 135, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ttj9 1923 CanLII 10] (SCC){{perSCC|Idington J}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
'''Jury Nullification'''<br> | '''Jury Nullification'''<br> | ||
Defence counsel are not permitted to direct a jury to ignore the law.<ref> | Defence counsel are not permitted to direct a jury to ignore the law.<ref> | ||
R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftjt 1988 CanLII 90] (SCC)<br> | R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftjt 1988 CanLII 90] (SCC){{perSCC|Dickson J and Beetz J and Wilson J}}<br> | ||
R v Latimer, [2001] 1 SCR 3, [http://canlii.ca/t/523c 2001 SCC 1] (CanLII)<br> | R v Latimer, [2001] 1 SCR 3, [http://canlii.ca/t/523c 2001 SCC 1] (CanLII){{TheCourt}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
==Duties of Honesty== | ==Duties of Honesty== | ||
Defence counsel have an obligation not to call evidence that is believed or known to be false. The lawyer must attempt to dissuade the accused from seeking to call such witnesses and if unsuccessful should withdraw as counsel.<ref> | Defence counsel have an obligation not to call evidence that is believed or known to be false. The lawyer must attempt to dissuade the accused from seeking to call such witnesses and if unsuccessful should withdraw as counsel.<ref> | ||
R c Legato, [http://canlii.ca/t/1cch8 2002 CanLII 41296] (QC CA), at para 88<br> | R c Legato, [http://canlii.ca/t/1cch8 2002 CanLII 41296] (QC CA){{perQCCA|Biron JA}}, at para 88<br> | ||
see also [http://www.cba.org/cba/activities/code/ CBA Code of Professional Conduct]<br> | see also [http://www.cba.org/cba/activities/code/ CBA Code of Professional Conduct]<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Where an accused admits to committing the offence to counsel, counsel cannot advance any evidence that would tend to contradict this fact.<ref> | Where an accused admits to committing the offence to counsel, counsel cannot advance any evidence that would tend to contradict this fact.<ref> | ||
R v Li, [http://canlii.ca/t/1dbqf 1993 CanLII 1314] (BC CA) | R v Li, [http://canlii.ca/t/1dbqf 1993 CanLII 1314] (BC CA){{perBCCA|McEachern JA}} at paras 48 to 74<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
This will also include prohibiting counsel from calling the accused.<ref> | This will also include prohibiting counsel from calling the accused.<ref> | ||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
A failure to pass a polygraph does not equate to a confession and so does not prevent calling the accused.<ref> | A failure to pass a polygraph does not equate to a confession and so does not prevent calling the accused.<ref> | ||
R v Moore, [http://canlii.ca/t/4t7g 2002 SKCA 30] (CanLII) | R v Moore, [http://canlii.ca/t/4t7g 2002 SKCA 30] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Tallis JA}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
When defence counsel become in possession real evidence such as a video of a criminal offence, they are obliged to turn it over to police.<ref> | When defence counsel become in possession real evidence such as a video of a criminal offence, they are obliged to turn it over to police.<ref> | ||
R v Murray, [http://canlii.ca/t/1w0w5 2000 CanLII 22378] (ON SC) | R v Murray, [http://canlii.ca/t/1w0w5 2000 CanLII 22378] (ON SC){{perONSC|Gravely J}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
==Duty of Loyalty and Confidentiality== | ==Duty of Loyalty and Confidentiality== | ||
{{seealso|Conflicts of Interest}} | {{seealso|Conflicts of Interest}} | ||
A lawyer representing an accused must have undivided loyalty to their client.<ref>R v | A lawyer representing an accused must have undivided loyalty to their client.<ref> | ||
R v MQ, [http://canlii.ca/t/fqxkl 2012 ONCA 224] (CanLII){{perONCA|Goudge JA}} at para 26</ref> Loyalty is a fundamental principle of the solicitor-client relationship and is essential to the integrity of system and the public's confidence in it.<ref>see R v Widdifield, [http://canlii.ca/t/61xl 1995 CanLII 3505] (ON CA), (1996), 25 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}, at pp. 171-172</ref> | |||
The duty of loyalty requires that there be no conflict of interest with the lawyer. A conflict of interest is where there is "a substantial risk that the lawyer’s representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interests or by the lawyer’s duties to another current client, a former client, or third person."<ref> | The duty of loyalty requires that there be no conflict of interest with the lawyer. A conflict of interest is where there is "a substantial risk that the lawyer’s representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interests or by the lawyer’s duties to another current client, a former client, or third person."<ref> | ||
R v Neil, [http://canlii.ca/t/50d1 2002 SCC 70] (CanLII), [2002] 3 SCR 631, at para 31 | R v Neil, [http://canlii.ca/t/50d1 2002 SCC 70] (CanLII), [2002] 3 SCR 631{{perSCC|Binnie J}}, at para 31 | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The duty of loyalty includes the duty of candor in relation to retainer fees.<ref>R v Neil, [http://canlii.ca/t/50d1 2002 SCC 70] (CanLII), [2002] 3 SCR 631</ref> | The duty of loyalty includes the duty of candor in relation to retainer fees.<ref> | ||
R v Neil, [http://canlii.ca/t/50d1 2002 SCC 70] (CanLII), [2002] 3 SCR 631{{perSCC|Binnie J}}</ref> | |||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
Line 102: | Line 104: | ||
===Decision Making=== | ===Decision Making=== | ||
Where counsel make good faith decisions in the best interests of the client, a court should not look behind it except to prevent a miscarriage of justice.<Ref> | Where counsel make good faith decisions in the best interests of the client, a court should not look behind it except to prevent a miscarriage of justice.<Ref> | ||
R v GDB, [2000] 1 SCR 520, [http://canlii.ca/t/526g 2000 SCC 22] (CanLII) at para 34<Br> | R v GDB, [2000] 1 SCR 520, [http://canlii.ca/t/526g 2000 SCC 22] (CanLII){{perSCC|Major J}} at para 34<Br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
A retainer can be employed to set out what authority the counsel has to make without the explicit instructions of the client.<REf> | A retainer can be employed to set out what authority the counsel has to make without the explicit instructions of the client.<REf> | ||
E.g. See discussion in Stewart v CBC, [http://canlii.ca/t/1w5hb 1997 CanLII 12318] (ONSC)<Br> | E.g. See discussion in Stewart v CBC, [http://canlii.ca/t/1w5hb 1997 CanLII 12318] (ONSC){{perONSC|MacDonald J}}<Br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Line 115: | Line 117: | ||
* whether to chose trial by provincial court, superior court with or without a jury | * whether to chose trial by provincial court, superior court with or without a jury | ||
Failure to get instructions on these fundamental decisions could "raise questions of procedural fairness and the reliability of the result leading to a | Failure to get instructions on these fundamental decisions could "raise questions of procedural fairness and the reliability of the result leading to a miscarriage of justice".<ref> | ||
GDB{{supra}} at para 34<Br> | GDB{{supra}} at para 34<Br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
It is often advisable that counsel have instructions provided to them in writing.<ref> | It is often advisable that counsel have instructions provided to them in writing.<ref> | ||
e.g. see R v Beuk, [http://canlii.ca/t/1k8mw 2004 CanLII 53603] (ON SC) at para 40 | e.g. see R v Beuk, [http://canlii.ca/t/1k8mw 2004 CanLII 53603] (ON SC){{perONSC|Hill J}} at para 40 | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Line 127: | Line 129: | ||
There is no principle in law that the defence lawyer is the "mouth-piece" or "alter ego" of the client.<ref> | There is no principle in law that the defence lawyer is the "mouth-piece" or "alter ego" of the client.<ref> | ||
R v Samra, [http://canlii.ca/t/440t 1998 CanLII 7174] (ON CA)<br> | R v Samra, [http://canlii.ca/t/440t 1998 CanLII 7174] (ON CA){{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}<br> | ||
Faulkner{{supra}} at paras 27, 39<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Line 135: | Line 137: | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
In fact, "there are only a small number of fundamental decisions where the client 'calls the shots'".<ref>Faulkner at para 39</ref> | In fact, "there are only a small number of fundamental decisions where the client 'calls the shots'".<ref>Faulkner{{supra}} at para 39</ref> | ||
Trial strategy is the responsibility of defence counsel after consulting with the accused. The accused has the right to terminate the relationship at any time.<ref> | Trial strategy is the responsibility of defence counsel after consulting with the accused. The accused has the right to terminate the relationship at any time.<ref> | ||
R v Connors, [http://canlii.ca/t/fp1r8 2011 NLCA 74] (CanLII) at para 11 | R v Connors, [http://canlii.ca/t/fp1r8 2011 NLCA 74] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Welsh JA}} at para 11 | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Line 145: | Line 147: | ||
==Withdrawing as Counsel== | ==Withdrawing as Counsel== | ||
A judge must grant any request by counsel to withdraw for ethical reasons.<ref> | A judge must grant any request by counsel to withdraw for ethical reasons.<ref> | ||
R v Cunningham at para 49 | R v Cunningham, [http://canlii.ca/t/28tlt 2010 SCC 10] (CanLII){{perSCC|Rothstein J}} at para 49 | ||
</reF> | </reF> | ||
A judge may inquire into the reasons for the breakdown between client and counsel in an ''in camera'' hearing to see if there is a possibility of reconciliation.<ref> | A judge may inquire into the reasons for the breakdown between client and counsel in an ''in camera'' hearing to see if there is a possibility of reconciliation.<ref> | ||
e.g. see R v Denny, [http://canlii.ca/t/g913t 2014 NSSC 334] (CanLII) at para 22<br> | e.g. see R v Denny, [http://canlii.ca/t/g913t 2014 NSSC 334] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Rosinski J}} at para 22<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
A judge had discretion to refuse a request to Withdraw for non-payment of fees.<Ref> | A judge had discretion to refuse a request to Withdraw for non-payment of fees.<Ref> | ||
Cunningham | Cunningham{{supra}} at para 17<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
A discharged lawyer has a common law right to exercise a lien on documents in his possession.<ref> | A discharged lawyer has a common law right to exercise a lien on documents in his possession.<ref> | ||
R v Gladstone, [1972] 2 OR 127, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1c73 1971 CanLII 500] (ONCA)<Br> | R v Gladstone, [1972] 2 OR 127, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1c73 1971 CanLII 500] (ONCA){{perSCC|McGillivary JA}}<Br> | ||
see also R v Dugan, 1994 CarswellAlta 492 (ABCA) {{NOCANLII}}<Br> | see also R v Dugan, 1994 CarswellAlta 492 (ABCA) {{NOCANLII}}<Br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> |
Revision as of 15:41, 6 December 2018
- < Procedure and Practice
- < Role of Parties in Proceedings
General Principles
The defence counsel have several duties including:[1]
- Duty of loyalty to the client
- Duty of confidentiality to the client
- Duty of honesty
- Duties to the Court
These duties overlap and may occasionally conflict.
Counsel's purpose is to "provide professional assistance and advice" which involves allowing him to "exercise his professional skill and judgment in the conduct of the case".[2] He is responsible to conduct the defence and "exercise independent judgment as to what is in the client's best interests" and decide whether a particular course of action is within counsel's "duties as an officer of the court".[3]
Ethical Standards
Counsel who violates some ethical standard of the profession does not necessarily equate to a breach of the right to effective counsel. The two must be treated separately.[4]
Concerns only for counsel performance, without a prejudice having occurred, can only be addressed by the profession's self-governing body.[5]
Conduct
All counsel are required to treat witnesses, counsel and the court with "fairness, courtesy and respect".[6]
Counsel who has been suspended from the bar while conducting trial will not necessarily require a new trial. Overturning the verdict requires that the counsel "ability to effectively represent the [accused] was impaired as a result of that disqualification."[7]
Counsel who is intoxicated during trial will result in an overturning of verdict regardless of the impact on the reliability on verdict.[8]
Retainer
Where counsel appears with an accused it is presumed that they have a general retainer. Counsel should tell the court if that is not the case.[9]
- ↑ e.g. Myers v Elman, (1940) AC 282 (HL) per Lord Wright ("A solicitor is an officer of the court and owes a duty to the court; he is a helper in the administration of justice. He owes a duty to his client, but if he is asked or required by his client to do something which is inconsistent with this duty to the court, it is for him to point out that he cannot do it and, if necessary, cease to act")
- ↑
R v Faulkner, 2013 ONSC 2373 (CanLII), per Code J at para 39
- ↑
Faulkner, ibid. at para 39
R v Samra, 1998 CanLII 7174 (ON CA), per Rosenberg JA at para 30-33
- ↑
R v GDB, 2000 SCC 22 (CanLII), per LeBel J at para 5 ("the question of competence of counsel is usually a matter of professional ethics that is not a question for the appellate courts to consider")
- ↑
GDB, ibid. at para 29
See also Ineffective Counsel - ↑ R v Felderhof, 2003 CanLII 37346 (ON CA), per Rosenberg JA
- ↑ R v Prebtani, 2008 ONCA 735 (CanLII), per Rosenberg JA
- ↑ Prebtani, ibid.
- ↑
R v Harrison and Alonso, 1982 ABCA 152 (CanLII), per curiam
R v Salha, 2007 ABQB 159 (CanLII), per Lee J, at para 24
Duty to the Court
Both Crown and defence have a "responsibility in providing relevant case law to assist the court".[1]
In registering objections, Counsel only need to do it once to extinguish their duty. Renewing objections "ad nauseam" or quarreling with the judge is not obligated.[2]
Jury Nullification
Defence counsel are not permitted to direct a jury to ignore the law.[3]
- ↑ R v Adams, 2011 NLCA 3 (CanLII), per Welsh JA
- ↑ Redican v Nesbitt, [1924] SCR 135, 1923 CanLII 10 (SCC), per Idington J
- ↑
R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30, 1988 CanLII 90 (SCC), per Dickson J and Beetz J and Wilson J
R v Latimer, [2001] 1 SCR 3, 2001 SCC 1 (CanLII), per curiam
Duties of Honesty
Defence counsel have an obligation not to call evidence that is believed or known to be false. The lawyer must attempt to dissuade the accused from seeking to call such witnesses and if unsuccessful should withdraw as counsel.[1]
Where an accused admits to committing the offence to counsel, counsel cannot advance any evidence that would tend to contradict this fact.[2] This will also include prohibiting counsel from calling the accused.[3]
A failure to pass a polygraph does not equate to a confession and so does not prevent calling the accused.[4]
When defence counsel become in possession real evidence such as a video of a criminal offence, they are obliged to turn it over to police.[5]
- ↑
R c Legato, 2002 CanLII 41296 (QC CA), per Biron JA, at para 88
see also CBA Code of Professional Conduct
- ↑
R v Li, 1993 CanLII 1314 (BC CA), per McEachern JA at paras 48 to 74
- ↑ Li, ibid.
- ↑ R v Moore, 2002 SKCA 30 (CanLII), per Tallis JA
- ↑ R v Murray, 2000 CanLII 22378 (ON SC), per Gravely J
Duty of Loyalty and Confidentiality
A lawyer representing an accused must have undivided loyalty to their client.[1] Loyalty is a fundamental principle of the solicitor-client relationship and is essential to the integrity of system and the public's confidence in it.[2]
The duty of loyalty requires that there be no conflict of interest with the lawyer. A conflict of interest is where there is "a substantial risk that the lawyer’s representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interests or by the lawyer’s duties to another current client, a former client, or third person."[3]
The duty of loyalty includes the duty of candor in relation to retainer fees.[4]
- ↑ R v MQ, 2012 ONCA 224 (CanLII), per Goudge JA at para 26
- ↑ see R v Widdifield, 1995 CanLII 3505 (ON CA), (1996), 25 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.), per Doherty JA, at pp. 171-172
- ↑ R v Neil, 2002 SCC 70 (CanLII), [2002] 3 SCR 631, per Binnie J, at para 31
- ↑ R v Neil, 2002 SCC 70 (CanLII), [2002] 3 SCR 631, per Binnie J
Decision Making
Where counsel make good faith decisions in the best interests of the client, a court should not look behind it except to prevent a miscarriage of justice.[1]
A retainer can be employed to set out what authority the counsel has to make without the explicit instructions of the client.[2]
Instructions
While it is not necessary to seek express approval for "each and every decision" in relation to the conduct of the defence, certain fundamental decision ethically require counsel to seek explicit instructions:[3]
- whether to plead guilty or not guilty
- whether to testify or not to testify
- whether to chose trial by provincial court, superior court with or without a jury
Failure to get instructions on these fundamental decisions could "raise questions of procedural fairness and the reliability of the result leading to a miscarriage of justice".[4]
It is often advisable that counsel have instructions provided to them in writing.[5]
Relationship with Client
The defence counsel is not the alter ego of the client. The function of defence counsel is to provide professional assistance and advice. He must, accordingly, exercise his professional skill and judgment in the conduct of the case and not allow himself to be a mere mouthpiece for the client.
There is no principle in law that the defence lawyer is the "mouth-piece" or "alter ego" of the client.[6]
There is no obligation for counsel to "make submissions no matter how foolish or ill-advised or contrary to established legal principle and doctrine, provided that is what the client desires".[7]
In fact, "there are only a small number of fundamental decisions where the client 'calls the shots'".[8]
Trial strategy is the responsibility of defence counsel after consulting with the accused. The accused has the right to terminate the relationship at any time.[9]
- ↑
R v GDB, [2000] 1 SCR 520, 2000 SCC 22 (CanLII), per Major J at para 34
- ↑
E.g. See discussion in Stewart v CBC, 1997 CanLII 12318 (ONSC), per MacDonald J
- ↑ GDB, supra at para 34
- ↑
GDB, supra at para 34
- ↑ e.g. see R v Beuk, 2004 CanLII 53603 (ON SC), per Hill J at para 40
- ↑
R v Samra, 1998 CanLII 7174 (ON CA), per Rosenberg JA
Faulkner, supra at paras 27, 39
- ↑ Samra, supra
- ↑ Faulkner, supra at para 39
- ↑ R v Connors, 2011 NLCA 74 (CanLII), per Welsh JA at para 11
Withdrawing as Counsel
A judge must grant any request by counsel to withdraw for ethical reasons.[1]
A judge may inquire into the reasons for the breakdown between client and counsel in an in camera hearing to see if there is a possibility of reconciliation.[2]
A judge had discretion to refuse a request to Withdraw for non-payment of fees.[3]
A discharged lawyer has a common law right to exercise a lien on documents in his possession.[4] If counsel withholds materials, they must inform the crown and the court that he is doing so.[5]
- ↑ R v Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10 (CanLII), per Rothstein J at para 49
- ↑
e.g. see R v Denny, 2014 NSSC 334 (CanLII), per Rosinski J at para 22
- ↑
Cunningham, supra at para 17
- ↑
R v Gladstone, [1972] 2 OR 127, 1971 CanLII 500 (ONCA), per McGillivary JA
see also R v Dugan, 1994 CarswellAlta 492 (ABCA) (*no CanLII links)
- ↑
Dugan, ibid.
See Also
Other Parties