A. Zaltz

The defendants in a professional negligence action brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's current law firm as counsel of record.

The defendants argued that the law firm was in a conflict of interest because it had negotiated the settlement that the defendants alleged was improvident, and that a lawyer from the firm would be a necessary witness at trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the current counsel of record had fulfilled his duty to disclose the conflict and refer the plaintiff for independent legal advice.

The court also held that it was premature to remove the firm based on the potential for a lawyer to be called as a witness, as discoveries had not yet occurred.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the defendants' right to renew the motion at a later stage.

The plaintiff brought a professional negligence claim against his former lawyers, alleging they failed to secure appropriate funding for his catastrophic injuries.

The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff's subsequent lawyers recommended an improvident settlement, which was approved by the court.

The plaintiff moved to strike this defence, arguing issue estoppel applied to the court-approved settlement.

The defendants moved for disclosure of the privileged portions of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff's subsequent lawyers in support of the settlement.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it would be unfair to prevent the defendants from scrutinizing the settlement.

The court also ordered disclosure of the privileged affidavit portions, finding an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege because the plaintiff's claim put the rationale for the settlement in issue.

The plaintiff successfully moved to set aside a registrar's dismissal order.

The parties could not agree on costs, and the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $5,949.49, arguing that the plaintiff was granted an indulgence.

The court found that while the plaintiff received an indulgence, the defendants' counsel contributed to the delay and prejudice by refusing to make a defendant available for discovery and failing to preserve evidence.

The court concluded that no costs should be payable on the motion.