Mr. Bennett

In a family law proceeding, former counsel for one party brought a motion seeking directions and relief relating to allegations that they had engaged in professional misconduct during earlier motion proceedings.

The applicant in the underlying family litigation had previously sought a Rule 24(9) order requiring those lawyers to personally bear a portion of a fixed $25,000 costs award.

The moving lawyers argued that opposing counsel should not continue acting because her law clerk had sworn a key affidavit and sought orders requiring additional affidavit evidence and disclosure of solicitor‑client communications.

The court held that counsel could continue to act because the affidavit evidence was based primarily on the law clerk’s personal knowledge, and the existing pleadings already contained the relevant evidence.

The court further held that the respondent’s solicitor‑client privilege was not relevant to determining whether counsel’s alleged conduct justified a Rule 24(9)(c) costs order.

Directions were granted permitting limited additional affidavits and examinations, while most of the relief sought in the motion for directions was dismissed.

The respondent company, Domglas Inc., brought a preliminary motion to adjourn the hearing of a human rights complaint against it pending the outcome of an application to the Divisional Court to quash the appointment of the Board of Inquiry.

The respondent argued that a six-year delay by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in processing the complaint violated its rights under sections 7 and 11(b) of the Charter and the rules of natural justice.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the Charter provisions did not apply to the corporate respondent or to the nature of the complaint (discrimination based on handicap), and that the balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the hearing in the public interest.