The Respondent brought a motion to remove the Applicant's counsel, Clarissa D’Avella, and her law firm, citing a conflict of interest.
The conflict arose from the Applicant's intention to call her previous counsel, Ms. Cebulak (who practices at the same firm as Ms. D’Avella), as a witness in a focused hearing concerning the validity of a separation agreement.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the removal was necessary for the proper administration of justice.
The judge applied a flexible approach, considering factors such as the stage of proceedings, the likelihood and significance of the witness's testimony, the good faith of the moving party, and the litigant's right to choose counsel.
The court concluded that the potential for actual conflict or tainting of evidence was remote given the limited and non-controversial nature of the anticipated testimony and the measures proposed by the Applicant to mitigate concerns.
