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.
