The applicant, a former shareholder, brought a motion to remove the respondents' lawyer as counsel of record for the corporate respondent, alleging a conflict of interest.
The applicant argued that the corporation, as a separate legal entity, required independent representation from its majority shareholders and directors in an oppression proceeding.
The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflict of interest because the individual respondent was the sole director and functionally the only shareholder of the corporation, resulting in an identity of interest between the corporation and its director.
