The appellant, who was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault and later had his conviction quashed after fresh DNA evidence was admitted, sued his trial lawyer for negligence.
The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding no 'egregious errors' and no evidence of causation.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the proper standard of care for a lawyer conducting litigation is reasonableness, not 'egregious error'.
The Court also found that the 'but for' causation analysis raised a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the appellant would have been acquitted had the lawyer obtained the DNA evidence and properly conducted the trial.
The respondent's cross-appeal alleging abuse of process was dismissed.
