The applicant brought a motion to remove counsel representing both the individual respondent and the corporate respondent in an oppression application.
The applicant argued that counsel had a conflict of interest in jointly representing both respondents and that counsel might be called as a witness.
The court found no basis to remove counsel on the grounds of being a potential witness.
However, the court held that a conflict of interest existed because the interests of the individual respondent and the corporate respondent were not aligned in the context of a shareholder dispute.
The motion was allowed in part, and counsel was disqualified from acting for the corporate respondent.
