J. K. Postnikoff

Following an earlier ruling granting a motion removing the plaintiff’s lawyers of record, the moving defendants sought a costs award.

The motion had involved the issue of whether counsel could continue acting where a former client might become a witness for the opposing party.

The court noted the ruling depended on the likelihood that a particular individual would testify at trial, a matter that remained uncertain.

Given the unusual circumstances and the possibility that the witness might not ultimately be called, the court held it would be inappropriate to fix costs or determine responsibility for them.

Costs were therefore reserved to the trial judge.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record, Steven Gadbois, due to a conflict of interest.

Gadbois had previously represented a key defence witness, Mr. Azevedo, in a related action.

The defendants argued that Gadbois possessed confidential information about Azevedo and might be called as a witness regarding an unsigned document he prepared.

The court applied the test from Macdonald Estate v. Martin and found that Gadbois' duty of loyalty to his former client created a conflict, particularly since he would have to cross-examine Azevedo.

The motion to remove counsel was granted.