John McGowan

The accused, Sauve and Stewart, were charged with various weapons offences after police seized a handgun and ammunition from a backpack carried by Stewart.

The Crown alleged they jointly possessed and transferred the firearm.

The court found insufficient evidence that Stewart knew the backpack contained a firearm, resulting in his acquittal on all counts.

For Sauve, the court found he was wilfully blind to the fact he was picking up a firearm, establishing possession.

However, the Crown failed to prove he knew about the ammunition, possessed it for a dangerous purpose, or knew it was obtained by an offence.

Sauve was found guilty of careless transport and transferring a prohibited firearm, as he handed the backpack to Stewart knowing it contained a gun.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff’s law firm as solicitors of record on the basis of conflict of interest.

A lawyer associated with the firm had previously been retained by the hospital defendant to assist with workplace conflict mediation and had obtained confidential information while acting in that capacity.

The court found that the lawyer was an associate of the firm and that the hospital was therefore a client of the firm.

Applying the “bright line” rule from R. v. Neil and the principles from MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court held that a law firm cannot act against a current client in directly adverse litigation absent informed consent.

Because confidential information was obtained and no effective screening measures existed, the firm was disqualified.