The Children's Aid Society brought a motion to remove the respondent's father, D.D., as solicitor of record in a child protection proceeding.
The Society argued that D.D. should be removed because: (1) he was too personally involved as a father and grandfather to provide objective representation; (2) he lacked experience in child protection matters; and (3) he would be a necessary witness at trial.
The respondent opposed removal, arguing that D.D. was not adverse in interest, that lack of experience alone should not disqualify counsel, and that it was speculative whether he would testify.
The court granted the motion, finding that D.D.'s personal and emotional involvement in the case, combined with his cognitive dependence relationship with the respondent and his status as a likely witness, created a conflict of interest that undermined the integrity of the administration of justice.
