The Crown brought an application to remove defence counsel on the basis of a conflict of interest arising from counsel's prior representation of a key Crown witness, the complainant's mother.
The proposed defence theory involved a sweeping attack on that witness's credibility and alleged fabrication, obstruction, and perjury.
Applying the governing principles respecting counsel of choice, confidentiality, loyalty to former clients, and the appearance of fairness, the court held that public confidence in the administration of justice required disqualification.
The witness's waiver was found uninformed and, in any event, insufficient to overcome the appearance of impropriety.
Partial disqualification was also rejected because the conflict infected the entire defence theory.
