CITATION: Rosenbaum v. Ibe, 2026 ONSC 4516
COURT FILE NO.: DC-26-00000966-00ML
DATE: 20260806
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Martin Z. Rosenbaum and Martin Z. Rosenbaum Law Professional Corporation, Moving Parties
and
Vanessa Ibe et al., Responding Parties
BEFORE: Schreck J.
COUNSEL: William M. Sharpe, for the Moving Parties on the Motion, William M. Sharpe and Route Transportation and Trade Law
Albert S. Frank, for the Responding Parties on the Motion, Martin Z. Rosenbaum and Martin Z. Rosenbaum Law Professional Corporation
No submissions received from the other parties
HEARD: In writing
ENDORSEMENT
[1] William M. Sharpe is counsel for Martin Z. Rosenbaum and Martin Z. Rosenbaum Law Professional Corporation (“Mr. Rosenberg”) on a Motion for Leave to Appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice staying five actions in which Mr. Rosenbaum and his firm are plaintiffs. Mr. Sharpe has brought a motion pursuant to r. 15.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, for an order removing him as the lawyer of record on the motion for leave to appeal. Mr. Rosenberg resists the motion.
[2] In accordance with r. 15.04(1.2) and (1.3), much of the material that the parties have filed has been redacted on the basis that it contains information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege or could be prejudicial to Mr. Rosenbaum, but I have been provided with unredacted copies of all of the documents. I will not refer to any of the redacted portions of the documents in this endorsement, although I have reviewed and relied on them. As a result, some portions of this endorsement may be unclear to anyone other than the parties.
[3] While Mr. Sharpe submits that his removal is justified on a number of different bases, his claim is essentially that there has been a serious loss of confidence between lawyer and client in this case based on something Mr. Rosenbaum did. Mr. Rosenbaum does not deny having done the thing, but submits that it does not provide a basis for Mr. Sharpe’s removal. According to Mr. Rosenbaum, he “hoped” that he would not have to follow through on what he did.
[4] Mr. Rosenbaum submits that there is no basis to believe that Mr. Sharpe will act against his clients’ interests “simply because he is annoyed” by what Mr. Rosenbaum did. However, nowhere in his materials does he expressly state that he continues to have confidence in Mr. Sharpe’s representation of him. His affidavit filed on the motion includes claims that suggest the opposite conclusion.
[5] A breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship due to a loss of confidence is a basis for granting a lawyer’s motion for removal, even where it is opposed by the client: Brown v. Williams, 2023 ONCA 730, at paras. 3-4; Correct Group Inc. v. Cameron, 2024 ONSC 3367, at paras. 9-11; myNext Corp. v. Pacific Mortgage Group Inc., 2018 ONSC 7316, at paras. 22-23; I.K.Z. v. S.N.A., 2015 ONSC 1884, 73 C.P.C. (7th) 193, at paras. 6-9; Kovinich v. Kovinich (2008), 58 C.P.C. (6th) 78 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 40. In fact, an argument could be made that the court must permit removal in such circumstances, based on R. v. Short, 2018 ONCA 1, 139 O.R. (3d) 81, at paras. 33-34:
There is no controversy as to the applicable legal principles. If trial counsel seeks to be removed from the record because he has not been paid, the trial judge has a discretion to allow counsel to get off the record. If the trial judge declines to allow counsel to get off the record, counsel must continue to act for the accused, subject of course to being fired by the client. If, however, “ethical” concerns motivate counsel’s application to be removed from the record, the trial judge is obliged to order counsel removed without any inquiry into the particulars underlying the request: Cunningham, [2010 SCC 10, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331] at paras. 48-49, 58; R. v. C.(D.D.), 1996 ABCA 303, 110 C.C.C. (3d) 323, at para. 19, leave to appeal refused: [1996] S.C.C.A. No. 453.
In this context, ethical reasons could refer to a client’s request that a lawyer act illegally or contrary to the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Ethical reasons also extend to circumstances that may not involve any illegality, but which have resulted in a breakdown of the client-solicitor relationship to the point that counsel cannot effectively give legal advice or receive instructions from the client. The phrase “loss of confidence” is often used to describe this latter situation: C.(D.D.), at para. 26; David Layton & Hon. Michel Proulx, Ethics and Criminal Law, 2d ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 2015) at pp. 561-62; Law Society of Upper Canada Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 3.7.2 and commentary. [Emphasis added].
[6] Based on the record before this court, there is no question that there has been a serious loss of confidence between the lawyer and the client in this case justifying Mr. Sharpe’s removal. This is not because Mr. Sharpe’s performance may be affected by him being “annoyed” by what his client has done. Rather, it is because the client’s actions have resulted in a complete breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship.
[7] Mr. Rosenbaum submits that permitting Mr. Sharpe to withdraw would be prejudicial to him given the complexity of the proceedings and the difficulty in having another lawyer take over at this stage. Assuming that I have a discretion to refuse removal on this basis after concluding that removal is justified for ethical reasons, I would not exercise it in this case. All of the moving party’s materials, including the factum, has been filed on the motion for leave to appeal. Materials have been filed by some of the responding parties, and those who have not filed material have missed the deadline for doing so. It appears that all that is left to be done is the preparation of a reply factum. As motions for leave to appeal are heard in writing, there is no oral argument to prepare. As well, Mr. Rosenbaum has recently been represented by at least two other lawyers in matters that are related to the motion for leave to appeal, so it appears that he has no difficulty in finding representation when he requires it.
[8] For these reasons, the motion is granted and there will be an order removing William M. Sharpe and Route Transport and Trade Law as lawyers for the moving parties, Martin Z. Rosenbaum and Martin Z. Rosenbaum Law Professional Corporation, on their motion for leave to appeal.
[9] Within 30 days, the moving parties shall serve and file a notice pursuant to r. 15.03(2) appointing a new lawyer of record, or the moving party Martin Z. Rosenbaum shall serve and file a notice pursuant to r. 15.03(3) indicating an intention to act in person and the moving party Martin Z. Rosenbaum Law Professional Corporation shall serve and file a motion for an order pursuant to r. 15.01(2) granting it leave to be represented by a person other than a lawyer.
[10] Within seven days of the filing of the notices described above, the moving parties shall advise the court of their proposed date for filing a reply factum. The direction of Matheson J. dated January 26, 2023 requiring the moving parties to file a reply factum within 10 days of the filing of the responding parties’ materials is suspended until that time.
[11] There will be no order as to costs.
Schreck J.
Date: August 6, 2025