2 total
Motion to remove defence counsel dismissed for lack of conflict or confidentiality breach.
The plaintiff brought a motion seeking removal of defence counsel on the basis that counsel’s spouse had previously conducted a counselling session with the plaintiff.
After learning of the litigation, the spouse transferred the file and destroyed correspondence from the plaintiff.
The court held there was no solicitor‑client relationship between the plaintiff and defence counsel and no evidence that confidential information had been improperly disclosed.
The evidence demonstrated that the spouse acted professionally and there was no breach of professional conduct rules.
Given the strong right of parties to retain counsel of their choice, the motion to remove counsel was dismissed.
Carriage of securities class action granted to Simmonds plaintiffs due to simpler class definition and experienced representatives.
Two competing law firms brought motions for carriage of a proposed securities class action against Armtec Infrastructure Inc. and its directors and underwriters, alleging misrepresentations in a prospectus and press release.
The court evaluated the competing actions based on the nature and scope of the causes of action, the proposed class definitions, the named defendants, and the representative plaintiffs.
The court granted carriage to the Simmonds plaintiffs, finding their approach to the class definition and damages to be simpler and more cohesive, and their representative plaintiffs to possess significant business acumen.
The competing Locking action was stayed.
