Chevalier v. Allin

Court File No. CV-10-14364
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Case Name: Chevalier v. Allin

RE: Caroline Chevalier, Plaintiff, and
Conor Allin, Tyler Carey, Aron Staddon, Bobby France,
Dave Allin and Robert France, Defendants

[ 2012] O.J. No. 5999
2012 ONSC 3605

Heard: June 18, 2012.
Judgment: June 19, 2012.

Before: T.J. Carey J.

Counsel

Craig J. Allen and S. Alex Constantin, for the Plaintiff.
Michael B. Stocks, for the Defendants.

ENDORSEMENT

1T.J. CAREY J. :-- Motion to remove counsel for the defendants. The plaintiff asks that the defendants counsel be removed because his wife had a counselling session with the plaintiff. Upon learning of her husband's involvement in this lawsuit, which was not discussed as part of the session, counsel's wife spoke to her supervisor, transferred the file and destroyed a letter sent by the plaintiff to her.

2The issue is whether these facts give rise to a concern that would trump the defendants' right to counsel of their choice.

3This is not a classic conflict of interest case for a lawyer. There was no pre-existing solicitor-client relationship between Mr. Wydrzynski and Ms. Chevalier.

4The affidavit of Melanie Wydrzynski discloses no inappropriate disclosure of any confidential information by her to her husband or anyone else. There is no evidence of a breach of the Code of Ethics of the Ontario College of Social Workers. The evidence supports that she acted completely professionally in respect to the plaintiff. There is no evidence of any breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct by Mr. Wydrzynski. While this is a Rule 76 matter and there has been no cross-examination on the affidavits, there is no support for any suggestion of improper conduct by counsel or his spouse in the material including the plaintiff's affidavit. I cannot infer that there has been improper disclosure of confidential information to Mr. Wydrzynski.

5While I can understand why the plaintiff might feel uncomfortable, I accept that all that the defendants and their counsel know about the plaintiff's counselling session came from the plaintiff's motion material. Counsel for the defendants has indicated that this will not be the subject of cross-examination.

6Both parties have the right to counsel of their choice and that right should not be lightly interfered with.

7The motion is dismissed with costs fixed at $1,200 to the defendants.