2026 ONSC 274
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
YOSIF AL-HASNAWI, DECEASED BY HIS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, MAJED AL-HASNAWI, MAJED AL-HASNAWI, MAHDI AL-HASNAWI and AHMED AL-HASNAWI, MINORS BY THEIR LITIGATION GUARDIAN, MAJED AL-HASNAWI
Plaintiffs/Responding Parties
- and -
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF HAMILTON, HAMILTON PARAMEDIC SERVICE, CREW MEMBER, JOHN DOE #1 CHRISTOPHER MARCHANT, CREW MEMBER, JOHN DOE #2 STEVEN SNIVELY, HAMILTON POLICE SERVICES BOARD POLICE CONSTABLE JOHN DOE #3 ZEZELLA, POLICE CONSTABLE JOHN DOE #4 CAMPOVARI, ST. JOSEPH’S HEALTHCARE HAMILTON, DALE BURNINGSKY KING JAMES MATHESON
Defendants/Moving Parties
S. von Achten, Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Responding Parties
T. Crljenica, Counsel for the Defendants/Moving Parties Christopher Marchant and Steven Snively
HEARD: January 13, 2026
ENDORSEMENT ON MOTION
This decision was given orally on January 13, 2026. Where the oral reasons and written reasons differ, the written reasons are to take precedence.
The Honourable Justice M. Valente
Nature of Motion
1The moving Defendants, Christopher Marchant and Steven Snively, bring this motion for an order removing Ms. von Achten and her law firm as Plaintiffs’ counsel of record.
2The Plaintiffs are the estate of Yosif Al-Hasnawi, by its litigation administration, Philip Herbert, the deceased’s father, Majed Al-Hasnawi, and the deceased’s sibling, Ahmed Al-Hasnawi. The action relates to the death of Yosif Al-Hasnawi on December 2, 2017.
3The action was commenced in 2018. I was appointed case management judge in June 2023. To date I have conducted sixteen case management conferences to address preliminary issues regarding the regularization of the Plaintiffs’ pleadings, and generally, to move the matter forward. Unfortunately, as at this date, the action remains at the pleadings stage.
Position of the Parties
4The moving Defendants submit that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to follow this court’s orders, including a peremptory order, and to attend multiple case conferences have caused inordinate delay, wasted judicial resources and impaired the ability of this court to administer justice to both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. While the moving Defendants concede that the Plaintiffs have the right to counsel of their choice, they submit this right is not absolute where counsel’s conduct brings the administration of justice into disrepute and where the parties are prejudiced by that conduct.
5Ms. Von Achten appears without the assistance of her own counsel. Pursuant to the Plaintiffs’ instruction, Ms. von Achten opposes the Defendants’ motion and confirms that she is ready, willing and able to continue to act. Ms. von Achten has not delivered any materials in response to the Defendants’ motion but confirmed in her submissions that she relies on the record before the court as well as solicitor-client privilege.
Background Facts
6The undisputed relevant background facts to the motion are as follows:
Case Conference No. 1 – July 7, 2023
7On July 7, 2023, I directed Ms. von Achten to: (1) circulate a draft of her Amended Statement of Claim on or before August 8, 2023; and (2) share a copy of the amended pleading with court on or before August 29, 2023.
Case Conference No. 2 – August 29, 2023
8On August 29, 2023, this court acknowledged that a first draft of the Amended Statement of Claim was circulated but had not been finalized.
9At this case conference the issue was raised that the Plaintiffs, Ahmed Al-Hasnawi and Mahdi Al-Hasnawi (both of whom were Ms. Von Achten’ s clients at the relevant time) had reached the age of majority. I ordered that both Plaintiffs required an Order to Continue to maintain their participation in the action.
10As case management judge, I also directed that motion materials in support of the Orders to Continue be addressed to my attention, and once the Orders were signed, I would request the filling office to process the Orders on an expedited basis to minimize any delays.
11I imposed no specific deadline for Ms. Von Achten to deliver the motion materials for the Orders to Continue.
Case Conference No. 3 – September 12, 2023
12On September 12, 2023, I granted leave pursuant to Rule 26 to the Plaintiffs to amend the Statement of Claim to remove Mahdi Al-Hasnawi as a Plaintiff.
13No specific deadline was established for Ms. Von Achten to formally remove this Plaintiff from the action.
Case Conference No. 4 – October 12, 2023
14On October 12, 2023, I ordered that on or before November 13, 2023, Ms. Von Achten provide the court with (1) the necessary motion materials for the Orders to Continue; and (2) the Consent Order amending the Statement of Claim together with the Amened Statement of Claim.
15Ms. von Achten failed to comply with my Order.
Case Conference No. 5 – December 7, 2023
16On December 7, 2023, Ms. von Achten advised she had difficulty in obtaining the necessary affidavit sworn in support of the Orders to Continue but that she would attend to the matter before the year end.
17I ordered Ms. von Achten to send the materials for the Order to Continue and those in support of the Consent Order amending the Statement of Claim to my attention for review and issuance.
18Ms. von Achten did not comply with my Order.
Case Conference No. 6 – January 31, 2024
19On January 31, 2024, I noted in my Endorsement of this case conference that Ms. von Achten had not finalized materials in support of the Order to Continue due to medical reasons.
20With her medical issues then resolved, I ordered Ms. von Achten to submit to me on or before February 29, 2024, the finalized materials in support of the Order to Continue and the materials in support of the Consent Order amending the Statement of Claim.
21Ms. von Achten failed to comply with my Order.
Case Conference No. 7 – March 27, 2024
22On March 27, 2024, Ms. von Achten failed to attend the scheduled case conference and did not inform the court of her anticipated absence.
23Due to Ms. von Achten’ s unexpected absence, I adjourned the case conference to a later date to be scheduled by the trial coordinator in consultation with counsel.
Case Conference No. 8 – May 22, 2024
24On May 22, 2024, Ms. von Achten once again failed to attend the rescheduled case conference and once again did not inform the court of her pending absence.
25As case management judge I ordered all counsel, including Ms. von Achten, to attend a case conference on Thursday, June 13, 2024 to provide a status update of the proceedings.
Case Conference No. 9 – June 13, 2024
26On June 13, 2024, Ms. von Achten advised that her paralegal, Mr. Raj Napal, was no longer practicing and that she would be assisted by paralegal, Mr. Domenic Rosso (“Mr. Rosso”), moving forward.
27At the June 2024 case conference, I ordered Ms. von Achten to provide to my attention: (1) on or before June 21, 2024,the Order to Continue and supporting materials; and (2) on or before June 28, 2024, the Consent Order amending the Statement of Claim.
28While Ms. von Achten agreed to these deadlines, she failed to comply with my order.
Case Conference No. 10 – September 18, 2024
29Ms. von Achten failed to attend this scheduled case conference without explanation.
30I ordered that Ms. von Achten was to attend all future case conferences.
31I also ordered Ms. von Achten to deliver to both the court and opposing counsel on or before September 25, 2024: (1) the consent Order amending the Statement of Claim; and (2) the draft Order to Continue and supporting affidavit.
32Ms. Von Achten did not comply with my Order.
Case Conference No. 11 – October 15, 2024
33On October 15, 2024, Ms. von Achten advised the Court that she failed to follow my Order of September 18, 2024, as “she did not understand what was to be delivered and was otherwise overwhelmed with a homicide proceeding”. Ms. von Achten further advised that with the help of Mr. Rosso, who was now assisting her, she would satisfy the terms of any future Order.
34I ordered that on or before October 17, 2024, Ms. von Achten and Mr. Rosso deliver: (1) to counsel, the draft Consent Order amending the Statement of Claim together with the draft Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim; and (2) to the court, the draft Order to Continue materials.
35While Ms. von Achten did deliver a draft Order to Continue, it was deficient.
Case Conference No. 12 – October 29, 2024
36At the October 29, 2024 case conference, it as agreed that the draft Order to Continue prepared by Ms. von Achten would be revised by her into two Orders. The first Order would address the Order to Continue in Form 7B with the appropriate amendment to the title of proceeding regarding the improper reference to the “Estate of Yosif Al-Hasnawi” and the need to name the estate trustee or a litigation administrator. The second Order would address the matter of the Amended Statement of Claim.
37On consent I ordered Ms. von Achten to deliver (1) on or before November 6, 2024, a draft of the Amended Statement of Claim with the proposed black-lined changes; and (2) on or before November 12, 2024, (a) a draft of the Consent Order with respect to the issuance of the Amended Statement of Claim; and (b) the revised Order to Continue.
38Ms. von Achten failed, however, to comply with my Order.
Case Conference No. 13 – December 12, 2024
39At the December 12, 2024 case conference, Mr. Rosso gave two undertakings, on behalf of Ms. von Achten, who was not in attendance. Mr. Rosso undertook to deliver: (1) on or before December 17, 2024, all materials in support of the Order to Continue; and (2) on or before December 18, 2024, the executed consent of counsel and draft Order respecting the Amended Statement of Claim.
40Mr. Rosso sent a draft Amended Statement of Claim the same day. A draft Order was subsequently circulated but had multiple issues requiring revision.
Case Conference No. 14 – January 29, 2025
41At the January 29, 2025 case conference, counsel discussed the issues related to the draft Orders circulated by Ms. von Achten’ s office.
42Counsel for the Hamilton Police Services Board, Police Constable Zezella, and Police Constable Campovari, agreed to revise Plaintiffs’ counsel’s draft Orders and to provide the court and the parties with three Orders for review on or before January 31, 2025. Once reviewed, it was agreed that Ms. von Achten’ s office would circulate the approved revised draft Orders to all counsel by February 4, 2025, with the expectation that counsel would email copies to me for signature by February 12, 2025.
43Counsel for the Hamilton Police Services Board, Police Constable Zezella, and Police Constable Campovari completed the steps Ms. von Achten should otherwise have done by circulating drafts of the Order amending the Statement of Claim, with Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, the Order to Continue for Ahmed Al-Hasnawi, with supporting documents, and the Order appointing a litigation administrator for the Estate of Yosif Al-Hasnawi, with supporting document. At the same time, counsel circulated a draft Timetable Order.
Orders of Justice Valente – February 11, 2025
44On February 11, 2025, I issued a series of Orders:
a. an Order that the Statement of Claim be amended as set out in the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, including provision for a litigation administrator;
b. an Order to Continue the proceeding by the plaintiff, Ahmed Al-Hasnawi, as he had reached the age of majority as of November 1, 2022; and
c. an order requiring the parties to comply with a litigation timetable, which included, among other things, that the parties were to deliver their respective draft Affidavits of Documents on or before February 28, 2025, and to deliver sworn copies not less than thirty days before that party’s examination for discovery.
45Ms. von Achten consented to the litigation timetable. Ms. Von Achten failed, however, to deliver the Plaintiffs’ draft Affidavit of Documents by February 28, 2025.
46With defence counsels’ indulgence, Ms. von Achten was granted an extension of two months. Nonetheless, she failed to deliver her clients’ draft Affidavit of Documents by April 30, 2025.
Case Conference No. 15 – July 16, 2025
47On July 16, 2025, I noted in my Endorsement that Ms. von Achten had served the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim and had served a draft Affidavit of Documents that listed no Schedule “A” documents.
48At the July 16, 2025 case conference, Ms. von Achten advised that the Plaintiffs were having difficulty in obtaining production documents from St. Joseph’s Hospital and Brock University, the deceased’s place of study at the time of the incident.
49At that case conference, I made a peremptory order that Ms. von Achten was to bring a Rule 30.10 motion for the required productions prior to September 2, 2025. I also vacated the breached litigation Timetable Order of February 11, 2025.
Case Conference No. 16 – October 9, 2025
50On October 9, 2025, defence counsel advised that Ms. von Achten failed to comply with my peremptory order of July 16, 2025.
51Ms. von Achten failed to attend the October, 2025 case conference or to inform the court of her pending absence.
52It was at this last case conference that I agreed to hear the motion before me regarding the removal of Ms. von Achten as counsel of record for the Plaintiffs.
Guiding Legal Principles
53In deciding the Defendants’ motion, I am guided by Fryer J.’s summary of the applicable law in S.B. v. J.M., 2019 ONSC 6128. I reproduce here pertinent paragraphs 36 to 43 of Fryer J.’s decision which I adopt without exception:
[36] A party’s right to choose counsel to represent her in litigation is a fundamental value of our legal system. A litigant should not be deprived of her counsel of choice without good cause: MacDonald Estate v. Martin, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235 at para. 13.
[37] The courts in the exercise of their supervisory jurisdiction over the administration of justice in the courts have inherent jurisdiction to remove law firms from pending litigation. Disqualification may be required: (1) to avoid the risk of improper use of confidential information; (2) to avoid the risk of impaired representation; and/or (3) to maintain the repute of the administration of justice: Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 649 at para. 61.
[38] The court must exercise the “highest level of restraint before interfering with a party’s choice of counsel”: Re Kaiser, 2011 ONCA 713, [2011] O.J. No. 6223 at para. 21.
[39] Disqualification motions are brought pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court, which is an “extraordinary power” to be exercised “sparingly”: Zaldin v. Zaldin, 2014 ONSC 6504, [2014] O.J. No. 5355 at paras. 4, 5 and 10.
[40] The court must be alive to the fact that disqualification motions may be tactical and prone to abuse: Corrado Di Rosa v. Edisoft Inc., 2012 ONSC 7240, [2012] O.J. No. 6169 at para. 17.
[41] The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that counsel should be disqualified: Zaldin at para. 11.
[42] The responding party is not required to lead evidence on the motion: Lautec Properties Inc. v. Barzel Windsor (1984) Inc. (Ont. SCJ) at paras. 18-20.
[43] The test is whether a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that the removal of the law firm is necessary for the proper administration of justice. The factors to be balanced are (a) maintenance of respect for and the integrity of the high standards of the legal profession and the justice system as a whole; (b) the principle that a litigant has a right to choose her counsel, which should not be interfered with lightly; and (c) the objective of allowing reasonable mobility in the legal profession: MacDonald at para 57, Zaldin at para. 14 and Leach v. Leach, 2016 ONSC 6140, [2016] O.J. No. 5086, at para. 15.
54The inquiry is fact specific and based on an examination of all relevant factors and the reasons why the motion is being brought. The task of this court is to uphold and preserve the integrity of the justice system while ensuring that litigants are not deprived of their counsel of choice without good reason (see: Wheeler v. Taylor, 2024 ONSC 818, “Wheeler”, at para.29).
55While a litigant has the right to retain counsel of their choice, this right is not absolute and may be outweighed when the administration of justice will be detrimentally affected by the lawyer remaining as counsel of record (see: Wheeler, at para.35).
Analysis
56Counsel for the moving parties conceded that he was unable to find any reported decision where the court grappled with a request to remove counsel of record based on facts like the facts that are before me. The reported decided cases address matters of conflict of interest or situations where counsel is to be called as a witness. Counsel for the moving parties submits, however, that the principles first stipulated by the Supreme Court in MacDonald Estate v. Martin, and summarized by this court in S.B., are applicable to the facts of this case. I agree.
57I would note that Ms. von Achten concedes the applicability of these principles to the matter before me.
58I am satisfied that this motion to remove Ms. von Achten is not tactical in nature. I reach this conclusion for the two reasons. Firstly, defence counsel has granted Ms. Von Achten concessions and stepped in to draft materials on behalf of Ms. von Achten when she drafted deficient materials. Secondly, some defendants would no doubt prefer that the matter continue to languish and ultimately be dismissed for delay.
59As an officer of the court, Ms. von Achten is bound and should conduct herself as this court directs. This obligation requires counsel to attend scheduled case conference and to comply with the Orders of this court.
60I find from July 7, 2023, to October 9, 2025, Ms. von Achten failed to fulfill her obligations to the court.
61This is the only reasonable conclusion I am able to reach after considering all of the circumstances generously, including multiple unfulfilled directions of this court to deliver the Order to Continue and the Consent Order amending the Statement of Claim together with the Amended Statement of Claim, failure to abide by the terms of my peremptory order without explanation, and multiple failed attendances at case conferences without warning or any reasonable excuse.
62In addition, it does not escape me that this action remains at the pleadings stage after two and a half years of case management. The delay is inordinate and cannot continue. The delay not only prejudices the Defendants, but also the Plaintiffs. The parties deserve finality to the most unfortunate series of events that bring them before the court.
63In all the circumstances, I find that Ms. von Achten’ s conduct cannot be condoned by this court.
64I find, not lightly, and with some regret, that a fair minded, reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that Ms. Von Achten’ s involvement as counsel of record has brought the administration of justice into disrepute and her continued involvement will continue to do so, notwithstanding her representation to the court that she is able to move the matter forward.
65I also find that in all the circumstances, including the delays in the litigation that are primarily, if not solely, caused by the Plaintiffs’ counsel, that the Plaintiffs are being prejudiced.
66I have reached the conclusion that Ms. Von Achten’ s removal as counsel of record is necessary for the proper administration of justice after balancing the maintenance of respect for and the integrity of the high standards of the legal profession and the justice system as a whole and the principle that a litigant has a right to choose their counsel, which should not be interfered with lightly.
67Counsel may very well have reasonable explanation for her conduct, but those reasons are not before me.
68During the course of her submissions, Ms. von Achten apologized to the court. The court accepts Ms. von Achten apologies. I trust, however, apologies will also be extended to the Plaintiffs and opposing counsel.
69The removal of a party’s counsel of choice is an exceptional remedy and is only to be granted in exceptional circumstances. The matter before me is one of those unfortunate exceptional cases.
Conclusion
70The moving Defendants’ motion to remove Ms. von Achten and the Law Office of S.J. von Achten as counsel of record for the Plaintiffs is granted.
71I am most grateful to counsel for the moving Defendants to have waived their costs of this motion in this circumstance.
Justice M. Valente
Released: January 20, 2026
2026 ONSC 274
COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-64171
DATE: 2026-01-20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
YOSIF AL-HASNAWI, DECEASED BY HIS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, MAJED AL-HASNAWI, MAJED AL-HASNAWI, MAHDI AL-HASNAWI and AHMED AL-HASNAWI, MINORS BY THEIR LITIGATION GUARDIAN, MAJED AL-HASNAWI
Plaintiffs/Responding Parties
- and –
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF HAMILTON, HAMILTON PARAMEDIC SERVICE, CREW MEMBER, JOHN DOE #1 CHRISTOPHER MARCHANT, CREW MEMBER, JOHN DOE #2 STEVEN SNIVELY, HAMILTON POLICE SERVICES BOARD POLICE CONSTABLE JOHN DOE #3 ZEZELLA, POLICE CONSTABLE JOHN DOE #4 CAMPOVARI, ST. JOSEPH’S HEALTHCARE HAMILTON, DALE BURNINGSKY KING JAMES MATHESON
Defendants/Moving Parties
ENDORSEMENT ON MOTION
Justice Valente
Released: January 20, 2026