Ontario Court Of Appeal Rules No Conflict Of Interest for Lerners
By: Ainsley Brown
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling that the law firm Lerners LLP did not have to withdraw on a case involving a supposed third party conflict.
This supposed conflict arose after the law firm acted for a lawyer, a one Mr. Harold Springer, who provided business advice to G. Raymond Chang Ltd. (GRCL). GRCL, later became embroiled in a dispute with Shopcast Television Inc. where it filed and affidavit from Mr. Springer in support of its position
Shopcast for its part then retained Lerners for the matter. GRCL, then cried foul bringing a motion to disqualify the firm alleging it was in conflict because Lerners had acted for Mr. Springer.
In the lower court (Ontario Supreme Court), Justice Sarah Pappall ruled that “there is no real risk of impairment of Lerners’ ability to properly represent the legal interests of both Mr. Springer and Shopcast.” As Mr. Springer was not an officer, director or shareholder in GRCL, the “evidence of any interconnection between the two retainers is lacking and is certainly neither clear nor cogent” – the legal test for conflict was therefore not met.
