Booth et al. v. Huxter, (1994) 69 O.A.C. 1 (DC)

• Judge: O'Brien, Moldaver, H.J. Smith, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: Saturday January 01, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1994), 69 O.A.C. 1 (DC)

Booth v. Huxter (1994), 69 O.A.C. 1 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of an Inquest into the death of Lester Donaldson;

And In The Matter Of the Coroners Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-37;

And In The Matter Of an Order dated the 1st day of November, 1993.

Between: P.C. Jeff Booth, P.C. William Lawler, P.C. David Deviney, Brian Reed and Sgt. Niels Sondergaard (applicants) v. Dr. Robert Huxter (respondent)

(Court File No. 744/93)

Indexed As: Booth et al. v. Huxter

Ontario Court of Justice

Divisional Court

O'Brien, Moldaver, H.J. Smith, JJ.

January 14 and 25, 1994.

Summary:

During an inquest, a coroner ruled that a lawyer had a conflict of interest arising out of his representation of several parties. The coroner ordered the lawyer to cease acting for one of the parties. The lawyer's other clients applied for judicial review of the coroner's ruling.

The Ontario Divisional Court, H.J. Smith, J., dissenting, dismissed the application.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1614

Relationship with client - Conflict of interest - Acting for several parties - [See Coroners - Topic 1005].

Coroners - Topic 1005

Powers - To disqualify counsel for con­flict of interest - An inquest was held respecting the shooting of a man by police while attempting to arrest him - One lawyer represented the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board, the police chief and the five officers present at the shooting - The coroner removed the law­yer as counsel for the Board due to con­flict of interest - The lawyer felt he could no longer act for either the Board or the officers - The officers applied to quash the coroner's ruling - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application, discussing the power of the coroner to make such a ruling.

Cases Noticed:

Black Action Defence Committee v. Hux­ter (Coroner) (1992), 59 O.A.C. 327; 11 O.R.(3d) 641 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 8, 145].

R. v. Speid (1983), 43 O.R.(2d) 596; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 18 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 22, 72, 129].

R. v. Silvini (1991), 50 O.A.C. 376; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 251 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 22, 128].

Stanford v. Regional Coroner, Eastern Ontario - see Kingston Penitentiary (Range Representative on Administrative Segregation) v. Regional Coroner (East­ern Ontario).

Kingston Penitentiary (Range Representa­tive on Administrative Segregation) v. Regional Coroner (Eastern Ontario) (1989), 33 O.A.C. 241; 38 C.P.C.(2d) 161 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 31, 88].

MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; 121 N.R. 1; 70 Man.R.(2d) 241; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 249; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 705, refd to. [paras. 38, 127].

Martin v. Gray - see MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd.

Goldberg v. Goldberg (1982), 141 D.L.R.(3d) 133 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

People First of Ontario et al. v. Regional Coroner of Niagara et al. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 187; 6 O.R.(3d) 289 (C.A.), revsing. 50 O.A.C. 90; 5 O.R.(3d) 609; 85 D.L.R.(4th) 174 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 45, 89].

Porter - see People First of Ontario et al. v. Regional Coroner of Niagara et al.

Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Isaac (Cor­oner) (1988), 27 O.A.C. 232 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 58, 142].

Manville Canada Inc. v. Ladner Downs (1992), 63 B.C.L.R.(2d) 102 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 132].

Beckon v. Deputy Chief Coroner (Ont.) (1992), 57 O.A.C. 21; 9 O.R.(3d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].

Statutes Noticed:

Coroners Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-37, sect. 2(1) [paras. 56, 154]; sect. 31(1) [para. 94]; sect. 31(2) [paras. 26, 95]; sect. 31(3) [para. 97]; sect. 31(4) [para. 98]; sect. 37(2) [para. 114]; sect. 41 [paras. 76, 146]; sect. 41(1) [para. 28]; sect. 41(2)(a) [para. 68]; sect. 50(1) [para. 13 et seq.].

Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 224, sect. 6(2) [para. 70].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 5 [paras. 37, 127].

Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, Report of an Inquiry (August 1992), generally [para. 51].

Counsel:

Ronald Craigen and Robert MacKinnon, for the applicant officers;

A. Reddon and G. Burt, for the doctors;

Thomas C. Marshall, Q.C., for the respon­dent;

Julian N. Falconer and Richard Macklin, for Urban Alliance on Race Relations;

Peter T. Pliszka, for Myrtle Donaldson.

This application was heard on December 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21, 1993, before O'Brien, Moldaver and H.J. Smith, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The decision of the court was released on January 14 and 25, 1994, including the following opinions:

Moldaver, J. (O'Brien, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 82;

H.J. Smith, J., dissenting - see para­graphs 83 to 155.