Lappin v. Bauer, 2015 NSSC 108
|Court:||Supreme Court of Nova Scotia|
|Case Date:||February 18, 2015|
|Citations:||2015 NSSC 108;(2015), 358 N.S.R.(2d) 77 (SC)|
Lappin v. Bauer (2015), 358 N.S.R.(2d) 77 (SC);
1131 A.P.R. 77
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite:  N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.019
Jacqueline Lappin (plaintiff/applicant) v. Colin Bauer and Patricia Curry-Bauer (defendants/respondents)
(Syd. No. 431635; 2015 NSSC 108)
Indexed As: Lappin v. Bauer
Nova Scotia Supreme Court
April 9, 2015.
The plaintiff moved for an order declaring the law firm of S.M. to be in a conflict and removing any lawyer associated with the firm of S.M. as solicitor of record for the defendants.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the motion.
Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1611
Relationship with client - Conflict of interest or duties - Conduct of action against former client - In June 2010, the plaintiff retained Hannem of the law firm of S.M. to assist in the purchase of a property - Subsequent to the closing, the defendants informed the plaintiff that the property did not possess a legal easement to a well that provided water to the property - Hannem advised the plaintiff to leave the situation as it was and to contact him if any issues arose with the well - In July 2013, the defendants further advised the plaintiff that the property did not possess a legal easement to pass over a portion of the defendants' driveway to access the plaintiff's property - The defendants began construction of a fence that would block the plaintiff's access to the shared portion of the driveway - The plaintiff discussed the issue with a lawyer from S.M., but subsequently retained the services of a different firm and commenced an action - The defendants retained the services of S.M. - The plaintiff moved for an order declaring the law firm of S.M. to be in a conflict and removing any lawyer associated with the firm of S.M. as solicitor of record for the defendants - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the motion - The 2010 representation of the plaintiff in the property purchase and the 2013 representation of the defendants regarding the driveway easement dispute regarding the same property were related - Confidential information was at risk - If the court was wrong, and there was no confidential information at risk, it would still disqualify S.M. from acting for the defendants - There was a conflict of interest.
Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1619
Relationship with client - Conflict of interest or duties - Situations resulting in a conflict - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1611 ].
Johnson v. Rudolph et al. (2013), 332 N.S.R.(2d) 235; 1052 A.P.R. 235; 2013 NSSC 210, refd to. [para. 13].
Bhandal et al. v. Khalsa Diwan Society of Victoria,  B.C.T.C. Uned. 1425; 2013 BCSC 1425, refd to. [para. 14].
MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd.,  3 S.C.R. 1235; 121 N.R. 1; 70 Man.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 20].
Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al.,  1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462; 1982 CanLII 22, refd to. [para. 22].
Brookville Carriers Flatbed GP Inc. v. Blackjack Transport Ltd. et al. (2008), 263 N.S.R.(2d) 272; 843 A.P.R. 272; 2008 NSCA 22, refd to. [para. 26].
Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP - see Wallace v. Canadian Pacific Railway et al.
Wallace v. Canadian Pacific Railway et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 1; 423 Sask.R. 1; 588 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 29].
Enterprise Cape Breton Corp. v. Crown Jewel Resort Ranch Inc. et al. (2014), 343 N.S.R.(2d) 102; 1084 A.P.R. 102; 2014 NSSC 105, refd to. [para. 30].
Sean MacDonald, for the plaintiff/applicant;
Robert Risk, for the defendants/respondents.
This motion was heard at Sydney, N.S., on February 18, 2015, by Edwards, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on April 9, 2015.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP