R. v. Iceberg Quest Ocean Tours Inc., (2015) 374 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 194 (NLPC)

JudgeLinehan, P.C.J.
CourtNewfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
Case DateNovember 03, 2015
JurisdictionNewfoundland and Labrador
Citations(2015), 374 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 194 (NLPC)

R. v. Iceberg Quest (2015), 374 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 194 (NLPC);

    1164 A.P.R. 194

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. NO.022

Her Majesty the Queen (applicant) v. Iceberg Quest Ocean Tours Inc. (respondent)

(0115PA01170)

Indexed As: R. v. Iceberg Quest Ocean Tours Inc.

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Linehan, P.C.J.

November 6, 2015.

Summary:

Both Reddick and Iceberg Quest Ocean Tours Inc. (the accused) faced similar charges under the Fisheries Act that had been laid on separate informations arising out of a single incident while Reddick was operating a vessel for the accused. Both were represented by Gittens & Associates. The Crown intended to call Reddick as a witness in the accused's trial. Alleging a conflict of interest, the Crown applied for an order removing Gittens from the record and prohibiting the firm from acting further in the matter for the accused. Reddick had since retained independent counsel.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court allowed the application.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1611.1

Relationship with client - Conflict of interest - Acting for accused where former client a Crown witness - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1619 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1619

Relationship with client - Conflict of interest - Situations resulting in a conflict - Both Reddick and Iceberg Quest Ocean Tours Inc. (the accused) faced similar charges under the Fisheries Act that had been laid on separate informations arising out of a single incident while Reddick was operating a vessel for the accused - Both were represented by Gittens & Associates - The Crown intended to call Reddick as a witness in the accused's trial - Alleging a conflict of interest, the Crown applied for an order removing Gittens from the record and prohibiting the firm from acting further in the matter for the accused - Reddick had since retained independent counsel - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court allowed the application - Given the previous solicitor and client relationship between Reddick and Gittens, the court inferred that confidential information had been imparted - Questions put in cross-examination could create the uneasy feeling in Reddick that they had their genesis in the confidential information imparted to his former counsel - Gittens had to be disqualified.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Martin (R.) (1989), 86 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 246; 268 A.P.R. 246 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 4].

MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd. (1990), 121 N.R. 1; 70 Man.R.(2d) 41; 1990 CarswellMan 233 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Counsel:

Mark Stares, for Her Majesty the Queen;

Ernest Gittens, for the respondent.

This application was heard at St. John's, N.L., on November 3, 2015, by Linehan, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on November 6, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT