R. v. Neil,

JurisdictionFederal Jurisdiction (Canada)
JudgeMajor, John C.; Bastarache, Michel; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; Arbour, Louise; LeBel, Louis
Citation[2002] 3 SCR 631,2002 SCC 70,218 DLR (4th) 671,[2003] 2 WWR 591,317 AR 73,6 Alta LR (4th) 1,168 CCC (3d) 321,6 CR (6th) 1,294 NR 201,[2002] CarswellAlta 1301,JE 2002-2002,[2002] SCJ No 72 (QL),284 WAC 73,55 WCB (2d) 36
Docket Number28282
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Date01 November 2002

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
266 practice notes
  • 3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother et al.
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 1, 2007
    ...and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235 ; 121 N.R. 1 ; 70 Man.R.(2d) 241 , refd to. [para. 34]. R. v. Neil (D.L.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; 294 N.R. 201 ; 317 A.R. 73 ; 284 W.A.C. 73 ; 2002 SCC 70 , refd to. [para. De Beers Canada Inc. v. Shore Gold Inc. et al. (2006), 2......
  • Goold v. Alberta (Office of the Children's Advocate), 2011 ABCA 63
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • November 9, 2010
    ...University of Ottawa (1997), 101 O.A.C. 241; 34 O.R.(3d) 535; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 30, 59]. R. v. Neil (D.L.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; 294 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 73; 284 W.A.C. 73, refd to. [para. Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N......
  • 3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother et al.
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 1, 2007
    ...and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235 ; 121 N.R. 1 ; 70 Man.R.(2d) 241 , refd to. [para. 34]. R. v. Neil (D.L.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; 294 N.R. 201 ; 317 A.R. 73 ; 284 W.A.C. 73 ; 2002 SCC 70 , refd to. [para. De Beers Canada Inc. v. Shore Gold Inc. et al. (2006), 2......
  • R. v. Ticknovich (N.M.)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 3, 2003
    ...3, footnote 1]. R. v. Ng (K.-F.) (2003), 327 A.R. 215; 296 W.A.C. 215; 2003 ABCA 1, refd to. [para. 4, footnote 2]. R. v. Neil (D.L.), [2003] 2 W.W.R. 591; 294 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 73; 284 W.A.C. 73; 168 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 218 D.L.R.(4th) 671; 6 C.R.(6th) 1; 6 Alta. L.R.(4th) 1; 2002 CarswellAlt......
  • Get Started for Free
218 cases
  • 3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother et al.
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 1, 2007
    ...and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235 ; 121 N.R. 1 ; 70 Man.R.(2d) 241 , refd to. [para. 34]. R. v. Neil (D.L.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; 294 N.R. 201 ; 317 A.R. 73 ; 284 W.A.C. 73 ; 2002 SCC 70 , refd to. [para. De Beers Canada Inc. v. Shore Gold Inc. et al. (2006), 2......
  • Goold v. Alberta (Office of the Children's Advocate), 2011 ABCA 63
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • November 9, 2010
    ...University of Ottawa (1997), 101 O.A.C. 241; 34 O.R.(3d) 535; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 30, 59]. R. v. Neil (D.L.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; 294 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 73; 284 W.A.C. 73, refd to. [para. Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N......
  • 3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother et al.
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 1, 2007
    ...and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235 ; 121 N.R. 1 ; 70 Man.R.(2d) 241 , refd to. [para. 34]. R. v. Neil (D.L.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; 294 N.R. 201 ; 317 A.R. 73 ; 284 W.A.C. 73 ; 2002 SCC 70 , refd to. [para. De Beers Canada Inc. v. Shore Gold Inc. et al. (2006), 2......
  • R. v. Ticknovich (N.M.)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 3, 2003
    ...3, footnote 1]. R. v. Ng (K.-F.) (2003), 327 A.R. 215; 296 W.A.C. 215; 2003 ABCA 1, refd to. [para. 4, footnote 2]. R. v. Neil (D.L.), [2003] 2 W.W.R. 591; 294 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 73; 284 W.A.C. 73; 168 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 218 D.L.R.(4th) 671; 6 C.R.(6th) 1; 6 Alta. L.R.(4th) 1; 2002 CarswellAlt......
  • Get Started for Free
5 firm's commentaries
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries – July 4 – July 7, 2017
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 19, 2017
    ...and even if Cassels' characterization of a narrow and contingent retainer by the dealers had prevailed. In R. v. Neil, 2002 SCC 70, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631, the Supreme Court established the bright line test where a lawyer is not permitted to act for adverse clients unless both parties provide ......
  • The Dispute Resolution Review - 9th Edition
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • June 29, 2017
    ...31 See for example, Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, Section 3.4. 32 2013 SCC 39 at para. 32. 33 R v. Neil [2002] 3 SCR 631 at para. 34 SC 2000, c 17. 35 Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2015 SCC 7 at para. 79. 36 British Columbi......
  • The Bright Line Rule: The SCC Reconsiders Its Approach To Conflicts Of Interest
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 19, 2013
    ..."bright line" rule that applies to conflicts of interest among current clients. This rule, which was first articulated in R. v. Neil, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631, provides "... a lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current c......
  • Supreme Court Revisits Conflicts Of Interest In CNR v. Mckercher Decision
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 15, 2013
    ...commitment and candour breached The SCC reexamined a lawyer's duties to a client and stated: "As we held in R. v. Neil, 2002 SCC 70, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631, the general "bright line" rule is that a lawyer, and by extension a law firm, may not concurrently represent clients adverse in interest ......
  • Get Started for Free
43 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Procedure. Fourth Edition
    • June 23, 2020
    ...361 CCC (3d) 26 ..................... 356 R v NC (1991), 35 QAC 1, 64 CCC (3d) 45, [1991] JQ no 226 (CA) ..........493, 494 R v Neil, [2002] 3 SCR 631, 168 CCC (3d) 321, 2002 SCC 70 ........................... 452 R v Nesbeth, 2008 ONCA 579 ...................................... 103, 233, 2......
  • Fumbling Toward Efficacy: Interjurisdictional Class Actions After Currie V. Mcdonald’s
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 3-2, July 2006
    • July 1, 2006
    ...he or she is able to represent each client without adversely affecting the other.” See R. v. Neil, [2002] 3 S.C.R 631 at para. 29, 218 D.L.R. (4th) 671, 2002 SCC 70. 178 ABA Model Rules, above note 26, rule 1.7 provides that, notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interes......
  • Cumulative Index
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 3-2, July 2006
    • July 1, 2006
    ...he or she is able to represent each client without adversely affecting the other.” See R. v. Neil, [2002] 3 S.C.R 631 at para. 29, 218 D.L.R. (4th) 671, 2002 SCC 70. 178 ABA Model Rules, above note 26, rule 1.7 provides that, notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interes......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Criminal Procedure. Second Edition
    • September 2, 2012
    ...342 R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 ............................................................................ 305 R. v. Neil, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631, 168 C.C.C. (3d) 321, 2002 SCC 70 ................... 303 R. v. Nesbeth, 2008 ONCA 579 ................................................................
  • Get Started for Free