Summary

Keywords

Law of professions — Barristers and solicitors — Conflict of interest — Insurer and insured —Civil litigation — Civil procedure — Summary judgments — When a lawyer is retained both by an insured and by an insurance company on the insured’s behalf (i.e., representing both an insured and uninsured interest), what is the proper approach to assessing whether counsel’s mandate from the insurer raises a reasonable apprehension of conflict? — How are conflicting priorities/directions to be factored into that conflict assessment? — Where a lawyer disagrees with an essential term of their mandate at what point does this become a conflict of interest? —How is the duty of loyalty to be reconciled with clients demanding irreconcilable settlement terms?

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicants, Oz Optics Ltd. and Omur Sezerman, began an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice asserting that the respondent lawyers were in a conflict of interest while they were representing the applicants and the applicants’ insurer in an earlier action that has since settled. The respondent lawyers successfully moved for summary judgment and dismissal of the applicants’ action against them. The Court of Appeal for Ontario unanimously dismissed the applicants’ appeal for the reasons of the motion judge.

Lower Court Rulings