Not exact matches
The rule came about as a result of the top court's landmark 2002 decision in R v. Neil, when former
justice Ian Binnie wrote that in general «a lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client» even if the two mandates are unrelated,
unless both clients consent after receiving
full disclosure.
In Stiles v. Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia (1989), 38 B.C.L.R. (2d) 307 (C.A.)
Justice Lambert stated that
full indemnity for legal fees should not be awarded
unless there is some form of reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct in the circumstances giving rise to the cause of action, or in the proceedings themselves that warrants chastisement.
Limit on cross-examinations 7 (1) Subject to subsection (2), cross-examinations on any documentary evidence filed by the parties shall not exceed a total of seven hours for all plaintiffs in the proceeding and seven hours for all defendants (2) A judge may extend the time permitted for cross-examination on documentary evidence if it is necessary to do so in the interest of
justice Costs on dismissal 8 (1) If a judge dismisses a proceeding under this section, the moving party is entitled to costs on the motion and in the proceeding on a
full indemnity basis,
unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate in the circumstances.