Only when the state's imposition of duties on lawyers undermines, in fact or in
the perception of a reasonable person, the lawyer's ability to comply with his or her duty of commitment to the client's cause that there will be a departure from what is required by this principle of fundamental justice.
It follows that we must be concerned not only with whether the duty is in fact interfered with but also with
the perception of a reasonable person, fully apprised of the relevant circumstances and having thought the matter through.
In the context of state action engaging s. 7 of the Charter,... (subject to justification) the state can not impose duties on lawyers that undermine the lawyer's compliance with that duty, either in fact or in
the perception of a reasonable person, fully apprised of all of the relevant circumstances and having thought the matter through.
Not exact matches
The standard is what the
perception of a «
reasonable person» would be, considering the perspective
of both a
reasonable person in the applicant's position and in the respondent's position.
question, the only truthful answer must be «no», since colour
perception is both limited and biased, as well as the actual colour being a matter
of opinion (viz,
reasonable people can disagree).