The facts of this case are similar in some respects to the facts in Rosin v. MacPhail. At paras 21, 23 and 24, Mr. Justice Esson noted, in effect, that the possibility of mischief could exist, even where the previous retainer was many years earlier, and the lawyer could not recall receiving any confidential information that could be relevant to the present litigation. Additionally, Esson J.A. expressed the following opinion at para. 25: . . . the discretion to restrain a lawyer from acting may be applied more readily in the context of family law than in, say, commercial cases.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.