Sharp practice

Last updated

Sharp practice or sharp dealing is a pejorative phrase to describe sneaky or cunning behavior that is technically within the rules of the law but borders on being unethical. [1] [2]

The term has been used by judges in Canada; in one case, a Canadian Construction Board gave an example of "sharp practice" for one party to "take advantage of a clear oversight by the opposite party in a proceeding." [3] According to another source, a Canadian court of appeal judgement, judges should not accuse counsel of sharp practice lightly and should generally not make such an accusation based solely on written submissions. [4] Likewise in R v Badger the Supreme Court of Canada forbade the government from engaging in "sharp dealing" with First Nations in implementing treaties.

See also

Related Research Articles

Legal ethics are principles of conduct that members of the legal profession are expected to observe in their practice. They are an outgrowth of the development of the legal profession itself.

In English and English-derived legal systems, an Anton Piller order is a court order that provides the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. This is intended to prevent the destruction of relevant evidence, particularly in cases of alleged trademark, copyright or patent infringements.

The court system of Canada forms the country's judiciary, formally known as "The King on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

Douglas Hewson Christie, Jr. was a Canadian lawyer and political activist based in Victoria, British Columbia, who was known nationally for his defence of clients such as Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel, former Nazi prison guard Michael Seifert and neo-Nazi Paul Fromm among others.

<i>Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that a non-lawyer may be given the power to practice law under a federal statute even if it is contrary to provincial legal profession legislation.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.

<i>R v Neil</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Neil, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631, 2002 SCC 70, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on conflict of interests among lawyers. The Court held that both firms and lawyers have a fiduciary duty of loyalty to their clients and so a lawyer or firm cannot represent a client whose interests may be adverse to the interests of another client unless there is consent and a reasonable belief that the interests will not be adverse. This greatly expanded the old rules of conflict of interest which required actual knowledge of confidential information before a lawyer was in conflict.

In Canadian law, a reasonable apprehension of bias is a legal standard for disqualifying judges and administrative decision-makers for bias. Bias of the decision-maker can be real or merely perceived.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law Society of British Columbia</span>

The Law Society of British Columbia is the regulatory body for lawyers in British Columbia, Canada.

<i>Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd, 1997 CanLII 332, [1997] 3 SCR 701 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian employment law, particularly in determining damages arising from claims concerning wrongful dismissal.

In England and Wales, the principle of legal professional privilege has long been recognised by the common law. It is seen as a fundamental principle of justice, and grants a protection from disclosing evidence. It is a right that attaches to the client and so may only be waived by the client.

<i>R v Basi</i> 2009 Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Basi is a landmark decision by Supreme Court of Canada where the Court weighed the rights of the defendant versus the privileges of an informant in an important trial into alleged government corruption.

A grievance is a formal complaint that is raised by an employee towards an employer within the workplace. There are many reasons as to why a grievance can be raised, and also many ways to go about dealing with such a scenario. Reasons for filing a grievance in the workplace can be as a result of, but not limited to, a breach of the terms and conditions of an employment contract, raises and promotions, or lack thereof, as well as harassment and employment discrimination.

Unbundled legal services, also known as limited scope representation and discrete task representation, is a method of legal representation in which an attorney and client agree to limit the scope of the attorney’s involvement in a lawsuit or other legal action, leaving responsibility for those other aspects of the case to the client in order to save the client money and give them more control. Unbundled legal services, limited scope retainers or discrete task representation are available in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, as well as the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Ontario. One common use of unbundled legal services is family law, as a case is often too complex for a pro se litigant to handle alone but the cost of full-service legal representation is often prohibitive.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian corporate law</span>

Canadian corporate law concerns the operation of corporations in Canada, which can be established under either federal or provincial authority.

<i>Doré v Barreau du Québec</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Doré v Barreau du Québec is an administrative law decision by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding how to apply the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to adjudicative decisions, as opposed to statutory law. The Court found that the test in R. v. Oakes does not apply to administrative law decisions, although there is "conceptual harmony" between the review for reasonableness and the Oakes framework. Instead, the question is whether the administrative decision is reasonable, in that it reflects a proportionate balancing of the Charter rights and values at play. In addition to the parties, the Court heard from the following intervenors: the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the Young Bar Association of Montreal.

<i>Canadian National Railway Co v McKercher LLP</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian National Railway Co v McKercher LLP is a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada that consolidated Canadian jurisprudence on conflicts of interest in the legal profession.

Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the administration of justice power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:

14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.

<i>R v Jordan</i> (2016) Supreme Court of Canada case

R. v. Jordan was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which rejected the framework traditionally used to determine whether an accused was tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and replaced it with a presumptive ceiling of 18 months between the charges and the trial in a provincial court without preliminary inquiry, or 30 months in other cases.

<i>Kuzych v White</i> Series of Canadian labour law cases

Kuzych v White was a series of Canadian labour law decisions from British Columbia, dealing with a membership dispute between a trade union and a member of the union. Myron Kuzych, the union member, publicly objected to the closed shop favoured by the Boilermakers and Iron Ship Builders Union of Canada (BISU). The union cancelled his membership, resulting in him being fired by the shipyard where he worked as a welder. Kuzych challenged the termination in the British Columbia courts, and eventually the matter was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain, at that time the highest court of appeal in the British Commonwealth. The Judicial Committee ruled that Kuzych should have exhausted his appeals within the union before going to court, and upheld his expulsion from the union.

References

  1. "Professional Conduct Handbook - Chapter 1 - Canons of Legal Ethics | The Law Society of British Columbia". www.lawsociety.bc.ca. The Law Society of British Columbia. Archived from the original on 2016-05-01. Retrieved 2017-01-28. A lawyer should avoid all sharp practice and should take no paltry advantage when an opponent has made a slip or overlooked some technical matter. A lawyer should accede to reasonable requests which do not prejudice the rights of the client or the interest of justice.
  2. "Sharp Practice Definition". www.duhaime.org. Archived from the original on 2016-04-12. Retrieved 2017-01-28. Sharp Practice Definition: Prohibited conduct by a licensed lawyer in taking, or attempting to take advantage of a slip or overlooked technical matter by the other side to litigation, and to agree to reasonable requests which either prejudice his client or the interests of justice.
  3. Construction Workers Local 53 v. Fahringer Mechanical Contractors Limited (2001),   CanLII  3504  (ON L.R.B.)
  4. Kelly v. Dosch (2005),   CanLII  8669  (ON C.A.)