Bowman T.C.J. (Orally):
1 This is an application by the respondent to remove Bernard Jacob Kamin as counsel of record in the case of Howard Spillman v. Her Majesty The Queen, 96-3502(IT)G.
2 The grounds are that Mr. Kamin is not a person who, within the meaning of subsection 17.1(2) of The Tax Court of Canada Act, “may practise as a barrister, advocate, attorney or solicitor in any of the provinces.” Therefore, he is not a person who can represent Dr. Spillman as counsel.
3 Dr. Spillman has filed with the court a letter stating that he does not object to the removal of Mr. Kamin as counsel of record.
4 The grounds are (1) that Mr. Kamin has filed with the Law Society an undertaking not to practise law pending the resolution of certain complaints against him by the Law Society; (2), that he has been suspended for non-payment of fees; and (3), according to the supplementary affidavit filed by Ms. Boris, he has been suspended as of February 27th, 1998 by The Law Society of Upper Canada.
Such a suspension to continue indefinitely until Complaints D188/96 and D229/97 are finally resolved by Convocation.
5 It therefore follows that until he is reinstated, if he is reinstated, as a member in good standing with The Law Society of Upper Canada, he is not a person who may practise as a barrister, advocate, attorney or solicitor in this province.
6 Paragraph 31(2) (c) refers to a direction removing the counsel from the record. Section 34 of the rules permits counsel of his or her own motion to be removed as counsel of record. There is no specific provision in the rules permitting the opposing party to have counsel removed as counsel of record.
7 Although a number of cases in the Federal and the Provincial courts, notably MacDonald Estate v. Martin, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235 (S.C.C.), dealt at length with the circumstances in which counsel can be removed, most of these cases have to do with an alleged or perceived conflict of interest. That is not the situation here.
8 We are dealing with a case where counsel of record is under a disability to act as counsel, and although there is no specific rule permitting this, in my view, this court has an inherent jurisdiction to remove a lawyer as counsel of record in appropriate circumstances.
9 I do not think that I even need to rely upon section 13 of The Tax Court Act. If there were a need for any statutory justification of our power to do it, I think it would be found in section 13 if not within the inherent powers of the court.
10 Accordingly, there will be a direction removing Bernard Jacob Kamin as counsel of record in the case of Howard Spillman v. Her Majesty The Queen.
Email this Content