Canada: The Bright Line Rule: The SCC Reconsiders Its Approach To Conflicts Of Interest

In a recent decision, Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39, the Supreme Court of Canada revisited the "bright line" rule that applies to conflicts of interest among current clients. This rule, which was first articulated in R. v. Neil, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631, provides that:

"... 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 (and preferably independent legal advice), and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without adversely affecting the other." (Neil, para. 29; emphasis in original)

The Supreme Court's decision in McKercher will be important for the legal profession across Canada. Perhaps most significantly, the Court clarified the scope of the bright line rule. In particular, the Court held that the rule is engaged only where the immediate interests of clients are directly adverse in the matters on which the lawyer is acting, and that the rule does not apply in unrelated matters where it is unreasonable for a client to expect that its law firm will not act against it. Additionally, the Court held that, even when the rule is engaged, disqualification is not automatic and should only be ordered when necessary (1) to avoid the risk of improper use of confidential information, (2) to avoid the risk of impaired representation, and/or (3) to maintain the repute of the administration of justice.

Background and Decisions Below

As discussed in two earlier posts (here and here), Gordon Wallace is the plaintiff in a proposed class action against the Canadian National Railway ("CN") and other defendants with respect to alleged overcharging of farmers for grain transportation. $1.75 billion in damages are sought. The McKercher firm represents Wallace.

At the time that McKercher accepted the retainer from Wallace, it was acting for CN on a few unrelated matters. Accordingly, CN—a "current client" of McKercher—moved for an order disqualifying McKercher from representing Wallace in the proposed class action.

The motion judge, Justice Popescul (now Chief Justice of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench), granted CN's motion and disqualified McKercher on two bases. Firstly, Justice Popescul held that there was a substantial risk that McKercher's representation of CN was materially and adversely affected by its representation of Wallace. Justice Pospecul noted, among other things, the magnitude of the claim in the proposed class action, and the fact that McKercher had represented CN for more than a decade and was considered by CN to be its "go to" (though non-exclusive) counsel in Saskatchewan. Secondly, Justice Popescul held that McKercher was in possession of information regarding CN's "litigation practices, policies, risk tolerances and attitudes toward litigation" (para. 85), and that this constituted relevant confidential information that would give McKercher an unfair advantage over CN if McKercher were permitted to represent Wallace against CN in the proposed class action.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned Justice Popescul's disqualification order. There were, in essence, four aspects to the Court of Appeal's decision. Firstly, the Court of Appeal held that CN had not adduced cogent evidence that general confidential information about CN's litigation strategy had been imparted to McKercher or that there was a real risk that such information would be used to CN's prejudice in the proposed class action. Secondly, the Court of Appeal held that CN was properly viewed as a "professional litigant" whose consent to the Wallace retainer could be inferred despite CN's later protestations. Thus, McKercher was not prevented from taking on the Wallace retainer because of the bright line rule. Thirdly, the Court of Appeal held that McKercher had nonetheless breached its duty of loyalty to CN, by attempting to "dump" CN as a client and by not being candid in disclosing to CN in a timely manner that it intended to take on the Wallace retainer. Fourthly, though, the Court of Appeal held that disqualification was not the appropriate remedy. In this regard, the Court of Appeal noted that the relationship between CN and McKercher had already been terminated, and also that disqualification would be costly for Wallace, who would then have to retain new counsel.

The Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

In unanimous reasons written by Chief Justice McLachlin, the Supreme Court allowed CN's appeal and remitted the matter to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench for redetermination of the appropriate remedy.

Although the Supreme Court reaffirmed the language of the bright line rule, the Supreme Court noted that it is "not a rule of unlimited application" (para. 30), and that the "main area of application of the bright line rule is in civil and criminal proceedings." (para. 35) The Supreme Court provided four important pieces of guidance about the rule's scope. Firstly, the rule applies "only where the immediate interests of clients are directly adverse in the matters on which the lawyer is acting." (para. 33) Secondly, the relevant interests must be legal (not merely strategic or commercial). Thirdly, the rule cannot be invoked by a party for purely tactical purposes. In this regard, the Supreme Court cautioned that "institutional clients should not spread their retainers among scores of leading law firms in a purposeful attempt to create potential conflicts." (para. 36) Fourthly, the rule does not apply to unrelated matters where it is unreasonable for a client to expect that its law firm will not act against it.

In discussing the fourth point, the Supreme Court cited the example given in Neil of the "professional litigant" (such as a chartered bank) whose consent to concurrent representation of adverse legal interests can be inferred. But the Supreme Court in McKercher indicated that the reasonable client expectation is not tied to the notion of implied consent and instead requires a broader contextual analysis:

"Factors such as the nature of the relationship between the law firm and the client, the terms of the retainer, as well as the types of matters involved, may be relevant to consider when determining whether there was a reasonable expectation that the law firm would not act against the client in unrelated matters. Ultimately, courts must conduct a case-by-case assessment, and set aside the bright line rule when it appears that a client could not reasonably expect its application." (para. 37)

In addition, the Supreme Court held that, if the bright line rule does not apply, it is still necessary to consider whether accepting the new retainer would create a "substantial risk of impaired representation." (para. 40) If no such risk is created, the new retainer may be accepted.

On the facts of this case, the Supreme Court held that the bright line rule was breached, because the "immediate interests of CN and Wallace were directly adverse, and those interests were legal in nature." (para 51) Further, there was no evidence on the record that CN's motion was made for purely tactical purposes, and it was "reasonable for CN to be surprised and dismayed when its primary legal counsel in the province of Saskatchewan sued it for $1.75 billion." (para. 52) The Supreme Court, however, agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Wallace retainer did not create a risk of misuse of confidential information, because CN had failed to show that McKercher had gained any relevant confidential information about CN in the unrelated matters.

Having concluded that McKercher breached its duty to avoid conflicting interests (as well as its related duties of commitment and candour to CN), the Supreme Court then turned to the issue of remedy. As mentioned above, the Supreme Court held that disqualification requires sufficient reason and does not follow automatically upon a breach of these duties. Instead, disqualification may be ordered, on a case-by-case basis, when necessary (1) to avoid the risk of improper use of confidential information, (2) to avoid the risk of impaired representation, and/or (3) to maintain the repute of the administration of justice.

The Supreme Court indicated that, in this case, the first and second of these factors are not relevant, because CN did not establish that McKercher is in possession of any relevant confidential information about CN, and because the relationship between CN and McKercher has already been terminated such that there is no risk of impaired representation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that only the third factor is relevant and remitted the matter to the Court of Queen's Bench to reconsider whether disqualification is required to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

Potential Significance

McKercher was a highly anticipated decision, especially given that it was the Supreme Court's first opportunity in several years (since Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 24) to address squarely the bright line rule. McKercher may prove to be most significant because of the limitations that it puts on the rule's application. In particular, for unrelated matters, the Supreme Court has replaced the previous "implied consent" exception to the rule with a potentially much broader "reasonable expectation" exception. Whereas the implied consent exception (as outlined in Neil) applied to chartered banks and other sophisticated, "professional litigants" and could in principle be overridden by a client's express objection, the reasonable expectation exception (as outlined in McKercher) is not limited to a particular type of client and is likely not subject to being overridden by a client's express objection. Instead, as set out above, a series of factors (including the nature of the relationship between the law firm and the client, the terms of the retainer, as well as the types of matters involved) must be considered when determining whether a client could reasonably expect the rule to apply to unrelated matters.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the remedial principle stated in Neil: "It is one thing to demonstrate a breach of loyalty. It is quite another to arrive at an appropriate remedy." (Neil, para. 36) McKercher strongly indicates that disqualification is not an automatic remedy and provides guidance as to when disqualification should be ordered. The general message is that disqualification should not be ordered without good reason. Indeed, in remitting the matter to the Court of Queen's Bench, the Supreme Court cautioned against jumping too quickly to the conclusion that disqualification is appropriate in this case:

"As discussed, a violation of the bright line rule on its face supports disqualification, even where the lawyer-client relationship has been terminated as a result of the breach. However, it is also necessary to weigh the factors identified above, which may suggest that disqualification is inappropriate in the circumstances." (para. 67; emphasis added)

It will be interesting to watch how McKercher is applied by courts across the country.

Case Information

Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39

SCC Docket: 34545

Date of Decision: July 5, 2013

To view original article, please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions