Sharp practice

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

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.)


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.