Law:

Section:

Per Gascon, J; McLachlin C.J. Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Brown and Rowe, J, concurring; Abella and C t JJ, dissenting. (a) Administration of justice---.--- ---.----Power of court to manage and control proceedings before it---.---Scope---.---Courts had the power to maintain respect for their authority, which power included the power to manage and control the proceedings conducted before them---.---Court therefore had an inherent power to control abuse in such regard and to prevent the use of procedure in a way that would be manifestly unfair to a party to the litigation before it or would in some other way bring the administration of justice into disrepute---.---Court had to exercise such discretion in a deferential manner, but it allowed a court to ensure the integrity of the justice system. R. v. Anderson 2014 SCC 41, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 167, at para. 58; Young v. Young [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at p. 136; Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles (2000) 51 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.), at para. 55 and Morel v. Canada 2008 FCA 53, [2009] 1 F.C.R. 629, at para. 35 ref. (b) Costs-- ---.----Award of costs against a lawyer (counsel) personally in criminal proceedings---.---Principles---.---Awarding of costs against lawyers personally flowed from the right and duty of the courts to supervise the conduct of the lawyers who appeared before them and to note, and sometimes penalize, any conduct of such a nature as to frustrate or interfere with the administration of justice---.---Lawyers, as officers of the court, had a duty to respect the court's authority, and if they failed to act in a manner consistent with their status, the court may be required to deal with them by punishing their misconduct---.---Such power of the courts to award costs against a lawyer personally was not limited to civil proceedings, but could also be exercised in criminal cases, which meant that it may be exercised against defence lawyers---.---Such power applied in parallel with the power of the courts to punish by way of convictions for contempt of court and that of law societies to sanction unethical conduct by their members. Pacific Mobile Corporation v. Hunter Douglas Canada Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 842, at p. 845;…