Though a rebuttable presumption of a client's knowledge of an order does not arise merely on the basis that his or her lawyer was informed of that order, such knowledge may nonetheless be inferred by the court in certain circumstances. As Sopinka J. said in Bhatnager v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1990 CanLII 120 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 217 (S.C.C.) (at para. 17): … In my opinion, a finding of knowledge on the part of the client may in some circumstances be inferred from the fact that the solicitor was informed. Indeed, in the ordinary case in which a party is involved in isolated pieces of litigation, the inference may readily be drawn. … Knowledge is in most cases (including criminal cases) proved circumstantially, and in contempt cases the inference of knowledge will always be available where facts capable of supporting the inference are proved ….
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.