Where Is David?

In the matter involving the firm Spunt & Carin, the same question persists: where is David Chun?
Former lawyer at Spunt & Carin, David Chun officially resigned from the Barreau du Québec on February 5, 2025, as confirmed by an email from the Barreau. Since that resignation, however, contradictory versions have been filed before various judicial authorities.

China or Quebec?
In exchanges filed in the record, it is alleged that David Chun now resides in China, which would have the effect of complicating, or even preventing, his testimony.
Yet a sworn declaration signed by Jewel Anna Harrison, a paralegal at Spunt & Carin, states the opposite. She declares that she personally encountered David Chun at a Walmart in Kirkland on October 11, 2025, and maintains that he currently resides in Quebec. This declaration is accompanied by photographs filed as exhibit JH-1.
We are therefore confronted with two incompatible versions:
Residence in China
Physical presence in Quebec, attested under oath by an employee of the firm

A Direct Criminal Consequence
On July 23, 2025, DPCP prosecutor Me Flavie Picard wrote that the prosecution would declare it did not have sufficient evidence to proceed in the matter, and that there would therefore be no trial.
David Chun’s situation is explicitly referenced in prior exchanges, particularly regarding his availability as a witness.
On August 1, 2025, Me Yan Vachon further indicated that investigation file RPY-250224-012 had been transferred to the DPCP office in Montreal because several individuals targeted were judicial actors in the Joliette district.

An Apparent Conflict of Interest
Another element raises more structural concerns.
The defendant in the family matter is represented by Me Cynthia Ward, whose contact information appears at the bottom of the sworn declaration. Me Ward is a partner at Spunt & Carin. That same firm, however, is involved in a related dispute.
The factual configuration is as follows:
A client is represented by a partner of Spunt & Carin.
That same firm is targeted in a related file.
An employee of the firm files a sworn declaration concerning David Chun. (Quebec)
At the same time, the lawyer mandated and paid by the insurance fund, Jean-François Noiseux, advances a different procedural position regarding David Chun’s availability or situation. (China)
The DPCP indicates it does not have sufficient evidence in the context described.
In other words, the firm relies on a sworn declaration produced by one of its own employees, not to defend itself directly, but to defend its client in the family matter. At the same time, its own defense in the related lawsuit is handled by an external lawyer mandated and paid by the insurance fund, who advances a distinct procedural position that may have an impact on the holding of an examination.
Thus, internal resources of the firm produce sworn factual declarations in one related proceeding, while the firm’s own defense, financed by the insurance fund, adopts a different posture in the connected litigation.
This is not to assert that any wrongdoing has occurred.
However, the configuration raises a legitimate question: can a firm simultaneously represent a client, be involved in a related dispute, use its own employees to produce sworn declarations on central elements of the case, and have its own defense conducted by a lawyer mandated by the insurance fund who advances a distinct procedural position?

Versions That Do Not Align
As reflected in the documents:
The Barreau confirms David Chun’s resignation.
A sworn declaration states that he resides in Quebec.
The DPCP declares it does not have sufficient evidence.
The investigation is transferred to Montreal due to the involvement of local judicial actors.
The question remains unresolved.
Where is David?
And more importantly: why do the official versions, sworn declarations, and procedural positions appear to shift depending on the forum involved?

A Matter of Public Interest
When contradictory factual elements are filed under oath, when criminal matters are discontinued for lack of sufficient evidence, and when investigations are transferred due to the involvement of local judicial actors, the issue extends beyond a purely private dispute.
It concerns institutional coherence.
Justice-Quebec.ca will continue its analysis of the documented contradictions and the conflict of interest issues raised in this matter.