Where Is David? The Contradictions in the Spunt & Carin File

China or Quebec? A sworn declaration placing him in a Kirkland Walmart contradicts the account filed in court. Where is David Chun actually located — and why does the answer appear to change depending on which body is asking?

For several months, EnDroit.ca has been documenting a complex file that combines family law proceedings, related lawsuits, a resignation in the middle of a disciplinary investigation, and decisions by the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP), Quebec’s prosecution service.

At the centre of that sequence is David Chun, formerly a lawyer with the Westmount firm Spunt & Carin, whose role is central to the civil proceedings as well as to the criminal and disciplinary steps described in our earlier reporting.

His availability — or his absence — has had a direct effect on how certain files developed, in particular on whether he could be examined as a witness and on whether the Crown considered the evidence sufficient.

Which leaves one simple question unanswered.

Where is David Chun actually located?

I — The contradictionChina, or Quebec?

David Chun formally resigned from the Barreau du Québec on 5 February 2025, as confirmed by an email from the law society. Since that resignation, contradictory accounts have been filed before different judicial bodies.

In exchanges produced in the record, it is alleged that David Chun now resides in China, which would complicate or prevent his testimony.

Yet a sworn declaration signed by Jewel Anna Harrison, a paralegal at Spunt & Carin, says the opposite. She declares that she personally encountered David Chun at the Walmart in Kirkland on 11 October 2025 and maintains that he currently resides in Quebec. The declaration is accompanied by photographs filed as Exhibit JH-1.

II — The consequenceA criminal file closed for want of evidence

On 23 July 2025, Crown prosecutor Me Flavie Picard wrote that the Crown would declare that it had no sufficient evidence to offer in the file, and that there would therefore be no trial.

David Chun’s situation is expressly raised in the preceding exchanges, in particular as to his availability as a witness.

On 1 August 2025, Me Yan Vachon indicated that investigation file RPY-250224-012 had been transferred to the DPCP’s Montreal office because several of the individuals concerned were said to be court-system participants in the Joliette district.

III — The configurationAn apparent conflict of interest

Another element raises more structural questions.

The defendant in the family law file is represented by Me Cynthia Ward, whose contact details appear at the foot of the sworn declaration. Me Ward is a partner at Spunt & Carin. That same firm is involved in a related dispute.

Put plainly: 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 law file. At the same time, its own defence in the related action is conducted by outside counsel retained and paid by the insurance fund, who advances a distinct position capable of affecting whether an examination takes place.

So the firm’s internal resources produce sworn statements of fact in one related file, while the firm’s own defence, funded by the insurance fund, takes a different posture in the other.

This is not to assert that any fault has been committed. But the configuration raises a legitimate question.

Can a firm simultaneously act for a client, be involved in a related file, use its own employees to swear declarations on central elements of the dispute, and have its own defence conducted by counsel retained by the insurance fund who takes a different procedural position?

IV — What the record showsAccounts that do not line up

The question remains open. And beyond it, a second one: why do the official accounts, the sworn declarations and the procedural positions appear to shift depending on which body is seized of the matter?

Why this mattersA question of institutional coherence

When contradictory statements of fact are filed under oath, when criminal files are abandoned for want of sufficient evidence, and when investigations are transferred because local court-system participants are involved, the question stops being a private one.

It becomes a question of institutional coherence.