An excellent summary of our duty of candour comes from the unsuccessful appeal of Nav Virk's disbarment:
"The duty of candour, however, will be informed by its context, here the duty of a lawyer (as an officer of the court) when making submissions to that court. In that situation there is a positive duty on the lawyer to turn his or her mind to the accuracy of statements that are being made. In order to be “candid”, the Law Society is entitled to expect that the lawyer was confident that the statement being made was accurate, which would imply some duty to establish the truth of the statement before making it. From the opposite perspective, to be candid a lawyer must acknowledge when he or she does not know a fact, or does not know whether a statement is true. It is not unreasonable to hold a professional who is making representations to a court to a standard of reasonable diligence as to self-informing, coupled with frankness about limitations of his or her state of knowledge, and forthrightness about the extent of what is believed to be accurate." (Virk v Law Society of Alberta, 2022 ABCA 2 at para 21).