Imagining a Possible Future: Self-Represented Litigant Courts

Written by Jennifer Leitch, NSRLP Executive Director; originally published on Slaw, Canada’s online legal magazine.

The growth of self-representation in all adjudicative settings may ultimately require a new approach to adjudication that is even more fundamental than a root and branch overhaul of procedure and practice. What legislators and courts may need to consider is the development of forums that are focused on and limited to adjudicating cases involving SRLs. Such courts would channel cases involving SRLs into a specific forum where court participants, including the adjudicator and court staff and any required wrap-around services, would exclusively plan for and engage with litigants who do not have legal representation. One such experiment has been underway over the past year in a criminal court in Toronto – and there is much to engage with and learn from the example.

From a theoretical standpoint there are multiple benefits to this approach, including the facilitation of more meaningful participation by SRLs, the creation of a forum where SRLs can access a more level playing field, and the resulting opportunity to shape outcomes that are directly reflective of SRLs’ participation in the process. From the perspective of the overall legitimacy of the legal system, the creation of processes that truly allow self-represented individuals to turn to law, be heard, and have their matters resolved on terms they understand, serves to strengthen the administration of justice. There is also a pragmatic benefit associated with shifting SRL cases to a designated court that responds to certain criticisms directed at SRLs in the traditional civil justice system. This criticism is typically focused on the increased court time and judicial resources that are spent addressing SRLs’ unfamiliarity with the legal process: matters may be adjourned and/or take longer to complete when there is a non-lawyer who is unaccustomed to court procedures and inexperienced in substantive law. Lawyers make the argument that prolonged and delayed proceedings cost their clients more in legal fees and other costs. Providing a designated court for SRLs could serve to alleviate some of the delay and additional costs.

While the benefits may be clear, it is worth noting that establishing an SRL court is not without certain challenges. Most significantly, where judicial resources are already stretched in many ways, setting aside court space, personnel, and resources to hear a specific group of matters may be difficult to justify fiscally. From a doctrinal standpoint, the body of common law could be negatively impacted by the generation of case law in an SRL court; this is based on a concern that decisions reached in a court without lawyers would lack the rigour associated with the traditional adversarial process. While not an insignificant issue, the question that might be raised in response is whether the common law is currently served by the outcomes reached in cases involving SRLs who are unable to participate effectively. Moreover, SRL court pilot projects may focus on initial and interlocutory adjudicative steps as opposed to trials.

Additionally, and perhaps more fundamentally, SRL courts would require a different way of thinking about dispute resolution processes. Because the adversarial model of adjudication is so deeply steeped in the principles of party autonomy and party prosecution, it may be very difficult to shift away from this mode of adjudication and all the practices and procedures that are associated with the adversarial model. Recent criticism directed at the administrative context supports this concern: despite the expectation that the administrative regime would be better placed to resolve certain legal issues involving non-lawyers, the process in certain administrative tribunals remains very adversarial. In certain tribunal settings, parties without lawyers often fare worse than those with lawyers. Thus, the development of an SRL court would need to undertake a critical evaluation of the principles of adjudication, with the understanding that many of the foundational principles of the adversarial system do not work well when the key players are not legally trained.

Notwithstanding these challenges, it is worth considering how and in what ways an SRL court would be different. In such courts, the organization and progression of the proceeding, the procedures implemented throughout, the role played by the adjudicator, and the access to additional support services would all be shaped by the understanding that the litigants participating in the proceeding are non-lawyers. Certain legal contexts are particularly amenable to the development of an SRL-specific court. For example, in a family law context, an SRL court, like drug courts or domestic violence courts in the American context, could include adjudicators who manage the proceedings as leaders of a ‘problem-solving team’ that includes the parties as well as any required social service providers. Certain elements of family law make it particularly suited to a different approach to dispute resolution generally. This is particularly true in cases where the parties are also the advocates, and the case impacts vulnerable third parties such as children. Such disputes need to consider the ongoing interaction between the parties, and the social, psychological, and economic implications of a family dissolution on the members both during the process and subsequent to it.

In the family law context, specialized SRL courts could adopt a different approach to dispute resolution, establish a more appropriate procedural framework, and make use of specially trained professionals. Given the large number of self-represented litigants in family law, there is a compelling case for developing a sSRL family court pilot project. In busy urban courts, a majority of family law cases involve at least one SRL, and many involve two. Continuing to require that the litigants in the second scenario ‘act’ as mini lawyers makes little sense. It is this subcategory of cases that we could start to envision in a different kind of adjudicative forum. The design would require a re-evaluation of the process of dispute resolution from start to finish. Rather than simply turning an adjudicative process into an alternative dispute process, it would contemplate implementing different (but necessary) stages of an adjudicative dispute process entirely from the layman’s perspective, while maintaining a commitment to procedural fairness, the truth-seeking function, and rigorous decision-making – certainly no easy task. In this regard, the resolution of a family law dispute would still include a notice stage, a collection of evidence stage, a presentation of case stage, and a final (and binding) decision, but it would approach these steps very differently and include the provision of various multi-disciplinary supports to the litigants moving through these stages. As in the ongoing implementation and revision of certain ODR processes (for example, the Civil Resolution Tribunal in BC), it would be imperative that non-lawyers be involved in the design, implementation, and review of such a court.

A promising move in this direction has been underway in the new courthouse in downtown Toronto. As a pilot project commenced in June 2025, the Self-Represented Court (SRC) seeks to, “stream self-represented accused matters out of the regular case management stream and into a dedicated court where they receive increased supports through system navigators, and in-person Crowns and Duty Counsel.” Between June 2025 and January 31, 2026, the SRC addressed 5,890 Informations. Providing system navigators and on site duty counsel is an important step in facilitating SRLs’ engagement, both in providing support to the SRL, and relevant legal information and advice about the process in real time as they attempt to navigate it. With the assistance of both, the SRL can move through the different stages of their matter with more confidence and a clearer path to resolution in a better time frame. This is reflected in the fact that SRL matters in the SRC averaged two court appearances and an average length of 34 days.

Moreover, directing SRLs to a single court room that deploys dedicated duty counsel and system navigators (all in-person and on site) serve to assist the SRLs in an ‘exclusive space’. Within the context of a dedicated courtroom, ensuring that SRLs can secure information and advice, as well as participate in different steps without the pressure of having to navigate opposing counsel and/or courtrooms full of lawyers cannot be underestimated. Earlier qualitative research with SRLs suggested that many SRLs were grateful when an adjudicator moved their matter at the end of a motions’ list because it usually meant they were not obligated to present their position in front of a full courtroom of lawyers. Moreover, ensuring that the SRL remains in the SRC until they are able to retain counsel, set a date for resolution, or move to a specialty court assures the continued attention to their particular status as an SRL. In accordance with these options and within the timeframe of the pilot project, 53% of SRLs in the SRC were streamed out of the SRC as a result of securing legal representation, or alternatively, headed to a self-represented judicial pre-trial.

While a designated space for SRLs may appear a small shift in practice, it speaks to a much larger imperative: the need to consider the experience from the SRL’s perspective – what is it that they need and how might they better navigate some of these processes? Again, this requires identification of what would actually assist SRLs in navigating the process and centering the SRL in all elements of the process. Breaking down the process and providing informational interventions and guidance at or before each stage is hugely significant. However, on an even more fundamental level, the attitudinal shift is vital. This involves the recognition that (i) SRLs are now a permanent and generally growing component of our justice system, and (ii) we need to create forums and processes that actively engage with them, rather than continuing to view them as an afterthought or aberration within the existing Canadian legal system. While the SRC has focused on the initial stages of a criminal matter, the pilot has undertaken this important first step in meeting the SRLs where they are.

The possibility of expanding the SRC model into other avenues of law must be one of the next steps down the access to justice road. It will require time and resources, but it is very clear that SRLs in every adjudicative setting struggle because the system is not designed for them. They are here to stay, and it is past time for the justice system to start reconfiguring court structures, processes, and the roles of legal system insiders to better accommodate SRLs’ access to justice. The pilot project in Toronto has demonstrated both an ability to centre the SRL, and the workability of such an approach.