The landmark Supreme Court of Canada case of Pintea v Johns came down in April 2017. The decision rejected the idea that SRLs and lawyers representing parties can be formally “equal”, recognizing the difficulties inevitably experienced by those with less knowledge and experience of the legal system, and exhorting courts to apply the CJC Statement of Principles on Self-Represented Litigants and Accused Persons to ensure that SRLs meaningfully participate in court processes. What has Pintea meant for decisions across the country involving SRLs in the last 18 months? Kaila Scarrow and Julie Macfarlane took a deep dive into the available data.
The SRL Case Law Database Project is financially supported by the University of Windsor Law School, the Law Foundation of Ontario, and the Foundation for Legal Research. Thanks to all our funders.
Be it noted that where “sophisticated, well informed and articulate” self rep in Clark v Pezzente ABCA 220 was deemed to be ineligible for assistance in the report. The very Judge declaring this was one of the Court of Appeal of Alberta majority Justices that was appealed from in Pintea v Johns SCC 37109 that inspired The SCC endorsement. It was clear that she didn’t like the SCC decision to endorse the “CJC Statement of Principle”?
Useful information
“Moore v Apollo Health Care,2017 ONCA 383 at para 44”
[44] While self-represented persons vary in their degree of education and sophistication, I think it safe to say that most find court procedures “complex, confusing and intimidating.” That state of affairs gives rise to the responsibility of judges to meet the need of self-represented persons for “simplicity” and to provide “non-prejudicial and engaged case and courtroom management” to protect the equal rights of self-represented persons to be heard.
The above-quoted case by Julie says it all. Even “sophisticated” “well-informed” and “articulate” SRLS are not lawyers and require assistance from the Courts.
I am not surprised that the one heavy handed jurisdiction is Alberta. Those Alberta judges are a law unto themselves
Up to 2015, I noted that not a single one of the vexatious Litigant Orders (VLO) was done in accordance with the law-the Judicature Act. Except for “Wong “where, not a single instance was the required notice given to the Attorney General (even when the judge said so-for instance in Allen v Gray et al no notice was given but the judge falsely claimed so). In Wong, there seem to have been notice but the AG’ presence and actions falls short of what should be legitimately expected of the AG. in the presence of the AG, Ms Wong was literally abused when among other things, the judge without medical evidence over ruled medical evidence that Ms Wong had serious head injuries and literally ordered her to pay $10, 000 Security for Cost. It was literally high way robbery in the presence of the AG. How can that be just?
Apparently there was some kind of show down between the Court of Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal so judges resort to Rules of Court that allow them to restrict access to justice against SRLS. I just cannot fathom how anyone holding the office of judge in this country can think they can arrogate such rights to themselves.
I cannot fathom either how this is the case, but it is. The judicial system allows them to do it,,so they do. With no consequences they feel free to do as they please. this is the same across Canada,. their immunity to consequence is the problem in my opinion. This must be changed.
Two points, both going to the facade or illusion of A2J necessary to continue the status quo privileged/pay-to-play justice.
.
First, the SCC did not need to endorse the CJC’s principles. Surely the CJC’s decade-old endorsement of them was sufficient; it is after all a fairly authoritative body itself. In fact, 54 cases on CanLII cite the “principles’ and pre-date Pintea. Instead, all the SCC condescended to do was “endorse” for appearances only, without for instance giving it any greater weight or some definition regarding remedies i.e without adding any value.
.
Secondly, in reality what is written in decisions is not reflective of the (pre-) disposition of the courts against the CJC’s Principles. The judiciary and court officials now openly sneer when a person raises them. But of course it would be bad form to “unjustly” ridicule the prerogatives of the CJC’s principles in a published decision. Instead, there have to be some decisions appearing to defer to those principles. Otherwise, the common folk might start to get a might ‘testy’ and seriously question the integrity of the justice system, which they should.
.
While this report may be a well-meaning review, proving the null hypothesis does nothing more than to prove what is expected. The counter-argument is that given there are only 38 decisions referring to the principles out of the thousands of cases proceeding through courts involving SRLs, it would seem (anecdotally) that there are fewer than should be.
.
But why worry about reality and practicality when you can shortly spark one up and forget all such troubles. Squirrel.
It’s sad commentary when the SCC is deemed to carry zero weight! Have we regressed to a judiciary of Tribalism?
I need to correct my data, given I erroneously ran the cases pre-April 2018 and not 2017 as should have been. As a result, there were in fact 31 cases pre-Pintea citing the Principles.
.
The CJC is chaired by the Chief Justice of the SCC. Its chair in both 2006 (the year the Principles were created) and 2017 was Beverley McLachlin. In other words, the Chief Justice of the SCC “endorsed” her own Principles in 2017; those which had been collaboratively vetted and adopted by the chief justices of Canada’s courts in 2006.
Dear Bat Woman & Robin Gyrl,
I must admit I enjoy the personal touch on your theme song and think you should scrap the music and just keep singing it:)
Its hard to know how to respond to the mixed update on how Pintea is being used in the courts, especially by counsel who tried it before the SCC. Thank you for your efforts in following these cases and providing us access to those findings.
Listening to this, made me wonder where it leaves SRL with disabilities?
Have there been any cases besides mine, where a SRL, with a brain injury, who was found incompetent in the within action to try my own geometrically difficult medical malpractice case without appropriately skilled counsel, (after LAA terminated my certificated in error and refused to re-instate it) and had the court revoke the incompetency finding, 3 weeks prior to a trial set against the rules of court, that left me without access to my mandatory experts, lay witness’s, will say statements, a next friend and lost a meritorious case that had been before the court for almost 10 years, in 13 minutes for refusing to participate without counsel?
Am I the only PWD in Canada that this has happened to thus far? I would appreciate knowing if I am the only one fighting for @2J for PWD.
Thank you
I was shocked and appalled when I read of your experience, but few, if any, have access to justice when you have to represent yourself against legal counsel. As a person with disabilities myself, I lost faith in the justice system when I sought a remedy for unlawful oppression of staggering magnitude only to be dismissed when I brought the matter before the courts.