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.
My first concern is that this will attract a lot of ppl that can afford a lawyer but simply want to save money and the system will become overwhelmed in no time. Additonally, it seems likely ppl will arrive mostly or completely unprepared. They won’t look up case law on canlii.org and become familiar with say, “elements of a charge”. People want to simply show up and “tell their story”. And if you have one side that has a lawyer, or has done their homework and the other has not, they’ll be at a disadvantage. As a SRL myself, I appreciate what they’re seeking to do, but maybe a clinic of advisors for SRLs would be more effective. Someone that can pont them in the right direction. A person’s case touches on “this” law, and this one and this one. Here’s the case law you need to search for on canlii.org and get reading. Here’s the evidence you’ll need, the expert witness you’ll need to seek out etc etc . . . .
That said, there are some ppl that have no business walking into a courtroom without a lawyer beside them. Not everyone’s mind works the same, and some are nust not built for it.
You raise good points Markman, but we have nothing to lose by giving it a shot? A lot of positive possibilities can come to the surface by brainstorming! Chris Budgell makes a good point regarding civil case trial example. Potentially this may well develop into something or not,but we must try?
You raise good points Markman, but I believe it’s all worth trying as the current system is not working when SRL’S go to court. Reminiscing Pintea v Johns “SRL’S are outsiders” fighting “Insiders”
I really don’t see much promise in an experiment that has been conducted for one year in one courthouse in Toronto and only for unrepresented criminal accused. Criminally accused face Crown Counsel. Maybe something like this can be tried with civil matters when there are no parties with their own lawyers, but SRLs are most challenged when they are up against lawyers.
I do not support such a concept of a separation of judicial adjudication for citizens acting In Person.
My position is, as Self-Represented Parties we own a responsibility to understand the law engaged by the matter before the Court. In Person Litigants, including Self-Represented, ought not to show up without knowledge or a basic understanding of the rules and protocol.
Given the access to excellent AI modalities like Chatgpt Plus, Google Gemini, knowledge of how to access legal knowledge navigation is available.
The issue of judicial literacy and the courtroom are obstacles that lawyers face as well as SRL. SRL face the obstacles significantly higher, but it is not unique to SRL alone.
The courtroom is intended to be rule driven by the operation of the law and the elements (test) to be met within that law. The facts are intended to be applied.
Rectifying the imbalance requires knowledge of the law your matter engages and knowing the principles of procedural fairness, how to recognize an overt expressed act of dominance, unfair proceeding and how to place that on the record.
Correcting the imbalance is multi-leveled:
1. Ensure you know the law engaged by your matter – you do not buy a car, hop in and drive without knowing how the car operates. If you do not know the law and the elements of the test to be met, learn it. Use the AI models available. Specific AI inquiries will provide you with a basic level of how the law works. ‘Here is the issue – AI – what is the law engaged’ ‘What are the elements of that law which my facts must prove?’ ‘Here are my facts – how do they prove or not prove and what additional elements do I require to prove the law’, among other things.
2. The decision is supposed to cite the law – the elements and the facts from both Parties – the written reasons are supposed to tie the winning Parties facts to the law to show how they met the elements successfully and what was missing in the unsuccessful Party’s submission. If any of those elements are missing, then you cannot constructively analyze the decision and determine if it was fair or if there were errors you can raise on appeal. The judge is supposed to ensure the process is fair and the truth is discovered through the elements of the law and the application of the facts. It is not Rocket Science ….
3. SRL largely do not understand how to control the Record when the judge – a lawyer – is predisposed to the 85% mentality to dismiss a SRL’s matter, banking that the SRL does not know the law and won’t be able to analyze their decision to mount an appeal, which will collide with another judge, a lawyer.
When you review decisions made by those judges who are mature of character and intellect, they are brilliant SEE, for example – Grant v Stockey, 2016 ONSC 7935 – a case where a SRL perceived reasonable apprehension of bias and cited Rule 59.06(2) – Small Claims. The Divisional Court decision provides authority to challenge a Small Claims ruling (or a civil ruling) when Reasonable Apprehension of Bias is perceived.
If the SRL meets the fundament law and elements and fact and supported by caselaw authority, the SRL knows they have fulfilled their responsibility to the court.
The next requirement is to know the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice which the judge is required to deliver to the SRL: If you bring a motion and the judge defers to the opposing party (lawyer) to explain your motion – which happens frequently – by any objective observer that would appear as a blatant violation of conflict of interest. The judge is in conflict of interest and so is the opposing party. That is a judge telling you that they will not listen with the legal ear they are required to. Knowing this, your job is to put that violation on the Record – ‘Judge so and so – the opposing party is in conflict of interest. I did not retain him to represent me. I wish to place on the record that by deferring to opposing party to explain my motion before the Court, is concerning as it appears as violation of procedural fairness to me and my right to be heard and the Court’s role of Neutral arbiter’. That puts that judge – a lawyer – on notice that you are watching and you will place bad behaviour on the Record.
If the judge’s demeanor is hostile, you place that on the Record ‘ Judge so and so – I wish to place on the Record that I perceive hostility and this is concerning to me as an objective person would perceive hostility as disinterest or intimidation tactics’ – that puts the judge on notice.
If the judge interrupts you unnecessarily or appears impatient or rude, that is a violation of natural justice. Judicial literacy is not about complaining – it is about controlling the room and the Record so that the judge knows you are present – you know your rights – you are there to argue the law and the facts. As soon as you observe emotion, NEVER react. Respond by placing your concerns on the Record.
You are Self Represented. Use that to your advantage. Go in knowing the judge is a lawyer, full stop. People do not change because the robe changes.
4. In summary – I could not disagree more with the proposition of a SRL dedicated sidebar room. It entrenches a false presumption.
a) The breeding ground for judges: The Law Society of Ontario receives close to 7,000.00 complaints per year. Calculated by the Wealthy Barber algorithms, 1 in 10 people with a proper complaint, actually put pen to paper.
b) The Toronto Star’s investigative report Broken Trust: Two faces of Justice reveals the millions of dollars defrauded, protracted, misappropriated from innocent client who crossed paths with a bad actor.
c) Most recently, July 2026, the Law Firm Gorham Vandebeek LLP filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General of Canada that the Canadian Judicial Council is not doing their job – Lawyers challenge review process for allegations against judges – Read it.
d) Apply the Wealthy Barber calculation to 1,400 complaints per year that the Canadian Judicial Council receives against judges. In 2023, Bill C – 9 was enacted to assert consequences against bad actors on the Bench. To date, I think about 6 judges have been reprimanded. How is that working out? It sounds like another layer of façade because it very well may be.
e) The idea of ‘presumption’ is and always has been, a tattered flag. The Justice system is the only sector of Society which applies immunity and with that, autocracy.
While SRL face obstacles at a substantially higher level, lawyers face profound challenges also.
The difference is lawyers can challenge the bench directly. In Person litigants, which is term all SRL ought to use because it aligns with Rule 15 (Rules of Civil Procedure Ontario) Intent to act In Person
SRL must maintain full composure and place the perception and evidence of bias, violations of procedure fairness and natural justice principle, on the Record.
This ensures you have options when you are unsuccessful and you believe you have grounds for appeal.
You have the right to exercise a Motion pursuant to Rule 59.06(2), if you have presented your case in the law and the facts and if you have identified violations of procedural fairness and natural justice and placed those facts on the Record.
You can file a Rule 59.06(2) motion on Reasonable apprehension bias but only if you have placed your concerns on the Record and you file promptly.
SEE: Emery J. granted leave in Stockey v. Grant, 2015 ONSC 7569 – Para [59] – but read the decision. Divisional Court appeal from Small Claims matter.
SEE: Button v. Jones, 2003 CanLII 16098 – Paras [15] on speak to Justice Hambly’s decision that a recusal motion requires to be heard by the presiding judiciary and before further steps in litigation
SEE: Morse Shannon v. Fancy, 2016 ONSC 7574 – Para [9}
SEE: Janjua v. Khan, 2014 ONCA 5 – Para [9] – Lauwers J.A. states that the preferable procedure is to allow the Rule 59.06(2) process in the Superior Court to unfold before proceeding with the appeal.
You can file a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council. You must know the law engaged, how your facts apply and what the principles are that the judge is required to follow and place any and all bad behaviour on the Record.
If it is not on the Record, it does not exist.
It is simply not enough that you order the transcripts and develop the RAB argument from the transcripts. You can and must place those facts on the Record in real time and give the judge a chance to correct themselves.
You must tell the judge that what ever way they decide, you require comprehensive written reasons. Citing Champoux v Jeferemova 2021 ONCA 92, starting at Para [18].
b) We are Taxpayers and Stake holders – we cannot enter a courtroom or initiate a proceeding unprepared and expect the lawyer on the bench to assist with navigating the law and your facts. We are better than that.
c) The opposing party will engage in ways of manipulation, false law, reframing your matter, deceit on court documents, emote over argue in the law. That is a fact. Their choice of behaviour is not yours.
Your choice of behaviour is governed by you. Enter knowing you are not necessarily in the most professional of environments and that you are determined to ensure professionalism is maintained.
Go in knowing you are building the steps and reputation for all SRL.
Know your stuff – present it with calm and with courage – know judicial literacy and do not react when the bench behaves badly or the opposing counsel behaves badly – Name it – place it on the Record calmly – starting with ‘Judge so and so I am placing on the Record that … deferring to opposing counsel to speak to my Motion before me, appears as a violation of my right to be heard and the fairness of the process’ – that is control on the Record – It starts with ‘I am placing on the Record …’ calmly and remembering you may very likely be the most prepared person in the room and you can and must control your own Record.
If it is not on the Record, it does not exist.
There is no reason SRL acting In Person can not share the precise courtroom we pay for through our Taxes which hires an pays judges upwards to $450,000.00 each – per year – to act as neutral arbiters required to follow the Social Contract between the Tax Payer and the Judge.
I could not read past the first half of your opening paragraph, because of the amount of ableism and what seems to me to be a lack of understanding of how many vulnerable people end up as SRL’s because of circumstances beyond their control. I am going through a divorce with a cruel and malicious man. I had no idea that he married me solely for my benefits and because I owned property. I never could have envisioned that he’d wait until after I survived cancer and a a post-op infection did a number on my health. I couldn’t see that he would be so cruel to his LGBTQ2S+ child. I had no idea that he literally wanted me to die alone simply because my illnesses became an inconvenience for him and because all the years of trauma led to disability. I was a teacher and now after years of being married to him while he flitted away my money ensuring that I would not be able to hire a lawyer. Even with all this, I know there are so many other vulnerable people who have situations that are 1, 000 000 000 000 000 times worse than mine. All I know is that yesterday, I had to ask for an adjournment and accommodations because of my disabilities (not to mention the mental health impacts of being in a room with an extremely emotionally abusive ex-spouse. ). There are times when I can do something for several hours without pain, but that is rare now since being diagnosed with fibromyalgia. But I also have ADHD , trying to maintain focus while in pain, is next to impossible. Trying to focus when my body is screaming, “Danger!” lead to complete overwhelm. Counsel for my ex is disgusting. There is a code of ethics, yet, she follows it only when she has to. Because of the amount of times she brought me back to family docket (which no longer exists here) and then into more hearings all so she could just jump past the ADR process so that she can rack up huge expenses at my child’s expense. My child is not a child anymore but it as young adult struggling because they are ADHD, have LD’s, have mental health issues, and whose father actively punishes them for not turning their back on me so that he could laugh, and say, “see, I told you you are worthless and would die alone because nobody can stand you.”. He refused to accept their LgBTQ2S+ status. He turned his family (who we – child and I) were very close to against us. You expect that as the divorced one, ok, they’ll fall for the smear campaign for you but not their flesh and blood. It was so hard and I just can’t write more about it because my brain just needs to rest now,
Well said Joanne, however most SRL’S are not as smart as you! I have personally acted as a SRL on 3 occasions won 2 lost the most important one despite clear and convincing evidence of malfeasance where the Judge of ABKB & ABCA sided with a large Financial Institution who on October,10, 2024 pled guilty to Fraud and Money Laundering in the U.S. I emphasize that I do not disagree with your assessment, but it’s not that simple when “truth of factual evidence” from the $450,000.00 a year actors is met with dishonest contradictions, diversionary tactics and unaccountable lies and actual parties to the Fraud “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Canada’s system of Justice is cleverly kept under the stealth of darkness all the way up the ladder. Although the U.S. Justice system under Trump is laced with lies, corruption etc. You cannot deny its transparency!
This is a great idea, if it ever comes to fruition. I am speaking from experience where I was a victim of indictable FRAUD. This was a case against Canada’s 2nd largest Bank Group who have already pled guilty of money laundering and paid a fine of $3 billion U.S. Another point I’d like to make is the occurrences of SRL’s being declared “vexatious litigants” to bring an early end to their litigation is colossal compared to lawyers declaration of them being declared “vexatious” to the level of “discrimination!”. I Plan to forward to the NSRLP a full dossier that I am preparing with complete documentary evidence exhibits as soon as I have finished my preparations. In the meantime, I hope in the name of fairness the NSRLP will succeed with this SRL Court.
I might end up writing again after giving this article a few more reads but on first sight, I believe it’s an excellent, well overdue idea.
1. It would eliminate judges and court staff who have a negative attitude toward SRLs.
2. There are certain qualifying requirements that could be put in place such as completing a course on representing oneself, utilizing the alternative dispute resolution resources already available to the general public and some kind of process whereby the prospective candidate is provided with one on one legal education regarding the court process as it pertains to their case–be it family or civil or criminal. Such “qualifying requirements” would in effect provide candidates with a wealth of information that I think would also facilitate a more informed decision as to whether to go ahead with or without legal representation (if in fact, they have the means to consider the former) or even drop their case entirely.
3. I’m keen to read about the Toronto program. Of course, there would need to be trial programs like this in every province/territory and involving all three types of court proceedings. This is will take time to iron out the wrinkles.
4. Even before such trial programs are started, much lobbying will be needed to convince the governments to take this on. It is vitally important that advocacy groups lobby for such a reform like LEAF, poverty groups, representatives of legal aid who can speak to the limitations of what they can offer etc etc.