Insiders and Outsiders

Posted by: NSRLP Category: Podcast Comments: 2 Post Date: November 13, 2017

Colin Feasby, lawyer

Julie talks to lawyer Colin Feasby about his experience as pro bono lawyer for a self-represented litigant in the now rather famous Pintea v. Johns case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court this past April (NSRLP acted as intervenor in that case). On its face, the case was about the hugely punitive fine levied against Mr. Pintea for missing two case management meetings while he was self-representing; but even more importantly, this case is about the treatment of SRLs by judges across the country. In other news: the infamous Millard case, and a new study from our American friends at IAALS.


NSRLP’s Pintea case summary for SRLs

Julie’s blog post following the SCC Pintea decision

In Other News:

Julie’s op-ed for the Globe and Mail on the Millard murder case and SRLs

New IAALS study on what clients value in their lawyers

Share this post

Comments (2)

  • The Family SRL

    Very informative Podcast Julie, thank you for sharing. Interesting that a Commercial Litigator took on this case, especially since he was a neophyte in this area. The Pintea case hopefully set a precedence, however my concern is that it still may be far removed from Family Law, where a majority of SRL cases stem from. Nor do I doubt there would be many “well experienced” Family Lawyers that would be willing to take on a pro-bono case in an area of law where most officers of the family court have seemingly become reliant on a broken system. I am hoping the recent decision in the Manitoba Court of Appeal that was published on CBC news (Trevor Brine – CBC)on October 20, 2017 (re: comments by Chief Justice Richard Chartier) holds more family lawyers to account, as data would suggest many of them themselves, may be the crux of the problems.

    As for cases that go before the Supreme Court of Canada, I found a helpful case law that supports the whole notion of “national importance”. The case is “Lake Erie and Detroit River Rway. Co. v. Marsh”, 35 SCR 1997, 1904 CanLII (SCC), at 200. In this case Justice Nesbit set out the following non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which leave will be granted: 1) A matter of Public interest; 2) An important question of law; 3) The construction of Federal statutes; 4) A conflict between Federal and Provincial statutes; and, 5) Where provincial legislation may be of general interest across the country.

    November 13, 2017 at 12:02 pm
  • Randi Druzin

    This is a very interesting interview, Julie. I was struck by the observation that all SRLs are lumped into one category by lawyers, judges, etc. This amazes me; it’s abundantly clear to anyone who’s paying attention that legal fees are prohibitively high and unaffordable to most Canadians. That being the case, wouldn’t it stand to reason that many people who represent themselves in court do so because they have no alternative rather than because they have a burning desire to “stick it to The Man?”

    November 17, 2017 at 4:11 pm

Comments are closed.

Font Resize
Background Color