Our latest Self-Represented Litigant (SRL) Intake Report was written by NSRLP Research Assistant Keerthi Chintapalli, with guidance and editing from Executive Director Jennifer Leitch, and Project Manager Dayna Cornwall.
This report collates and analyzes data from Intake Forms completed by SRLs between July 1, 2021, and September 30, 2023, with a total of 268 respondents.
As with previous intake reports published by the NSRLP, the data tracks the core demographics prevalent within the SRL population (gender, income, education, age, ethnicity, language, etc.). The results remain largely consistent with Julie Macfarlane’s original SRL Study (2013), with our previous Intake Reports (2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021), and with the results of similar studies conducted in other countries.
Following our last Intake Report, we continue to analyze the experiences and preferences of SRLs when it comes to virtual legal services and court processes. For a more in-depth look at these issues, stay tuned for a soon-to-be-released report from our research study into SRL experiences with virtual hearings (made possible through a grant from the McLachlin Fund).
As always, we include direct quotes from SRLs sharing not only their experiences in the legal system, but also tips and best practices for others.
We sincerely thank the hundreds of self-represented litigants who contributed their time and energy to filling out our Intake Form – not only those whose information is included in this report, but those who have shared and continue to share their voices with us since 2011. All of our work rests on the experiences and information you so generously trust us with.
The commitment to engaging with the public needs re-energizing. I’ve just made one more attempt to shine a bit of a light on that fact.
.
Leonard Marchand is the new Chief Justice of B.C., succeeding Robert Bauman who succeeded Lance Finch in 2013. CJ Bauman came up with the idea of Access to Justice BC – https://accesstojusticebc.ca/. Scroll down on this page – https://accesstojusticebc.ca/access-to-justice-bc/ – and click on the four links that reveal how many individuals and organizations are involved in A2JBC. Almost entirely missing is the public.
.
CJ Marchand has now introduced himself here – https://accesstojusticebc.ca/2024/02/welcome_chief_justice_2024/ . I note the paragraph, “I look forward to reaching people across the province who are concerned about the accessibility of the civil and family justice system in BC. I want to provide information about what Access to Justice BC is doing and to invite your feedback.”, and the invitation at the bottom to submit a comment. How many people have ever done that? Where are those comments? I submitted one there last Thursday (Feb. 8) and I made a copy for myself. I got an automated response saying, “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” Logically one would expect that either a comment gets posted or a reason is provided to the submitter why it won’t be posted.
Please scrub my first version of this comment as I said “email” instead of “comment”.
Replace it with:
.
Further to my previous comment, I see today that this page – https://accesstojusticebc.ca/2024/02/welcome_chief_justice_2024/ – has now changed, with the removal from the bottom of the space where comments could be submitted.
I appealed a trial I had as a self rep with the assistance of an attorney. At the appeal hearing the lead judge contested my lawyers use of the term self-represented. He said, “your client wasn’t really self- represented because he seeked and obtained legal advice. from a lawyer” My lawyer disagreed stating, , “My client filed and wrote all the paperwork himself, he exchanged all correspondence with opposing counsel himself and appeared before all judges involved himself, I believe that is self represented. The judge disagreed. My question to those conducting this research is if there is a legal definition of self-represented? If I obtained legal advice on the internet would I still be considered self-represented? Where is that limit?
The trial judge did not allow me to present evidence that was already filed with the court in accordance with a previous endorsement. The Appeal decision acknowledged that this was an error of the trial judge but “there was confusion during the trial.” Since the issue was not raised and there is no reason to believe presenting the evidence would have rendered a different decision the issue is mute. My lawyer argued you can’t have the same expectations from a SRL and the appeal judge then retorted that he wasn’t an SLR because he obtained legal advice. So again, what defines an SLR?
Hello Santo; this is very interesting, and not something we have encountered before. We are not aware of a legal definition of “self-represented.” Has your hearing at the court of appeal been published on CanLII? We would be interested in reading it, if so.