Written by Silvia Battaglia and Shannon Meikle, law students and NSRLP Research Assistants; originally published on Slaw, Canada’s online legal magazine.

The NSRLP receives a great deal of mail from our community, and every week we receive emails from people sharing their experiences as self-represented litigants (SRLs). Last year, we began receiving a lot of emails from SRLs who had requested accommodations in the legal process, needing courts to recognize and adapt to their cognitive disabilities (requesting, for example, more time to respond, frequent breaks in hearings, etc.). In a nutshell: they were not being accommodated. We read their stories with concern and became aware of the need to look more deeply into the issue: what types of barriers are SRLs with cognitive disabilities facing? And specifically, how do these barriers manifest themselves as SRLs apply for accommodation?

Undoubtedly, people who self-represent in legal proceedings face barriers to justice. The barriers to justice for cognitively disabled SRLs are even steeper. The term ‘cognitive disability’ encompasses a variety of conditions, including mental illness, developmental disability, and mental disorders including anxiety and PTSD (this list is not exhaustive, and the Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that a cognitive disability may be identified on a case-by-case basis (see our Guide for SRLs with Disabilities for more information)). Because we were hearing so much from this group, we decided to gather more information and bring attention to the topic by launching a study on access to justice for cognitively disabled SRLs: Struggling for Accommodation: Barriers to Accessibility Faced by Cognitively Disabled Self-Represented Litigants (released November 15, 2021).

How do SRLs make accommodation requests?

We began by familiarizing ourselves with the processes of applying for accommodation, paying special attention to the guidelines that came out during the pandemic. Every province has its own procedure for requesting accommodations. In Ontario, you must contact the local Court Accessibility Coordinator and submit an official letter of accommodation request. This letter must identify which disability you are applying for, explain what accommodation you are looking for, and explain how that accommodation is relevant to your disability. In addition, you must find and submit case law or a piece of jurisprudence in support of your request (see NSRLP’s sample letter of accommodation request).

However in some provinces, information regarding the accommodations process is completely lacking. For example, not providing a list of accommodations that litigants may pick from, guidelines hard to locate in a myriad of web pages, or difficult to understand.

What is clear is that the processes for and information on requesting accommodations vary widely across Canada, and are never straightforward or simple.

The study

Our study aimed to firstly, identify common experiences among SRLs with cognitive disabilities who request accommodations, and secondly, explore the potential impact of COVID-19 on any barriers they experience.

Using our social media pages and our newsletter we put out a call for participants across Canada who identify as persons with cognitive disabilities, and who also have sought accommodation as SRLs.

Ultimately we were able to engage 10 anonymous participants, and then conduct individual, in-depth, open-ended interviews where we asked them to share the details of their experiences. Specifically, we asked:

  1. How did you request accommodations for your disability?
  2. Did you face any challenges while requesting accommodations?
  3. If you answered yes to the question above, please explain. (What challenges did you face while requesting accommodations?)
  4. What resources did you use to help you navigate your request for accommodations?
  5. Please describe any efforts the courthouse made to ensure that you knew how to properly submit an accommodations request.

What SRLs with cognitive disabilities told us

We found that the respondents faced many challenges in requesting and seeking accommodations for their disabilities. Unfortunately, we were not surprised by our findings, with participants articulating feelings of discontent and frustration with court processes throughout the interviews.

9 of 10 participants described challenges including:

  1. Lack of information. Even where present, the material was not made accessible and was hard to understand. One alarming finding was that official websites are of little help to people with cognitive disabilities as no appropriate measures are taken to make them accessible to a public with diverse abilities.
  2. Five out of nine participants who experienced challenges reported feeling degraded by comments, with one participant recalling a judge asking her, “do you know what you’re doing?” Other participants were met with suspicion; one reported: “I felt that my disability was dismissed. The system was looking at it as a ploy or tactic.” In other instances, participants felt the accommodation process triggered their PTSD as it related to their disability, finding that the process does not account for the possibility that SRLs with disabilities might be vulnerable to triggering situations.
  3. Lack of resources. Five out of nine participants who described challenges and obstacles told us that they relied on our NSRLP resources, and three out of nine relied on community resources such as McKenzie Friends and legal clinics.
  4. No help from the court. Nine out of ten participants told us that they received no help from the courthouse regarding information on the accommodations process. One participant pointed out that in addition to a lack of support, they felt as though the courthouse avoided helping her, “at every turn” using the pretext that staff cannot give any legal advice – even though this participant was merely looking for help applying for accommodation.
  5. The effects of the pandemic were felt heavily by our participants. Some reported a lack of information regarding the newly adapted processes, others reported a general feeling of confusion. With useful in-court resources no longer available, the shift to online resources made the process even more inaccessible.

Our recommendations for courts

We used the data we collected from participants to formulate the following list of recommendations:

  1. Improve judicial training regarding the nature of cognitive disability and the available resources to accommodate SRLs with cognitive disabilities.
  2. Increase access to information regarding the accommodations process in each province.
  3. Update court web pages to include clear and accessible information about the functions of the Accessibility Coordinators.
  4. Allow SRLs to identify any disability at the start of their court process.
  5. Enhance awareness among the members of the Bar on the barriers to justice faced by persons with cognitive disabilities who self-represent.

Since some of these recommendations can be achieved relatively easily – for example, better website information and other ways of improving public messaging regarding accommodations – we hope that this study will help to clarify widespread confusion about the accommodations process, and also improve the climate generally for SRLs who feel that the courts are neither responsive nor well-informed about the impact of cognitive disabilities.

4 thoughts on “Struggling for Accommodation

  1. C. Mills says:

    What was the response of the accessibility committee?

    I have heard back from two judicial councils who have entirely ignored the facts, and data, and seem oblivious to the issues. Zero investigation, zero due diligence, only ongoing denial of even the most obvious and straightforward facts.

    This is an issue that flows from insurers like LawPro, who incentivize this conduct – have you reached out to them?

  2. C Mills says:

    (follow up) – I sent your materials to accessibility coordinators, used your template, etc – but so far, the push is still about simply ignoring facts, and attempting to book accommodations that are unsafe / dangerous.

    I sent medical letters confirming one accommodation approach is potentially lethal for me, and the AC responded by suggesting that “was the only way to go”.

    Have asked federal and provincial health and safety orgs like the ministry of labour, health canada, etc – to investigate, but it seems there are jurisdiction issues in courthouses, that entitles judges, court staff, lawyers, etc – to ignore even the most fundamental health and safety laws, rules, regulations (and even common sense).

    The court house is a place where people get injured with no repercussion for those causing the injuries.

    Unsafe – anti-health and safety.

    Occupational health and safety laws do appear to include “bullying” (google centre for occupational health and safety / violence / bullying) – discrimination is at the heart of this legislation, but not apparently to be found in legal insurance judicial (etc) sectors.

    Aren’t acts of bad faith ones that undermine legal actions and decisions?

    What next?

  3. Fawad khan says:

    Hello
    I am facing a fraudulent alleged mould case in the basement of my brother house
    No proof of alleged mould case
    No certified mould specialist report on existing of alleged mould
    No laboratory test
    No effect of the mould on the new owners
    Alledged mould in around 550/ SQ ft area in the basement
    Settled by two two attorney for $3000/ and paid has reached $550,000/
    Fought case for 7 years as self litigants to access Justice
    But what we got in return
    CPL on my son(26 years old ) house stop to sell house
    Made vexatious litigants
    Got default judgement when I was operated for heart surgery in Hispital
    And cost of $550,000/
    My totally innocent son has been made bankrupt
    For borrowing no money from any one
    What type of Justice is this
    Judges favoured attorneys openly
    Judges never used common senses
    To find out what is the truth
    A family of four were evacuated and made homeless and shelter less
    We are made penniless
    Court awarded draconian ,exorbitant costs to attorney to favour them
    Far a phone call of 30 secs court gave $300/ to attorney
    To make them rich quick at the cost of totally innocent
    Persons
    We have lost faith in Canadian justice system
    We have been entangled in So called Rules, Acts
    We are chained for no fault of ours
    The judges acted like Jalads on Gallotine
    Judges always favoured attorneys as their colleagues
    I do not believe in Canadian justice system as there is non
    The Judges made wrong and full of errors judgements/ orders/endorsements
    Normal complaints/ protest are not working
    As these judges are deaf and dum
    The attorneys who mis lead the courts , commit frauds are sinners and must be punished by public

  4. Paul Taylor says:

    I would also add that people with disabilities should not a strict rule about accommodations, like trying to unlock a safe or win the lottery. For example rules or process should be made clear to all, but if a person with disability did not make a request at the start of a proceeding this should not deny them their right to accommodation.
    Recently, I had asked for accommodations from the Court of Appeal and was advised I had to seek opposing counsel’s permission. I wrote to many expressing my concern of it being degrading and raising concern of the humiliating process.
    As a person with numerous disabilities all of which are not visible, I find it makes me a disadvantage to my case making such a request, but I still do!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *