July 11, 2007
Late June 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada launched a new portal for litigants wishing to represent themselves before Canada’s highest court. The “Representing Yourself” portal provides litigants with step-by-step guides to both bringing and responding to an application for leave to appeal.
The portal likewise provides the self-representing litigant with a glossary of legal terms, templates for written motions and applications, and a list of commonly applicable rules of procedure.
Naturally, all this is provided with a much needed proviso:
Remember that this is a guide meant to give you helpful information, not legal advice. We always recommend that you get a “lawyer”. A lawyer is in the best position to give you advice about the process and the likelihood of success.
At times like this I am reminded of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's comments on the issue of unrepresented litigants in her address to the 2006 CBA Canadian Legal Conference & Expo (a video of which can be found at CPAC's Podium Archives):
[Lack of representation in the courts] does create great problems, not only for the litigants who are struggling to put their case forward without the aid of a lawyer, but for the judge, who--in a system which is designed to function with an able and independent adversary on each side--finds themselves in the difficult position of trying to aid the unrepresented litigant to the extent possible...while maintaining the judge's role of impartiality, of impartial arbiter...
The judiciary of Canada is trying to cope with this epidemic of lack of representation and we're doing better I think. But these solutions are imperfect at best. People seeking justice need not only judges, they need lawyers: competent, independent and affordable lawyers.
I couldn't agree more.
2 Comments
Had this link been published two months earlier, it would have proved extremely useful.
My newspaper, the Kamloops Daily News, filed an unrepresented application for leave to appeal in May, to challenge an (outrageous) ban on publication imposed in pretrial proceedings of an ongoing criminal trial. (SCC 32064). The ban was sought by the Crown to protect against what prosecutors felt were inappropriate opinion pieces we published questioning the nature of the prosecution; pieces Crown lawyers argued made their ability to prosecute the case more difficult. We, naturally, disagreed.
CBC v. Dagenais spelled out the avenue of appeal open to third parties (like the media) in such circumstances is a direct appeal to the SCC. We checked with lawyers and were quoted estimates ranging from $7,500 to $25,000 to file such an application -- far beyond the financial reach of a small market newspaper like ours, especially when the underlying issue is largely an academic or philosophic discussion of issues related to freedom of expression.
Given the choice, we chose to file application for leave ourselves, without the aid of a lawyer. It was a daunting process, but we successfully completed it.
When push came to shove -- in the week of the deadline for the Crown's response to our application -- prosecutors returned to B.C. Supreme Court to ask the judge to rescind the ban on publication entirely. The ban was rescinded, and as a result we discontinued our appeal.
So, the process was entirely worthwhile, from our perspective. We achieved an end we would not have otherwise achieved but for the filing of an application for leave to appeal, I'm convinced of that.
From personal experience, I can say information/opportunities that increase access to justice -- especially for those without the means to hire legal counsel -- are worthwhile and must be encouraged.
Hey, representing oneself worked for Jacques Chaoulli.