The Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants, which was established by the Canadian Judicial Council in 2006, is a set of principles intended to guide judges and court participants in promoting fair treatment of self-represented persons and their access to justice. It was often regarded by judges as merely advisory. With the Supreme Court's endorsement, the application of these principles to self-represented people is now required by judges.
The context of the Pintea v. Johns case that led to this important progress, is the Supreme Court found that the self-represented plaintiff, Pintea, was not treated fairly by the lower Alberta court when the Alberta court made a serious finding not supported by law, dismissed his motor vehicle accident case and awarded substantial costs against him. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, restored the plaintiff Pintea's case so that it can go back to the trial court, and vacated the costs judgment.
Some of the principles in the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants are:
Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily
rectified deficiency in their case.
Judges should ensure that procedural and evidentiary rules are not used to unjustly hinder
the legal interests of self-represented persons.
Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and
impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.
Judges, the courts and other participants in the justice system have a responsibility to promote access to the justice system for all persons on an equal basis, regardless of representation.
The Carbone case against lawyers Megan McMahon, Taryn Burnett, and their law firm Gowlings, which this blog reports on, has long relied on the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants as can be seen from the various factums and letters presented throughout this blog.
Notably, Gowlings, a defendant in the Carbone case on grounds including malicious abuse of process, fraud and harassment of a self-represented person, was also defence counsel in the Pintea Supreme Court case and was unsuccessful in attempting to deny the plaintiff Pintea, and all self-represented persons, their right to a standard of fair treatment and access to justice.
The Carbone plaintiff looks forward to the consistent application of the Principles to her case and all self-represented persons' cases in the courts.
Update: Self-represented persons looking to apply the Pintea case and the Principles to their own case, may want to use the recent summary of the Pintea case prepared by the NSRLP found at this link.
