Self-Represented Parties (Fairness): Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Hylton, 2010 ONCA 752 (CanLII)== | ==Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Hylton, 2010 ONCA 752 (CanLII)== | ||
[39] Once again, the fact that a party is self-represented is a relevant factor. That is not to say that a self-represented party is entitled to a “pass”. However, as part of the court’s obligation to ensure that all litigants have a fair opportunity to advance their positions, the court must assist self-represented parties so they can present their cases to the best of their abilities. Linhares de Sousa J. provided a helpful list of ways to assist self-represented litigants in <i>Kainz v. Potter (2006), 2006 CanLII 20532 (ON SC), 33 R.F.L. (6th) 62 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 65</i><ref name="Kainz"/>: | [39] Once again, the fact that a party is self-represented is a relevant factor. That is not to say that a self-represented party is entitled to a “pass”. <span style=background:yellow>However, as part of the court’s obligation to ensure that all litigants have a fair opportunity to advance their positions, the court must assist self-represented parties so they can present their cases to the best of their abilities.</span> Linhares de Sousa J. provided a helpful list of ways to assist self-represented litigants in <i>Kainz v. Potter (2006), 2006 CanLII 20532 (ON SC), 33 R.F.L. (6th) 62 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 65</i><ref name="Kainz"/>: | ||
::<span style=background:yellow>[N]umerous Court decisions have reiterated the principle again and again, that self-represented parties are entitled to receive assistance from an adjudicator to permit them to fairly present their case on the issues in question. This may include directions on procedure, the nature of the evidence that can be presented, the calling of witnesses, the form of questioning, requests for adjournments and even the raising of substantive and evidentiary issues. [Emphasis added.]</span> | ::<span style=background:yellow>[N]umerous Court decisions have reiterated the principle again and again, that self-represented parties are entitled to receive assistance from an adjudicator to permit them to fairly present their case on the issues in question. This may include directions on procedure, the nature of the evidence that can be presented, the calling of witnesses, the form of questioning, requests for adjournments and even the raising of substantive and evidentiary issues. [Emphasis added.]</span> | ||
Latest revision as of 21:39, 13 November 2022
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-05-17 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2022 |
| Page Categories: | |
| Citation: | Self-Represented Parties (Fairness), CLNP 2022, <>, retrieved on 2024-05-17 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2022/11/13 |
Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Hylton, 2010 ONCA 752 (CanLII)
[39] Once again, the fact that a party is self-represented is a relevant factor. That is not to say that a self-represented party is entitled to a “pass”. However, as part of the court’s obligation to ensure that all litigants have a fair opportunity to advance their positions, the court must assist self-represented parties so they can present their cases to the best of their abilities. Linhares de Sousa J. provided a helpful list of ways to assist self-represented litigants in Kainz v. Potter (2006), 2006 CanLII 20532 (ON SC), 33 R.F.L. (6th) 62 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 65[1]:
- [N]umerous Court decisions have reiterated the principle again and again, that self-represented parties are entitled to receive assistance from an adjudicator to permit them to fairly present their case on the issues in question. This may include directions on procedure, the nature of the evidence that can be presented, the calling of witnesses, the form of questioning, requests for adjournments and even the raising of substantive and evidentiary issues. [Emphasis added.]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Kainz v. Potter, 2006 CanLII 20532 (ON SC), <https://canlii.ca/t/1nm66>, retrieved on 2022-11-13
- ↑ Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Hylton, 2010 ONCA 752 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2d7jc>, retrieved on 2022-11-13
