to the documentation provided by Mtre Hendy

November 24, 2015
The per se litigant / Self-representation
Self-represented litigants – A growing phenomenon
1.
•
In its most recent Four-Year Report (2010/2014), the Québec Superior Court
reported that 31% of all civil cases and 42% of all family law cases involve selfrepresented litigants (“SRLs”)
•
Similar statistics are cited by authorities in other Canadian and American
jurisdictions
•
In 2014, approximately 27,000 cases were brought before the Superior Court
(family law division)
•
Over 75% of all civil and family law cases at the Superior Court are filed in the
division of Montreal
•
This growing phenomenon is attributed to one or more of the following causes:
•
•
Rising attorney fees and impecuniosity of litigants
•
Inadmissibility of litigants to provincial legal aid programs
•
Deliberate choice by litigants to represent themselves
Several programs attempting to deal with this problem have been put into place
by various organizations:
•
Bar of Montréal: service pro bono
(http://www.barreau.qc.ca/fr/public/acces-justice/services/) [SAGE]
•
Pro Bono Québec (www.probonoquebec.ca) (cases involving the public
interest, irreparable harm or an exceptional situation)
•
SOQUIJ (http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/) (fee research)
•
Mile-End Legal Clinic (http://www.justicemontreal.org/)
•
Barreau du Québec: Éducaloi (www.educaloi.qc.ca) (explains many areas
of the law)
•
Centres de justice de proximité (http://justicedeproximite.qc.ca/grandmontreal/) (30 minutes consultation, max $30)
•
Fondation du Barreau: Seul devant la Cour (“how to” texts re civil, family,
penal/criminal and administrative law tribunals, 50 to 100 pages each)
-2•
Regional legal aid clinics (http://www.csj.qc.ca) (maximum income of
$16.3K to $26.7K)
•
Avocats Juripop inc. (www.juripop.org) (non-legal aid mandates, $55 to
$65/hour)
Relevant legislative and ethical provisions
2.
•
Article 61 C.C.P.
“No one is required to be represented by attorney before the
courts, except: (…)”
•
Article 23 (New Code of Civil Procedure):
“Natural persons may self-represent before the courts, but
must comply with the procedure established by this Code
and the regulations under this Code.”
•
•
Code of Ethics, Quebec Bar Act
•
112. A lawyer must act for a client resolutely and honourably, in
compliance with the law, while treating the tribunal and all other
participants in the justice system with candour, courtesy and respect.
•
When acting as prosecutor in a criminal or penal matter, the lawyer must
act in the public interest and in the interest of the administration of justice
and the fairness of the judicial process.
•
119. A lawyer must not act in such a manner as to mislead a party or the
party's lawyer, or in such a manner as to abuse their good faith.
CBA Code of Ethics
Dealings with Unrepresented Persons
•
8. The lawyer should not undertake to advise an unrepresented person,
but should urge such a person to obtain independent legal advice and, if
the unrepresented person does not do so, the lawyer must take care to see
that such person is not proceeding under the impression that the lawyer is
protecting such person’s interests. If the unrepresented person requests
the lawyer to advise or act in the matter, the lawyer should be governed by
the considerations outlined in the Rule relating to impartiality and conflict
of interest between clients (Chapter V). The lawyer may have an obligation
to a person whom the lawyer does not represent, whether or not such
person is represented by a lawyer.
-3Canadian Judicial Counsel Statement of Principles on SRLs and
Accused Persons – September 2006
3.
PREAMBLE
•
Whereas the system of criminal and civil justice in Canada is predicated on the
expectation of equal access to justice, including procedural justice, and equal
treatment under the law for all persons;
•
Whereas the achievement of these expectations depends on awareness and
understanding of both procedural and substantive law;
•
Whereas access to justice is facilitated by the availability of representation to all
parties, and it is therefore desirable that each person seeking access to the court
should be represented by counsel;
•
Whereas those persons who do remain unrepresented by counsel both face and
present special challenges with respect to the court system;
•
Therefore, judges, court administrators, members of the Bar, legal aid
organizations, and government funding agencies each have responsibility to
ensure that self-represented persons are provided with fair access and equal
treatment by the court; and
•
Therefore, it is desirable to provide a statement of principles for the guidance of
such persons in the administration of justice in relation to self-represented
persons.
•
Note:
The Statements, Principles and Commentaries
advisory in nature and are not intended to be a code of conduct.
A.
are
PROMOTING RIGHTS OF ACCESS
STATEMENT:
•
Judges, the courts and other participants in the justice system have a
responsibility to promote opportunities for all persons to understand and
meaningfully present their case, regardless of representation.
PRINCIPLES:
1.
Access to justice for self-represented persons requires all aspects of the court
process to be, as much as possible, open, transparent, clearly defined, simple,
convenient and accommodating.
2.
The court process should, to the extent possible, be supplemented by processes
that enhance accessibility, informality, and timeliness of case resolution. These
processes may include case management, alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
procedures, and informal settlement conferences presided over by a judge.
-43.
Information, assistance and self-help support required by self-represented
persons should be made available through the various means by which selfrepresented persons normally seek information, including for example:
pamphlets, telephone inquiries, courthouse inquiries, legal clinics, and internet
searches and inquiries.
4.
In view of the value of legal advice and representation, judges, court
administrators and other participants in the legal system should:
a. inform any self-represented parties of the potential consequences and
responsibilities of proceeding without a lawyer;
b. refer self-represented persons to available sources of representation,
including those available from Legal Aid plans, pro bono assistance and
community and other services; and
c. refer self-represented persons to other appropriate sources of information,
education, advice and assistance.
COMMENTARY:
•
Informed opinion and research suggests that the numbers of self-represented
persons in the courts are increasing. However, the average person may be
overwhelmed by the simplest of court procedures.
•
Self-represented persons are generally uninformed about their rights and about
the consequences of choosing the options available to them; they may find court
procedures complex, confusing and intimidating; and they may not have the
knowledge or skills to participate actively and effectively in their own litigation.
•
Many self-represented persons have limited literacy skills, and many speak
Canada’s official languages as a second language, if at all. As a result, many selfrepresented persons tend to access information about the courts through means
other than the written word. For this reason, it is essential that information be
provided using other means, including videos and pictures. Further, having an
official available to answer questions posed by self-represented persons should,
to the extent possible, supplement pre-packaged materials.
•
Given these factors, it is important that judges, court administrators and others
facilitate, to the extent possible, access to justice for self-represented persons.
•
Providing the required services for self-represented persons is also necessary to
enhance the courts’ ability to function in a timely and efficient manner.
-5B.
PROMOTING EQUAL JUSTICE
STATEMENT:
•
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.
PRINCIPLES:
1.
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.
2.
Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or
easily rectified deficiency in their case.
3.
Where appropriate, a judge should consider engaging in such case management
activities as are required to protect the rights and interests of self-represented
persons. Such case management should begin as early in the court process as
possible.
4.
When one or both parties are proceeding without representation, non-prejudicial
and engaged case and courtroom management may be needed to protect the
litigants’ equal right to be heard. Depending on the circumstances and nature of
the case, the presiding judge may:
a. explain the process;
b. inquire whether both parties understand the process and the procedure;
c. make referrals to agencies able to assist the litigant in the preparation of
the case;
d. provide information about the law and evidentiary requirements;
e. modify the traditional order of taking evidence; and
f. question witnesses.
COMMENTARY:
•
It is consistent with the requirements of judicial neutrality and impartiality for a
judge to engage in such affirmative and non-prejudicial steps as described in
Principles 3 and 4. A careful explanation of the purpose of this type of
management will minimize any risk of a perception of biased behaviour.
•
Judges must exercise diligence in ensuring that the law is applied in an evenhanded way to all, regardless of representation. The Council’s statement of
Ethical Principles for Judges (1998) has already established the principle of
-6equality in principles governing judicial conduct. That document states that,
“Judges should conduct themselves and proceedings before them so as to ensure
equality according to law.”
•
However, it is clear that treating all persons alike does not necessarily result in
equal justice. The Ethical Principles for Judges also cites Eldridge v. B.C.A.G.,
([1997] 3 S.C.R. 624 per LaForest, J. for the court at 667) on a judge’s duty to
“rectify and prevent” discriminatory effects against particular groups.
•
Self-represented persons, like all other litigants, are subject to the provisions
whereby courts maintain control of their proceedings and procedures. In the
same manner as with other litigants, self-represented persons may be treated as
vexatious or abusive litigants where the administration of justice requires it. The
ability of judges to promote access may be affected by the actions of selfrepresented litigants themselves.
•
On reminding the SRL of his right to self-representation, and offering him the
opportunity to retain the services an attorney.
C.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM
STATEMENT:
•
All participants are accountable for understanding and fulfilling their roles in
achieving the goals of equal access to justice, including procedural fairness.
PRINCIPLES:
For Both the Judiciary and Court Administrators
•
Judges and court administrators should meet the needs of self-represented
persons for information, referral, simplicity, and assistance.
•
Judges and court administrators should develop forms, rules and procedures,
which are understandable to and easily accessed by self-represented persons.
•
To the extent possible, judges and court administrators should develop packages
for self- represented persons and standardized court forms.
•
Judges and court administrators have no obligation to assist a self-represented
person who is disrespectful, frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious, abusive, or
making no reasonable effort to prepare their own case.
For the Judiciary
•
Judges have a responsibility to inquire whether self-represented persons are
aware of their procedural options, and to direct them to available information if
they are not. Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, judges may
-7explain the relevant law in the case and its implications, before the selfrepresented person makes critical choices.
•
In appropriate circumstances, judges should consider providing self-represented
persons with information to assist them in understanding and asserting their
rights, or to raise arguments before the court.
•
Judges should ensure that procedural and evidentiary rules are not used to
unjustly hinder the legal interests of self-represented persons.
•
The judiciary should engage in dialogues with legal professional associations,
court administrators, government and legal aid organizations in an effort to
design and provide for programs to assist self-represented persons.
For Court Administrators
•
Court administrators should seek to provide self-represented persons with the
assistance necessary to initiate or respond to a case and to navigate the court
system.
•
In particular, court administrators should be given sufficient resources to be able
to:
•
•
provide, on request, all public information contained in dockets or
calendars, case files, indexes and existing reports;
•
provide, on request, access to or a recitation of relevant common, routinely
employed rules, court procedures, and fees and costs;
•
provide, on request, information about where to find applicable laws and
rules
•
identify and provide, on request, applicable forms and written
instructions;
•
answer questions about how to complete forms, but not about how
answers should be phrased;
•
define, on request, terms commonly used in court processes;
•
provide, on request, phone numbers for Legal Aid, lawyer referral services,
local panels, or other assistance services, such as Internet resources,
known to court staff; and
•
provide, to the extent possible, and in compliance with applicable law,
appropriate aids and services for individuals with disabilities.
Court administrators shall not provide legal advice.
-8•
Court administrators should educate court personnel regarding the importance of
public access to the courts and should provide training to court personnel as to
how they should assist self-represented persons.
•
Court administrators should allocate the necessary resources to allow court
personnel to provide meaningful assistance.
For Self-Represented Persons
•
Self-represented persons are expected to familiarize themselves with the relevant
legal practices and procedures pertaining to their case.
•
Self-represented persons are expected to prepare their own case.
•
Self-represented persons are required to be respectful of the court process and
the officials within it. Vexatious litigants will not be permitted to abuse the
process.
For the Bar
•
Members of the Bar are expected to participate in designing and delivering legal
aid and pro bono representation to persons who would otherwise be selfrepresented, as well as other programs for short-term, partial and unbundled
legal advice and assistance as may be deemed useful for the self-represented
persons in the courts of which they are officers.
•
Members of the Bar are expected to be respectful of self-represented persons and
to adjust their behaviour accordingly when dealing with self-represented persons,
in accordance with their professional ethical obligations. For example, members
of the Bar should, to the extent possible, avoid the use of complex legal language.
Members of the Bar may be guided by the Canadian Bar Association’s Code of
Professional Conduct and the codes of each jurisdiction (see Guiding Principle
XIX (8))and references therein.
For Others
•
Government departments with overall responsibility for court administration
should provide Legal Aid plans with sufficient resources to provide a proper
range of required services for financially eligible persons, including: education,
short-term information and advice, and representation.
•
In addition to providing representation, Legal Aid organizations should be
encouraged to create flexible options and models for addressing the challenges of
self-represented persons, including programs providing education and shortterm information and advice.
•
Providers of judicial education should develop educational programs for judges
and court administrators on broad-based methods of assisting and managing the
cases of self- represented persons.
-9•
Government agencies with overall responsibility for court administration should
provide courts with the resources and assistance necessary to train court
administrators and to provide the funding necessary for them to provide
meaningful, broad-based assistance to self- represented persons, including
awareness and communications training.
•
Government agencies with overall responsibility for court administration should
provide funding for self-help programs for self-represented persons, as well as for
programs of assistance to self-represented persons, which falls short of
representation.
Duties of the Court re SRLs and Represented Parties
4.
(a)
General
•
A body of jurisprudence has evolved setting forth these rules
•
Caveat re application of jurisprudence regarding SRLs in criminal matters, where
the duty of assistance and intervention of the judge is greater because of the
nature of the constitutional rights involved and the protection of the accused
(b)
Judge’s initial caveat to the SRL
•
The judge should, at the outset of the trial or the hearing, explain to the SRL the
risks of self-representation, the benefits of retaining the services of a lawyer, the
alternative services available to assist the SRL and, where required, explain the
relevant procedures and rules of the Court (N.B. Minister of Health v. G., [1999]
3 S.C.R. 46)
•
In penal or criminal cases, where the rights of the fundamental individual are
involved, the duty of the judge to protect the SRL from his/her inexperience and
lack of knowledge is more onerous
•
The judge must at all times assure himself that the SRL understands the issues
involved and the questions to be decided by the Court (varies according to the
judge’s appreciation of the SRL’s intellectual capacity, sophistication and ability
to give an informed consent)
(c)
Fair and Equitable Hearing
•
“The trial judge has the obligation to assure an equitable hearing” and “the trial
judge has the capacity to assist the parent during the trial, within the limits of his
jurisdiction” (N.B. Minister of Health vs. G. (1999), 3 S.C.R. 46, at p. 85)
•
These duties apply in civil and family cases as well
•
Duty to assure that the trial is fair for both parties and that the SRL does not
suffer unjust prejudice from his lack of knowledge of the law and procedure and
- 10 that he is not unfairly overwhelmed by the opposite party (represented by an
attorney)
•
In certain cases, it may be necessary to explain the procedural and evidentiary
rules and to provide certain assistance as to the manner to proceed and the
opportunity to consult them, if necessary
•
The judge must also assure that the rules of evidence and procedure are respected
and assure that the SRL receives the protection of same (see below)
•
Judges are required to show patience and comprehension with an SRL, above
and beyond that afforded to experienced litigation lawyers
•
While doing this, the judge must assure that the trial is fair and equitable for
both parties and that he does not become the advocate for the SRL or prejudice
the rights of the opposite party
•
The judge may not give legal advice to the SRL, tell him what evidence to offer or
how to present it, or suggest a particular legal strategy “Bien qu’il soit sans aucun
doute vrai qu’un juge de première instance a le devoir de veiller à ce qu’un
accusé non représenté ne soit pas privé d’un procès équitable en raison du fait
qu’il n’est pas familier avec le déroulement du procès, le devoir doit
nécessairement être limité par ce qui est raisonnable. Ce devoir ne comprend
clairement pas celui d’offrir à l’accusé à chacune des étapes du procès le genre
de conseil qu’un avocat pourrait offrir à l’accusé s’il était représenté. Si cela était
le cas, le juge en première instance se trouverait rapidement dans la position
impossible d’incarner à la fois l’avocat et l’arbitre impartial (R vs. Taubler, 1987
(20 OAC, 64, at p. 71, Thornson, J.)
•
The judge may explain a particular rule of law, without providing legal advice
•
The judge must explain in general fashion the legal rules relating to trial
procedure, rules of evidence, examinations, cross-examination and argument and
how to proceed (if necessary)
•
The duty of the judge will vary with the apparent competence and sophistication
of the SRL
•
The trial judge’s fundamental duty is to apply the law, in a manner which does
not vary whether the parties are represented or not, and the fundamental rules of
procedure and evidence remain applicable
•
“L’équité et la compréhension accordées à une partie non représentée ne doivent
jamais être portées au point où les tribunaux ne donnent pas effet aux droits
existants, ou au point où la question de l’équité envers une partie non
représentée pourrait l’emporter sur les droits de l’autre partie” (Baziak vs.
Dunwoody, 1997 OJ 2374)
- 11 •
However, the rules of procedure and evidence must not be applied in a manner
which unjustly prejudice the legal rights of the SRL
(d)
•
The judge has a duty to object (proprio motu) to evidence based on public order
such as the client-solicitor privilege, spousal communications (Article 307
C.C.P.), charter violations, illegal evidence (Article 2858 C.C.Q.), absolute nullity
of a juridical act (Article 1418 C.C.Q.) and irrelevant questions (Domaine de la
Rivière Inc. vs. Aluminium du Canada Limitée, 1985 R.D.J. 30, at p. 35)
•
“The trial judge is not bound to admit irrelevant evidence on the ground that
objection was not made in time. In fact, there is a duty of the trial judge to
refuse such evidence even when no objection whatsoever has been made (Léon
vs. Dominion Square Corp., 1956 B.R. 623, at p. 624)”
•
Hearsay evidence (Articles 2843 and 2869 to 2874 C.C.Q.) or suggestive
questions by opposing counsel
•
The judge has the right to ask relevant questions he deems useful to any witness
which may assist in the disposition of the case (Article 318 C.C.P.) (Poulin vs.
Laliberté, 1953 B.R. 8, at p. 9)
•
What if the judge exercises his right to ask questions, but they are suggestive or
otherwise illegal?
(e)
5.
Objections to Evidence
Deficiencies in the evidence
•
Evidence which has not been presented (judge’s right to point out that a certain
witness should be heard, document produced or evidence presented, but no
more, Article 292 C.C.P.)
•
The judge does not have the power to order the production of additional evidence
or summoning of any person whose testimony he/she considers pertinent, unlike
the special situation contemplated in Article 815.1 C.C.P. (filiation proceedings).
•
The judge remains master of the hearing, with a discretionary power to limit a
cross-examination or a legal argument if he considers it repetitive, excessively
lengthy, irrelevant, aggressive or injurious (R. v. W., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 811; R. v.
Meddoui, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 320; R. v. Fabrikant, [1995] J.E. 95-845.
Specific examples from the jurisprudence
Parkinson-Makara c. R.,
2012 QCCA 2011
[19] First, with respect, the trial judge failed in his
duty to adequately provide reasonable assistance to
the appellant in the conduct of his defence and to
guide him in such a way that his defence be
presented with full force and effect. To the same
extent, the judge failed to remind the accused of his
- 12 right to the assistance of counsel.
[20] While it is true that the appellant was not
appearing in a criminal court for the first time and
thus had some experience with the process – qua
client – it is a rather large leap from being a client to
acting on your own behalf against a professionally
trained and experienced Crown counsel. We will
never know what the effect might have been if the
judge had tried to explain the disadvantages
the appellant was facing by acting on his own behalf
and the corresponding advantages from which he
would benefit by having counsel, since the judge
did not undertake the exercise.
Leblanc c. R., 2010 QCCA
1891
Moynan c. R., 2007 QCCA
1093
[56] De plus, l'appelant a indiqué de manière
répétée qu'il n'était pas familier avec la procédure
criminelle. La jurisprudence de notre Cour exige
que le juge porte une aide raisonnable au plaideur
non représenté pour donner pleinement force et
effet à sa défense. J'arrive donc, avec égards, à la
conclusion que le juge a erré dans l'exercice de sa
discrétion, en n'ayant pas informé l'appelant de la
possibilité de demander la remise de l'audience
afin qu'il puisse pallier son défaut d'avoir
convenablement assigné un témoin. Ceci a
pénalisé l'appelant injustement et l'a privé de son
droit à un procès juste et équitable.
[40] [b]ien que les tribunaux doivent s'assurer que
les procès se déroulent de façon équitable, ce droit
n'exige pas nécessairement la présence d'un avocat
dans tout procès pénal. Un accusé peut choisir de se
représenter seul sans l'assistance d'un avocat.
[41] En revanche, il faut garder à l'esprit qu'une
personne qui se défend elle-même est bien souvent
désavantagée.
[42] Cela dit, lorsqu'un accusé demande un
ajournement pour pouvoir retenir les services d'un
avocat, il faut s'assurer qu'il comprend bien que tout
délai lui sera alors imputable, constituant de ce fait
une renonciation à son droit constitutionnel d'avoir
un procès dans un délai raisonnable.
[44] [l]orsqu'un accusé désire être représenté par un
avocat et qu'on ne peut lui reprocher son inaction ou
- 13 sa négligence dans ses tentatives de mandater un
nouveau procureur pour agir au procès, celui-ci
devrait bénéficier d’un délai pour ce faire.
lmbeault c. R., 2006 QCCA
1559
[45] Le devoir d'assistance du juge envers un
accusé qui se représente lui-même dans un
procès devant jury comporte des limites. Sa
tâche est particulièrement délicate, dans la mesure
où un juste équilibre doit être préservé.
[48] En l'espèce, le juge s'est bien acquitté, à sa
manière, de son obligation envers l'accusé.
[49] Il lui explique les règles de preuve et de
procédure applicables dans un procès criminel. À
maintes reprises, il lui explique qu'en contreinterrogatoire, il doit s'en tenir à poser des
questions au témoin et non à argumenter. Il lui fait
part également de la méthode à suivre pour opposer
au témoin une déclaration antérieure. Il intervient à
l’occasion pour reformuler certaines questions lors de
contre-interrogatoires, et ce, uniquement pour
faciliter le déroulement du procès. Il rappelle à
l'accusé qu'il ne peut opposer au témoin un
document dont ce dernier n'est pas l'auteur ni lui
opposer des propos tenus par une autre personne. Il
lui décrit également la méthode appropriée pour
interroger son propre témoin et lui explique la règle
du ouï-dire. Enfin, il lui accorde un ajournement,
afin qu'il puisse adéquatement préparer son contreinterrogatoire du témoin Casey. Il en fera autant en
reportant de deux jours le début de la plaidoirie de
l'accusé, afin de lui permettre de se préparer
convenablement.
[50] On ne peut certes pas, dans les circonstances,
reprocher au juge de ne pas avoir guidé
adéquatement l'accusé qui se représentait seul.
Bernes c. R., 2005 QCCA
738
Le juge a décidé qu'il procéderait lui-même aux
contre-interrogatoires et lui a demandé de
soumettre ses questions par écrit.
En outre, le juge lui a fourni une assistance
constante et lui a donné des explications tout au
long des procédures, chaque fois qu'une décision
devait être prise.
- 14 Toutefois, le juge a erré en ne s’interrogeant ni
sur la possibilité de laisser l’accusé contreinterroger lui-même ni sur la nécessité de
nommer un avocat. Il a également erré en contreinterrogeant lui-même les plaignantes, ce qu’il
n’était pas en mesure de faire avec une minimum
de succès, vu le rôle qui lui est dévolu, ou encore
ce qui exigeait qu’il abandonne son rôle et lui
confère une partialité apparente.
[14] Confronté à un accusé qui se représente seul,
le juge d'instance a un rôle parfois difficile. Il
doit le renseigner sur les règles de droit
applicables et voir au respect de ses droits tout en
se gardant de devenir son avocat.
[16] Le juge doit donc normalement s'assurer que
l'accusé a reçu l'information nécessaire pour que
son droit à une défense pleine et entière soit
respecté. Toutefois, cette obligation n’est pas sans
limites. Un accusé devra tout de même assumer sa
part de responsabilité s’il prend la décision de ne
pas suivre les recommandations du juge lorsqu’il
en comprend le sens et la portée.
Franche c. R., 2005 QCCA
719
Faits : L'appelant a reconnu sa culpabilité sous une
accusation d'avoir conduit un véhicule à moteur
alors qu'il lui était interdit de le faire, commettant
ainsi l'infraction prévue à l'article 259 (4) a) du
Code criminel (C. Cr.). L'appelant n'était pas
représenté par un avocat en première instance. En
appel, son avocate reproche au juge de ne pas avoir
laissé l'appelant s'exprimer avant le prononcé de la
peine, l'ayant interrompu après quelques mots
seulement.
Décision : L'omission du juge de guider l'appelant et
de s'assurer qu'il avait présenté ses observations
sur tous les faits pertinents au prononcé de sa peine
sous une accusation de conduite automobile durant
une interdiction de conduire oblige la Cour d'appel
à intervenir et à reconsidérer la peine. La difficulté
et la délicatesse de la tâche [assister l'accusé non
représenté] ne le justifiaient pas de ne pas faire plus
qu'il n'a fait.
[19] Conseiller et recommander de faire appel à
l’assistance d’un avocat n’est que le premier aspect
de devoir du juge envers le prévenu non représenté.
- 15 Si ce dernier persiste dans son refus, comme c’est
son droit, le juge doit s’incliner et accepter ce choix.
Mais il doit alors l’aider.
[20] Il n’est pas inutile de répéter que la tâche du
juge est délicate. Ni trop, ni trop peu.
Wozny c. R., 2005 QCCA
360
Le requérant a présenté une requête pour
permission d'appeler devant la Cour d'appel, que le
juge a refusé d'entendre parce qu'elle contient des
propos extrêmement menaçants, insultants et
vulgaires à l'endroit du procureur de la Couronne et
des juges des instances antérieures.
[11] Legal proceedings, however stressful they may
be for those involved, including self-represented
litigants, must necessarily be conducted with
elementary courtesy, dignity and serenity, in a nonthreatening manner, verbal or otherwise. Officers of
the Court and others involved in the judicial process
cannot discharge their functions effectively if they
are made the object of threats and harassment in
written materials with which they come into contact.
[13] Obviously, documents of this nature filed by a
member of the Bar would result in disciplinary
complaints, and in all likelihood, a sanction of some
kind. No such disciplinary sanction can be imposed
on a self-represented litigant, who is not subject to
any professional code of ethics. That does not
mean however that a self-represented litigant is free
to act as he or she pleases without reference to the
standards of conduct that are expected of members
of the Bar when they engage in legal proceedings on
behalf of clients or appear before the courts .
[17] […] Just as a court would not administer the
applicable substantive law differently because one of
the parties was a self-represented litigant, so too
should courts require self-represented to participate
in litigation according to the same standards of
civility and courtesy that are expected of member of
the Bar.
[18] […] the most effective way to make it clear to
(those) who may be tempted to use abusive language
of the kind found in this record is to refuse to hear
his application and to close the current file. I
considered dismissing his amended motion outright
- 16 as a sanction, but since this is a criminal law matter,
with potentially permanent consequences for him, I
declined to do so.
Feist c. R., S.E. 2003 BE314 (CA.)
[3] Malgré que le premier juge ait, à plusieurs
reprises, indiqué à l'appelant qu'il pourrait se faire
entendre une fois la preuve du ministère public
complétée, [...] c'est par erreur que l'appelant a
déclaré sa preuve close, [...] estimant, à tort, qu'il
pourrait présenter sa version des faits et ses moyens
dans le cadre de son argumentation devant jury.
[5] Dès lors, le juge, gardien de l'équité des
procédures, aurait dû permettre à l'appelant d'être
entendu devant le jury et rouvrir la preuve de la
défense.
Guenette c. R., J.E. 2002420 C.A.
[20] Au stade du procès, le juge a le devoir de
s’assurer que l’accusé ne soit pas privé de son droit à
un procès juste et équitable en raison de son
ignorance des règles de la procédure criminelle […] il
prêtera aussi à cet accusé un aide raisonnable pour
qu’il puise faire valoir toute défense qu’il peut avoir,
tout en évitant d’agir comme son avocat, au risque de
perdre l’impartialité essentielle à l’exercice de ses
fonctions.
[21] Ce devoir a toutefois ses limites, le juge ne
pouvant jouer à la fois le rôle de l'avocat et celui de
l'arbitre impartial du débat qui se déroule devant lui.
L'accusé qui se présente seul à la cour ne jouit
cependant pas de privilèges particuliers. Le juge n'est
pas tenu de conseiller l'accusé à toutes les étapes du
procès, comme un avocat l'aurait fait. Le juge ne peut
pas prendre de décisions stratégiques en faveur, et à
la place de l'accusé; par exemple, la décision de
poursuivre un contre-interrogatoire ou celle de
témoigner.
[22] Tout est donc question de mesure, d'équilibre. Il
faut reconnaître au juge du procès une bonne mesure
de discrétion en cette matière. Chaque cas doit être
étudié à la lumière des circonstances qui lui sont
propres afin de déterminer s’il y a eu atteinte au
droit de l’accusé à un procès juste et équitable.
Moroca c. R., REJB 200454127 (C.S.)
[13] Je suis d’avis qu’il faut que la décision de se
présenter seul soit une décision éclairée.
- 17 [19] Dans les circonstances particulières de la
présente cause, […], avec égards, le juge de première
instance (ne) s’est (pas) informé adéquatement du
désir éclairé de (l’accusé) de se défendre seul.
[21] Le juge de première instance, en acceptant
qu’un accusé se défende seul, assume des
responsabilités additionnelles.
Droit de la famille -122875, Il est à noter que la juge ne lui a jamais mentionné
qu'elle pouvait insister pour que le père témoigne
2012 QCCA 1855
et qu'elle aurait le droit absolu de le contreinterroger.
Étant donné l'imprécision des actes reprochés, les
irrégularités survenues dans l'administration de la
preuve et la faiblesse de la preuve offerte, il y a lieu
de rejeter la requête en outrage.
[35] [L]orsqu'une procédure en outrage est entendue
contre une partie non représentée par avocat, le
juge a un rôle particulier à jouer. Il doit s'assurer, vu
la
nature quasi pénale de la procédure, que la
personne poursuivie comprenne bien la nature du
procès et, en particulier, son droit de garder le
silence. Sans devenir l'avocat
de la personne
poursuivie, le juge doit s'assurer que le procès
demeurera juste et équitable, conformément aux
règles applicables en matière criminelle.
Azar c. Concordia
University, 2009 GCCS
2173
Décision : Le demandeur qui se représente seul ne
peut invoquer son ignorance des règles de
procédure ou son inhabilité à les appliquer
adéquatement à titre d'impossibilité d'agir.
[19] No person, whether represented or
unrepresented by counsel is exempt from
compliance with the rules of procedure set out in the
Code of Civil Procedure. Procedure is necessary for
the proper administration of justice, although it
must not serve as the basis for excessive formalism.
Barring undue formalism, the peremptory provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure must be observed, as
procedure judiciously applied provides an additional
guarantee that the rights of litigants will be
respected.
[30] [I]gnorance of the rules of procedure by a selfrepresented party or the inability of such party to
- 18 apply the rules correctly does not permit the party to
claim that it was impossible for he or she to act
within the time limit.
Bérubé c. Société des
casinos du Québec, B.E.
2006BE-17 (C.S.)
Décision :La demanderesse, qui se représente seule,
a par inadvertance, et en se méprenant sur les
dates, oublié de produire sa réponse et son
inscription avant l'expiration du délai de 180 jours.
Faute de preuve appuyant ses explications quant au
fait qu'elle a laissé écouler plusieurs mois avant de
déposer sa requête en prolongation de délai, sa
requête est rejetée.
[16] [...] Les juges sont très réticents à faire perdre
des droits à un justiciable lorsque celui-ci est victime
de l'erreur de son avocat.
[17] Lorsque l'une des parties n'est pas représentée
par avocat la situation est différente puisque ce
justiciable est alors souvent le seul responsable
du contrôle des délais.
Le risque pour la partie qui se représente seule d’être
pénalisée par l’application des dispositions du Code
de procédure civile est donc plus grand et milite en
faveur d’une vigilance accrue pour celle qui se
représente seule.
Gauthier c. Guindon, B.E.
2004 BE-327 [C.S.)
Décision : Même si la Cour de pratique ne procède à
l’audition des requêtes qu’une fois par semaine et
que des retards ont pu être causés, le demandeur
n’était pas dans l’impossibilité d’agir et il aurait pu
demander une prolongation du délai d’inscription
avant l’expiration des 180 jours. De plus, comme il
se représente seul, le demandeur ne peut invoquer
son ignorance de la loi à titre d’impossibilité d’agir,
d’autant moins que les parties avaient convenu d’un
échéancier qui fixait la date où l’inscription devait
être déposée.
[19] Le demandeur a été, depuis le début de
l’instance, victime du fait qu’il se représente luimême et qu’il n’a pas les connaissances en droit et en
procédure suffisantes pour lui permettre de
cheminer seul et sans problème dans ce genre de
dossier.
[21] Toutefois, le tribunal ne peut et ne doit pas
conclure que l’ignorance par le demandeur des règles
- 19 ou son inhabilité à les appliquer adéquatement
puissent être considérées comme une possibilité en
fait d’agir au sens de l’article 110.1 C.p.c.
Charlebois c. Derome,
B.E. 98 BE-503 (C.S.)
Décision : Un requête en rétractation de jugement
présentée hors délai est irrecevable même si elle a
été préparée par le procureur d’une partie dans le
but de corriger une première requête informelle
rédigée par la partie elle-même.
Il n’appartient pas aux tribunaux de se substituer
aux parties qui choisissent de se représenter seules
ni aux tribunaux d’évaluer la capacité des parties à se
défendre seules.
Le Seigle c. C.U.M., J.E.
85- 1095 (C.S.)
La partie qui choisit d’entreprendre seule des
procédures légales sans l’assistance d’un conseiller
juridique et qui comment des erreurs juridiques par
suite de son ignorance ou de son inhabilité. Il est
victime de sa propre turpitude.
Therrien c. Québec (Sousministre du Revenu),
2007 QCCQ 10683
[18] L’appelant n’est pas avocat, mais il a choisi de se
représenter seul et il ne peut pas alléguer sa
méconnaissance de la procédure et de ses droits pour
expliquer sa négligence.
[23] Lorsqu’un justiciable entend exercer ses droits
sans être représenté par avocat, il a l’obligation de
prendre les moyens pour suivre les règles
s’appliquant à ses procédures.
Deschênes c. Valeurs
mobilières Banque
Laurentienne, 2010 QCCA
2137
[36] Le fait qu’une partie ne soit pas représentée par
un avocat au moment du dépôt de son recours ne
saurait lui procureur un avantage, d’autant qu’elle a
été dûment avisée par le bureau de l’avocat ayant agi
dans son dossier devant la CRT que le délai pour
entreprendre le recours était de 30 jours. À cet
égard, la Cour d’appel de l’Alberta rappelait que les
parties non représentées doivent assumer les
conséquences de ne pas avoir retenu les services
d’un avocat et les tribunaux ne doivent pas leur
allouer des ressources disproportionnées.
[37] Par ailleurs, une partie non représentée ne doit
pas être injustement défavorisée. Les énoncés de
principe du Conseil canadien de la magistrature
suggèrent aux juges que, face à des parties non
représentées, il doivent adopter des mesures
particulières pour assurer qu’elles ne soient pas
- 20 injustement défavorisées. Toutefois, en l’espèce […]
l’appelante n’a pas établi de circonstances
exceptionnelles justifiant son délai à agir.
Ménard c. Gardner,
2012 QCCA 1546
Décision : Comme il s'agit d'un comité de
discipline dont l'action peut avoir des
conséquences importantes sur le droit d'un
individu de gagner sa vie et, en outre, dont le
fonctionnement se veut quasi judiciaire et
contradictoire, il faut interpréter généreusement
le droit d'être entendu, et ce, même si la décision de
ce Comité peut faire l'objet d'un appel devant la
Cour du Québec.
Le principe de la responsabilité du justiciable qui
n'est pas représenté par un avocat est tempéré par
le devoir d'assistance qui incombe alors au tribunal
devant lequel il comparaît. En l'espèce, le Comité, à
quelques moments cruciaux de l'affaire, a
restreint le droit de l'appelant au contreinterrogatoire et même à l'interrogatoire de ses
anciens clients au-delà de ce qui était acceptable
dans le contexte et l'a empêché de présenter une
preuve destinée à contredire la version de ses
derniers. Il n'a pas eu l'occasion de questionner ses
anciens clients sur la signature de la contreproposition, alors qu'il s'agit de l'élément crucial
du premier chef d'accusation porté contre lui. On
l'a même empêché de tenter de faire une preuve
relative à des faits p ostérieurs gui auraient éclairer
la conduite des plaignants en qualifiant
prématurément ces faits de non pertinents alors
que l'on n'avait pas la moindre idée de ce qu'il
entendait démontrer. L'appelant a été privé d'une
défense pleine et entière aux accusations portées
contre lui, plus précisément au regard du premier
chef. L'affaire devra donc être reprise devant le
Comité de discipline, par une autre formation.
6.
Advice to Lawyers on Conducting a Trial with an SRL
By Hon. Madam Justice R.J. Nation
•
Counsel are conducting an increasing number of civil trials at Queen’s Bench in
which the other side is self-represented. From my experiences both as counsel in
the past and now as a Justice, these cases are a challenge for all. The Justice
must make the process as fair as possible. It is often a difficult road for counsel to
- 21 get the matter to trial, and there are challenges to running a trial fairly and
efficiently for your client. The-self represented litigant is often in a very
unfamiliar place, not acquainted with the Rules of Court or usual procedures and
unsure how to conduct a case.
•
1.
Here are some pointers that may help you as counsel if you find yourself facing a
civil trial with a self-represented litigant at the Queen’s Bench level.
Be Meticulous About Documenting Communications
•
When both sides are represented, and communications take place in writing or
orally, counsel will generally admit the communications or the necessary details
if they are relevant to the trial.
•
With a self-represented party, remember you may have to prove service of
documents. In addition, communications should be in writing so you can put
letters or documents to the other party in Court, if the fact of or contents of the
communication must be proven. Have your whole file with you in the court
room. If the other party denies certain facts on cross examination, you will then
have the ability to prove service or the communication in issue.
2.
Use Pre-Trial Procedures
•
i)
It may be difficult to reach agreement on some matters before trial. Be familiar
with the following Rules of Court and use them to help delineate issues and to
facilitate admissions or agreements.
Notice to Admit Facts
•
ii)
Rule 6.37 allows you to call on the other side to admit a fact, or to admit a written
opinion. Using this rule puts the onus on the other side to specifically take a
position that can be put on the record.
Case Conferences
•
Rule 4.10 specifically allows a Court to direct parties to attend a conference with
the Court. A party may file an application giving a reason for needing a case
conference. Consider this mechanism to clarify and develop a list of specific
issues for trial, to explore whether agreement can be reached as to certain values,
the admission of some facts, or even how documents are to be ordered for an
upcoming trial.
•
For example, in a contested matrimonial property matter where there is property
to which a value must be assigned at trial, make a list of all of the properties with
the position of your client as to value. Give the list to the other party, and in a
case conference atmosphere, ask the other party to indicate his or her position as
to value. Can you agree on the value for some property?
- 22 iii)
Case Management
•
In more complex cases dealing with multiple issues, multiple parties, or a
contentious matrimonial matter dealing with custody of children, you might
consider applying for the appointment of a Case Management Justice. The case
management process will provide consistency because you will appear before the
same Justice and avoid a situation in which many Justices hear different
applications in morning chambers.
•
If you have a Case Management Justice and are proceeding to trial, you can
request a case management meeting to deal with streamlining documentation.
3.
Do Not Forget The Law
•
4.
Accept that you should bring case law authority and copies of any legislation to
support your client’s position. The other side may have a weak or nonexistent
idea of the law. If a self-represented litigant suggests that there are legal
propositions that you feel are doubtful, suggest to the trial Justice that the other
party produce case authority supporting that proposition.
Walking the Fine Line
•
A Justice has certain responsibilities when one party in a proceeding is not
represented. This includes explaining court procedure, and making sure the trial
is conducted fairly. This can be difficult for the Justice, who at times may have
trouble balancing how much is fair, and at what point he or she is providing legal
advice to the self-represented party. This is also difficult for you as opposing
counsel. How much should you jump to your feet every time there is a breach of
usual court procedure, or a rule of evidence is transgressed?
•
If hearsay evidence is tendered, or relevance is an issue, put your objection
clearly on the record. Indicate you will not rise every time, but take the position
that the rules of evidence apply, hearsay evidence is not admissible, and the fact
that you do not object every time does not mean you consent. Recognize that a
Justice is often trying to find a balance to allow a fair understanding of the other
side’s position, without interrupting each time hearsay or relevance may come
up. Try to use discretion, but object on important issues. If you are uncertain
whether or how the Justice wants certain matters addressed, seek direction from
the Justice, indicating your uncertainty about the best way to proceed due to the
fact the other party does not have counsel.
5.
Prepare Your Client for Cross Examination
•
A cross examination by lay parties can be excruciatingly painful. Often they go
over things from the direct examination in great detail. They may try to argue
with the witness. Be ready to jump up and object if necessary.
•
Prepare your client for the fact that he or she will be cross examined by a nonlawyer. Caution your client against being drawn into argument with the cross-
- 23 examining party. Give your client tools to help. For example, in matrimonial
matters, where your client will be examined by their past spouse or partner, one
suggestion is for your client to mentally pull an invisible shield between the
witness stand and the questioner, to avoid looking at the questioner, and to try
instead to visualize the question and then to answer it. Techniques like this can
help reduce anxiety, and the tendency to argue during cross examination.
6.
Remember You are Making a Record
•
Do not forget that everything in the court room is recorded. The transcript of a
trial is an independent record of what was said and done. Remember, this will be
the record if there is an appeal. Also, in the event of a complaint to a disciplinary
body, it is an indication of what was said and done (which may not be the same as
what is alleged to have happened in the complaint against you or the Justice).
•
If the other side has sent you particularly nasty or demeaning e-mails or letters,
consider whether they are relevant and admissible so the trial Justice can get a
flavour of the type of person with whom you have had to deal. If these letters or
e-mails have been sent to your client, your client can identify them in evidence.
7.
Be Fair and Courteous
•
Although it is tempting at times to verbally express your frustration in Court, or
to respond in kind if the other party is derogatory or inaccurate in his or her
presentation, consciously try to take the high road. Remain courteous but firm.
•
One helpful technique is to imagine that if the other side was one of your relatives
(pick the most difficult!) acting for themselves, how would you like other counsel
to be with that person, whatever their limitations, so that matters could be dealt
with in a manner that was fair to all parties?
•
Don’t be overly familiar with the judge or act in such a way as to give the SRL
cause to complain of bias or favouritism on the part of the judge.
•
You should at all times address the SRL in plain and simple language, avoiding
legalese and other unnecessarily technical language.
8.
Stress Management
•
Sometimes, because these files are different and often difficult, they sit on your
desk, and you avoid dealing with them. Accept that they will present challenges
and take more time and effort. They will challenge you as counsel, just as a file
against a very good, or very difficult counsel will challenge you. Accept you have
to be careful with correspondence, follow the rules, and explain carefully to your
assistant the rules in dealing with the other side. Consider insisting that all
communication be in writing, and pay careful attention to detail.
George R. Hendy
[email protected]