The BCLI Mathew Good Memorial Prize 2025

Balancing the Scales: The Need for Reform of Judicial Guidelines to Balance Support for Self- Represented Litigants and Uphold Public Confidence

By Manjot K. Sekhon

Introduction

Legal issues can cause immense stress to individuals, and this can be debilitating when one cannot afford a lawyer. As living becomes more expensive for Canadians, there has been a visible increase in self-represented litigants (“SRLs”) engaging with the justice system. Statistics indicate that about 50%–80% of family law matters, 30%–50% of civil matters, and around 30% of appeals are dealt with by SRLs. These staggering statistics evidently showcase larger issues.[1]

This paper argues that a judge’s role in relation to SRLs must be clarified and narrowed through the development of clearer judicial guidelines and the expansion of out-of-court resources. Without this reform, the growing demand for judicial support risks undermining public confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of the courts. Additionally, the responsibility for addressing the needs of SRLs must be distributed more equitably across the justice system to prevent judges from being stretched beyond their core adjudicative functions. The Supreme

Court of Canada’s decision in Pintea v Johns illustrates the gaps in the framework for judicial discretion, specifically in helping SRLs.[2] While this case marked a milestone by endorsing the Canadian Judicial Council’s principles and affirming the need for judges to assist SRLs, its uneven implementation has exposed the limits of relying solely on judicial flexibility to uphold fairness.

The paper proceeds in four parts. First, it outlines the theoretical and empirical insights into how external and internal factors influence judicial decision making, including the specific challenges posed by SRLs. Second, it reviews the current Canadian judicial framework governing assistance to SRLs, including ethical principles, Charter protections, and case law. Third, it analyzes the impact of SRLs on the adversarial model and public confidence, emphasizing the tension between fairness and neutrality. Finally, the paper explores the reforms needed to address these challenges, specifically, clarifying judicial boundaries, redistributing responsibility among justice system actors, and simplifying procedural and evidentiary rules to reduce reliance on judicial intervention.

The Decision-Making Process of Judges

Judicial decisions are not made in a vacuum; rather, they are influenced by numerous factors, and there are many theories about how such decisions are truly made. For example, legal realism challenges the notion that judicial decisions are solely the product of logical deduction from established legal principles. Jerome Frank, for instance, emphasizes the unpredictability inherent in judicial decision making, highlighting that the myth of legal certainty is eliminated when one acknowledges the human elements inherent in adjudication.[3]

Dr. Brian Barry highlights that numerous research areas, such as political science, psychology, economics, and computer science, indicate that, among other things, psychological effects, implicit biases, political biases, institutional biases, and emotions play a role in decision making.[4] Studies showcase how other varying factors affect decisions, for example, the time of day. A study of Israeli judges found that the likelihood of a favourable decision is higher in the very beginning of a workday and after a food break, as opposed to those made at other times of the workday.[5] Another trend researchers have been able to identify is based on a judge’s personal relationships. In claims of gender discrimination, it was found that Court of Appeal judges in the United States who have daughters are more sympathetic to plaintiffs bringing forth gender discrimination cases.[6] If out-of-court factors, such as the ones identified in the studies mentioned, have a visible impact on decisions, I think there is a substantial possibility that in-court differences, such as lack of counsel, are having an impact on judicial decisions.

Judicial Discretion at Work: Pintea v Johns

The 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Pintea v Johns marked a pivotal moment in Canadian jurisprudence concerning SRLs. By endorsing a Statement of Principles by the Canadian Judicial Council (“CJC” or the “Council”),[7] the Court emphasized that SRLs should not be held to the same standards as trained lawyers, recognizing the inherent disadvantages they face in navigating the legal system.[8] In this case, the Court found that Mr. Pintea, an SRL, could not be held in contempt for failing to comply with court orders he was unaware of.[9] This decision underscored the necessity for judges to ensure that SRLs are afforded a fair trial and not unfairly penalized due to their lack of legal expertise.[10]

CJC’s principles advocate for judicial efforts to ensure SRLs are provided guidance and assistance on procedural matters and are not disadvantaged due to their self-representation. The issue with this, as identified by the National Self-Represented Litigants Project on Access to Justice, is how such assistance is to be provided is still unclear.[11] The Pintea decision has profound implications for judicial discretion. It mandates that judges actively consider the unique challenges faced by SRLs and adjust their courtroom management accordingly.[12]

Scarrow and Macfarlane provide an empirical analysis of the decision’s impact. The report notes that, as of October 2018, 38 cases had cited Pintea, reflecting its influence on judicial approaches to SRLs.[13] However, the report also highlights variations in the application of the CJC principles, with some courts fully embracing the guidance while others imposed limitations on sophisticated SRLs and SRLs who have previously showcased bad behaviour.[14] This variability underscores the need for ongoing education and systemic reforms to ensure uniform application of the principles across jurisdictions.

The Pintea decision serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure fairness for all litigants, regardless of legal representation. By endorsing the CJC principles, the Supreme Court of Canada has set a precedent for judges to actively facilitate the participation of SRLs, thereby promoting equity and access to justice. Continued efforts are necessary to ensure consistent application of these principles, reinforcing public confidence in the legal system’s fairness and impartiality.

Existing Judicial Framework and SRLs

The Canadian Judicial Council has outlined ethical principles to which all judges aspire: “judicial independence, integrity and respect, diligence and competence, equality and impartiality.”[15] How these principles come into play by judges who are confronted with self- representing litigants is situation dependent. Regardless of their level of discretion, judges are recommended to provide proactive, reasonable assistance and information while also not compromising judicial impartiality and procedural fairness.[16] The reason for this is rooted in a judge’s responsibility to promote and foster access to justice, requiring that judges be aware of different methods of resolution. Though no concrete method is provided or discouraged, the Council states that judges should provide assistance to SRLs with procedural and evidentiary rules.

Beyond the Council, Canadian law recognizes that SRLs in civil and criminal cases are entitled to reasonable judicial assistance.[17] This right is formed from different sources, including Charter rights and case law.[18] The Charter provides the right to a fair trial through section 7, which states that “[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” [19] Additionally, the right to a fair trial is also alluded to in section 11(d), which states that “[a]ny person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.”[20]

Impact of SRLs on the Existing System

The Canadian legal system, like most other common law jurisdictions, operates on an adversarial model.[21] In such a model, disputes are resolved through a structured contest between the two opposing parties before an impartial body. The impartial party, often a judge, is meant to remain a neutral decision maker who ensures procedural fairness and applies the law to the facts presented to them from each side. This model inherently relies on the assumption that the opposing parties are equal for the most part in regard to presenting their case.

However, Jennifer Leitch argues that the assumption of fairness within the adversarial model collapses when one party is self-represented.[22] This is because SRLs often lack the familiarity and legal expertise required to effectively present their case and understand the procedural and evidentiary rules. This creates an apparent imbalance in the adversarial structure. This imbalance is then attempted to be salvaged through the judge’s active involvement. Though a judge’s role in an adversarial process is meant to be passive. As outlined by the CJC’s Ethical Principles for Judges, judges have a responsibility to step in and provide reasonable assistance to SRLs.[23] This intervention, though intended to level the playing field for SRLs, can have unintended consequences.

One concern that Leitch raises is the risk of psychological bias that may arise when a judge actively participates in the investigation and presentation of evidence.[24] Glynn and Sen’s research expands on how decision making is not entirely objective, suggesting empathy plays a role in how judges rule. As previously mentioned, their study, “Identifying Judicial Empathy: Does Having Daughters Cause Judges to Rule for Women’s Issues?”,[25] suggests that personal experiences can unconsciously shape how judges rule. If something such as having a daughter can influence judicial outcomes, then there is a possibility that repeated exposure to self- represented litigants, whether through frustration with difficult SRLs or sympathy for those struggling, could similarly affect a judge’s approach to assistance. I think some judges may develop an empathetic stance, offering guidance and allowing procedural flexibility, while others, particularly those who have encountered disruptive SRLs, may become more rigid in enforcing court rules.

Public Confidence

Public confidence in the judiciary is essential because it underpins the very legitimacy of the judicial system. As former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin explains, the judiciary derives its authority not from force or political power, but from the public’s belief in its integrity and impartiality.[26] This confidence is rooted in the perception that judges are fair, neutral, and independent decision makers who administer justice according to the rule of law.[27] Without this belief, even correct legal outcomes risk being seen as illegitimate or arbitrary. McLachlin stresses that judicial impartiality must not only exist in fact but also be seen to exist.[28] As stated by Lord Chief Justice Hewart, “[j]ustice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”[29] The public’s continued trust depends on this visible impartiality, especially in a system where judges may be required to make nuanced interventions when one party lacks representation. Maintaining this trust requires balancing necessary judicial assistance with careful preservation of neutrality.

Public confidence is a cornerstone of our judicial system because it directly impacts the public’s trust in the system, cooperation with authorities, and the legitimacy of the system. Accordingly, legal professionals, as members of the public, are bound to have concerns about how judicial assistance comes into play with an SRL. Goldschmidt and Stalans’ study on lawyers’ perceptions of fairness found that many lawyers view certain types of judicial assistance to SRLs as problematic. They argue that when judges offer guidance through strategic, evidentiary (substantive) matters to unrepresented parties, they disrupt the adversarial balance and, in some cases, grant an unfair advantage to the SRL.[30] However, lawyers in this study perceived judicial bias in favour of the represented party in instances where the judge’s strict enforcement of procedural rules caused harsh results for the SRLs.[31]

This raises further questions about whether the adversarial model is truly equipped to handle the increasing number of SRLs in the justice system. If fairness is contingent upon both parties having legal representation, then the presence of an SRL inherently disrupts this balance, forcing judges to step in to correct disparities. Yet, in doing so, judges risk both actual and perceived bias, which can undermine the legitimacy of the court’s role as a neutral arbiter. On the other hand, the CJC highlights that treating everyone the same and passive neutrality is not always appropriate, and as seen in Goldschmidt and Stalans’s study, lawyers also agree.[32] Farrow and his colleagues expand on this idea by unfolding that neutrality does not require that people be treated equally, but rather as equals.[33] To treat all parties as equals requires acknowledging and addressing evident disparities in the knowledge, resources, and legal capacity of the parties. Though I agree with this notion of equity required to create an even playing ground, I would argue that further refinement is needed on the guidelines of how much assistance a judge can provide to an SRL. I believe more concrete guidelines are needed to safeguard impartiality and public confidence. As was seen in Goldschmidt and Stalans’s study, certain types of assistance, such as strategic, evidentiary and substantive, are viewed as going too far and impacting perceptions of fairness within the system as a whole.

The current framework leaves judges to navigate SRL challenges with too much discretion and too little structure, risking both fairness and public confidence. While ethical principles and case law affirm the importance of reasonable judicial assistance, the lack of clear boundaries forces judges into inconsistent and often uncomfortable positions. The growing presence of SRLs in an adversarial system designed for legal professionals intensifies this tension, exposing cracks in the model’s ability to ensure equal access and impartiality. As public trust in the judiciary hinges on both the reality and appearance of fairness, the evolving role of judges in SRL cases must be more clearly defined. Without further guidance and systemic adaptation, the judiciary’s dual role as a neutral arbiter and access-to-justice facilitator may become increasingly difficult to reconcile.

What Needs to Change

Refined Framework for Judges

Judges are human, and in the heat of the moment, when faced with an SRL struggling to navigate the complexities of the legal system, the line between providing necessary assistance and compromising impartiality can become increasingly blurred. While the goal of ensuring fair access to justice is commendable, the absence of clear boundaries leaves room for inconsistent practices that may inadvertently tilt the balance of fairness. To protect both judicial neutrality and public confidence, explicit guidelines and targeted training must clearly define the limits of permissible assistance. Providing judges with a structured framework outlining what is and is not allowed will help them navigate these challenges while maintaining the integrity of the adversarial system.

Currently, the Ethical Principles for Judges published by the Canadian Judicial Council provide general guidance, encouraging judges to offer reasonable assistance to SRLs.[34] However, what constitutes as reasonable is highly subjective and has been interpreted inconsistently across cases and jurisdictions. The case of Morwald-Benevides v Benevides underscores this tension.[35] The Ontario Court of Appeal emphasized that trial judges have a duty to ensure that proceedings involving SRLs are fair, including by offering limited procedural guidance and ensuring that key evidentiary rules are explained. However, the Court also cautioned that judges must not assume the role of advocate and maintain an attitude of impartiality.[36]

Transferring Responsibility

Redefining the judicial role alone is insufficient; the broader responsibility of supporting SRLs must be redistributed across the justice system. Judges, alongside their many other responsibilities, cannot carry the burden of ensuring fairness single-handedly. Shifting responsibility to other justice system actors, such as court staff, legal navigators, and educators, would help reduce the pressure on judges while ensuring SRLs still receive necessary assistance. The Canadian Judicial Council itself has acknowledged that responsibility for access to justice lies with all participants in the legal system, not just judges.[37] Programs such as court-based legal information sessions, public legal education, and online tools must be consistently implemented across jurisdictions to prepare SRLs before they enter the courtroom.

Redistributing responsibilities promotes systemic efficiency. SRLs often consume significantly more court time due to a lack of familiarity with the procedure, increasing the burden on judges and slowing down the system.[38] By front-loading resources and information through self-help centers and legal navigators, courts can streamline proceedings, improve judicial efficiency, and reduce the frustration often experienced by both SRLs and legal professionals. These changes would help courts operate more equitably and efficiently, preserving the adversarial model while adapting it to the realities of today’s litigant demographics.

Shifting the burden of assisting SRLs from judges to other court participants not only alleviates judicial strain but also helps mitigate concerns about bias and inefficiency within the justice system. When judges are forced to step beyond their traditional role to assist SRLs, as previously discussed, there is an inherent risk that their interventions may be perceived as favouring the unrepresented party. This perception of bias, whether real or perceived, can erode public confidence in the judiciary and disrupt the adversarial balance. By redirecting this responsibility to court staff, legal aid programs, and other justice system actors, judges can maintain their role as neutral arbiters while ensuring that SRLs receive the support they need.

Changing Structure of Litigation

The simplification of procedural and evidentiary rules is a necessary reform to reduce the burden on judges and enhance access to justice for SRLs. Currently, judges in providing assistance to SRLs are most often helping with procedural guidance during court proceedings. If the rules themselves were more accessible and understandable, the need for in-court judicial intervention could arguably be substantially reduced.

As noted in the National Self-Represented Litigants Project on Access to Justice, the complexity of legal rules, especially those governing procedure and evidence, is a major barrier to meaningful participation by SRLs.[39] Cassandra Richards’s study found that while SRLs generally understand the substance of their legal issues, they routinely struggle with the rules governing procedure and evidence, a problem that consumes court time and complicates the judge’s duty to remain impartial.[40] For SRLs, understanding what evidence is admissible, how to introduce it, and how to comply with filing deadlines or procedural steps often feels overwhelming or impossible without legal training. By simplifying rules and procedures, courts can minimize the necessity for judicial explanation, thereby preserving neutrality and increasing efficiency. When judges are required to explain complex legal processes to SRLs mid-hearing, this consumes valuable court time and risks perceptions of partiality. Instead, if court rules were to be redrafted in plain language and simplified structurally, SRLs could be better equipped to follow them without individualized assistance. This would help shift some of the burden away from the bench, making the overall process more manageable and equitable.

Many procedural and evidentiary rules serve historical functions that may no longer be essential in modern litigation. Reforming these rules to focus on core fairness principles, while eliminating unnecessary technicality, would better align with access-to-justice goals and reduce reliance on legal expertise to navigate the system.[41] Furthermore, simplified rules would likely improve court efficiency. Streamlined procedures could reduce adjournments, shorten hearings, and decrease the number of procedural motions. To reduce these burdens and promote fairness, procedural and evidentiary rules must be redesigned with SRLs in mind, rather than retrofitted around a professional legal model.

As Richards emphasizes, much of the current system is built on the assumption of legal representation, a premise that no longer reflects courtroom realities.[42] Simplifying courtroom processes, creating visual aids to help SRLs understand legal procedures, and integrating plain language materials into court operations are among the reforms she proposes.[43] These changes would not only help SRLs engage more meaningfully with the legal system but also allow judges to focus on adjudication rather than guidance. Crucially, they would shift the system toward a more user-friendly approach to justice, one that anticipates SRL needs and reduces reliance on judicial discretion. By reducing procedural complexity, courts can streamline hearings, lower the risk of appeals due to confusion or perceived unfairness, and reinforce public confidence in the neutrality and integrity of the judicial process.

In sum, meaningful reform requires a structural rethinking of how the justice system accommodates self-represented litigants, not just responsive efforts to mitigate their challenges in the courtroom. The growing number of SRLs has pushed judges beyond their traditional roles, creating ethical tensions and inefficiencies that strain both individual adjudicators and the broader system. To preserve judicial impartiality and uphold public confidence in the courts, reforms must clearly define the limits of judicial assistance, redistribute support responsibilities across the justice system, and simplify the complex procedural and evidentiary frameworks that currently disadvantage SRLs. These changes must be proactive and systemic, designed not merely to support SRLs within a lawyer-centric model but to reimagine legal processes in a way that reflects the lived reality of today’s litigants. By doing so, Canadian courts can strike a better balance between fairness and neutrality, efficiency and empathy, ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be accessible to all.

Conclusion

The growing presence of SRLs demands a systemic response that clarifies, supports, and rebalances the role of judges within the justice system. As this paper has demonstrated, the current framework leaves too much to judicial discretion, risking inconsistency, perceptions of bias, and damage to public confidence. While judges strive to uphold fairness, the lack of clear parameters for permissible assistance often forces them into ethically ambiguous roles that blur the line between neutral adjudicator and active participant.

This paper began by exploring the external and internal factors that influence judicial decision making, highlighting how SRLs introduce new pressures into an already complex judicial environment. It then outlined the existing judicial framework, including ethical and constitutional obligations, before analyzing the ways in which SRLs challenge the core assumptions of the adversarial model. The paper then turned to public confidence in the justice system, arguing that perceived impartiality is as important as actual fairness. Finally, it set out key reforms needed to respond to these challenges.

The case of Pintea serves as a judicial turning point but also a cautionary tale. While the decision elevated the CJC’s principles and reaffirmed judicial obligations to SRLs, subsequent research by the National Self-Represented Litigants Project revealed major inconsistencies in its application. Some courts interpreted the principles expansively, while others limited their application to select litigants or specific circumstances. These discrepancies demonstrate that, in the absence of binding guidelines, even landmark decisions can fail to generate uniform practice.

To address these challenges, reform is essential. This includes developing concrete, enforceable judicial guidelines to define the appropriate scope of assistance. In addition to this, there needs to be an expansion of pre-court resources such as legal navigators, court staff support, and public legal education to reduce judicial strain. Moreover, simplification of procedural and evidentiary rules is needed to make court processes more accessible to non-lawyers. These measures not only protect the integrity of the adversarial model but also promote equitable access to justice for SRLs.

By clearly delineating the judge’s role, redistributing responsibility, and streamlining the court process, Canadian courts can preserve both the reality and appearance of impartiality and maintain the public perception of a fair system. Ultimately, justice must be both done and seen to be done, and that requires a justice system capable of serving all litigants, regardless of representation.

[1] J. Macfarlane, “Self-Represented Litigants in the Courts: How They Are Shaping the Jurisprudence” (2018) https://representingyourselfcanada.com/self-represented-litigants-in-the-courts-how-they-are- shaping-the-jurisprudence/.

[2] Pintea v Johns, 2017 SCC 23 [Pintea].

[3] D. James, “Law and the Modern Mind, by Jerome Frank” (1931) 6:5 Indiana Law Journal at p 352.

[4] B. Barry, “How judges judge: the research and its consequences” (14 May 2021) https://www.iclr.co.uk/blog/commentary/how-judges-judge-the-research-and-its-consequences/.

[5] S. Danziger, J. Levav & L. Avnaim-Pesso “Extraneous factors in judicial decisions” (2011) 108:17 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6] A.N. Glynn & M. Sen, “Identifying Judicial Empathy: Does Having Daughters Cause Judges to Rule for Women’s Issues?” (2015) 59:1 American Journal of Political Science at pp 52-53.

[7] Canadian Judicial Council, “Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons” (September 2006) https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2020/Final-Statement-of-Principles-SRL.pdf [CJC Statement of Principles].

[8] Pintea at para 4; K. Scarrow & J. Macfarlane, “Pintea v Johns: 18 Months Later” (October 2018) https://representingyourselfcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Pintea-Report-FINAL-1-1.pdf at p 1.

[9] Pintea at paras 1-3.

[10] National Self-Represented Litigants Project, “The National Self-Represented Litigants Project on Access to Justice – Selected Slaw columns from 2018-2019” (2021) https://canlii.ca/t/smqq [National SLR Project].

[11] National SLR Project.

[12] Scarrow & Macfarlane at pp 2-5.

[13] Scarrow & Macfarlane at pp 1-2 (based on cases reported in the Westlaw database).

[14] Scarrow & Macfarlane at pp 5-8.

[15] Canadian Judicial Council, “Ethical Principles for Judges” (2021) https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2021/CJC_20-301_Ethical-Principles_Bilingual_Final.pdf at p 2 [CJC Ethical Principles].

[16] CJC Ethical Principles at p 24.

[17] J. Goldschmidt & L. Stalans, “Lawyers’ Perceptions of the Fairness of Judicial Assistance to Self- Represented Litigants” (2012) 30:1 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice.

[18] Goldschmidt & Stalans.

[19] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at s 7, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982, 1982, c 11 (UK) [Charter].

[20] Charter at s 11(d).

[21] Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, “The Judge’s Role” (2025) https://cscja.ca/the-judges- role/.

[22] J. Leitch, “Coming Off the Bench: Self-Represented Litigants, Judges and the Adversarial Process” (2018) https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=cfcj at pp 1-3.

[23] CJC Ethical Principles at Commentary 2.D.2.

[24] Leitch at p 8.

[25] Glynn & Sen at pp 52-53.

[26] B. McLachlin, “Preserving Public Confidence in the Courts and the Legal Profession” (2003) 29::3 Manitoba Law Journal.

[27] McLachlin at p 279.

[28] McLachlin at p 282.

[29] R. Jacob, “Knowledge of the World and the Act of Judging” (2009) 2:1 Osgoode Hall Review of Law and Policy at p 22.

[30] Goldschmidt & Stalans at p 170.

[31] Goldschmidt & Stalans at p 170.

[32] CJC Ethical Principles at p 24; Goldschmidt & Stalans at p 170.

[33] T.C.W. Farrow et al., “Addressing the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants in the Canadian Justice System” (27 March 2012) https://www.cfcj-fcjc.org/sites/default/files/docs/2013/Addressing%20the%20Needs%20of%20SRLs%20ACCA%20White%20Paper%20March%202012%20Final%20Revised%20Version.pdf at p 47.

[34] CJC Ethical Principles.

[35] Morwald-Benevides v Benevides, 2019 ONCA 1023.

[36] R. Alexander, “Self-Represented Litigants: Is a Judge Obligated to Assist?” (27 January 2020) https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/70133?utm.

[37] CJC Statement of Principles at p 6.

[38] Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada, Action Committee on Court Operations, “Applying the Canadian Judicial Council’s Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons”(modified 25 February 2022) https://www.fja.gc.ca/COVID- 19/CJC-Statement-of-Principles-Principes-du-CCM-eng.html.

[39] National SLR Project. See also Department of Justice Canada, “Experiences of Indigenous families in the family justice system: A literature review and perspectives from legal and frontline family justice professionals”(May 2023)  https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/eiffjs-efasjf/pdf/RSD2023_RR_Indigenous_Experiences_in_FJS_EN.pdf at pp 12-13.

[40] C. Richards, “Creating a System for All Parents: Rethinking Procedural and Evidentiary Rules in Proceedings with Self-Represented Litigants” (2022) 45:1 Dalhousie Law Journal at p 8.

[41] J. Macfarlane, “The National Self-Represented Litigants Project: Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants” (May 2013) https://representingyourselfcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/srlreportfinal.pdf.

[42] Richardsat pp 2-4.

[43] Richardsat pp 19-20.