“Defence of Others” Raised In Fatal Hit And Run Case After a number of court appearances there has been a major development in the case involving a man who claims he ran over someone to save a woman’s life. On June 7, 2017, Anthony Kiss made a decision while behind the wheel of his vehicle, that left one person dead, and another woman praising his actions as she believed she was about to be stabbed to death. Mr. Kiss was at a red light in the area of Black Creek Drive and Eglinton Avenue West, when he and his girlfriend noticed a man, Dario Romero, had pulled a knife on Alicia Aquino, at a bus stop and began to try and stab her. Mr. Romero ran after Ms. Aquino onto the roadway. At that moment Mr. Kiss drove forward and struck Romero with his vehicle. Mr. Kiss fled the scene and made his way back to his home in Wasaga Beach until police pulled him over on the highway near Barrie and brought him in custody. Romero was killed after being struck by the vehicle and Kiss was charged with manslaughter, impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death, over 80mgs operation of a motor vehicle causing death and failure to stop at the scene of an accident causing death. More recently, on Tuesday November 14th, the Crown withdrew the manslaughter charge against Kiss which carried the possibility of life in prison as a penalty. The lawyer for Mr. Kiss outlined that the Crown will be laying new, but less serious charges in relation to the incident. The new charges include the impaired and over 80 offences with the “causing death” element removed and an additional charge of dangerous driving. This case highlights the issue of criminal responsibility in the context of defending another person. The defences of self-defence and defence of others are contained in the Criminal Code under section 34. That section outlines the following: A person is not guilty of an offence if (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person; (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances. Section 34 (2) of the Criminal Code outlines a number of factors the court can consider to determine whether the actions of the accused are reasonable in the circumstances. These include the extent to which the use of force was imminent, whether there were other means available to the accused to respond to the potential use of force and whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon. To put it simply, if someone commits an offence (IE. assault) in self-defence or in defence of another, they will not be guilty of the offence if a court determines their actions were reasonable in the circumstances. In the Kiss case, it appears his claim that he was “defending another” had some legitimacy and likely influenced the decision of the Crown to withdraw the more serious charges. If you require representation for criminal disputes, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s criminal lawyers or contact David Schell directly at 416-446-5096. For all other legal services and inquiries, please visit our website or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Criminal LawNovember 23, 2017June 17, 2020
Proposed Change to Ontario’s Family Law Act affecting Adult Children with Disabilities Ontario has recently introduced an amendment to the provincial Family Law Act that aims to make all adult children with disabilities, regardless of the martial status of their parents, eligible for child support. Typically, a parent’s obligation to pay child support ends when the child reaches the age of majority and/or is no longer a full-time student. However, section 2(1) of the federal Divorce Act creates an obligation to continue paying support for a child of the marriage who is over the age of majority but unable by reason of illness, disability, or other cause to withdraw from parental charge or obtain the necessaries of life. It is important to note that the Divorce Act only applies to families of married parents. For those Ontario families of unmarried parents, they must turn to the provincial Family Law Act legislation. Currently, there are marked differences in the wording of the federal Divorce Act and provincial Family Law Act statutes, which has resulted in differential treatment between children of married and unmarried parents. The current Family Law Act does not include the clause creating an obligation for child support where an adult child, by reason of illness, disability, or other cause cannot withdraw from parental charge. Therefore, unmarried parents have been prevented from claiming child support for their adult children with disabilities, unlike their married counterparts. Across Canada, family law statutes have largely eliminated the differential treatment of children of married and unmarried parents. However, Ontario and Alberta have lagged behind with respect to children with disabilities. The newly proposed Ontario Bill 113 proposes to correct this by repealing s. 31 of the Family Law Act and substituting the following: Obligation of parent to support child: (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so, for his or her unmarried child who is, (a) a minor; (b) enrolled in a full time program of education; or (c) unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to obtain the necessaries of life. This change was prompted, in part, by a recent case Coates v Watson heard in March 2017. Ms. Coates, the mother, sought child support for her 22-year-old son with a rare genetic composition that prevented him from withdrawing from her care. Although she began receiving support from the father, she brought a Charter Challenge to allow the court to finally decide on the merits of the issue whether section 31 of the Family Law Act contravenes the Charter, specifically Joshua’s right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law as guaranteed by section 15(1). The court released its decision in July 2017, ruling in Ms. Coates and Joshua’s favour and finding that they were subjected to differential treatment based on marital status. The proposed change would update Ontario’s Family Law Act to more closely align Ontario’s child support legislation with the Federal Divorce Act as well as with the child support laws in the majority of other Canadian provinces and territories. The bill has recently passed its first reading. For more information on child support for adult children with disabilities and on how Devry Smith Frank LLP’s Family lawyers can assist with your family law matter, please see our blog posts. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawNovember 21, 2017June 17, 2020
Proving Damages: Mental Injury is no different from Physical Injury In a decision released this summer, the Supreme Court of Canada has clarified that a psychiatric diagnosis is not required to find damages for mental illness. Recognition of mental injury and awards of damages have had a dismal history in Canada. For most of our court history, damages for such injuries have not been easy to achieve. It seemed as though physical injuries were readily compensable, but mental injuries were subject to additional hurdles. Where mental injury was recognized it was subject to the same aura of stigmatism that mental health issues in Canada have historically carried. In recent years, mental health issues have increasingly been accepted as health issues. Yet it was still difficult at law for mental injuries to meet the test for negligence. There was a trend developed where evidence in the form of a psychiatric diagnosis appeared necessary to find damages for mental injury. This added an additional burden to the ordinary duty of care that plaintiffs in personal injury suits had to satisfy. In Mustapha, the Supreme Court clarified the threshold required for proving a case of mental injury, which is the ordinary duty of care analysis. This clarification however did not address that physical and mental injuries were subject to different evidentiary requirements. What persisted after Mustapha was the underlying idea that mental injuries require an additional layer of proof, or else their subjective nature will contribute to exaggerated or dubious claims. However, this summer’s decision from the Supreme Court, Saadati, indicates that the test for causation in tort, as clarified in Mustapha, is sufficient to weed out unmeritorious cases, and that it does not distinguish between mental and physical injury (para 21). There is no legitimate reason to require a different evidentiary threshold for proving damages to mental health and damages to physical health. The Court held that such a distinction creates a dual standard which results in unequal protection to victims of mental injury (para 36). The Court reiterated that it is not concerned with diagnosing injuries, but only with symptoms and effects, and that the latter requires no relationship to a psychiatric diagnosis. An expert to testify that a certain diagnosis is present is no longer required. This too accords with a growing trend to eliminate labels associated with mental health and to eliminate intense scrutiny and disbelief. This recent case better aligns the legal perspective with the health perspective, whereby physical and mental health are not distinct categories. Individuals are treated in the same system for both, so the previous legal distinction did not make much sense. It simply served the function of denying a claimant the ability to recover damages which are fully compensable, which is the point of placing the injured party in the position they were in but for the accident. Accepting that injury to one’s mental well-being should be treated the same as physical injuries should achieve compensability. Importantly, this case does not go so far as to eliminate the need for expert evidence. But rather that such evidence may be sufficient, but is not necessary. What expert evidence can do is speak elements such as seriousness, length of impairment, and treatment options and viability. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Personal InjuryNovember 21, 2017June 17, 2020
CRA Targeting Tax Avoiders Through Online & Mobile Payment Companies Two online payment companies that operate within Canada have been ordered to turn over information about their account holders to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). On November 10, 2017, PayPal received a Federal Court Order requiring them to disclose information relating to Canadian users that hold a business account and have received or sent a payment through their account between January 1, 2014 and November 10, 2017. PayPal Canada says that it has more than 6.4 million active users, although those users with personal accounts are not affected by the CRA Order. This Order follows a similar Order issued in 2016 to online payment processor Square, Inc., requiring it to disclose information to the CRA about its Canadian sellers. Each company has been given specific instructions on what information they must turn over to the CRA including sales transaction data, names, social insurance numbers, and business numbers of affected sellers, bank account details, payroll data and other information. In 2009, the CRA had obtained a similar Order against EBay Canada, targeting its “power sellers”. Both inquiries are related to the ongoing enforcement efforts by the CRA with respect to tax evasion, which we have discussed previously. The Globe and Mail reports that in an emailed statement, CRA spokesman Patrick Samson stated, “To better detect activity in the underground economy, the CRA has increased its use of information from third parties, especially in sectors where cash operations are frequent. The CRA has considerably stepped up efforts to identify individuals and businesses that do not file tax returns and to settle their files”. Affected individuals may face audit and may be required to pay additional tax, penalties and/or interest on any previously unreported income that is subsequently discovered in the course of the audit. Affected individuals or businesses may wish to utilize the CRA’s Voluntary Disclosure Program to make a disclosure of such unreported income, before the commencement of any CRA enforcement action. If a Voluntary Disclosure is made and accepted by the CRA, then the taxpayer can benefit from no penalties, reduced interest, and no criminal prosecution in connection with the disclosure. There is a risk, however, the CRA will not accept that the disclosure is voluntary by virtue of the PayPal Order and as such, the benefits available under this Program will be denied to the taxpayer. If you are concerned that you may be impacted by the PayPal Order, if you wish to make a Voluntary Disclosure to the CRA, or if you have questions on any other tax matter, please contact any member of our Tax Group. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, TaxNovember 20, 2017June 17, 2020
Is There a Constitutionally-Protected Freedom to Not Associate? Unless specific circumstances have been met in a criminal case, or the case in question is a Reference, appeals are heard by the Supreme Court only if leave to appeal is given. The standard for whether leave will be given is when the case involves a question of public importance. Recently, the Supreme Court has decided that a dispute between an individual and his membership at his chosen Church is of sufficient public importance. The facts of the dispute are relatively simple. A man was disfellowshipped, a concept equal to ex-communication, from his place of worship for failing to uphold a certain standard of conduct, and then for failing to be sufficiently repentant of those wrongdoings. The man subsequently lost a lot of real estate business, as the majority of his clients were fellow members of his place of worship. However, it is not whether the man’s business actually suffered and damages occurred as a result of his disfellowship that is the concern of the Supreme Court. Rather, the leave to appeal was granted over a jurisdictional question. Is a decision made by a religious body justiciable? In other terms, does the judicial system have discretion to make decisions that interfere with the voluntary membership of an individual and his chosen religious organization? At the trial level, the court determined that they did have jurisdiction to make a ruling over whether or not the disfellowship could be overturned. This court accepted that they had jurisdiction because the disfellowship had an impact on his civil and property rights. Undeniably, the court has jurisdiction to hear matters relating to civil and property rights. The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeal, where the majority upheld the trial judge’s ruling. While the majority accepted that courts typically do not interfere in matters relating to memberships in voluntary associations, that they could in this case because of the impact on civil and property rights. Their argument suggests that once your membership in a religious organization has an impact on your property and civil rights it is subject to the oversight of the courts. Most interesting to this decision is the dissent of Justice Wakeling, which focused on the constitutionality of interfering with memberships in voluntary associations. He argued that private actors are not subject to judicial review, and that as the congregation makes no decisions that have consequences for members of the public, it is not a public actor which could be subject to judicial review. That there is no justiciable question because church membership is not a legal right. He further established a Charter argument where he expressed that constituent members have the constitutional right to determine membership. Does the freedom to associate include the freedom to not associate? TBD. By: Samantha Hamilton, Student-at-Law “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlogNovember 17, 2017June 17, 2020
Condominium Disputes Condominium Law Reforms The tools for resolving disputes under the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Condo Act”) were mandatory private mediation-arbitration and the courts. The mechanisms provided for under the Condo Act were time consuming and costly. A review of the Condo Act also revealed a power imbalance during disputes as between condo boards and owners. Bill 106, the Protective Condominium Owners Act, 2015, was passed in 2015. It amended the Condo Act to address dispute resolution and enabled the establishment of a condominium authority that would provide more expedient and cost efficient dispute resolution mechanisms. As we stated in a previous blog, the government introduced the new authority, the Condominium Authority of Ontario (“CAO”), in Toronto to oversee and assist with issues or complaints regarding condominiums. The goal of the authority is to provide a faster and more cost efficient dispute mechanism process. New Online Tribunal The CAO launched its first online tribunal service last week in order to “help resolve the complaints that arise in 10,000 condo corporations” more efficiently. Its mandate is to help settle and decide condo related disputes in Ontario. The Tribunal is known as the Condominium Authority Tribunal (“CAT”) and provides access to mediators and adjudicators, with an initial fee of $25 for the first step in its process. As of November 1, CAT will only be addressing condo record access issues, but will expand as the months go on. Currently they have two disputes that have been sent to the online tribunal. The online tribunal will work in three phases: Negotiation – this will cost $25 and will give users the opportunity to try to resolve the dispute as amongst themselves; Mediation – this will cost $50 and a tribunal mediator will get involved to help resolve the matter; and Adjudication – this will cost $125 and a tribunal member, different from the mediator, will decide how to resolve the dispute. As mentioned in our previous blogs, the CAO will be providing training and education to condo board members and managers and will require that all condo corporations be registered with the CAO by December 31st of this year. Currently, they only have 2,700 condo corporations registered to date. By: Marly Peikes, Student-at-Law “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateNovember 15, 2017June 17, 2020
The Paradise Papers: The Risks of Offshore Tax Havens On November 5, 2017, another leak of offshore tax haven information, dubbed the “Paradise Papers”, was disclosed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). As a result of the leak of confidential records comprising the Paradise Papers, a number of the world’s elite have been identified as having offshore accounts and connections including, Queen Elizabeth II, Stephen Bronfman, (Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s chief fundraiser), Wilbur Ross (U.S. President Donald Trump’s Commerce Secretary), Russian oligarchs and former Canadian Prime Ministers Brian Mulroney, Paul Martin, and Jean Chretien. Last year, the ICIJ released the Panama Papers, for which they won the Pulitzer Prize. The Panama Papers was a leak of more than 11.5 million records and for many, was the first indication of the extent and scope of offshore tax sheltering activity. In a previous blog, we identified some aspects of the Canadian connection to the Panama Papers. The Paradise Papers reveal the names of more than 3,000 Canadian companies, trusts, foundations and individuals who use offshore accounts in tax haven jurisdictions. In the 2017 Federal Budget, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) was allocated an additional billion dollars in funding to assist with its tax compliance and enforcement activities. The release of the Paradise Papers will only add to the 990 ongoing CRA audits and 42 criminal investigations that are underway and will likely result in an intensification of CRA’s enforcement efforts. Offshore activities in and of themselves are not illegal. When assets are held offshore, whether in bank or investment accounts, partnerships, trusts or corporations, and income from those assets is not declared in Canada or is underreported, this can constitute tax evasion. The consequences of tax evasion can include the following: Assessed penalties and interest on unpaid amounts Interest on the penalties incurred Administrative penalty of 50% of the income tax avoided Criminal penalties (an additional penalty of up to 200% of the taxes evaded and possible jail time) Third party civil penalties can also apply to any persons, including tax advisers and tax promoters, found to have intentionally engaged in or counselled tax evasion The CRA has a number of measures to crack down on international tax evasion and avoidance, including domestic and international partnerships with entities such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Joint International Taskforce on Shared Intelligence and Collaboration (JITSIC), a collaboration of 37 tax administrations which exchange information for the purpose of developing more effective and efficient ways to deal with tax avoidance. As a consequence of the CRA’s enforcement activities, approximately $25 billion in tax revenue representing unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties have been recovered to date. Notwithstanding the CRA’s enforcement efforts, the CBC reports that the CRA does not have a mechanism to track the billions in potentially lost tax revenues. In reply to a request submitted by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page for an estimate of uncollected tax revenue, CRA Commissioner Andrew Treusch sent a letter admitting that the CRA “does not generate information or data on the tax gap”. What does this mean for the future of tax in Canada? The Canadian tax system has recently been at the forefront of the news. From the proposed tax measures targeting privately held corporations released on July 18, 2017, which were the subject of intense public debate and resulted in subsequent announcements from the Minister of Finance, to the ethics controversy surrounding the Minister of Finance’s conflict of interest in his failure to divest himself of his personally held assets, to the release of the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers, there appears to be the perception that the tax system is designed to benefit the most wealthy members of society. Given the Liberal Government’s stated plan to grow and strengthen the middle class, and given the tone of the discourse surrounding the proposed tax changes released earlier this year, the Paradise Papers will likely only strengthen the resolve of the Minister of Finance to increase scrutiny on the tax system with the aim of closing loopholes and tightening tax compliance measures. The full effect of these measures will likely not be known until the Federal Government releases its Budget in the spring. It is a well-established principle of tax law that taxpayers are entitled to arrange their affairs to minimize tax. There are many valid and legal strategies which can be implemented by Canadian taxpayers through effective tax planning. If you have a tax or estate planning question, please contact a tax lawyer to arrange a consultation. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, TaxNovember 13, 2017June 17, 2020
CRA Investigating “Shadow Flipping” of Toronto Condos Due to the booming real estate market in Canada over the past year, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) is scrutinizing the practice of “shadow flipping” or “assignment sales”. This is a sales technique which involves the purchase of pre-built condos from a developer and subsequent sale to other buyers at higher prices before possession of the condo has been taken. By relying on an “assignment clause” in the agreement of purchase and sale, the potential purchaser can transfer or sell his interest in the property to another purchaser before the closing date at a profit. This practice is very controversial and has drastically affected the housing market, contributing to the increase in home prices, particularly in Toronto and Vancouver, with the original sellers receiving less for their property, and the final purchaser potentially paying an inflated price for the same property. Transactions in both Toronto and Vancouver have seen the greatest incidence of these types of transactions, and are under the most scrutiny by the CRA. Vancouver also seeing another form of shadow flipping, which involves realtors finding multiple investors to be involved in the sale of a property in order for multiple buyers to profit while the realtor takes advantage of commission on each of the sales. The CRA has gained interest in tax avoidance in real estate and is analyzing approximately 3,000 cases of shadow flipping transactions in Toronto to determine whether profits from such sales should be taxed as business income or as a capital gain. Generally speaking, any gain arising on the sale of real property are taxed as capital gains, with an effective tax rate of approximately 25%, significantly lower than the tax rate for business income. We can help. Tax planning opportunities are available to assist Canadian taxpayers in optimizing their affairs to obtain a favourable tax outcome. Contact DSF’s Tax Planning Group for advice and assistance. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, TaxNovember 6, 2017June 17, 2020
Winter Driving Warning! From Personal Injury Lawyer Marc Spivak Winter is around the corner. Make sure your vehicle is prepared for possible winter driving disasters. Winter brings low visibility and treacherous roads. Combine that with young and inexperienced drivers, “road ragers” and careless drivers and you have a Canadian recipe for disaster! As a personal injury lawyer, I can tell you that the number of car accident claims leaps during the inclement weather seasons, often due to drivers being unable to slow down in time or losing control due to inadequate anticipation/preparation for poor road conditions. Research proves that winter tires in winter conditions prevent accidents. In 2005, Germany had 12,539 personal-injury collisions. In 2008 German drivers were required to have winter tires on during the winter. Collisions in that year dropped by about 50% to 6,033. Quebec also made winter tires mandatory in 2008 (although 96% of drivers used winter tires prior to this change). Once the law was enforceable, Quebec driver winter tire use increased 2% to 98% with a corresponding larger 5% drop in collisions that year. To understand why winter tires work in Ontario (during the winter) keep the following in mind: All-season tires harden at -10 C; Winter tires harden at -40 C. Stopping distance is 30% shorter with winter tires compared to all seasons. Winter tires offer up to 50% or more traction than all season tires. Tires are designed to grab on to microscopic irregularities in pavement and when they harden, it makes it extremely hard for the tires to grip the road resulting in decreased stopping ability. Your insurance company provides a discount of 2-5% to you for using winter tires. This is based on the reduced risk to the insurer of you having an accident if you are driving with winter tires. Although winter tires are not yet mandatory, it won’t be long before that becomes the law. As a father of three sons, I insist on my children driving or being driven in cars with winter tires in Ontario winters. Keep in mind that accidents cause injuries and loss of property, but also result in increased insurance premiums, sometimes for years after an at fault accident. An at fault accident may push a driver into high risk insurance which might double or triple an insurance premium for years. This might end up costing well over $10,000.00 in additional premiums over time! Having a set of winter tires will also prolong the life span of your tires as the other set is being used and will help keep our roads safer. It is time to get your winter tires installed! Other safety measures that should be taken when preparing for winter driving should include: Bringing your car in for a full checkup and insist on winter wiper blades; Keep your gas tank as full as possible to keep the car heavy and help reduce moisture in the gas line; Clear snow from your car before driving; Always have an ice-scraper and extra washer fluid in the trunk; Keep a booster pack or jumper cables in the car; and Make a survival kit for the car with water non-perishable food flashlight batteries clothing blanket shovel sand or cat litter lighter candles phone charger or charged phone Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm with experienced lawyers in all practice areas. If you require a personal injury lawyer, please contact Personal Injury Lawyer Marc Spivak today. If you have any other questions, or would like more information please call our office directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Personal InjuryNovember 2, 2017June 17, 2020
Increase in Self-represented Litigants Increases Issues Recent news stories have been buzzing about the implications of Dellen Millard, the person accused of murdering Laura Babcock some years ago, foregoing counsel and choosing to act as a self-represented defendant. Much of the concern over this interesting strategy regards the court process for examining witnesses. In Criminal Court proceedings, an accused is entitled by law to cross-examine any of the witnesses called by the prosecution. For the Laura Babcock case this means the accused has the right to personally question persons such as the victim’s father. While this may cause unease to some for moral reasons, there is a bigger issue at play when self-represented litigants proceed to trials. The proposed advantages of self-representation, namely the decreased cost to the litigant, are at odds with the judicial system as a whole. Costs are actually increased when one party is self-represented. This is due to that person being unaware of the strict procedures that must be followed in litigation. The strict procedures come from legislation, meaning departures from them are rare and require alternative rules to override them. The savings that a self-represented litigant may appreciate in not having to pay for a lawyer to represent themselves are not actually costs eliminated in whole, but rather costs that are avoided by one party only to be borne by the opposing party and the court system. A trial where one party is self-represented will be lengthier and therefore costlier. A self-represented litigant is not going to understand the law and its procedures well enough to understand which material needs to be pleaded and which do not. This results in that litigant over-filing, which forces the opposing counsel and the court to spend more time sifting through materials that no value to the lawsuit. These litigants continue to cause more delays throughout the actual trial. Not only will a judge have to take time to provide instructions to the litigant throughout the trial, but the litigant themselves will be slower to examine and cross-examine because they will not understand things such as how to phrase questions, how to establish facts, and generally what they need to achieve. They are unable to perform efficiently at trials because they do not have the legal training and experience necessary. Not only does a longer trial increase the lawyer’s fees for the opposing party, but it decreases the amount of cases that a judge can hear. Beyond financial implications of litigation involving a self-represented party, the self-represented litigant is ultimately at a disadvantage when they go to advocate their interests and rights. Not understanding the law and the strict procedures, such litigants are at an exponentially high risk for getting their cases dismissed on summary judgment. Litigants who fail to properly plead materials are at risk for having their cases dismissed given the increase in the availability and the court’s determinations on summary judgment. Further, for cases which are not dismissed on summary judgment, the self-represented litigant is vulnerable because decision-making does depend on whether evidence was adduced and organized alongside arguments on the law. While self-represented litigants, such as Dellen Millard, may appreciate being in control of their trials and advocating their own interests, they have a significant effect on legal proceedings which are not in line with justice. They cause increased expense for the opposing party, take up an increased amount of time and resources of the court which limits the volume of cases the court can hear, and, ultimately, they place the self-represented litigant at risk of having their cases adjudicated without the court having received a well-informed, appropriate legal argument and all its accouterments. By: Samantha Hamilton, Student-at-Law “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Criminal LawOctober 25, 2017June 17, 2020