• Strait Engineering Ltd. v. Brian MacLane’s Backhoe and Trucking, [1996] N.S.J. No. 38 (S.C.) Scanlan J. held, at para. 8: “Without legal representation, the parties do not always understand the technical requirements of proof. Often there are substantive issues that must be proven and I am satisfied that the presiding adjudicator should at least direct the minds of the parties to those issues. The parties in the informal settings of Small Claims Court often rely on the adjudicator to direct the attention of the parties to the relevant issues. This gives the parties an opportunity to put evidence before the court to satisfy the adjudicator as to proof of substantive issues.” See also MacDonald v. Weather Products Corp., [1982] N.S.J. No. 30 (N.S.C.A.).

Administrative tribunals

In cases where the party has chosen to proceed without counsel, panel members, like judges, must strike the appropriate balance between accepting the decision to represent oneself and accepting the consequences inherent in that choice, yet still ensuring that the party receives a fair hearing.

• Canadian Union of Public Employees and Local 11, [1992] O.L.R.D. No. 3647 This case involved a complaint pursuant to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The vice-chair Janice Johnston wrote at para. 6: “As noted, the complainant was represented at the hearing by his father, not legal counsel. The Board therefore explained that parties often choose to appear before the Board unrepresented by legal counsel as there are no requirements that they do so. However, it was pointed out that proceedings before the Board are legal proceedings and that persons appearing without legal counsel must bear any risks and the consequences involved with doing so. I indicated that I could explain the nature of the proceedings but that I could not provide legal advice. It is the role of the Board to adjudicate and it would be inconsistent with that role for me to provide one party with legal advice at various stages of the proceedings. Both the complainant and his representative indicated that they understood the Board’s comments in this regard.” At the request of the intervener in this case, the Board also ensured at the outset that both the complainant and his representative understood the purpose of the hearing.