It’s not getting any easier to be a judge these days, as self-represented litigants continue to overwhelm Canadian courts in increasing numbers.
With the abolition of Legal Aid and a middle-class that can’t afford to hire lawyers, the situation has become dire.
University of Windsor law professor Julie MacFarlane’s research indicates that up to 80% of court users in family law go into court without a lawyer.
The popular cliché that people who represent themselves in court have fools for clients has never been more true, and despite the increasing availability of pro bono legal services, rarely does free legal advice mean that a lawyer will show up in court.
While it is lawyers that have the reputation for talking too much and wasting court time, the truth is that court cases with lay litigants take up many more court hours because rules of evidence and procedure, while somewhat relaxed for in-person litigants, must still be maintained to ensure due process and the integrity of our justice system.
In a recent court case, with no counsel, where the issue was whether a Pakistani divorce was authentic and legitimate, one judge said:
“I record that I began this case at 10.30 a.m. this morning and I am now concluding it around 3.30 p.m. It has, accordingly, effectively occupied the whole of the court day. By sheer good fortune, the other case which had been listed for hearing by me today was vacated [postponed] yesterday for reasons connected with its readiness. If that case had not been vacated, I, and the litigants in that case, would have been faced with very considerable difficulties and a severe shortage of court time, and probably also additional expenditure to the parties in that case who, as likely as not, would have to have returned on another day.”
The judge found that the divorce was valid, but was justice really served when he noted that he did not have any basic materials, no orderly bundle of relevant documents, no chronology, no case summaries, and no real argument.
Professor MacFarlane’s observation that “it’s the inmates who are running the asylum” is sadly apropos.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Lawdiva's Blog 
While I am sure that many pro se litigants are foolish, it appears to me that their success rate is pretty good. Part of this might be that they are given more license by the court but part is that they can afford to be much better prepared on their own than to pay a lawyer hundreds of dollars an hour.
Most family law trials cost far more than the amount reasonably at issue. In the case where both litigants are high-conflict, I don’t care so much. But if one litigant is high conflict and the other needs to stand his or ground without depleting his or her entire net worth, pro se may be the only option.
What’s your suggested alternative?