A Lawyer Who Represents Himself ... The Perils Of Self Representation

Self represented parties are more and more common in Court. This puts a strain on counsel, court staff and, of course, judges.

The last week’s decision in the Alberta Court of Appeal in Achtem v. Achtem, 2008 ABCA 155 is useful as a statement of the principle that self-represented parties have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Specifically, if a party does not present their case well because they are self-represented that is not a basis for a court to intervene.

[1] Mr. Achtem appeals a matrimonial property order. He submits he was prevented from adducing material evidence, and that he was taken by surprise by evidence produced at the trial, with the result he was denied the proper opportunity to prepare and meet the case against him. Moreover, Mr. Achtem says the judgment is unreasonable and should be set aside.

…

[4] We have read the material submitted and we find no basis for appellate intervention. Both parties had access to all of the pre-trial procedures available to litigants. Mr. Achtem could have subpoenaed any witnesses, such as the bank employee, who had relevant evidence to give. There was no order here prohibiting him from doing so. It is not the function of an appeal court to perfect a trial where the parties have not availed themselves of the measures available for pre-trial preparation. In addition, Mr. Achtem could not be said to be surprised by an e-mail he had sent himself. The Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 390/1968 provide Mr. Achtem with procedures to allow him to learn about the case he has to meet. He was entitled to examinations-for-discovery and to the production of documents. Having not availed himself of the options open to him, he cannot now claim he was treated unfairly or taken by surprise.