Luhowy v Government of Nunavut, 2013 NUCJ 21
 While self-represented litigants are expected to inform themselves of the Rules, the Court cannot in good conscience hold such parties to the same standard it would expect of counsel.
 In my view, the case Mr. Luhowy attempts to make for wrongful dismissal is problematic. Had he been represented, I would have challenged counsel respecting aspects of the case within the context of a "no case to meet" motion as allowed by Rule 346.
 It should not come as any surprise that Mr. Luhowy did not appreciate the strict evidentiary burden of proof he was subject to. He was expecting the Defendant's anticipated witnesses to testify. He was expecting to cross-examine them.
 Mr. Luhowy has treated the Court and opposing counsel with respect and he has tried to be as efficient as possible in his use of Court time. It is a well-worn truism that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, and the dismissal of this action at this point in the trial would not give the appearance of justice.