: This paper is part of a larger, multi-year project looking at representation, efficiency and outcomes in Ontario’s provincial court [1] . As outlined in an earlier Slaw piece on this project (“Using Representation Pathways to Explore Court Data” , October 2025), several parts of this research are ongoing. The paper highlights the “representation pathways” idea, which is being explored as a methodological tool and as a way of better understanding the experience of accused persons in the provincial criminal court system. The research is being carried out using an appearance-based database from the Ontario Court of Justice (OCJ). The data . . . [more] The post It Depends on How You Ask the Question: The True Number of Unrepresented Accused in the Ontario Court of Justice appeared first on Slaw
: This column presents excerpts from a student paper, completed under the University of Toronto’s Community Research Partnership in Ethics program; the full paper will be published by the National Self-Represented Litigants Project later this year. Over the past 20 years, Alberta’s family justice system has distinguished itself from other jurisdictions by implementing mandatory forms of assistance. In 2005, the Alberta government launched mandatory meetings for SRLs in provincial court, pursuant to the Intake and Caseflow Management Regulation. [1] Building on this, and recognizing the inherent difficulties associated with an SRL’s journey through the family law system, the new Family Justice . . . [more] The post The Utility of Mandatory Assistance for Self-Represented Litigants in Alberta appeared first on Slaw
: UT ref: UA-2026-000083-PIP In the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber 28 October 2026 Before: Stewart Wright Judge of the Upper Tribunal Between: LC -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Anonymity Order Appellant: LC Respondents: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Tribunal: First tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) Tribunal venue: Scarborough Tribunal Case Nos: SC231/24/00181 Tribunal decision date: 29 August 2025 NOTICE: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. It is ordered , under rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) 2008, that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the appellant in these proceedings or publish [...]