In Ontario, corporations must be represented in court by a lawyer. However, the court is empowered to relax this requirement, and this typically occurs for small companies who cannot afford a lawyer. Regardless of the reason, however, once a company chooses to dispense with legal representation, a motion must be brought to seek permission from the court to continue the case without a lawyer, and typically the request is to have the corporate owner be the company’s legal representative.
This recent case demonstrates that when an owner is allowed to represent their company in court, it is a privilege and not a right, and the privilege can be revoked.
By way of background, the plaintiff corporation in this dispute brought a successful motion to allow its owner to self-represent the company in court. This was undoubtedly the the high watermark for this self-represented owner, because what occurred after this was nothing less than astounding.
This recent court decision was the follow-up ruling on costs after the plaintiff’s successful motion. Normally costs are awarded to the party that was successful on the motion, and typically the costs will be assessed for a few thousand dollars for simple motions, and can rise to tens-of-thousands of dollars for complex motions. This motion was certainly more on the “simple” side of the spectrum.
Instead of lobbying for a few thousand dollars in costs, the self-represented corporate owner, perhaps high on his success in the underlying motion, demanded $4 Million in costs, which was outrageous by any yardstick. The absurdity is even more glaring when consideration is given to the fact that self-represented parties are often denied costs all together because litigant-time is not viewed the same as lawyer-time. If a self-represented party cannot show they lost opportunity costs spending their time on the legal matter at-hand (ie: the motion in this case), a judge may deny costs altogether. Indeed, that is precisely what the judge concluded in this case: the self-represented owner didn’t demonstrate any lost opportunity costs for appearing on the motion, and as such, the judge felt that no costs should be awarded to him.
To make matters worse, prior to the judge’s ruling on costs, the opposing parties offered to pay the self-represented corporate owner $3,000.00 in costs, plus a contribution toward some provable disbursements, which by any benchmark was very reasonable, and ought to have been accepted by the self-represented corporate owner, instead of evoking a response that he was coming after his opponents for punitive type costs (ie: the $4 Million).
As a result of this behaviour, the judge clearly was second guessing his decision to grant the owner the privilege of representing his company in court. The admonishment went as follows (at paragraph 17):
“Leave for … (the corporate owner) … to represent … (his company)… was heavily contested. After due consideration, I granted leave. (The corporate owner’s) … costs submissions are not, in my view, consistent with the capabilities that … (he) …. demonstrated in bringing and arguing the motion before me. If … (the corporate owner) … demonstrates that he is not, in fact, capable of representing the corporation, then leave may well be revoked. Unsubstantiated hyperbole and mudslinging will not advance … (the company’s) … case and could well lead to such revocation. I caution … (the corporate owner) … that, moving forward, he should take greater care in preparing his materials to ensure that they are accurate, measured, and properly substantiated.”
This case confirms that the opportunity to self-represent your company in court is a privilege, and as easy as it may be to acquire, it can just as easily be taken away. Competence must be shown throughout.
Alamos Gold Inc. v. Sterling O&G International Corp., 2024 ONSC 2968 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc2968/2024onsc2968.html