Navigating the Judicial Labyrinth: Seeking Relief in the Court System
A Pro Se Litigant's Journey Through Procedure and Principle
I wanted to share my thoughts on the often-challenging concept of searching for relief in the court system. What's immediately clear is that the court system is governed by a complete procedural matrix already in place. For any individual who chooses to act as a pro se litigant—representing themselves—the essential task is to find the path within this framework to achieve the objectives they've set out. The journey begins by understanding jurisdiction, which is the foundational "step one" in bringing any claim.
Understanding the Two Tiers of Jurisdiction
Generally, across Canada, there are two main court tiers to consider based on the size of the dispute. The first, and often most accessible, is the small claims court.
The Role of Small Claims Court
Small Claims Courts handle matters typically up to about $30,000 and are designed to be much less formal. This informality means that anyone can use it; you don't need to be a lawyer or have much legal training at all.
Simplicity in the Lower Court
In Small Claims Court, the requirements are straightforward: you need to be able to put the issue on paper, write down the issue, and bring the best evidence you can.
Judges and Leniency
The judges in Small Claims Court are often much more lenient regarding procedural rules. Their goal is to most efficiently and effectively get to the truth of the matter and find a settlement for the civil dispute in the most cost-effective manner possible.
Moving to the Higher Courts
If your dispute involves an amount more than $30,000, you have to ascend to the higher courts. These are the highest courts of original jurisdiction in the province, such as the Supreme Court of British Columbia or the Court of King’s Bench in New Brunswick and Alberta.
The Discretion of Higher Courts
The fundamental reason for going to the highest court of original jurisdiction is that it possesses discretion. A justice in the Supreme Court essentially has the authority to hear all matters in all instances from top to bottom, without any restrictions whatsoever.
Inherent Jurisdiction: From the King
This broad authority, known as inherent jurisdiction, dates back to the very founding of the court system. Historically, the King held all jurisdiction and eventually delegated this original jurisdiction to the court system.
The Importance of Equity
A key feature of the highest court of original jurisdiction is its ability to apply equity. Equity refers to a concept that isn't written in the rules; if there is no specific rule to provide relief, a judge can effectively "make up the rule on the spot" to ensure justice is done in the circumstances.
"Playing Jazz" to Resolve Disputes
I like to think of equity as the judge's ability to "play jazz". They can figure out a solution that embodies justice between the parties and apply it to resolve the issue. This is why these courts are often necessary for settling complex disputes.
The Core Principles of Court Rules
Despite the complexity, the rules of court themselves are founded on simple, foundational principles. The main point is that everyone must be given fair notice of the claim against them, the opportunity to counterclaim, and the chance to provide evidence for the judge to consider.
The Weight of Judicial Precedent
Both sides are also given time to provide case law, or judicial precedent, which shows how judges have ruled on similar issues in the past. A judge is supposed to be bound by that precedent unless there's a special reason to break it, thereby creating a new precedent.
Referencing Jurisprudence: The Spirit of Law
Beyond the rules and precedent is jurisprudence, which is essentially the spirit of law. The court considers what justice is, what is right between parties, and how its ruling aligns with the principles and ideals of the society it serves.
The "Wild Card" of Higher Court Relief
The highest court of original jurisdiction is the only one with all the options available to it, which is why we often have to go there to seek relief in complicated matters. It's where the wild cards and different options come into play.
The Court as a Casino of Chance and Merit
I view the court system as a combination of a casino with an element of chance, and an element of merit. While you might get an outcome opposite to what you want—which is the inherent danger—it's highly likely you'll win if you can present the best case with the best evidence and the best argument.
The Shadow of Political Influence
However, the system doesn't always work perfectly. It's difficult to predict how things will turn out because there are elements of "hidden hands" that manipulate the court system, often tied to political ideology and agendas. This collective "group think" among judges can subtly move decisions in a particular direction.
A Simple Dispute's 50-50 Chance
If your case is simple—just you and another person with a clean issue and no larger political implications—you have a relatively clean 50-50 chance of winning. The challenge comes when you are pushing against a massive governmental policy, where the courts are unlikely to risk their careers.
In the end, while there is no guarantee in the court system, the key takeaway is that you won't get anywhere unless you try your hardest. If you work diligently, do your research, and present the best documentation, evidence, case law, and reference to jurisprudence, there's a good chance you will succeed in court.
You can’t win in the lottery unless you buy a ticket; you don't win unless you play.
Would you like me to elaborate on the concepts of equity or jurisprudence?