It's the Judge in the case I posted that is crying foul because Judges see Legal Aid Lawyers all the time. Judges are stuck with the below:
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
(2) The primary objective of these rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2 (2).
DEALING WITH CASES JUSTLY
(3) Dealing with a case justly includes,
(a) ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties;
(b) saving expense and time;
(c) dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity; and
(d) giving appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases.
My Opinion (and I got lots..LMAO)
Any party that is self represented against a Legal Aid lawyer at a Trial would be able to appeal any decision because it wasn't a fair Trial, that's the point of Law to launch the Appeal
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
(2) The primary objective of these rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2 (2).
DEALING WITH CASES JUSTLY
(3) Dealing with a case justly includes,
(a) ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties;
(b) saving expense and time;
(c) dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity; and
(d) giving appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases.
My Opinion (and I got lots..LMAO)
Any party that is self represented against a Legal Aid lawyer at a Trial would be able to appeal any decision because it wasn't a fair Trial, that's the point of Law to launch the Appeal
Comment