|
Fairness - Language. Ozdemir v. Ozdemir
In Ozdemir v. Ozdemir (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a family law appeal, here brought against a "final parenting order".
Here the court considers a procedural fairness argument that the self-presenting appellant was prejudiced because "the court's “failure to ensure the Appellant understood the process - despite clear language barriers and lack of counsel - contributed to an unfair outcome.”":Procedural fairness and self-represented litigants
[43] The Appellant submits that he was prejudiced because he was not represented at trial and because the court did not ensure he was granted procedural fairness. Specifically, the Appellant submits that the court's “failure to ensure the Appellant understood the process - despite clear language barriers and lack of counsel - contributed to an unfair outcome.”
[44] The following are the steps taken by the court to ensure the process was fair to the Appellant:a. At paragraph 60 of the Decision, the judge provides that “the court has made attempts to assist Mr. Ozdemir in this trial and to guide him in the presentation of his evidence.”
b. The Judge clarified and reviewed with the Appellant the order that he was asking the court to make;
c. The trial judge explained the best interest of the child test;
d. The trial judge provided the Appellant with a copy of section 24 of the CLRA, to assist him in preparing his evidence;
e. The trial judge explained to the Appellant that section 24 contained a list of things that she would be considering when making her decision;
f. Both the day before and the morning of the Appellant giving evidence, the trial judge explained to the Appellant that they require evidence as to the children's best interests and why his proposal with respect to decision-making, primary residence and parenting time is in the children's best interests.
g. The trial judge clarified for the Appellant that they could disregard any provision in the Agreement regarding the children if the trial judge did not find the provisions were in the children's best interests.
h. On May 2, 2024, the Appellant was provided with a copy of the Guide for Self-Represented Litigants;
i. The Appellant was allowed to bring notes with him to the witness stand when giving his evidence;
j. At the end of his testimony, the Appellant was given a 20-minute break to review his notes and consider whether there was anything else he wanted to tell the court.
k. An interpreter was available to the Appellant throughout the proceedings.
l. For a period of time, he was represented by counsel. He also had the assistance of duty counsel for the motion with respect to the appointment of the OCL. [45] The court’s obligation to self-represented litigants is outlined in the Canadian Judicial Council’s Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons, which was endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 470, at para. 4.
[46] As articulated by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R v. Morillo, 2018 ONCA 582, 362 C.C.C. (3d) 23:[11] According to these principles, self-represented persons are expected to familiarize themselves with relevant legal practices and to prepare their own case. However, self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of minor or easily rectified deficiencies in their case. Judges are to facilitate, to the extent possible, access to justice for self-represented persons.
[12] Appellate judges should therefore attempt to place the issues raised by a self-represented litigant in their proper legal context. [47] In more precise terms, judges should assist self-represented litigants by:a. Explaining not just the applicable procedures, but also the relevant law and its implications;
b. Providing self-represented litigants with information to assist them in asserting their rights and raising arguments before the court; and
c. Ensuring that procedural and evidentiary rules are not used to unjustly hinder the legal interests of self-represented parties.
Watterson v. Canadian EMU, 2016 ONSC 6744 (Div. Ct.), at para. 38. [48] However, there are limits to a judge’s duty to assist self-represented litigants. A judge must maintain their neutrality and impartiality. Further, “while it is within a judge’s discretion to control the court process and to grant latitude to a self-represented litigant on procedural issues, that discretion does not extend to rectifying substantive legal deficiencies.” See: Davis v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2024 FCA 115, at paras. 39-40, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, 41763 (October 9, 2025).
[49] I find that there was no breach of procedural fairness. In considering the steps taken by the trial judge, as set out above, I find the trial judge satisfied their obligation to ensure the process was fair to the appellant as a self-represented litigant. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed. . Boua v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director
In Boua v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court allowed a JR of an OIPRD decision under Police Services Act, s.71 ['Request for review by Independent Police Review Director'], here involving OIPRD investigation of a non-English first language complainant's complaint:[27] Understanding and having one’s language understood by the decision-maker is an important part of the right to be heard. In Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents, 1986 CanLII 66 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549, at p. 577, Beetz J. emphasized that the right to be understood is required for a fair hearing, stating as follows:The common law right of the parties to be heard and understood by a court and the right to understand what is going on in court is not a language right but an aspect of the right to a fair hearing. It is a broader and more universal right than language rights. It extends to everyone including those who speak or understand neither official language.
See also MacDonald v. City of Montreal, 1986 CanLII 65 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460, at p. 499. ....
[29] Given the importance of being understood as a component of the right to a fair hearing, the concerns Ms. Boua raised about misunderstanding and misinterpretation throughout the process should have raised a significant concern about whether the investigation adequately addressed the issues in the complaint. The Director’s own triage process squarely flagged the issue and recommended the matter could not be properly reviewed on the existing record. In these circumstances, we find it was incumbent on the Director to advert to this issue in his reasons. In our view, his failure to address this issue when he decided it was unnecessary to remit the matter for Ms. Boua to be interviewed was unreasonable.
....
[37] In a circumstance where there was a serious concern that Ms. Boua had not been properly understood during the investigation because of language barriers, it was unreasonable for the Director to dismiss the question of whether Ms. Boua should be interviewed by saying he had her submissions when in fact he had not read and was not able to understand those submissions. We consider his reliance on the submissions in these circumstances to constitute a failure to account for a key consideration on the record before him.
|
