As I wait patiently for a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on my application for leave to appeal the Manitoba Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss my application for leave to appeal a recusal motion in the lower court, despite the trial judge in the lower court, presiding over my application for Judicial Review with constitutional Questions applications, expressing signs of what I consider to be unconscious bias and conducting the legal test for detecting a reasonable apprehension of bias in a subjective manner instead of an objective manner, I can't help but reflect on Alice Wolley's commentary, "Justice for Some" on the case Green v Law Society of Manitoba
- Will the Supreme Court of Canada decide to grant leave and hear my case as a self-represented person, not by choice, who is a visible minority with diagnosed Anxiety and PTSD, raising issues of systemic discriminaton and challenging a decision of the Manitoba Labour Board, which is represented by the Legal Services Branch (Crown Attorneys who represent the government, and the Attorney General of Manitoba/ Minister of Justice)?
- Will the Supreme Court of Canada revisit its decision in Horrocks 2021, which granted exclusive jurisdiction to labour board arbitrators in unionized workplaces, including Human Rights Complaints? Will they care about any of the questions I raised?
In the commentary on Green v Law Society of Manitoba, Alice Wolley provides background context on the case. The case involves a lawyer's dispute with their regulator over Mandatory Continuing Professional Development training, which the Supreme Court of Canada chose to hear.
Wolley documents that (the lawyer) Mr. Green's application was unsuccessful at the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench (2014 MBQB 249 (CanLII)) and at the Manitoba Court of Appeal (2015 MBCA 67 (CanLII)). However, the Supreme Court of Canada nonetheless granted leave. Wolley later reflects on that decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada with the following statements:
- "Rarely have so many judicial resources been spent on a case worthy of so little."
- "A disgruntled octogenarian who refuses for no reason to comply with a reasonable regulatory requirement gets the respectful time and attention of the Supreme Court of Canada. Poor immigrants are pressured by a trial judge to settle a legitimate legal dispute and abused for wasting taxpayer resources. Could any clearer example exist of the difference between being a poor racialized immigrant and being a white wealthy professional in Canada’s legal system? Perhaps we can think on that next time we look smugly at our American neighbours.
In Green v Law Society of Manitoba, the one question asked was:
- "Whether the Law Society could impose an automatic suspension on Mr. Green."
In my Supreme Court of Canada leave application, I asked several questions as a self-represented person, not by choice, up against the Attorney General of Manitoba.
I admit I have no legal training, but I am also painfully aware of the issues in my case and the conflicts of interest that require clarification by the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure a fair Judicial Review that addresses constitutional issues in the lower court.
I hope that some of the issues I raise, presented as questions, will be accepted as broader implications questions, which are definitely needed for success at the Supreme Court of Canada. That is what keeps me up at night. I would not wish self-representation on anyone. Having a good lawyer is definitely a blessing, a blessing I do not have right now.
The following questions listed below cover these important issues:
- Access to justice.
- Fairness for self-represented litigants.
- Institutional and unconscious bias.
- Constitutional limits on administrative power.
- Structure and integrity of adjudicative systems.
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ASKED IN MY APPLICATION
1. What is the scope of the judicial duty to ensure procedural fairness and equality under sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter for self-represented Litigants alleging unconscious and institutional bias?
2. Are administrative tribunals and government agencies, such as the Workplace Safety and Health, subject to Charter scrutiny under sections 7 and 15(1) when they fail to inform the public of statutory rights to appeal decisions made by their officers?
3. What safeguards are required to preserve the independence and impartiality of adjudicative tribunals in light of increasing government involvement in administrative litigation?
4. Do self-represented litigants face unequal treatment, contrary to the Charter, when governments act as both respondent and counsel for adjudicative bodies under review, thereby creating a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias?
THE TRIALS OF SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS
Two lawyers have told me that my underlying case is complex, but I can not afford a good lawyer in my province who is not conflicted in some way and willing to represent me, so I am forced to advocate for myself in Civil court against seasoned Crown Attorneys.
It has not been easy learning the correct court processes, drafting legal applications, researching case law that is similar to mine and different (distinguishable), learning about legal terms, Acts, regulations, Court rules, Constitutional law, and Administrative law. I have great respect for lawyers, but I have not found one who truly understands my experience.
I am well aware of the many obstacles I face as a non-lawyer and how daunting the situation is, but I know that what I am doing is important, so I swallow my fears. Laws have to be changed and are only changed when challenged. I also believe that my underlying case has been made complex due to systemic racism and discrimination. I can say that boldly because of the pattern of behaviours I have experienced in government systems, patterns I am still documenting today and counting the cost.
By clarifying the issues presented as questions to the highest court in the land, I believe I will have a better chance, as a self-represented person (not by choice), in my Judicial Review application, with statutory rights and constitutional issues at stake.
It does not make sense, in my opinion, to move forward in a legal process when I believe unconscious bias is at play. I don't want to waste my time or resources going through the legal process of Judicial Review with constitutional questions, only to have to appeal on the very same legal grounds I am raising right now —a reasonable apprehension of bias —not by assumption, but by documented words and comments very similar to court cases like Laver v. Swrjeski, Ontario, 2014, Attaran v. Attorney General of Canada, 2025 FC 18 and R.v. Cowan, 2022 ONCA 432. That does not sound reasonable to me.
YOUR SUPPORT
I've included your support in this change petition as part of my Supreme Court leave application. It is my proof of public interest, so thank you all for signing my petition. Your support makes me feel less alone on this legal journey.
Please keep sharing and promoting this petition. The more signatures, the better.
Recently, I also started a fundraiser to help cover court fees and my living expenses. Self-representation is a full-time job that requires a lot of focus, research, reading, writing, court fees, and many late nights. It is time-consuming, but that is what is required.
My birthday is coming up on the 20th of November. It is a milestone birthday (my 50th), so please click the link below and consider contributing to my fundraising campaign in any amount you choose. Feel free to share the link with others. I am terrible at fundraisers, but every dollar contributed will help me in this mission to bring about positive change in the law and highlight the treatment of self-represented persons in the court system. In addition to shining light on other issues in relation to this petition, like the slow adjudication of WCB psychological injury claims. That really needs to change for the better.
Anyways, until next time, thank you in advance for your time, kindness, and generosity. I take nothing for granted.
FUNDRAISER
-----------------------------------------
SUPREME COURT LEAVE APPLICATION
Thank you for caring and standing up for section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Together, we can make a positive change for all people living and working in Canada.
-Ingrid