The following is a list of cases which are of particular interest to self-represented litigants. This list should be taken as general information only. The reader should always be cautious in applying these cases to their own case. For legal advice on how to apply case law to your own situation, please consult a lawyer or paralegal.
(A) Lawsuits that are dismissed due to Pleadings being incorrectly drafted
1. Deep v. Ontario, 2004 CanLII 14527 (ON SC) http://canlii.ca/t/1hd1k
In this case, the self-represented plaintiff’s statement of claim is dismissed entirely.
(a) deficiencies in the plaintiff’s pleadings:
-the need to plead material facts to support allegations
-claims that have no recognizable cause of action (para. 50-51)
-allegations that state legal conclusions but are unsupported by facts (para. 64-66, 70-74)
(b) claims dismissed due to expiry of limitation period.
(c) claims dismissed due to the fact that have been the subject of previous lawsuits and is being relitigated (principle of res judicata)
2. Bilich v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 ONSC 1445 (CanLII)http://canlii.ca/t/fwhl1)
This is an action by a self-represented person against the Toronto Police Services Board (and others). The self-represented plaintiff sues the defendant for false arrest, libel, negligent investigation and others. The Statement of claim is struck, some without leave to amend.
-failure to plead facts necessary to support allegations (para. 102)
-claims that are irrelevant, argumentative are scandalous and should be struck (para. 89)
-claims that plead evidence and inserted for the purpose for being inflammatory are stuck (para. 92)
(B) Costs for Self-Represented Litigants
1. Cassidy v. Cassidy, 2011 ONSC 791 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fkgl9
This is a Costs Endorsement. The self-represented party was successful in a number of motions in this proceeding. She was therefore entitled to a costs award. In this decision, she was awarded $3350.00 in costs. The various principles to be considered in awarding costs to a self-represented party are enumerated and explained. In particular:
 To read the second principle as requiring evidence that a self-represented litigant must actually prove lost opportunities for remuneration in order to recover costs is to disqualify litigants who are homemakers, retirees, students, unemployed, unemployable, and disabled but not a party under a disability. To apply the second principle in the way suggested is to deprive courts of the tool that Justice Sharpe stated the court should have.
 Moreover, it would be unproductive for a judge or master to have to decide a costs claim by a self-represented litigant matter as if it were a claim for damages for lost income. The true point is that a self-represented litigant can only expect to recover costs if he or she does work that a lawyer would do. Put somewhat differently, if the self-represented litigant demonstrates that he or she did the work ordinarily done by a lawyer, then they will have justified receiving an award of costs.
Therefore, in this case, the judge allowed the self-represented plaintiff “costs for the time she spent in court arguing her case, at the hourly rate that would reasonably be charged by a lawyer for this work, while deducting the same amount of time at the hourly rate she would have earned elsewhere and which she would have lost in any event by attending court as a litigant.” (para. 52)
2. Kirby v. Kirby, 2019 ONSC 232 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/hwwzs
The self-represented litigant was ordered to pay the opposing party $150,000 in costs. One of the factors considered was the unreasonableness of the litigant. This costs decision should be read in conjunction to the trial decision, Kirby v. Kirby, 2018 ONSC 6958 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/hw5ws This decision provides some insight as to how litigants (represented or not) should conduct themselves in a proceeding.
3. Green v. Whyte, 2019 ONSC 7133 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j3tqc
In this case, both parties were self-represented. The court discusses “bad faith” (para.12-19), as well as issues of misrepresentation and delays in disclosure (para. 14). The reasons also include a list of previous case law and rules relevant to costs for self-represented litigants (paras. 20-26). Application of the law (paras. 27-36) resulted in one party being awarded costs of approximately $33,000.