Giles,
A.S.P.:
—I
note
that
Rule
300(1)
provides:
An
individual
may
act
in
person
or
be
represented
by
a
solicitor
in
any
proceedings
in
the
Court.
There
is
no
provision
for
one
spouse,
not
being
a
solicitor,
to
represent
the
other
spouse.
I
am
not
aware
of
any
case
where
a
spouse
has
been
permitted
to
appear
in
a
position
analogous
to
counsel
or
solicitor
for
the
other
spouse.
The
Rules
have
recently
been
amended
to
allow
a
corporation
to
be
represented
by
a
director
or
officer
in
special
circumstances.
There
is
of
course
no
way
that
a
corporation
could
represent
itself
other
than
through
an
individual.
Individuals,
unless
under
a
disability,
can
represent
themselves.
If
an
individual
is
under
a
disability,
the
Ontario
Rules
of
Court
would
appear
to
apply
which
would
require
that
a
solicitor
be
retained
by
the
person,
spouse,
friend
or
whoever
advising
the
plaintiff.
I
would
therefore
dismiss
this
motion
as
there
is
no
provision
in
the
Rules
which
would
appear
to
permit
the
Court
to
grant
leave
for
one
spouse
not
being
a
solicitor
to
represent
the
other.
If
I'm
wrong
in
so
finding,
and
I
therefore
ought
to
analogize
to
Rule
300(2)
and
allow
one
spouse
to
represent
the
other
in
special
circumstances,
it
would
be
necessary
for
the
applicant
to
show
special
circumstances.
In
my
view
none
have
been
shown
here.
Personal
convenience
is
not
a
special
circumstance.
It
appears
the
action
involves
the
wife's
liability
for
income
tax.
The
husband
has
carried
on
all
correspondence
and
negotiations
with
lawyers,
accountants
and
taxation
authorities.
There
is
however,
nothing
to
show
that
the
wife
is
incapable
of
doing
such
things
for
herself.
In
addition
there
is
no
reason
the
husband
could
not
prepare
correspondence
and
other
documents
for
his
wife
to
sign
if
she
saw
fit
to
do
so.
He
could
also
receive
and
pass
on
messages
and
carry
documents
signed
by
her
to
the
Registry
of
the
Court
to
file.
He
can
be
a
witness
in
any
lawsuit
she
may
bring
if
she
has
need
of
facts
he
is
able
to
prove.
Also,
there
is
nothing
in
evidence
or
even
alleged
as
to
why
the
wife
is
unable
to
represent
herself,
or,
if
she
so
wishes,
to
retain
lawyers.
This
motion
will
therefore
be
dismissed.
Income
tax
matters
differ
somewhat
from
other
matters
in
this
Court
in
that
there
are
limits
on
the
ability
of
the
Court
to
extend
certain
statutory
time
limits
to
correct
any
irregularities
in
proceedings.
The
plaintiff
should
not
let
any
time
limits
expire
before
ensuring
that
her
appeal
is
properly
launched.
Order:
Motion
for
leave
for
Nazeer
Shenouda
Bishay
to
represent
Azhar
Bishay
dismissed.
Motion
dismissed.
Email this Content