Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-661662 DATE: 20210616 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: David Seto, Appellant - AND - Steven Youssoufian., Respondent

BEFORE: E.M. Morgan J.

COUNSEL: Ken J. Berger, proposed amicus curiae Laureen Parish, for the Respondent Catherine Ma, for the Attorney General of Ontario

HEARD: In writing

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE

[1] This is a motion to appoint amicus curiae for the Appellant.

[2] The motion is brought by the proposed amicus himself and is on consent of the Respondent. Legal Aid Ontario has denied funding for this appeal of a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board. The proposed amicus states that the Appellant is not capable of representing himself and so requires the services of an amicus to make his written and oral submissions for him.

[3] While this court has authority to appoint an amicus in the right circumstances, that authority is not unlimited. In Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario, 2013 SCC 43, [2013] 3 SCR 3, at para 49, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that, “[o]nce clothed with all the duties and responsibilities of defence counsel, the amicus can no longer properly be called a ‘friend of the court’. Amici and court-appointed defence counsel play fundamentally different roles.”

[4] That description fits what the amicus proposes here. There is no limited role for a friend of the court described in the motion record.

[5] Rather, what is described is a full-fledged counsel role for the amicus, with no distinction between the amicus’ retainer by and duty to the court and counsel’s duty to the client. The Supreme Court has made it clear that this is not the proper role of a court-appointed amicus.

[6] The motion is dismissed. The parties are at liberty to revise their request and bring another motion. Any such revised motion should be heard in court rather than in writing only.

[7] I am not seized.

Morgan J.

Date: June 16, 2021