Self-represented person entered into agreement without benefit of interpreter

Ontario civil | Appeal | |

Self-represented person
entered into agreement
without benefit of interpreter
Action was brought in Small Claims Court. Appellant did not have representation and required interpreter. Appellant entered into settlement agreement. Appellant wished to resile from settlement agreement and have it set aside on basis appellant did not understand what she was agreeing to and she was tricked into signing agreement. Appellant was no longer represented. Appellant was attempting to retain counsel, had personal health issues, and was primary caretaker of elderly mother. Appellant faced criminal trial matter and was still attempting to secure representation for it. Appellant brought motion for extension of time to serve, file and perfect appeal. Motion granted. Appellant’s explanation for her portion of delay was reasonable and justified. Appellant’s situation was unique especially given language barrier. Self-represented person who entered into agreement without benefit of interpreter, when one was needed was at least prima facie serious consideration.
Tran v. Schwartz (Mar. 17, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., K.P. Wright J., File No. DC 12/507) 238 A.C.W.S. (3d) 291.

Free newsletter

Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from Law Times.

Recent articles & video

Legal aid investments save governments money all over the world, Canadian researchers find

New real estate law podcast begins by tackling cannabis regulations

80% of legal employers prefer technical skills to personality

Torys’ Linda Plumpton named to American College of Trial Lawyers

Pressure mounts for immigration lawyers working with Latin American clients

$100K prize offered by Canadian legal tech start-up

Most Read Articles

OPP charges former tax lawyer with fraud and obstruction of justice

New facets of pure economic loss rule could have huge implications for businesses

Does solicitor-client privilege protect information shared with a legal app?

Court addresses the denial of dependent support for egregious conduct