In Block on Block Builders Inc. v Sule, 2026 YKSC 11, the Supreme Court of Yukon ruled on February 23, 2026 that the builder must obtain a lawyer to continue its lawsuit against homeowners. The endorsement concerns representation, not liability for construction defects.
A dispute restored to court
The underlying dispute concerns a fixed-price house-building contract in Whitehorse’s Whistle Bend neighbourhood. In its March 2025 reasons, the court recorded that the homeowners terminated the contract after an extended completion deadline passed. The builder claimed $280,634.96; the homeowners counterclaimed for $98,526.04, including completion costs beyond the contract price and other expenses.
That earlier decision restored the litigation after procedural defaults. Chief Justice S.M. Duncan set aside a default judgment on the counterclaim and a separate order dismissing the builder’s action. She found the failures were not wilful, and that the builder had raised a defence and a claim worth investigating. Restoring the case did not establish that either side would ultimately succeed.
A company is a separate litigant
In the February endorsement, Duncan held that the company’s three director-shareholders were representing a separate legal person, rather than exercising their own right to self-representation.
The directors said insolvency prevented them from hiring counsel. Duncan recognized a legitimate access-to-justice concern, but found no applicable exception or discretion to allow non-lawyer representation. She cited competence and litigation-efficiency concerns; past court practice could not displace the law.
The statutory framework reaches beyond speaking in court. Section 30 of Yukon’s Legal Profession Act, 2017 includes preparing and filing litigation documents and conducting discoveries within representation. Section 45 requires legal services to comply with the Act, regulations and rules. Section 31 lists exclusions and permits the Law Society’s executive to make further exclusions by rule.
At the court-initiated case-management conference, homeowners’ counsel addressed the issue as an officer of the court. His clients took no position.
Duncan directed the builder to retain counsel and said she would send the endorsement to the Law Society of Yukon. No sanction was imposed on the directors.
Later appeal addressed a different question
A separate regulatory prosecution raising the same representation issue subsequently reached the Yukon Court of Appeal. In R. v. P.S. Sidhu Trucking Ltd., 2026 YKCA 7, Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten dismissed applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal on April 27, 2026. The proposed appeal challenged a jurisdictional ruling concerning an attempt to appeal a non-lawyer-representation order before trial ended.
The appellate decision did not decide whether the representation restriction was correct. It held that the criminal appeal provisions invoked did not permit the interlocutory appeal. It was not an appeal in the Block on Block litigation.
