The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal has upheld a direction requiring two litigants to argue their own application for permission to use non-lawyer representatives, finding that the judge had fairly assessed their ability to make submissions with preparation time and practical assistance.
In Abbott v. Musgrave Harbour (Town), 2026 NLCA 16, released May 1, 2026, Justice K.J. O’Brien distinguished the narrow procedural question from the broader application still awaiting a hearing. The decision determined who would argue that application; it did not decide whether non-lawyers could ultimately represent Grant and Karla Abbott in the two underlying matters.
Request arose before the hearing
The Abbotts had applied to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador to have people who were not licensed lawyers represent them. At an informal case-management meeting about seven weeks before the scheduled hearing, the judge considered whether those proposed representatives should also present the application seeking permission for their involvement.
Grant Abbott explained why he wanted assistance with presenting his case. He said he could make submissions when prepared, but needed additional time to express himself. He also acknowledged that he and Karla Abbott would argue the application themselves if required.
The town opposed the request. The Abbotts relied on an earlier case in which a judge had allowed a proposed non-lawyer representative to argue a similar application, although that application was ultimately refused. The case-management judge distinguished it because the request there appeared to have arisen at the hearing itself, rather than in advance.
Preparation and assistance mattered
The judge allowed the Abbotts to make joint submissions, supplement one another’s arguments and have Karla speak for Grant if needed. They could also use the written materials filed in one underlying matter for both applications. Those materials already included a detailed memorandum of authorities.
The appeal court found no reversible error. Case-management decisions attract appellate deference: intervention requires a legal error, a significant factual error affecting the result, or a failure to exercise discretion judicially.
Here, the judge had heard Grant Abbott present both a prepared statement and spontaneous submissions. She was therefore well placed to assess his ability to argue the application. The preparation time, written materials and available assistance supported her conclusion that the hearing could proceed fairly.
The court also upheld the use of brief oral reasons. Their length was proportionate to an informal meeting dealing with readiness for a hearing and a limited procedural question.
Broader representation issue remained open
The Abbotts included additional evidence in their appeal filings without applying under the rule governing new evidence. The appeal court declined to consider it. Some material might matter to the representation application, but that application had not yet been heard, making consideration of those issues premature.
The unanimous panel dismissed the appeal and ordered the Abbotts to pay the town’s appeal costs under column 3 of the applicable costs scale. The reasons did not specify a dollar amount.
The Abbotts subsequently sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Its public docket, checked October 10, 2026, records their leave application and later written filings, but lists no decision on leave. The May ruling remains a case-specific assessment of procedural fairness, rather than a blanket prohibition on non-lawyer representation.
