Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, lawyer Kyla Lee discusses the issue of self-incrimination in contempt of court proceedings when someone is representing themselves in court.
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week, and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
Paul Oommen was convicted of contempt of court during the course of proceedings where he was suing a regional government housing corporation alleging that his rights had been violated. He sued, but he didn’t comply with any of the court orders he was supposed to comply with. Things like producing documents, taking steps to advance his own litigation. A contempt hearing was held.
Oommen decided to represent himself. It was an unfortunate position, because he had to not only present his case about why he wasn’t in contempt of court, but also be subject to questions from the court about his conduct. He argued on appeal that the judge had improperly questioned him and violated his right to be free from self-incrimination.
The case raises an interesting question.
In contempt proceedings, there’s a lot of questioning by a judge about someone’s conduct. Now, you’re supposed to have a right to not self-incriminate, but these self-represented individuals are in a sense, stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have to make submissions, but by doing so, they put themselves in a position where they’re effectively under obligation to answer the court’s questions — potentially providing evidence against themselves.