The Plaintiff applied for Summary Judgment with respect to a claim involving a financing agreement for a trailer. One of the preliminary issues was whether one of the individual Defendants, who was not a lawyer, could represent himself as well as the corporate Defendant. Master Schlosser stated that non-lawyers were not permitted to represent individuals or companies pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8. Although former Rule 5.4 provided a discretionary exception to this prohibition, more recent authority has confirmed that this discretionary exception no longer exists. The Court also stated that, although Judges have an “undoubted rule making power” pursuant to Rule 1.6, Masters do not have this power; further, this authority does not extend to reviving Rules that have been repealed. It also does not extend to “authorizing a breach of statute, or sanctioning an offence”. The individual Defendant was therefore not permitted to represent the other Defendants.

Master Schlosser considered the evidence before the Court rather than further adjourning the Application and held that there was sufficient contravening evidence that a fair and just determination could not be made against the individual Defendants. Summary Judgment was denied as against the individual Defendants. Master Schlosser held that there was no question with respect to the corporate Defendant’s liability, and granted Summary Judgment against the corporate Defendant. On the issue of quantum, the Court held that the evidence in support of the valuation was unqualified opinion evidence. Although expert evidence under Rule 6.11 might be proper evidence for this type of Application pursuant to Rule 13.18, unqualified opinion evidence was not. Therefore, the value of the claim could not be made out. Master Schlosser ordered that the amount be proved by way of an Assessment.