In Beaulnes et. al. v. Pratt, 2026 ONSC 1722, the Superior Court of Justice granted a defendant’s motion compelling a capacity assessment of a self‑represented plaintiff.

Background facts

Jean‑François B. (“Jean-Francois“) and his parents, Pierre B.(“Pierre“) and Marie B. (“Marie“) (collectively the “Plaintiffs“) were the plaintiffs in this proceeding. Jean-Francois described himself as severely disabled for nearly five years, despite being extremely active and healthy prior to the start of his disability.^[1] Jean-Francois suffered from a maxillofacial condition that made it difficult for him to talk and could only whisper when communicating. He had been diagnosed with anxiety as well as chronic pain, amongst other things.^[2]

On September 17, 2024, a Statement of Claim (the “Claim”) was issued by Jean-Francois as the sole plaintiff against Dr. Pratt (the “Defendant”). The Defendant was a practicing dermatologist in Ottawa who provided Jean-Francois with care beginning in September of 2022. The Claim described Pierre as Jean-Francois’ representative. The Defendant’s counsel informed Pierre that he could not act as Jean-Francois’ representative unless he was court appointed. As a result, Jean-Francois filed a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim proposing to add his parents as additional plaintiffs and described them as his primary “caregivers”.^[3]

Counsel for the Defendant informed Jean-Francois that his parents could not be added to the proceeding without consent or leave of the court. The Defendant’s counsel also questioned Jean-Francois’ ability to represent himself in the proceeding given his alleged need for caregivers. ^[4]

As a result, the Plaintiffs served a Notice of Discontinuance in the Action and did not provide a response to the Defendant’s concern regarding the Plaintiff’s capacity.

The Plaintiffs filed a second Statement of Claim (the “Second Claim”) that named Pierre and Marie as Plaintiffs. It alleged various claims for damages, including punitive damages against the Defendant.^[5]

The Defendant brought a cross-motion seeking an order to compel Jean-Francois to undergo a capacity assessment pursuant to Section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.^[6]

Jean-Francois was not attending any part of the proceedings on his own, including case conferences or motions, amongst other things. Instead, Pierre was attending and making submissions on behalf of all the Plaintiffs.

The main issue for the court was whether Jean-Francois should be ordered to undergo a virtual capacity assessment. Jean-Francois contended a capacity assessment was unnecessary, as he had already been established as disabled according to the Government of British Columbia, as well as his physician.^[7]

The Law and Analysis

The court in Abrams v. Abrams, [2008] O.J. No. 5207, determined that in order to compel a psychological assessment on an individual, the court should consider the following non-exhaustive list of factors:

1. The threshold requirements of s. 105(3), namely that the subject’s capacity is in issue and that there are good reasons to believe the subject lacks capacity;
2. The nature and circumstances of the proceedings in which the issue is raised;
3. The nature and quality of the evidence before the court as to the person’s capacity and vulnerability to exploitation;
4. Whether the assessment will be necessary in order to decide the issue(s) before the court;
5. Whether any harm will be done if an assessment does not take place;
6. Whether there is any urgency to the assessment; and
7. The wishes of the person sought to be examined, taking into account his or her capacity.^[8]

The party seeking the capacity assessment has the burden of providing why it is necessary that an assessment take place.^[9] The court went on to state the following:

[18] In considering whether to order an assessment, whether on motion or on its own initiative, a court must balance the affected party’s fundamental rights against the court’s duty to protect the vulnerable. The appointment of an assessor to conduct what is essentially a psychiatric examination is a substantial intervention into the privacy and security of the individual. See Abrams v. Abrams, [2008] O.J. No. 5207 (S.C.J.) at para. 50.^[10]

The court asserted that there must be a genuine concern that the litigant “may not be able to understand the litigation and make necessary decisions to move it forward”.^[11] The self-represented litigant must also be able to participate in the litigation on their own.

The court expressed concerns that Pierre was making submissions on behalf of Jean-Francois without the appropriate legal appointment, and without a court appointed legal guardian pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.^[12]

The court determined that the Defendant successfully proved that Jean-Francois was unlikely to be able to manage the litigation on his own due to the physical and mental limitations he expressed in his Claim.^[13] The court asserted that Jean-Francois had conflated being disabled with his capacity to litigate.

[42] However, the Plaintiffs appear to conflate disability with litigation capacity. A person may be disabled yet still have the capacity to understand and instruct in litigation and therefore may not be “a party under a disability” within the meaning of the Rules.^[14]

Furthermore, the court emphasized that individuals with disabilities may be vulnerable to undue influence or exploitation. A capacity assessment can help protect them from such risks. Although no evidence was presented that Pierre or Marie were influencing Jean-Francois, the capacity assessment would provide confirmation that the matter was proceeding in Jean-Francois’ best interest.^[15]

The court concluded that an assessment was necessary to move the case forward, to protect Jean-Francois’ interests, and to determine whether safeguards such as a litigation guardian was required. The court asserted that the matter would be paused until Jean-Francois underwent a capacity assessment.

—

[1] Beaulnes et. al. v. Pratt, 2026 ONSC 1722 at para 4

[2] Ibid at para 6

[3] Ibid at para 28

[4] Ibid at para 28

[5] Ibid at para 32

[6] Ibid at para 7

[7] Ibid at para 65

[8] Ibid at para 17

[9] Ibid at para 19

[10] Ibid at para 18

[11] Ibid at para 37

[12] Ibid at para 51

[13] Ibid at para 55

[14] Ibid at para 42

[15] Ibid at para 77