Ontario Superior Court: Capacity Assessment Trumps Disability Accommodations

• The Ontario Superior Court has ruled that capacity assessment must precede accommodation requests for disabled self-represented litigants.
• Living with a disability does not automatically mean a person lacks the capacity to instruct counsel or make decisions about their case.
• Personal injury lawyers should avoid conflating disability with incapacity, which can strip capable clients of their autonomy.

Capacity turns on whether an individual can understand information relevant to the proceeding and appreciate the foreseeable consequences of their decisions – a test that is issue-specific and can fluctuate over time.

In a landmark decision that sheds light on the complexities of capacity assessment for disabled self-represented litigants, Associate Justice Kamal of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that a party's capacity to instruct counsel and conduct litigation must be resolved before considering tailored accommodations for a disability. This ruling has significant implications for personal injury practitioners navigating cases involving disabled clients. The decision in Beaulnes et. al. v. Pratt (2026 ONSC 1722) highlights the importance of distinguishing between living with a disability and lacking capacity to instruct counsel or make decisions about one's case.

The court's decision was guided by the principles outlined in Section 105(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, which sets a two-part test for capacity assessment. The court must first determine whether the allegation of incapacity is relevant to a material issue in the proceeding and whether there is good reason to believe the allegation has substance. In this case, the plaintiffs' own record, including missed case conferences and an inconsistent position on assessments, was sufficient to meet the threshold. The decision also emphasizes the importance of considering the individual's autonomy interests alongside the court's protective role.

The decision serves as a cautionary tale for personal injury lawyers handling cases involving disabled clients. Living with a disability does not automatically mean a person lacks the capacity to instruct counsel or make decisions about their case. Capacity turns on whether an individual can understand information relevant to the proceeding and appreciate the foreseeable consequences of their decisions – a test that is issue-specific and can fluctuate over time. By conflating disability with incapacity, lawyers risk stripping capable clients of their autonomy.

Lawyers handling personal injury cases involving disabled clients should be cautious not to conflate disability with incapacity, as this can strip capable clients of their autonomy; instead, they should focus on assessing the client's capacity to instruct counsel and make decisions about their case.

Source: Original reporting via Ontario Superior Court decision Beaulnes et. al. v. Pratt (2026 ONSC 1722)