Representing Yourself in Tax Court: What Ontario Taxpayers Should Know

The Tax Court of Canada's Informal Procedure was deliberately designed so an ordinary taxpayer could show up and be heard without hiring a lawyer. Plenty of Ontarians do exactly that, and some do it well. But "you're allowed to" and "it's the right call for your case" are two different questions. Here's what self-representation actually involves, and how to tell whether your case is one where it makes sense.

What Self-Representation Actually Looks Like

Under the Informal Procedure, you can represent yourself, or be represented by someone other than a lawyer — an accountant, a family member, or another agent. The process is intentionally more relaxed than a standard civil trial:

• Simplified rules of evidence, so the judge has more flexibility in what they'll consider and how formally it needs to be presented
• A generally shorter, more streamlined hearing than a General Procedure trial
• Judges who are accustomed to dealing directly with self-represented taxpayers and can guide the process accordingly

This informality is real, but it isn't the same as "no preparation needed." You still need to prove your case — the relaxed rules affect how evidence is presented, not whether you need it.

The Case for Self-Representing

• Cost. Legal fees on a small dispute can outweigh the amount actually at stake, particularly for disputes near the lower end of the Informal Procedure's monetary limits.
• You know your own facts best. For disputes that turn heavily on your own personal or business circumstances — what an expense was actually for, how a workspace was actually used — you may be the best-positioned person to explain it.
• The process was built for this. Judges hearing Informal Procedure matters routinely work with self-represented parties and generally make reasonable accommodations to help the process run fairly.

The Case for Hiring a Lawyer, Even Under the Informal Procedure

• [ ] The legal issue is genuinely unsettled, not just a factual dispute — for example, how a specific provision applies to an unusual situation
• [ ] The CRA is defending the position vigorously, often signalled by CRA counsel being actively involved rather than the file being handled administratively
• [ ] A gross negligence penalty is part of the dispute, since the burden shifts to the CRA and the legal framing of that argument matters
• [ ] The outcome could affect future tax years, not just the one before the court, making it worth getting right the first time
• [ ] You're not confident organizing and presenting evidence persuasively under time pressure in a hearing setting
• [ ] The amount at stake, while within Informal Procedure limits, still represents a significant sum to you

If more than one or two of these apply, it's worth at least getting an initial opinion before committing to self-representation, even if you ultimately proceed without a lawyer for cost reasons.

How to Prepare If You Do Self-Represent

1. Organize your documents chronologically and by issue. A judge unfamiliar with your file benefits enormously from clear organization — don't make them piece your story together.
2. Write out your argument in plain language before the hearing. If you can't explain clearly, in a few sentences, why the assessment is wrong, that's worth resolving before you're in front of a judge.
3. Anticipate the CRA's position and prepare a response. Read the CRA's reply to your appeal carefully — it tells you exactly what you need to counter.
4. Practice explaining your facts out loud, ideally to someone unfamiliar with your situation who can tell you where the explanation is unclear.
5. Understand what you're asking the court to do. Be specific about the relief you want — a particular amount vacated, a penalty removed, a deduction allowed — rather than a general sense of unfairness.

What a Lawyer Adds Beyond the Hearing Itself

Even in a simplified process, a lawyer's value often shows up before the hearing:

• Framing the legal issue correctly from the outset, since a well-framed argument can be the difference between winning and losing on a technical point
• Identifying which facts actually matter to the legal test, rather than everything that feels relevant
• Anticipating the CRA's arguments and gathering evidence to counter them in advance
• Managing the procedural requirements (filing deadlines, required documents) so a technical misstep doesn't derail a substantively strong case

Frequently asked questions