Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Non-lawyers are generally prohibited from representing corporations in court proceedings under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure

• The appellant corporation sought leave for a non-lawyer officer, Mr. Zarate, to act on its behalf in an appeal

• The applicant failed to provide financial documentation proving the corporation could not afford legal counsel

• Previous informal representation in Small Claims Court did not justify granting leave for higher court proceedings

• The court emphasized the separation between a corporation and its officers, rejecting the argument of personal standing

• Allowing a non-lawyer to represent the corporation would undermine the administration of justice and legal standards

Facts of the case

Tarza Construction Services Corp. o/a TCS Co. appealed a decision from the Toronto Small Claims Court dated December 3, 2024. The appeal was brought before the Divisional Court of Ontario. The central issue was procedural rather than substantive: whether Mr. Camilo J. Zarate, the self-described creator and sole operating officer of TCS Co., could represent the corporation in this appeal. Mr. Zarate is not a licensed lawyer. He submitted a motion seeking leave of the court to appear on the corporation’s behalf. The motion was heard in writing.

Mr. Zarate supported his motion with an affidavit in which he claimed longstanding involvement in the business and described himself as a “law technician,” despite having no formal legal training. He also submitted a self-authored “Notice of Profession” that declared his intention to represent both himself and the corporation in court and to bill for legal documents if forced to participate. His affidavit claimed that he could not afford an accountant to file taxes and therefore was unable to show proof of income.

Decision and outcome

Justice M. Faieta dismissed the motion. The court held that Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires corporations to be represented by a lawyer, unless leave is granted. Citing recent appellate authority, the court emphasized that such leave is discretionary and only granted in exceptional cases. The rationale is rooted in the fact that a corporation is a separate legal entity, and allowing a non-lawyer to act on its behalf effectively permits the unauthorized practice of law.

The judge found that Mr. Zarate failed to demonstrate that the corporation could not afford legal counsel. The vague claim about lack of accounting services and absence of financial records was deemed insufficient. The court also rejected the argument that prior appearances by Mr. Zarate in Small Claims Court were relevant, as those proceedings are governed by different standards.

The decision noted concerns about the quality of Mr. Zarate’s submissions and his lack of legal training. His prior experience and confidence were not persuasive. Ultimately, the court concluded that neither the interests of the corporation nor the integrity of the justice system would be served by granting the motion. The request for leave was denied.