shall act in view of the following principles in any proceeding involving
an unrepresented person (particularly the subject of the application):
a. Make the unrepresented person aware of the nature of the proceed-
ings to the extent possible.
b. Explain the format of the hearing, the process of presenting evidence, and the basic principles of asking questions.
c. Ask if the unrepresented person requires pen and paper for note
d. Explain the role of the panel to the unrepresented person.
e. Instruct and assist the unrepresented person throughout the hearing while ensuring fairness to the other parties.
f. Accommodate the unrepresented person’s lack of familiarity with
the process while respecting the rights of the other parties.
g. Ask the unrepresented person if they have any questions and
encourage questions throughout the hearing where it is fair and
appropriate to do so.
5. Withdrawal from Representation
5. Rule 2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of Upper
Canada requires a lawyer not to withdraw from representation of a client
except for good cause and upon notice to the client appropriate in the circumstances. A lawyer may not withdraw if serious prejudice to the client would
result. In those cases, the Board may order counsel to remain for the hearing
as amicus curiae (in this case, friend of the Board).
H. Discussion and Analysis
 In the immediate case, R.C. did not avail himself of the
assistance of Mr. Hirtz and R.C. represented himself at the
August 10, 2017 hearing before the Consent and Capacity Board.
On this appeal, amicus curiae submits that the Board erred in
how it handled these circumstances where, to use the language of
the Board’s own Policy Guideline 2, “the subject of an application
does not have legal representation”.
 On this appeal, amicus curiae submits that the Board
erred because it ought to have appointed Mr. Hirtz to be amicus
curiae and that in the absence of an amicus curiae, the Board did
not adequately assist R.C. who was manifestly incapable of representing itself with the result that there was a procedurally unfair
 In effect, amicus curiae submits that determining
whether and when to appoint an amicus curiae is fundamentally
important to the statutory scheme that governs the Board, to
the nature of the decisions the Board must make, and to the
legitimate expectations of the person affected by the decision,
including his or her right to a fair proceeding and that the