Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.26 Ms. Milojevic, a capacity assessor, completed the assessment, and she concluded that Mr. Bon
Hillier was incapable of managing property. As a result, the
Ontario Public Guardian became the guardian of his property.
He applied to the Consent and Capacity Board for a review of the
 There was a hearing, and Mr. Bon Hiller appeared without counsel. Upon inquiry, he explained to the board member
that he had discharged his lawyer because he had been told by
the lawyer that if he was represented at the hearing, then he
would not be allowed to make a personal presentation. Without
disabusing Mr. Bon Hillier of the idea that he could not make
a personal presentation if he was represented by a lawyer, the
Board member told Mr. Bon Hillier that a lawyer could still be
appointed for him if he wished. Mr. Bon Hillier declined the
invitation, and he proceeded to represent himself at the hearing,
where he was an ineffective advocate for his own case even
though he had a reasonable strong argument that he was capable of managing his financial affairs. His presentation of his own
case was unfocused, disorganized, disjointed, incomplete, verbose and grandiose. He did not address the relevant issues. The
Board affirmed the capacity assessor’s decision, and Mr. Bon
Hillier appealed to the Superior Court.
 For the purposes of the appeal, Justice David Brown ordered the appointment of amicus curaie.27 In making the
appointment, Justice Brown stated that it was apparent that
Mr. Bon Hillier lacked a sufficient understanding of the legal system or the applicable principles of law to undertake any meaningful appeal.
 On the appeal itself, based on personal observation, Justice
Trotter came to the same assessment about Mr. Bon Hiller’s
competence to argue his own appeal. Justice Trotter said that this
want of understanding about the legal process would have been
apparent during the hearing before the Board and that what
occurred before the Board would not have happened had amicus
counsel been present at the hearing. Justice Trotter ordered
a new hearing before the Board because there had not been a fair
hearing. He stated, at para. 52 of his decision:
Mr. Bon Hillier is a 28-year-old man who faces many challenges in his life.
The finding of incapacity made by Ms. Milojevic will dramatically affect his
26 S.O. 1992, c. 30.
27 Hillier v. Milojevic, supra.