the Board should ensure that there is a fair hearing. The result is
that the Guideline is confusing.
 The last point to extricate is that there is nothing in the
Guideline that relieves the Board of its duty to provide a fair
hearing and there is nothing in the Guideline that precludes the
Board from appointing an amicus curiae simply because an
affected party, like R.C., decides to exercise his or her right to represent himself or herself.
 In the case at bar, however, the Board appears to have felt
constrained from appointing an amicus curie because it was satisfied that R.C. had decided to forgo legal representation. Decisions
of the Board on matters of procedural fairness are reviewed to
a standard of correctness and in my opinion the Board was
incorrect in constraining itself from appointing Mr. Hiltz as
 To avoid any misunderstanding about the above analysis
and the above conclusions, I do not suggest that an amicus curiae
must be appointed in every case where a party before the Board
wishes to exercise his or her right to represent himself or herself.
There will be cases where with the assistance of the Board or
even without the assistance of the Board a person will have a procedurally fair hearing before the Board and the person will have
no grounds of appeal associated with the procedural fairness of
 Nor do I suggest that the Board should not respect a person’s wish and right to self-represent where that wish is clearly
conveyed to the panel hearing the matter. That decision must be
respected, but respecting a party’s right to not have legal representation does not preclude the Board in appropriate cases from
appointing an amicus curiae.
 Nor do I suggest that there are no consequences to a party’s decision to represent himself or herself. As the Court of
Appeal noted in R. v. Romanowicz, supra, by proceeding without
counsel, the person forgoes his or her constitutional right to
competent representation, and that has consequences. But, as
also noted, in R. v. Romanowicz, a party’s decision to represent
himself or herself does not diminish his or her right to a fair
trial or hearing. The right to a fair trial or hearing imposes
a burden on the Board to assist the unrepresented party and the
right to a fair trial may in some — but not all cases — require
the Board to appoint an amicus curiae. The case at bar was one