It is trite law that the solicitor-client relationship is characterized as a fiduciary relationship: Hodgkinson; Galambos v. Perez, 2009 SCC 48 at para. 36. The nature of fiduciary relationships is summarized in Hodgkinson at 405:

… it is only by having regard to the often subtle differences between these causes of action that civil liability will be commensurate with civil responsibility. For instance, the fiduciary duty is different in important respects from the ordinary duty of care … the presence of loyalty, trust, and confidence distinguishes the fiduciary relationship from a relationship that simply gives rise to tortious liability. Thus, while a fiduciary obligation carries with it a duty of skill and competence, the special elements of trust, loyalty, and confidentiality that obtain in a fiduciary relationship give rise to a corresponding duty of loyalty.

Mr. Bergman attempted to give evidence about a number of different issues. The plaintiffs objected on the basis that there was no affidavit evidence filed and they had no notice of the evidence that Mr. Bergman was giving. I advised Mr. Bergman a number of times that it was not fair and not in accordance with proper procedure for him to simply “tell his story” without putting before the Court sworn evidence which was served on the plaintiffs. I note that a self-represented litigant should be given some leeway but they must still comply with the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009 [Rules]. As our Court of Appeal has noted, “self-represented litigants do not have ‘some kind of special status’ that allows them to ignore rules of procedure”: 0927613 B.C. Ltd. v. 0941187 B.C. Ltd., 2015 BCCA 457 at para. 64. The Statement of Principles on Self-Represented Litigants and Accused Persons, (Ottawa: Canadian Judicial Council, 2006) “imposes an obligation on self-represented parties to be respectful and familiarize themselves with the relevant practices and procedures of the court process”: 0927613 B.C. Ltd. at para. 65