Court rejects blanket accommodation request in Hudson’s Bay CCAA proceedings

In Re Hudson's Bay Company, 2026 ONSC 2187
To what extent is a court required to accommodate parties to a proceeding?

Summary: In this case, the Ontario Superior Court considered whether a self-represented litigant, Robert Rene Turpin, was entitled to have all future CCAA proceedings involving him conducted entirely in writing as an accommodation for asserted disabilities including ASD, ADHD, and dyslexia. The Court held that while parties seeking accommodation must be meaningfully supported and the Court had already provided standard measures such as advance written materials, Zoom access, captions, and transcript functions, accommodation requests must still be balanced against the fairness and procedural rights of all other stakeholders. Although Mr. Turpin’s medical evidence was unsworn and insufficient under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court accepted that he had difficulty processing verbal information in real time. Even so, it rejected a blanket order requiring all matters to proceed in writing, finding that such relief would unfairly prejudice others in a complex insolvency process where oral hearings are often necessary. Instead, the Court ruled accommodations should be assessed case by case, granted a written process only for Mr. Turpin’s own proprietary claims motion where he had a direct interest, and required proper sworn affidavit evidence for that motion.

Robert Rene Turpin made various requests for accommodations in connection with the conduct of the ongoing CCAA proceedings involving the Hudson’s Bay Company (“HBC”), including that all proceedings involving Mr. Turpin be conducted in plain text/written format only, with no oral hearings or attendances (the “Accommodation Request”). Mr. Turpin was added to the Service List so that he would receive all written materials in advance of the hearings by email when they were served, and he was given the opportunity to file written materials setting out his position in advance of any hearings. He was also provided with a Zoom link for all hearings and the Zoom closed captioning and audio transcript functions were activated so that he had the option to turn on those functions on his screen, although he did not participate in the hearings. These Standard Accommodations were afforded to Mr. Turpin based on his assertions regarding his need for accommodations due to medical conditions that he has been diagnosed with, even though his assertions were not originally supported by any independent medical documentation.

Mr. Turpin maintained that these Standard Accommodations did not enable him to equitably participate in these CCAA proceedings. Mr. Turpin claimed to have at least an indirect interest in all matters involving HBC. The Applicants opposed Mr. Turpin’s request for a blanket direction from the court that all future motions (whether by Mr. Turpin or others) proceed solely in writing. They observed that they did not anticipate that Mr. Turpin will have a direct interest in the motions in the CCAA proceedings going forward, however, the Accommodation Request extends to all proceedings “involving” Mr. Turpin, which could be very broadly construed to include any proceeding that he chooses to participate in. The Applicants maintained that the default procedure for the hearing of all other motions in these CCAA proceedings should be that they proceed orally, in the normal course. The Monitor likewise did not believe it was appropriate that any motions in the CCAA proceedings, other than Mr. Turpin’s own motion, be determined entirely in writing.

People who request accommodation bear a burden to establish that they have disabilities that need specific accommodation. Mr. Turpin was a self-represented litigant who consistently stated that he had been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), ADHD, and Dyslexia, making it difficult for him to process complex verbal information in real-time environments (such as on Zoom or in courtrooms). The Medical Support that he provided for his Accommodation Motion was not sworn and there was nothing to indicate the qualifications of the medical practitioners that provided the two documents that he relies upon. Mr. Turpin’s evidence for the Accommodation Motion fell short of the requirements set out in Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The unsworn Medical Support confirmed the diagnoses but did not independently assess Mr. Turpin’s specific limitations and proposed accommodations, beyond repeating what Mr. Turpin said he required. Despite this, for the purposes of the Accommodation Motion, the Court accepted at face value Mr. Turpin’s own statements that he has difficulty processing verbal information in real-time environments and requires time to process written information. However, the Court noted that just because Mr. Turpin was self-represented and indicated that he has disabilities that require accommodation did not mean that he had a blanket exemption from having to comply with the rules of evidence and procedural rules in all aspects of the CCAA proceedings.

Accepting Mr. Turpin’s statements regarding the accommodations that he said he required was the beginning, not the end, of the balancing exercise that the court must engage in. The court starts with understanding the particular needs and how they might be accommodated, but in legal proceedings, there are two or more parties in a dispute and each is entitled to vindicate their legal rights in a fair process. The court cannot simply address the needs of one party alone, where doing so may prejudice the other parties. Accommodations sought in legal proceedings must take into account that there are other people whose rights might be affected.

In the normal course, there are very few types of proceedings that are conducted solely in writing. Mr. Turpin’s request would effectively impose a blanket requirement for all hearings in the HBC CCAA proceeding to be conducted solely in writing, which would be unfair to other stakeholders who expect to be able to deal with issues that arise in “real time”, and to have the ability to participate in the oral hearings so as to be able to engage with the court and other stakeholders as positions are taken and questions arise. The court must look at the circumstances to strike the appropriate balance in each instance where there are many stakeholders with divergent interests and rights to consider. Each case is dealt with on its merits in accordance with the facts and applicable law. The Court noted that Mr. Turpin would always be entitled to a baseline of standard accommodations but all other aspects of the proceedings would remain subject to the court’s discretion on a case-by-case basis.

The Court directed that Mr. Turpin’s motion in respect of his alleged proprietary claims in HBC be conducted entirely in writing because of Mr. Turpin’s direct and immediate interest in the outcome of that motion. The Court established a protocol for the hearing of the motion, which included requiring Mr. Turpin to submit affidavit evidence that is sworn or affirmed in front of a commissioner or notary. The Court declined Mr. Turpin’s request for a broader declaration that all proceedings involving him be conducted entirely in plain text/writing.

Judge: Kimmel J.

Professionals involved:

• Ashley Taylor of Stikeman Elliott for the applicants

• Sean Zweig and Michael Shakra of Bennett Jones for A&M as monitor