Keeping Tabs - Winter 2022

Q. What is your greatest
extravagance in your everyday
life?
A. Japanese knives, skincare,
and oat milk in my
coffee.
Q. What is your favourite part about the practice?
A. My favourite part about the practice, especially litigation,
is being exposed to so many different forms of knowledge.
Depending on the week, I could be working on a range of files
involving mental health, geology, or cannabis. It is a great privilege
to show up to work every day to learn something new
about the world as well as the practice.
Q. You recently represented TAS in the Anderson v Alberta appeal. Why was it important to
you to get involved in this case?
A. When I heard that a senior partner in our firm would be representing The Advocates’ Society in this
appeal, I jumped at the opportunity to get involved. The Anderson v Alberta appeal was exciting to me as I
was familiar with the underlying litigation and knew that this appeal would present a unique opportunity
for the SCC to address its inherent jurisdiction to award advance costs and in turn promote access to justice.
The decision will be significant for Indigenous communities pursuing section 35 litigation and raises
questions (that I think those of us in the legal profession ought to consider) as to how our legal system
can and should be used to promote reconciliation. The implications of this appeal will also be significant
for all litigants bringing cases of public importance before the Court. Intervening in a matter to promote
access to justice allowed me to uphold my duties as a lawyer and make an exciting first appearance at
the SCC. I hope my practice will continue to be shaped by cases like this appeal.
Q. What are some things that you learned about access to justice as a result of your
involvement in that intervention?
A. While I have always been interested in how lawyers can enhance access to justice, working on
this appeal allowed me to better understand some of the substantive jurisprudence on access to
justice. In Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC
59, the SCC affirmed that there should be “some degree” of constitutional protection for access to
justice, but exactly how that protection might look appears to be evolving with the context of each
case where the principle arises.
In the Anderson appeal, we used our role as intervener to encourage the SCC to consider (and perhaps
emphasize) the constitutional dimensions of access to justice as they clarify the advance costs
framework.
17