The-Advocates’-Journal-Summer-2023
Description: An institution within The Advocates' Society and the profession since 1982, The Advocates’ Journal features articles on law and practice, in-depth interviews with leading advocates, thought-provoking commentary, tributes, and much more.
Description: An institution within The Advocates' Society and the profession since 1982, The Advocates’ Journal features articles on law and practice, in-depth interviews with leading advocates, thought-provoking commentary, tributes, and much more.
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Vol. 42, No. 1. | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong>
Arbitration Place is proud to celebrate our globally<br />
recognized roster of arbitrators and mediators<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> <strong>Journal</strong><br />
Vol. 42, No. 1; <strong>Summer</strong> <strong>2023</strong><br />
Hon. Robert Armstrong<br />
K.C.<br />
Louise Barrington<br />
FCIArb<br />
Pierre Bienvenu<br />
Ad. E.<br />
Hon. Ian Binnie<br />
K.C.<br />
Hon. Robert Blair<br />
K.C.<br />
Hon. Edward Chiasson<br />
K.C., FCIArb<br />
Tina Cicchetti<br />
Farley Cohen<br />
FCIArb<br />
Hon. Thomas Cromwell<br />
C.C.<br />
27<br />
Hon. Douglas Cunningham<br />
O.C., O.Ont, K.C.<br />
Robin Dodokin<br />
FCIArb<br />
Alan D’Silva<br />
Hon. Gloria Epstein<br />
K.C., L.L.D.<br />
Stanley Fisher<br />
K.C.<br />
L. Yves Fortier<br />
C.C., O.Q., K.C., L.L.D.<br />
Douglas Harrison<br />
FCIArb<br />
Patricia Jackson<br />
L.S.M.<br />
John Judge<br />
Hon. Russell Juriansz<br />
Megan Keenberg<br />
Hon. Barry Leon<br />
FCIArb<br />
Jeffrey Leon<br />
L.S.M., FCIArb<br />
Gavin MacKenzie<br />
David McCutcheon<br />
C.Arb<br />
John Lorn McDougall<br />
K.C., FCIArb<br />
Hon. Colin McKinnon<br />
K.C.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Rt Hon. Beverley McLachlin<br />
P.C., C.C., CStJ, FCIArb<br />
Lisa Munro<br />
FCIArb<br />
Hon. Frank Newbould<br />
K.C.<br />
Hon. Dennis O’Connor<br />
O.C., O.Ont, K.C.<br />
Neils Ortved<br />
Q. Arb<br />
Hon. Laurence Pattillo<br />
Dancia Penn<br />
O.B.E, K.C.<br />
Harry B. Radomski<br />
Joel Richler<br />
FCIArb<br />
Marshall Rothstein<br />
K.C.<br />
From the Editor<br />
3 26<br />
Town mouse<br />
Neha Chugh<br />
An all-encompassing approach<br />
J. William Rowley<br />
K.C.<br />
Peter Ruby<br />
FCIArb<br />
Hon. Robert Sharpe<br />
Hon. George Strathy<br />
Anne Marie Whitesell<br />
Hon. Warren Winkler<br />
O.C., O.Ont., K.C.<br />
To learn more about our rosters, please contact us at<br />
arbitrationplace.com/our-roster<br />
To inquire for roster member availability for arbitration, mediation<br />
or mock trials please contact bookings@arbitrationplace.com<br />
An interview with <strong>The</strong> Honourable<br />
Justice Michelle O’Bonsawin<br />
Une entrevue avec l’honorable<br />
juge Michelle O’Bonsawin<br />
Jacqueline Horvat and/et Dianne Corbiere<br />
Mentorship: <strong>The</strong> advocate’s duty<br />
Peter W. Kryworuk and Jacob R.W. Damstra<br />
6 31<br />
13<br />
40<br />
Our adversary system:<br />
What advocates don’t ask<br />
Anna S.P. Wong<br />
Classics from the vault:<br />
Some observations on the<br />
art of advocacy<br />
VIRTUAL • HYBRID • IN-PERSON<br />
Come experience our world-class service<br />
Rethinking credibility<br />
Cheryl Woodin, Anil K. Kapoor, and Sidney Brejak<br />
19<br />
Les classiques du coffre- fort :<br />
Quelques observations<br />
sur l’art du plaidoyer<br />
Joanie Lapalme and/et Michael Shortt<br />
Appointing Authority • Court Reporting • Translation and Interpretation • Document Management Systems<br />
Enhanced, Secure Videoconferencing • Flexible, Modern, Hearing and Breakout Rooms • Virtual Case Managers • Arbitral Secretaries<br />
Fundholding • Administrative Services • Catering • Complimentary Technology Advisory Services<br />
THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 1
FROM THE EDITOR<br />
THE ADVOCATES’ SOCIETY<br />
Hanging out<br />
PAST PRESIDENTS<br />
<strong>Summer</strong> <strong>2023</strong>; Vol. 42, No. 1.<br />
Editor<br />
Linda Rothstein, LSM, ASM | Linda.Rothstein@paliareroland.com<br />
Managing Editor<br />
Andrea Gonsalves | andreag@stockwoods.ca<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>: cite as Adv J<br />
Production Editor<br />
Sonia Holiad | sholiad@rogers.com<br />
Editorial Correspondence<br />
Linda Rothstein, LSM, Paliare Roland Barristers<br />
155 Wellington St West 35th Floor<br />
Toronto, ON, M5V 3H1<br />
Linda.Rothstein@paliareroland.com | 416-646-4327<br />
Advertising and Subscription Correspondence<br />
Robin Black<br />
robin@advocates.ca | 1-888-597-0243 x.108<br />
Creative Director<br />
Jessica Lim | jessical@advocates.ca<br />
Kim Burton | jkburton64@gmail.com<br />
Paintings, Illustrations, and Photography<br />
Delaney Cox: cover, p. 19<br />
Ryan Little: pp. 13, 27, 41<br />
Anna Macquistan: pp. 7, 32<br />
<strong>The</strong> opinions expressed by individual authors are their own<br />
and do not necessarily reflect the policies of <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong><br />
Society.<br />
Publications Mail Commercial Sales Agreement No. 40019079<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> is printed in Canada and is published four<br />
times a year by <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> Society, 250 Yonge St, Suite 2700,<br />
Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2L7. Distributed free to all members of the<br />
Society. Contents copyright © <strong>2023</strong> by <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> Society.<br />
Second class registration number 5941, paid at Scarborough.<br />
Contents may be reproduced only with written authorization of<br />
the authors and acknowledgment of <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />
editors do not assume responsibility for the loss or return of<br />
manuscripts, photographs, or illustrations.<br />
1965-66 J. J. Robinette, QC, ASM<br />
1966-67 <strong>The</strong> Hon. R. F. Reid<br />
1967-68 <strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice R. S. Montgomery<br />
1968-69 <strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice P. Cory<br />
1969-71 W. B. Williston, QC, ASM<br />
1971-72 <strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice W. D. Griffiths<br />
1972-73 C. F. McKeon, QC, ASM<br />
1973-74 A. E. M. Maloney, QC, ASM<br />
1974-76 P. B. C. Pepper, QC, LSM<br />
1976-77 H. G. Chappell, QC<br />
1977-78 W. S. Wigle, QC<br />
1978-79 <strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice J. J. Fitzpatrick<br />
1979-80 E. A. Cherniak, KC, LSM, ASM<br />
1980-81 <strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice J. W. O’Brien<br />
1981-82 T. H. Rachlin, QC<br />
1982-83 K. E. Howie, QC, ASM<br />
1983-84 J. P. Nelligan, QC, LSM, ASM<br />
1984-85 Peter Webb, KC, LSM<br />
1985-86 Bert Raphael, QC, LSM<br />
1986-87 A. D. Houston, KC<br />
1987-88 <strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice J. R. R. Jennings<br />
1988-89 R. A. Stradiotto, KC, LSM<br />
1989-90 <strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice Peter G. Jarvis<br />
1990-91 John F. Evans, KC, LSM<br />
1991-92 Terrence J. O’Sullivan, LSM<br />
1992-93 <strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice Eleanore A. Cronk<br />
1993-94 Roger Oatley<br />
1994-95 <strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice Mary Anne Sanderson<br />
Caroline Abela<br />
Bernard Amyot, AdE<br />
Lisa Belcourt<br />
Simon Bieber<br />
Hilary Book<br />
Sean Boyle<br />
Frank Cesario<br />
David D. Conklin<br />
Kirsten Crain<br />
President: Peter W. Kryworuk<br />
Vice-president: Dominique T. Hussey<br />
Treasurer: Darryl A. Cruz<br />
Secretary: Sheree Conlon, KC<br />
Executive Director: Vicki White<br />
James Doris<br />
Andrew Faith<br />
Craig Ferris, KC<br />
Linda Fuerst<br />
Sheila Gibb<br />
Peter Henein<br />
Scott C. Hutchison<br />
Lara Jackson<br />
Najma Jamaldin<br />
OFFICERS<br />
DIRECTORS<br />
1995-96 C. Clifford Lax, KC, LSM<br />
1996-97 Margaret A. Ross, LSM<br />
1997-98 <strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice Harriet Sachs<br />
1998-99 Michael F. Head<br />
1999-00 James A. Hodgson<br />
2000-01 Ronald G. Slaght, KC, LSM, ASM<br />
2001-02 J. Bruce Carr-Harris, LSM<br />
2002-03 Philippa G. Samworth, ASM<br />
2003-04 Jeffrey S. Leon, LSM<br />
2004-05 <strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice Benjamin Zarnett<br />
2005-06 Linda Rothstein, LSM, ASM<br />
2006-07 Michael E. Barrack<br />
2007-08 Michael Eizenga, LSM<br />
2008-09 Peter J. E. Cronyn<br />
2009-10 Sandra A. Forbes<br />
2010-11 Marie T. Henein, LSM<br />
2011-12 Mark D. Lerner<br />
2012-13 Peter H. Griffin, LSM<br />
2013-14 Alan H. Mark<br />
2014-15 Peter J. Lukasiewicz<br />
2015-16 Martha A. McCarthy, LSM<br />
2016-17 Bradley E. Berg<br />
2017-18 Sonia Bjorkquist<br />
2018-19 Brian J. Gover, LSM<br />
2019-20 Scott Maidment<br />
2020-21 Guy J. Pratte, AdE, LSM<br />
2021-22 Deborah E. Palter<br />
Cynthia Kuehl<br />
Robin Lepere<br />
Craig Lockwood<br />
Jennifer McAleer<br />
Christine Mohr<br />
Ira Nishisato<br />
Lillian Y. Pan, KC<br />
Tamara Prince<br />
Luisa Ritacca<br />
PAST EDITORS OF THE JOURNAL<br />
1982-90 Moishe Reiter, QC<br />
1991-2008 David Stockwood, QC, LSM<br />
2008-20 Stephen Grant, LSM, ASM<br />
Michael G. Robb<br />
Scott Robertson<br />
Sylvie Rodrigue, AdE<br />
Stephen G. Ross<br />
Jeff Saikaley<br />
John Sorensen<br />
Ann L. Stoner<br />
Linda Rothstein, LSM, ASM<br />
“<strong>The</strong> lawyer does well from time to time to lift his eyes from his desk and look<br />
out of the window on the wider world beyond. <strong>The</strong>re can be a too sedulous devotion<br />
to the text books of the law and I do not commend the example of Chief Baron Palles<br />
who is said to have taken Fearne on Contingent Remainders with him on his honeymoon.”<br />
~ Lord Hugh Macmillan, Law and Letters (1930) 16 ABAJ 662, 663<br />
Fearne on Contingent Remainders: It’s<br />
enough to make me give up the practice<br />
of law.<br />
I came across this quote as part of my due<br />
diligence on Lord Macmillan, whose writing<br />
is featured in this issue as part of our Classics<br />
from the Vault series. As Joanie Lapalme and<br />
Michael Shortt explain, Lord Macmillan had<br />
lots to say about advocacy that still resonates<br />
some 90 years later. His deadpan humour –<br />
just another feature of his writing that keeps<br />
us paying attention.<br />
But here’s the thing: Once I stopped laughing<br />
at poor Fearne, once I thought about why Lord<br />
Macmillan’s joke landed so well, it started to<br />
rankle.<br />
For the record, at the time of either of my<br />
own two honeymoons, I would have chortled<br />
with self-satisfied superiority at the suggestion<br />
that work invaded this closely guarded<br />
personal time. I would have reassured myself,<br />
especially when my kids were young, that<br />
I rigorously policed the boundary between<br />
work and home. As a new mom in the late ‘80s<br />
and ‘90s, I was morally certain that my survival<br />
– and the survival of my family – depended<br />
on my ability to focus only on work at work<br />
(no calls from the nanny except on her way to<br />
a hospital) and my equally strong superpower<br />
to slam the door on work once I crossed the<br />
threshold of our home.<br />
But, of course, that was then – before I routinely<br />
pasted my smartphone to my body (yoga pants<br />
with invisible pockets), jammed earbuds into<br />
my ears to take a call from a new client, threw a<br />
laptop and an iPad into my backpack, and marched<br />
to the office – reassuring myself that this multitasking<br />
routine counts as “a walk.”<br />
I am older than most of you reading these<br />
pages so, luckily, I do have some limits: I am<br />
reasonably certain that I will not be persuaded<br />
to maximize the health benefits of my walk by<br />
subscribing to WHOOP. For those not yet targeted<br />
by its online ads, WHOOP is the latest,<br />
most advanced fitness and health “wearable”<br />
available. Which means it monitors your every<br />
breath and movement – awake and asleep – 24/7.<br />
Okay. So we can draw the line at digital<br />
self-surveillance. But let’s be honest: Whether<br />
the pull is work, family, or highly choreographed<br />
leisure time (get in that workout),<br />
staring out the window or sitting on a park<br />
bench feels increasingly frivolous.<br />
All of which is a roundabout way of saying, I<br />
think Sheila Liming is on to something. Liming<br />
is the author of Hanging Out: <strong>The</strong> Radical Power<br />
of Killing Time (New York: Melville House,<br />
<strong>2023</strong>). She argues that we are all losing our<br />
“daring to do nothing much,” especially in the<br />
company of others. She calls for more, much<br />
more, hanging out: “more parties, more shared<br />
meals, more in-person gatherings, more latenight<br />
conversations, more being together<br />
in public, more cooperation, more standing<br />
shoulder to shoulder, more social revelry.”<br />
Bring on social revelry!<br />
<strong>The</strong>re’s a whole chapter on hanging out on<br />
the job, which charts the slow post-COVID<br />
death of casual, spontaneous workplace conversations.<br />
Fortunately, Liming doesn’t insist<br />
on a rigid divide between work and not<br />
work. For example, she makes the point that,<br />
yes, networking at conferences is often mostly<br />
about the “work” embedded in that term and<br />
not its first syllable – the connecting part. And<br />
she reminds us that professional conferences<br />
2 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL<br />
THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 3
CONTRIBUTORS<br />
are almost always at their best when there’s lots<br />
of time to hang out between the panels. Have<br />
you done that lately? I have not.<br />
It should come as no surprise that in the past<br />
year or so <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> Society has struggled<br />
mightily to get us back to continuing professional<br />
development in person, not just on Zoom. In<br />
our time-starved lives, I too opt for online CPD<br />
so I can fold the laundry or chop the onions and<br />
garlic for the Bolognese while I absorb the latest<br />
updates on the law of evidence. I tell myself it<br />
beats Fearne on Contingent Remainders on your<br />
honeymoon.<br />
Or does it?<br />
***<br />
Back to Lord Macmillan. Law geeks will remember<br />
that his reasons in Donoghue v Stevenson get less<br />
credit for transforming the law of negligence<br />
than do those of Lord Atkin and his articulation<br />
of the “neighbour principle.” But at least one of<br />
Lord Macmillan’s sentences is still the starting<br />
point of every novel negligence argument: “<strong>The</strong><br />
categories of negligence are never closed.”<br />
We are delighted to feature an interview by<br />
Treasurer Jacqueline Horvat and Dianne Corbiere<br />
of Justice Michelle O’Bonsawin as she describes<br />
her journey to the Supreme Court of Canada. In<br />
recognition of Justice O’Bonsawin’s first language,<br />
the interview, which was conducted in<br />
English, also appears in French.<br />
And there’s much more: a thoughtful interrogation<br />
of the tenets of our adversary system, a<br />
critique of the way we assess witness veracity,<br />
and a shout-out to advocacy careers in smaller<br />
cities. Finally, in one of his last official roles, our<br />
president, Peter Kryworuk, champions the advocate’s<br />
duty to mentor.<br />
Surely something here will spur a casual conversation<br />
with someone interesting. But if not,<br />
please go find a beach or a dock or a park and take<br />
your time to dreamily stare at the distance.<br />
THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL<br />
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES<br />
• Content: We value articles about advocacy and advocates<br />
that are topical and crackle with currency.<br />
• File format: We accept submissions only in Microsoft<br />
Word format.<br />
• Length: Although we appreciate concision, there is no<br />
maximum or minimum length for <strong>Journal</strong> articles. <strong>The</strong><br />
majority of our articles are between 1,500 and 3,500<br />
words (excluding notes), but we will consider articles<br />
outside this range.<br />
• Notes: We prefer articles without notes, but whether to<br />
include notes is at the author’s discretion. (All direct<br />
quotations should be referenced, however, whether<br />
in the body of the article or in notes.) If you include<br />
notes with your submission, we prefer endnotes to<br />
footnotes. When reviewing notes after completing the<br />
final draft, double-check that cross-references (“ibid.,”<br />
“supra”) haven’t changed because of late additions or<br />
deletions of text.<br />
• Citation format: We do not insist on a particular citation<br />
style. If you include citations, we trust that you will<br />
ensure they are accurate, complete, current and internally<br />
consistent. In particular, check that citations to Internet<br />
sources refer to web addresses that are valid as of the<br />
date of the submission. If a cited web address is no longer<br />
valid, we expect you to make note of this in the citation.<br />
Sidney Brejak<br />
Sidney Brejak is currently an articling<br />
student at Bennett Jones LLP in Toronto.<br />
Sidney studied at the University of Windsor<br />
Faculty of Law and is looking forward to<br />
developing his litigation practice.<br />
Neha Chugh<br />
Neha Chugh is a criminal, family, and child<br />
protection lawyer at Chugh Law in Cornwall,<br />
Ontario. She is a mom of three active kids<br />
and a PhD student at Concordia University.<br />
Neha is the 2022 Catzman Award winner.<br />
Dianne Corbiere<br />
Dianne Corbiere has been a bencher of the<br />
Law Society of Ontario since 2015. She is the<br />
managing partner of the firm Nahwegahbow<br />
Corbiere. Dedicated to working for First<br />
Nations, Dianne has vast experience in<br />
Aboriginal law, specializes in Treaty and<br />
Aboriginal rights, and represents First<br />
Nations across Canada, mostly in Ontario.<br />
Jacob R.W. Damstra<br />
Jacob is a trial, administrative, and appellate<br />
advocate practising at Lerners LLP in<br />
London, Ontario. As the product of generous<br />
legal, judicial, academic, military, and public<br />
service mentorship, he is committed to paying<br />
it forward through teaching, coaching, and<br />
mentoring.<br />
Jacqueline Horvat<br />
Jacqueline Horvat was elected as treasurer of<br />
the Law Society of Ontario in June 2022. She<br />
is the sixth woman treasurer in the 225-year<br />
history of the Law Society. She is a litigation<br />
lawyer and a founding partner of Spark Law,<br />
a seven-lawyer full-service firm with offices<br />
in Toronto and Windsor.<br />
Anil K. Kapoor<br />
Anil K. Kapoor practises in the areas of<br />
criminal law, national security law, and<br />
regulatory and professional discipline law at<br />
Kapoor Barristers in Toronto.<br />
Peter W. Kryworuk<br />
Peter Kryworuk currently serves as president<br />
of <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> Society. He is a senior<br />
partner and Health Law Group leader at<br />
Lerners LLP. Peter enjoys spending his free<br />
time with family and friends and a glass of<br />
fine wine at his cottage on Lake Huron.<br />
Joanie Lapalme<br />
Joanie is a partner with Fasken’s Montreal<br />
office, where she practises intellectual<br />
property law. She also teaches IP at the<br />
Université de Sherbrooke, which allows her<br />
to be exposed to – and benefit from – her<br />
students’ fresh perspectives on the law.<br />
Michael Shortt<br />
Michael Shortt is a partner with Fasken’s<br />
Montreal office, where he practises<br />
intellectual property law, as well as official<br />
language rights litigation. Having recently<br />
become a father for the second time, he is<br />
too sleep-deprived to add the customary<br />
flash of wit.<br />
Anna S.P. Wong<br />
Anna S.P. Wong is legal counsel at the College<br />
of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. A<br />
recent year spent abroad gave her a newfound<br />
appreciation for vast spaces and central air.<br />
NEW CONTENT<br />
Free Member Resource Library<br />
Only TAS Members enjoy exclusive access to this<br />
selection of archived TAS content 24/7<br />
Visit www.advocates.ca to get exclusive<br />
access!<br />
• Authorship: Include your name and email address at<br />
the top of your article. Be sure to list any co-authors.<br />
Thank you,<br />
Linda Rothstein, Editor<br />
Andrea Gonsalves, Managing Editor<br />
Sonia Holiad, Production Editor<br />
Cheryl Woodin<br />
Cheryl is a partner at Bennett Jones LLP and<br />
was called to the bar in both Ontario and<br />
British Columbia. She is a litigator with a<br />
broad civil law practice.<br />
4 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 5
FEATURE<br />
An interview with <strong>The</strong> Honourable<br />
Justice Michelle O’Bonsawin<br />
Une entrevue avec l’honorable juge<br />
Michelle O’Bonsawin<br />
On Justice O’Bonsawin’s background<br />
Law Society of Ontario Bencher Corbiere: Can you please<br />
tell us about your journey to access your nation’s teachings,<br />
culture, and language, which you didn’t really have access to<br />
growing up, and why they are important to you?<br />
Justice O’Bonsawin: I think there were many events that happened<br />
throughout my life that led me to that journey. When<br />
I grew into my teens, my family had a stronger link with<br />
Odanak. My eyes opened wider at that time, and I sought more<br />
information about my culture.<br />
Specifically, I remember one meeting that I had with Evelyn<br />
O’Bonsawin, who was an Elder from our community and<br />
a cousin of my father. She was heavily involved in the fight<br />
for Bill C-31, with regard to our community women regaining<br />
their status after they married a non-Indigenous person and<br />
the issues surrounding that. That, for me, was really an important<br />
awakening as an Indigenous woman, to hear Evelyn<br />
talk about the fight and to experience those teachings from her.<br />
And then, afterward, when I moved to Ottawa, I became<br />
very involved. It was a whole new experience, where I was<br />
able to really learn from my Anishinaabe cousins and Elders<br />
about their practices and their teachings.<br />
<strong>The</strong> other thing that was important for me was to learn my<br />
language. When the pandemic started, community members<br />
began Abenaki language teachings. I was fortunate because the<br />
pandemic, which was very difficult at the beginning, gave me<br />
virtual access to my language. I did not have that access before.<br />
Afterward, I was able to continue language classes because<br />
Odanak started offering them online as well.<br />
6 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL<br />
Jacqueline Horvat and/et Dianne Corbiere<br />
Sur les antécédents de la juge O’Bonsawin<br />
Conseillère Corbiere du Barreau de l’Ontario : Pouvez-vous nous<br />
parler de votre parcours pour accéder aux enseignements, à la<br />
culture et à la langue de votre nation, auxquels vous n’aviez pas<br />
vraiment accès en grandissant, et pourquoi ils sont importants<br />
pour vous?<br />
Juge O’Bonsawin : Je pense qu’il y a eu de nombreux<br />
évènements tout au long de ma vie qui m’ont menée à ce parcours.<br />
Lorsque j’ai atteint l’adolescence, ma famille avait un<br />
lien plus fort avec la communauté d’Odanak. Mes yeux se sont<br />
ouverts plus grands à ce moment-là et j’ai cherché à en savoir<br />
plus sur ma culture.<br />
Plus précisément, je me souviens d’une rencontre avec Evelyn<br />
O’Bonsawin, qui était une ainée de notre communauté et<br />
aussi une cousine de mon père. Elle était fortement impliquée<br />
dans la lutte pour le projet de loi C-31, en ce qui concerne la<br />
réintégration des femmes de notre communauté après leur<br />
mariage avec une personne non autochtone, et les questions<br />
qui s’y rattachent. Le fait d’entendre Evelyn parler de la lutte<br />
et de recevoir ces enseignements de sa part a vraiment été<br />
une prise de conscience importante pour moi en tant que<br />
femme autochtone.<br />
Ensuite, lorsque j’ai déménagé à Ottawa, je me suis beaucoup<br />
impliquée. C’était une toute nouvelle expérience, qui m’a<br />
permis d’apprendre de mes cousins et ainés anichinabés au sujet<br />
de leurs pratiques et leurs enseignements.<br />
L’autre chose qui était importante pour moi était d’apprendre<br />
ma langue. Lorsque la pandémie a commencé, les membres de<br />
la communauté ont commencé à enseigner la langue abénaquise.<br />
My journey has been a long one. It was not automatic because<br />
I didn’t grow up in a community, so I had to go out and<br />
find the teachings. I still have a long way to go, but it is a priority<br />
for me.<br />
Bencher Corbiere: Can you also talk about the importance of<br />
the French language and culture, and being a francophone?<br />
Justice O’Bonsawin: Being an Indigenous woman is extremely<br />
important to me – it is a huge part of my identity and community.<br />
But being a francophone woman is also significant.<br />
My background is important because, like everyone who has<br />
different experiences and a diverse background, it shapes how<br />
you look at things.<br />
Coming from Northern Ontario and being a francophone is<br />
meaningful to me and those in my community. It is important<br />
that our children speak French and that “la Francophonie” is<br />
a part of their identity. Growing up, my children watched TV<br />
only in French, and they did not learn English until they were<br />
in Grade Two.<br />
We want to live in our language, we want to learn in our language<br />
when we go to school. I did all my schooling in French,<br />
even the French Common Law program. It was only while I<br />
completed my master’s and PhD that I studied in English. All<br />
of my university studies, with those exceptions, were in French.<br />
I’ve always been of the view that if I have the option to be<br />
served in French or English, I’ll ask to be served in French. I<br />
normally speak French, but if people speak to me in English,<br />
J’ai eu de la chance, parce que la pandémie, qui a été très difficile<br />
au début, m’a donné accès à ma langue de façon virtuelle.<br />
Je n’avais pas cet accès auparavant. Par la suite, j’ai pu continuer<br />
les cours de langue parce qu’Odanak a commencé à les<br />
offrir en ligne.<br />
Mon parcours a été long. Cela n’a pas été automatique, car je<br />
n’ai pas grandi dans une communauté, j’ai donc dû aller chercher<br />
les enseignements. J’ai encore beaucoup de chemin à faire,<br />
mais c’est une priorité pour moi.<br />
Conseillère Corbiere : Pouvez-vous également parler de l’importance<br />
de la langue et de la culture francophone, et du fait<br />
d’être francophone?<br />
Juge O’Bonsawin : Le fait d’être une femme autochtone est<br />
extrêmement important pour moi, c’est une partie importante<br />
de mon identité et de ma communauté, mais être francophone<br />
est également important. Mes antécédents sont importants,<br />
parce que, comme tous ceux qui ont des expériences différentes<br />
et un parcours diversifié, tout cela façonne la façon dont vous<br />
voyez les choses.<br />
Le fait de venir du nord de l’Ontario et d’être francophone est<br />
significatif pour moi et pour les membres de ma communauté.<br />
Il est important que nos enfants parlent français et que la<br />
francophonie fasse partie de leur identité. En grandissant, mes<br />
enfants ne regardaient la télévision qu’en français et ils n’ont<br />
pas appris l’anglais avant d’être en deuxième année.<br />
Nous voulons vivre dans notre langue, nous voulons apprendre<br />
dans notre langue quand nous allons à l’école. J’ai fait<br />
toutes mes études en français, même le programme de common<br />
law en français. Ce n’est que lorsque j’ai travaillé sur ma<br />
maitrise et mon doctorat que j’ai étudié en anglais. Tous mes<br />
études universitaires, à ces exceptions près, se sont déroulées<br />
en français.<br />
J’ai toujours été d’avis que si j’ai le choix d’être servie en<br />
français ou en anglais, je demanderai à être servie en français.<br />
Je parle normalement en français, mais si on me parle en anglais,<br />
je réponds en anglais. Je pense que si nous n’utilisons pas<br />
nos droits linguistiques en français, nous les perdrons, il est<br />
donc essentiel pour moi de poursuivre dans cette voie.<br />
Trésorière Horvat du Barreau de L’Ontario : J’aimerais vous poser<br />
une question qu’on me pose souvent : « Vous n’êtes que dans<br />
la quarantaine, comment réussissez-vous à faire tout cela? »<br />
Lorsque cette question est posée à un homme, elle est posée de<br />
manière positive, mais lorsqu’elle est posée à une femme, elle<br />
peut avoir une connotation négative.<br />
Tout d’abord, comment répondez-vous à ce type de questions?<br />
Deuxièmement, comment pensez-vous que votre âge<br />
relativement jeune influence la façon dont vous abordez les<br />
questions juridiques?<br />
Juge O’Bonsawin : Honnêtement, avoir l’air plus jeune dans<br />
ma situation n’est pas toujours un avantage. C’est malheureux<br />
de dire cela, et c’est pire pour une femme.<br />
Lorsque j’ai commencé à travailler à la Cour supérieure, dans<br />
les couloirs, on me prenait parfois pour une avocate. Ce n’est<br />
pas facile, surtout quand on commence comme juge, parce<br />
qu’on a toujours l’impression qu’il faut faire ses preuves. J’ai<br />
constaté qu’il y avait des gens d’un certain âge qui n’étaient<br />
THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 7
I’ll respond in English. My view is that if<br />
we don’t use our French language rights,<br />
we will lose them. So it’s essential to me<br />
to continue with that.<br />
Law Society of Ontario Treasurer<br />
Horvat: I would like to ask<br />
you a question that I am asked<br />
often: “You’re only in your forties.<br />
How can you be doing all<br />
this?” When that question is<br />
asked of a man, it is asked in a<br />
positive way. But when asked<br />
of a woman, it can have a negative<br />
connotation.<br />
So, first, how do you deal with those<br />
types of questions? And, second, how<br />
do you think your relatively young<br />
age shapes the way you approach legal<br />
issues?<br />
Justice O’Bonsawin: I’ll be honest and<br />
tell you that, being where I am and looking<br />
younger, at times, is not an advantage.<br />
It’s unfortunate to say that, and it’s<br />
worse for a woman.<br />
When I started on the Superior Court,<br />
at times in the hallways I was mistaken<br />
for counsel. It’s not easy, especially when<br />
you start out as a judge, because you are<br />
“You have to look at the files without bias,<br />
but your background is where you find<br />
your unique perspectives.”<br />
always feeling that you have to prove<br />
yourself. I found that there were people<br />
of a certain age who were not as respectful<br />
to me while I sat on the bench, because<br />
of the age factor – because I was<br />
young, and I looked young. I was 43<br />
years old when I was appointed to the<br />
Superior Court.<br />
For me, now, joining the Supreme<br />
Court, I feel that my age is an advantage<br />
because I’m accustomed to reading a lot<br />
and I’m able to work through plenty of<br />
the material thanks to the energy that I<br />
have – not to say that others don’t have<br />
it. I think it is an advantage to be younger<br />
because of your stamina.<br />
I would also like to add<br />
that, as a woman, it is difficult<br />
to find work-life balance.<br />
It is not always easy to<br />
juggle things. I have not always<br />
been successful at it, so<br />
I don’t want anyone to think<br />
that O’Bonsawin has the key<br />
to success. I don’t. My goal<br />
is to be the best wife, mother,<br />
past lawyer, and judge that I can be. I try<br />
to balance it all, the best as I can.<br />
On being a good judge,<br />
and judicial training<br />
Treasurer Horvat: To be a good judge,<br />
one needs to be impartial. But one’s<br />
personal experience is the background<br />
that shapes the perspective<br />
that is brought to the table. How do<br />
you balance the unique perspectives<br />
and experiences that you bring to your role while also<br />
remaining impartial?<br />
Justice O’Bonsawin: For any judge, the first rule is that you<br />
must be impartial. Being a judge is your first obligation. You<br />
have to look at the files without bias, but your background is<br />
where you find your unique perspectives.<br />
Your obligation is to be neutral and to render a decision based<br />
on how the facts, how the argument, how the evidence are<br />
presented to you. You do that also through the lens of your<br />
lived experience and your perspective as a person. I think that<br />
everyone, no matter who they are, has their own experiences<br />
and perspective that they bring to the job. I don’t think it is<br />
unique to me or to anyone else.<br />
Treasurer Horvat: As an active member of the Indigenous and<br />
francophone communities, how do you see your role, as a<br />
judge, in helping to raise awareness among Canadians? What<br />
sort of engagement, if any, do you envision outside the courtroom?<br />
Justice O’Bonsawin: My role has always included being an<br />
educator. My role as a lawyer was to educate as many people<br />
as I could — people in the legal field, but also social workers<br />
and medical professionals, with regard to mental health issues<br />
and, specifically, legal mental health issues. Within that area,<br />
Indigenous Peoples were a key focus.<br />
As a lawyer, I have always self-imposed the obligation to be<br />
part of that process, to try to educate as many people as I could<br />
travailleurs sociaux et les professionnels de la santé, en ce qui<br />
concerne les questions de santé mentale et les questions juridiques<br />
de santé mentale. Dans ce cadre, les populations autochtones<br />
ont été au centre de mes préoccupations.<br />
En tant qu’avocate, je me suis toujours imposé l’obligation<br />
de participer à ce processus, pour essayer d’éduquer le plus<br />
grand nombre de personnes possible sur ces questions. En tant<br />
que juge, j’ai fait de même.<br />
J’ai parlé haut et fort de la nécessité de sensibiliser la magistrature<br />
aux principes Gladue – comment ils fonctionnent,<br />
comment ils devraient être pris en compte et pourquoi ils sont<br />
obligatoires en vertu du Code criminel. Il y a plusieurs occasions<br />
où les principes Gladue sont obligatoires, mais ils ne<br />
semblent pas toujours être au premier rang des préoccupations<br />
des juges. C’est un sujet sur lequel je continue à travailler et sur<br />
lequel je fournis de l’information. Je travaille avec différents<br />
comités et organismes pour aborder ces questions.<br />
Je ne vais pas arrêter ce travail. En effet, j’espère contribuer à<br />
la production de publications sur ces questions.<br />
Conseillère Corbiere : Nous parlons de la charge supplémentaire<br />
que représente le fait d’être la première, et des<br />
responsabilités qui y sont associées. Estimez-vous qu’en tant<br />
que première personne autochtone à siéger à la Cour suprême<br />
du Canada, vous avez certaines responsabilités?<br />
Juge O’Bonsawin : Je ne sais pas si j’ai des responsabilités en<br />
tant que telles, car cela signifierait que j’ai des arrière-pensées,<br />
pas très respectueux envers moi lorsque<br />
je siégeais à la cour, en raison de mon<br />
âge, parce que j’étais jeune et que j’avais<br />
l’air jeune. J’avais 43 ans lorsque j’ai été<br />
nommée à la Cour supérieure.<br />
D’après moi, maintenant que je me joins<br />
à la Cour suprême, mon âge<br />
est un avantage. J’ai l’habitude<br />
de lire beaucoup et mon énergie<br />
me permet de passer à travers<br />
beaucoup de matériel —<br />
ce qui ne veut pas dire que les<br />
autres ne le font pas. Je crois<br />
que c’est un avantage d’être<br />
plus jeune parce qu’on a plus<br />
d’endurance.<br />
Je voudrais également ajouter<br />
qu’en tant que femme,<br />
il est difficile de trouver un équilibre<br />
entre la vie professionnelle et la vie<br />
privée. Il n’est pas toujours facile de jongler<br />
les choses. Je n’ai pas toujours réussi,<br />
et je ne voudrais pas que l’on pense<br />
que madame O’Bonsawin détient la clé du<br />
succès. Ce n’est pas le cas. Mon objectif<br />
est d’être la meilleure épouse, la meilleure<br />
mère, la meilleure avocate et la meilleure<br />
juge que je puisse être. J’essaie d’équilibrer<br />
tout cela, du mieux que je peux.<br />
8 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL<br />
Être une bonne juge et<br />
la formation judiciaire<br />
Trésorière Horvat : Pour être un bon juge,<br />
il faut être impartial, mais l’expérience<br />
personnelle est le contexte qui façonne la<br />
perspective qui est mise de l’avant.<br />
« En tant que juge, vous devez examiner<br />
les dossiers de manière impartiale, mais c’est<br />
dans vos antécédents que vous trouvez<br />
vos points de vue uniques. »<br />
Comment conciliez-vous les perspectives<br />
et les expériences uniques que<br />
vous apportez à votre rôle tout en restant<br />
impartiale?<br />
Juge O’Bonsawin : Pour tout juge, la première<br />
règle de droit est l’impartialité.<br />
Être juge est votre première obligation. Il<br />
faut examiner les dossiers sans parti pris,<br />
mais c’est dans vos antécédents que vous<br />
trouvez vos points de vue uniques.<br />
Votre obligation est d’être neutre et<br />
de rendre une décision en fonction de la<br />
façon dont les faits, l’argument et la<br />
preuve vous sont présentés. Vous le<br />
faites aussi à partir de votre expérience<br />
de vie et de votre propre perspective en<br />
tant que personne. Je crois que<br />
chacun, peu importe qui, apporte<br />
à son travail sa propre<br />
expérience et son propre<br />
point de vue. Je ne pense<br />
pas que cela me soit propre<br />
ou soit propre à qui que ce<br />
soit d’autre.<br />
Trésorière Horvat : Comme<br />
membre active des communautés<br />
autochtones et francophones,<br />
comment voyez-vous votre rôle,<br />
en tant que juge, envers la sensibilisation<br />
des Canadiens? Quel type d’engagement<br />
envisagez-vous en dehors de la salle<br />
d’audience, le cas échéant?<br />
Juge O’Bonsawin : Mon rôle a toujours<br />
inclus celui d’éducatrice. Mon rôle<br />
d’avocate consistait à sensibiliser le plus<br />
de personne possible — les personnes<br />
dans le domaine juridique, mais aussi les<br />
Legal Accounting & Billing<br />
Microsoft 365 Integration<br />
Support & Training<br />
BOOK A CONSULTATION<br />
Everything you need to run a law firm<br />
Details & Correspondence Calendar & Tasks Financial Summary Time & Fees General Account Trust Funds Safe Custody<br />
Save &<br />
Close<br />
DETAILS<br />
180025<br />
James Stevenson<br />
Applicant<br />
Ms Sally Penfold<br />
Matter type<br />
Property Division<br />
Respondent<br />
Mr Paul Penfold<br />
New<br />
Document<br />
Respondent's lawyer<br />
Harris & Jacobs Solicitors<br />
Mr Joshua Harris<br />
Client correspondence<br />
181 University Ave, Toronto, ON M5H 3M7<br />
Critical fam law details<br />
New<br />
Email<br />
Forms &<br />
Templates<br />
IN PROGRESS<br />
New<br />
Comment<br />
Import<br />
Share<br />
Document<br />
eSignature<br />
Message<br />
Matter New Correspondence<br />
LawConnect Mobile<br />
Microsoft Teams<br />
CORRESPONDENCE<br />
TYPE ITEM STAFF MODIFIED<br />
Correspondence<br />
James Stevenson<br />
Sally Penfold and Paul Penfold Property..<br />
James Stevenson<br />
jharris@email.com<br />
Financial Statement<br />
James Stevenson<br />
Your Settlement/Property Affairs<br />
jharris@email.com<br />
Trust Statement<br />
Costs agreement - Property Settlement<br />
Letter to Mr Penfold<br />
James Stevenson<br />
Search correspondence<br />
leaplegalsoftware.ca | 1-437-900-2140 | sales@leaplegalsoftware.ca | 88 Queens Quay West, 25 th Floor, Toronto ON, M5J 0B6<br />
Send<br />
Document<br />
JS<br />
JS<br />
JS<br />
JS<br />
JS<br />
JS<br />
JS<br />
Timesheet<br />
Time & Fees<br />
THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 9<br />
9:36 AM<br />
9:32 AM<br />
Apr 2, 2020<br />
Mar 29, 2021<br />
Mar 29, 2021<br />
Mar 28, 2021<br />
Mar 27, 2021<br />
Secure Document Management<br />
Cloud Solution & Mobility<br />
Automated Court Forms & Precedents
about these issues. As a judge, I have done the same.<br />
I have been vocal about the need to educate the judiciary<br />
about Gladue principles – how they work, how they should be<br />
considered, and why they are mandatory under the Criminal<br />
Code. <strong>The</strong>re are quite a few occasions where Gladue principles<br />
are mandatory, but they do not always seem to be at the front<br />
end of judges’ minds. That is something I continue to work on<br />
and provide education about. I work with a number of different<br />
committees and organizations to talk about these issues.<br />
I am not going to stop this work. I am actually hoping to help<br />
produce publications about such issues.<br />
Bencher Corbiere: We talk about the extra burden of being the<br />
first, and the responsibilities that are associated with that. Do<br />
you feel that, as the first Indigenous person on the Supreme<br />
Court of Canada, you have certain responsibilities?<br />
Justice O’Bonsawin: I don’t know if I have responsibilities per<br />
se, because that would mean I would have an agenda. But there<br />
is a burden. To be honest, I do feel weight on my shoulders. I<br />
feel there are certain files in front of us in which, when decisions<br />
are issued, my participation will be looked at through a<br />
magnifying glass.<br />
What I would remind people of is that I have a voice. I have<br />
always used my voice, but now I am one voice of nine, which<br />
is not as easy as being a voice of one when you’re in Superior<br />
Court, or one of three in Divisional Court. So, I do feel pressure,<br />
but it is a pressure that comes with the job and it comes<br />
with who I am. I am going to step up to the plate and do the<br />
best that I can.<br />
Treasurer Horvat: What qualities do you believe make an<br />
effective advocate?<br />
Justice O’Bonsawin: First, being a good writer is really important,<br />
because it’s the first impression that I have of counsel.<br />
Well-written documents are key and, if they are written without<br />
mistakes, that’s even more important because it shows me<br />
that the person took the time to properly write something, to<br />
edit it, and to ensure it was perfect before giving it to me. So,<br />
excellent writing skills are essential.<br />
Second, make sure that you guard your reputation. I think<br />
that is extremely important for lawyers because once you lose<br />
that reputation, you do not get it back. Always be mindful of<br />
how you are dealing with opposing counsel and others in the<br />
legal community. That is especially important if you want to be<br />
a judge in the future because those who review your application<br />
not only check the references you provide but also call a<br />
number of other people in the legal community.<br />
So, make sure that you are humble in how you deal with<br />
others, and be mindful of others.<br />
Third, ensure that you have prepared your case as if it is the<br />
first case you’ve ever prepared. <strong>The</strong> reason is that when you<br />
are starting off, you prepare everything, you read everything,<br />
and you know your case inside out. You do not know what to<br />
expect on the other side. I have always lived and died by that<br />
motto: “Prepare every case as if it is your first one.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> fourth piece of advice is to know your case and not be<br />
married to the script. Make sure that you can argue the case<br />
without looking at your notes constantly. <strong>The</strong> judge may ask<br />
mais il y a un fardeau. Pour être honnête, je sens un poids sur<br />
mes épaules. J’ai le sentiment que certains dossiers sur lesquels<br />
nous travaillons entraineront un examen à la loupe de ma<br />
participation lorsque les décisions seront rendues.<br />
Je voudrais rappeler aux gens que j’ai une voix. J’ai toujours<br />
utilisé ma voix, mais maintenant je suis une voix de neuf, ce qui<br />
n’est pas aussi facile que d’être une seule voix, lorsqu’on est à<br />
la Cour supérieure, ou la voix de trois en Cour divisionnaire. Je<br />
ressens donc une certaine pression, mais c’est une pression qui<br />
va de pair avec le travail, et elle vient avec qui je suis. Je vais<br />
m’atteler à la tâche et faire de mon mieux.<br />
Trésorière Horvat : Quelles sont, selon vous, les qualités d’un<br />
bon avocat?<br />
Juge O’Bonsawin : Tout d’abord, il est très important d’être un<br />
bon rédacteur, car c’est la première impression que j’ai d’un<br />
avocat. Des documents bien rédigés sont essentiels, et s’ils sont<br />
rédigés sans erreurs, c’est encore plus important, parce que<br />
cela me montre que la personne a pris le temps de bien écrire<br />
son document, de le modifier, et de s’assurer qu’il était parfait<br />
avant de me le donner. Donc, d’excellentes compétences en<br />
rédaction sont essentielles.<br />
Deuxièmement, assurez-vous de protéger votre réputation,<br />
et je pense que pour les avocats, c’est extrêmement important,<br />
parce qu’une fois que vous perdez cette réputation, vous ne<br />
pouvez pas la récupérer. Soyez toujours attentif à la façon dont<br />
vous traitez avec l’avocat de la partie adverse et avec les autres<br />
membres de la communauté juridique. C’est particulièrement<br />
important si vous souhaitez devenir juge à l’avenir, parce qu’ils<br />
ne vérifient pas seulement les références fournies sur le formulaire<br />
de candidature, mais ils appellent un certain nombre<br />
d’autres personnes dans la communauté juridique.<br />
Veillez donc à faire preuve d’humilité dans vos relations<br />
avec les autres, et soyez attentifs aux autres.<br />
Troisièmement, efforcez-vous de préparer chaque cas comme<br />
si c’était votre premier cas. La raison en est que lorsque vous<br />
débutez, vous préparez tout, vous lisez tout et vous connaissez<br />
votre dossier sur le bout des doigts. Vous ne savez pas à quoi<br />
vous attendre de l’autre côté. Ma devise a toujours été de « préparer<br />
chaque cas comme s’il s’agissait du premier. »<br />
Le quatrième conseil est de ne pas trop s’attacher au scénario<br />
et de connaitre votre cas à fond. Assurez-vous que vous pouvez<br />
plaider votre cause sans avoir à regarder constamment vos<br />
notes. Le juge peut vous poser des questions qui vous déconcertent<br />
et vous ne pouvez pas nécessairement vous retrouver<br />
dans vos notes.<br />
Cinquièmement, je vous conseille de demander à quelqu’un<br />
d’autre de relire ce que vous avez écrit avant de le soumettre.<br />
Tous les conseils que je viens de donner sont aussi pertinents<br />
pour les avocats qui comparaissent en première instance que<br />
pour ceux qui comparaissent devant nous à la Cour suprême.<br />
Conseils aux nouveaux avocats<br />
Trésorière Horvat : Souvent, lorsque les jeunes et les nouveaux<br />
avocats reçoivent des conseils, on leur dit comment ils devraient<br />
se conformer, ou qu’ils devraient se conformer. Quelle est votre<br />
approche avec les jeunes qui apportent des perspectives différentes?<br />
Comment peuvent-ils apporter leurs propres perspectives<br />
à la pratique du droit et être assez courageux pour ne pas<br />
you questions that throw you off, and you cannot necessarily<br />
find your way back through your notes.<br />
<strong>The</strong> fifth piece of advice is to get someone else to review<br />
what you’ve written before you submit it.<br />
All the advice that I just provided is as relevant for advocates<br />
appearing at the trial level as it is for those appearing in front<br />
of us at the Supreme Court.<br />
Advice for new lawyers<br />
Treasurer Horvat: Often, when young people and new lawyers<br />
receive advice, they are told how they should conform, or that<br />
they should conform. What is your approach with young people<br />
who bring different perspectives? How can they bring their<br />
own perspectives to the practice of law and be brave enough<br />
not to simply conform?<br />
“Be mindful of how you treat others<br />
because that is how you are going<br />
to be seen going forward.”<br />
Justice O’Bonsawin: I have never been a conformist, and I<br />
have always told those whom I mentor to be yourself and don’t<br />
forget who you are, because if you change who you are, you’re<br />
not true to yourself in your beliefs and your values. <strong>The</strong> best<br />
piece of advice is to be yourself. Do not forget who you are and<br />
where you come from.<br />
One of the things I would always tell new lawyers, and I<br />
have said it at the Supreme Court with my clerks, is that you<br />
must be respectful to your legal assistant because the legal<br />
assistant is your right-hand person. That person is going to<br />
cover you and make sure you have what you need. <strong>The</strong>y are<br />
essential to your work and success.<br />
In my mind, legal assistants are at an equal level, and I’ve<br />
always treated my legal assistant as a partner. I think, unfortunately,<br />
many young lawyers tend to forget that.<br />
For me, a part of the key to success is how you deal with<br />
people. You respect people, you get respect back. If you are not<br />
nice to someone, they will not be nice to you. It all goes back<br />
to your reputation. Be mindful of how you treat others because<br />
that is how you are going to be seen going forward.<br />
Treasurer Horvat: Looking back at your legal career, is there<br />
anything you would do differently?<br />
Justice O’Bonsawin: No! No, really there isn’t. I have been fortunate<br />
to have had a great career as in-house counsel. I was fortunate<br />
throughout my career as a litigator to work on awesome<br />
files. It was stimulating. For example, I went from being a pure<br />
labour, employment, human rights lawyer at Canada Post to<br />
going to the Royal [Ottawa Health Care Group] and specializing<br />
in mental health and forensic law.<br />
I really enjoyed every moment of my career. Of course, there<br />
are things you are disappointed about along the way. I think<br />
that is normal, but there is nothing that would make me change<br />
my trajectory from where I first started to where I am now.<br />
se contenter de se conformer? Quelle est votre approche avec les<br />
jeunes ayant des différents points de vue?<br />
Juge O’Bonsawin : Je n’ai jamais été conformiste. J’ai toujours<br />
conseillé à ceux que j’encadre d’être eux-mêmes et de ne pas<br />
oublier qui ils sont, parce que si vous changez qui vous êtes,<br />
vous n’êtes pas fidèle à vous-même, à vos croyances et à vos<br />
« Soyez conscients de la façon dont vous traitez<br />
les autres, car c’est ainsi que vous serez perçus<br />
par la suite. »<br />
valeurs. Le meilleur conseil est d’être vous-même. N’oubliez<br />
pas qui vous êtes, d’où vous venez, soyez humbles et attentifs<br />
aux autres.<br />
J’ai oublié d’ajouter une chose que j’ai toujours dite aux nouveaux<br />
avocats, et je l’ai fait à la Cour suprême avec mes greffiers,<br />
et c’est de toujours être respectueux envers votre adjoint juridique,<br />
car cet adjoint est votre bras droit. Cette personne va<br />
vous accompagner et s’assurer que vous disposez de ce dont<br />
vous avez besoin. Cette personne est essentielle à votre travail<br />
et à votre réussite.<br />
Dans mon esprit, les adjoints juridiques sont des égaux et j’ai<br />
toujours traité mon adjoint comme partenaire. Je pense que,<br />
malheureusement, de nombreux jeunes avocats ont tendance<br />
à oublier ça.<br />
Pour moi, la clé du succès réside en partie dans la manière<br />
dont on traite les gens. Quand on respecte les gens, on est respecté<br />
en retour. Si vous n’êtes pas gentil avec quelqu’un, il<br />
ne sera pas gentil avec vous. Tout revient à votre réputation,<br />
soyez attentifs à la manière dont vous traitez les autres, car<br />
c’est ainsi que vous serez perçus par la suite.<br />
Trésorière Horvat : En repensant à votre carrière juridique,<br />
y a-t-il quelque chose que vous feriez différemment?<br />
Juge O’Bonsawin : Non! Vraiment, je ne changerais rien.<br />
J’ai eu la chance d’avoir une excellente carrière en tant<br />
qu’avocate-conseil. J’ai eu la chance, en tant qu’avocate<br />
plaidante, de travailler sur des dossiers exceptionnels, du début<br />
à la fin de ma carrière. Cela a été stimulant. Par exemple, je suis<br />
passée de simple avocate en droit du travail, droit de l’emploi<br />
et en droits de la personne à la Société canadienne des postes à<br />
avocate en santé mentale et en médecine légale au Royal.<br />
J’ai vraiment apprécié chaque moment de ma carrière. Bien<br />
sûr, il y a des choses qui vous déçoivent en cours de route. Je<br />
crois que c’est normal, mais il n’y a rien qui me ferait changer<br />
de trajectoire depuis mes débuts jusqu’à aujourd’hui.<br />
Trésorière Horvat : Quelle marque espérez-vous laisser au tribunal?<br />
Juge O’Bonsawin : J’espère repartir avec la réputation d’être<br />
quelqu’un qui était bien préparé pour entendre les demandes,<br />
qui a rédigé des décisions qui étaient bien considérées et qui a<br />
10 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL<br />
THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 11
THE ADVOCACY PROFESSION<br />
GO GREEN!<br />
Did you know TAS Members<br />
have the option of digitalonly<br />
delivery of <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>Advocates’</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>? Simply<br />
log on to your TAS Member<br />
profile at www.advocates.ca<br />
and opt-in for the Digital<br />
<strong>Journal</strong>.<br />
Need help? Email us at<br />
membership@advocates.ca<br />
and we are happy to assist.<br />
#GoGreen<br />
Treasurer Horvat: What mark do you<br />
hope to leave on the Court?<br />
Justice O’Bonsawin: I’m hoping to leave<br />
with a reputation for being someone who<br />
was well prepared to hear matters, who<br />
wrote decisions that were well regarded,<br />
and who moved the law forward in a<br />
way that benefited society.<br />
I hope to be seen as a value-added judge<br />
who contributed in a positive, progressive<br />
way, because I think moving the law forward<br />
is critical for the Supreme Court of<br />
Canada. To remain static is simply not good.<br />
Treasurer Horvat: Do you have anything<br />
else you want to tell the readers of <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>Advocates’</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>?<br />
Justice O’Bonsawin: I would like to mention<br />
mentorship, and how it played a<br />
key role throughout my career. I’ve been<br />
fortunate to have had different mentors<br />
over the course of my professional life.<br />
It doesn’t matter where you are in your<br />
career. You can always find and benefit<br />
from mentorship. Everyone can gain<br />
from mentorship.<br />
fait avancer le droit d’une manière qui a<br />
profité à la société.<br />
J’espère être considérée comme une<br />
juge à valeur ajoutée qui a apporté une<br />
contribution positive et progressiste. Je<br />
crois qu’il est essentiel pour la Cour<br />
suprême du Canada de faire progresser<br />
le droit. La stagnation n’est tout simplement<br />
pas acceptable.<br />
Trésorière Horvat : Aviez-vous autre<br />
chose à dire aux lecteurs de la publication<br />
« <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> »?<br />
Juge O’Bonsawin : J’aimerais mentionner<br />
le mentorat et le rôle clé qu’il a joué tout<br />
au long de ma carrière. J’ai eu la chance<br />
d’avoir différents mentors au cours de<br />
ma vie professionnelle.<br />
Peu importe où vous en êtes dans<br />
votre carrière, vous pouvez toujours<br />
trouver un mentor et en bénéficier. Tout<br />
le monde peut tirer profit du mentorat.<br />
J’ai eu un mentor pendant mes dix années<br />
de pratique en droit de la santé mentale.<br />
Certains diraient, « Non, vous êtes<br />
censé apprendre cela par vous-même, »<br />
I had a mentor during my ten years in<br />
the mental health law part of my practice.<br />
Some would say, “No, you’re supposed<br />
to learn this on your own.” But I have<br />
gained great knowledge through the different<br />
mentors I had throughout my life.<br />
For those counsel out there, be mindful<br />
that mentorship is something positive.<br />
It should not be seen as being weak or<br />
as needing someone to help you. That<br />
is something I want to share with readers.<br />
Mentorship is always something<br />
positive.<br />
Treasurer Horvat: Do you have any final<br />
words for our readers?<br />
Justice O’Bonsawin: I hope that my story<br />
will inspire others. Maybe some think<br />
that because they come from a particular<br />
community, or a diverse community,<br />
they can’t make it all the way up.<br />
I have always said that I was not necessarily<br />
the first one that people would<br />
think would make it to the Supreme<br />
Court of Canada. I worked hard and<br />
worked my way up. Everything is possible.<br />
It’s doable!<br />
mais j’ai acquis de grandes connaissances<br />
grâce aux différents mentors que j’ai eus<br />
tout au long de ma vie.<br />
Pour les avocats, gardez à l’esprit que<br />
le mentorat est quelque chose de positif.<br />
Il ne faut pas percevoir une personne<br />
mentorée comme une personne<br />
étant faible ou ayant besoin d’aide. C’est<br />
quelque chose que je veux partager avec<br />
les lecteurs. Le mentorat est toujours<br />
quelque chose de positif.<br />
Trésorière Horvat : Avez-vous un dernier<br />
mot pour nos lecteurs?<br />
Juge O’Bonsawin : J’espère que mon histoire<br />
inspirera les autres. Certains pensent<br />
peut-être que, parce qu’ils viennent d’une<br />
communauté particulière, ou d’une communauté<br />
diversifiée, ils ne peuvent pas se<br />
rendre jusqu’au bout.<br />
J’ai toujours dit que je n’étais pas<br />
nécessairement la première personne<br />
dont on pensait qu’elle arriverait à la<br />
Cour suprême du Canada. J’ai travaillé<br />
fort et j’ai gravi les échelons. Tout est<br />
possible, c’est faisable!<br />
Mentorship: <strong>The</strong> advocate’s duty<br />
<strong>The</strong> authors would like to thank their summer student and Law<br />
Practice Program mentee, Sanan (Sunny) Mirza, for his invaluable<br />
research assistance in the preparation of this article.<br />
In Homer’s epic poem <strong>The</strong> Odyssey, during Odysseus’s long<br />
journey home following the Trojan War, Athena – the goddess<br />
of knowledge, wisdom, and civilization – took interest in<br />
his success and undertook to watch over his son, Telemachus.<br />
<strong>The</strong> goddess assumed the form of Odysseus’s friend, a human<br />
elder named Mentor, offering the young Ithacan prince guidance,<br />
advice, and instruction on a quest to find his wandering<br />
father. Here, the concept of “mentorship” and the “mentor”<br />
as an experienced and trusted advisor providing benevolent<br />
guidance to a younger, less proficient pupil finds its origin.<br />
As 21st-century advocates, far removed from the mythical<br />
adventures of the ancient Greeks written 3,000 years ago,<br />
our need for a judicious, caring mentor on our own journeys<br />
through the practice of law is just as pressing. In a 2010 Ottawa<br />
Law Review article on “Mentoring the Lawyer,” Veronica<br />
Ashenhurst aptly noted:<br />
Mentorship is a central component of a lawyer’s education:<br />
it involves a reciprocal relationship between a senior and<br />
junior lawyer, fostered in the workplace or broader professional<br />
community. Today, the Canadian legal profession is<br />
devoting significant energy to creating formal mentoring<br />
programs beyond articling. 1<br />
<strong>The</strong> past dozen years have seen a proliferation of emphasis<br />
on and resources for effective mentorship in the legal profession<br />
from law firms, law societies, LAWPRO, national, provincial,<br />
and local bar associations, and <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> Society. 2<br />
<strong>The</strong>re has been a recognition that despite our hyperconnectivity<br />
over social media, real and deep connection with trusted<br />
colleagues, advisors, and mentors has been waning. Indeed,<br />
emerging from the unprecedented disruption of COVID-19 on<br />
how we worked, practised, and connected with colleagues,<br />
staff, students, and mentor/mentees, 3 Peter made mentorship<br />
a core theme and commitment of his term as president of <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>Advocates’</strong> Society. 4<br />
Yet, more is needed than resources, how-to guides, and encouragement<br />
to seek out or offer mentorship. Instead, we need<br />
to shift the paradigm of mentorship from a voluntary service<br />
those of us with a little more time, experience, and grey hair<br />
might consider offering, to a professional responsibility essential<br />
Peter W. Kryworuk and Jacob R.W. Damstra<br />
to our duties as advocates. Unlike Athena and the other Greek<br />
gods, whose interest in human affairs was often fleeting, fickle,<br />
and selfish, we believe that as lawyers, and in particular as<br />
advocates, mentorship is not an option, but a duty rooted<br />
in the traditions of our profession and the rules and codes<br />
governing our conduct.<br />
Honouring the history<br />
While the concept of a “mentor” has evolved beyond the myth<br />
of a benevolent deity investing in the success of a human beneficiary,<br />
we can trace a common thread from its ancient Greek<br />
origins to modern mentorship across any industry. <strong>The</strong> original<br />
word, inspired by Athena’s anthropomorphic intervention as<br />
12 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL<br />
THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 13
Mentor, means “mind or spirit” and “connotes a strong sense<br />
of purposefulness and agency.” 5<br />
Although the Oxford English Dictionary defines a “mentor”<br />
as “an experienced and trusted advisor,” the core elements of<br />
mentorship from ancient myths to modern advocates are similar.<br />
<strong>The</strong>y include:<br />
l transfer: conveying knowledge or wisdom from the<br />
experienced mentor to the learning mentee;<br />
l trust: a relationship of mutual respect, loyalty, and confidence;<br />
l trials: creating opportunities for learning by doing in a<br />
supervised and supported environment;<br />
l thought exchange: a forum for discussion about ideas and<br />
options to solve problems, make decisions, and deal with<br />
their consequences; and<br />
l teaching: giving and receiving constructive feedback on<br />
courses of action proposed or undertaken with emphasis<br />
on areas for growth and improvement.<br />
One resource on legal mentorship describes the role of mentoring<br />
in the profession back in the 13th century, when English<br />
judges provided for the apprenticeship of lawyers and direct<br />
mentoring was therefore the only way lawyers could learn<br />
their craft. This practice was essentially akin to our modern<br />
clerkships, which are unanimously viewed as invaluable experiences<br />
for the aspiring advocate, but the built-in constraints<br />
of such judge-to-legal apprentice relationships limited the<br />
number of new lawyers that could be mentored.<br />
From there, the system of legal education through membership<br />
in (and mentorship at) the Inns of Court developed, and the<br />
modern concept of law societies evolved. Legal education<br />
and mentorship at the Inns consisted of some combination<br />
of lectures by experienced barristers (known as “benchers”),<br />
listening to arguments in court, arguing moots presided over<br />
by the benchers of the Inn, and discussing the law among<br />
the students and benchers. <strong>The</strong> mentor-mentee relationship<br />
was inherent in and fundamental to this system of legal education<br />
and training, with more experienced benchers sharing<br />
knowledge and offering guidance and direction to prospective<br />
barristers. <strong>The</strong> Inns fostered an intimate setting for debate and<br />
discussion about legal issues and advocacy which not all modern<br />
advocates have access to beyond completing law school and an<br />
articling term.<br />
This apprenticeship-based legal education and mentorship<br />
carried over from England to the colonies in Canada. As<br />
Ashenhurst observed, when the Law Society of Upper Canada 6<br />
was established in 1797 and for the following three decades,<br />
apprenticeship formed “the heart of Convocation’s law-training<br />
program.” Since the Law Society relied on the apprenticeprincipal<br />
relationship as the primary vehicle for the professional<br />
growth of new lawyers, a future lawyer depended “upon what<br />
his master could and should teach him and upon what he could<br />
pick up” through self-study. 7<br />
By 1889, the Law Society of Upper Canada established a<br />
permanent, mandatory law school at Osgoode Hall and made<br />
classroom instruction compulsory for all Ontario law students,<br />
marking a transition in legal education and mentorship to “a<br />
hybrid of classroom instruction and articled apprenticeship.” 8<br />
In Ontario, legal education shifted again in the mid-20th century<br />
as the Law Society had largely relinquished its substantive<br />
law-teaching function to law faculties in provincial universities<br />
by 1957. 9 This change marked a shift in emphasis in the<br />
education of aspiring lawyers to substantive and academic<br />
learning at university as the predominant requirement in a<br />
young lawyer’s training.<br />
While the articling requirement in Ontario remains, there is<br />
wide variability in the articling experience, and the rich tradition<br />
of education through active mentorship in our profession<br />
diminished over time as a greater premium was placed on<br />
formal legal education in university law schools rather than<br />
practical, experiential learning through hands-on mentorship.<br />
Notwithstanding this shift, the past 50 years have seen<br />
no shortage of exceptional advocates providing exceptional<br />
mentorship. Indeed, it has been our observation that the advocates<br />
who have risen to prominence at the top of their bars<br />
have done so with the benefit of great mentorship and paid it<br />
forward through their own commitment to mentoring the next<br />
generation. J.J. Robinette is described as a Peerless Mentor,<br />
for example, in Justice George Finlayson’s hybrid memoirbiography.<br />
10 Douglas Laidlaw, a founding member of <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>Advocates’</strong> Society and namesake of the Society’s award for<br />
excellence in advocacy (and mentorship), also comes to mind. 11<br />
While we could fill many pages acknowledging great examples<br />
for us all, we would be remiss not to share our appreciation<br />
of the quintessential advocate-mentor, Earl Cherniak. Earl<br />
became Peter’s first principal and mentor in 1982 and remains<br />
a valued mentor four decades later, while also investing as<br />
a mentor in Jacob’s litigation and appellate advocacy career<br />
(among the careers of countless others over his 60-plus years<br />
in practice.)<br />
Interpreting the obligations<br />
In addition to the traditions of mentorship being steeped in the<br />
history of our profession, we can look to the Rules of Professional<br />
Conduct prescribed by Canada’s provincial law societies to<br />
ground our duty as advocates to provide mentorship. To our<br />
surprise, the Rules and similar codes do not specifically mention<br />
a professional responsibility to mentor. However, it is not<br />
a strained interpretation to argue that the duty to mentor is<br />
inherent in each advocate’s professional obligations.<br />
Chapter 2 of the Rules in Ontario, for example, focuses on<br />
integrity. Section 2.1-2 states: “A lawyer has a duty to uphold<br />
the standards and reputation of the legal profession and to assist<br />
in the advancement of its goals, organizations and institutions.”<br />
While not specifically calling for mentorship, upholding the<br />
standards and reputation of the profession implies a requirement<br />
not just to do so ourselves, but to model and impart the highest<br />
standards of the profession to the next generation of lawyers.<br />
Assisting in the advancement of the profession’s goals, organizations,<br />
and institutions also certainly demands a commitment to<br />
developing aspiring, new, and young advocates.<br />
<strong>The</strong> commentary to this rule supports this interpretation by<br />
including the following guidance:<br />
[1] Collectively, lawyers are encouraged to enhance the<br />
profession through activities such as:<br />
(a) sharing knowledge and experience with colleagues and students<br />
informally in day-to-day practice as well as through<br />
contribution to professional journals and publications,<br />
support of law school projects and participation in panel<br />
discussions, legal education seminars and university<br />
lectures [emphasis added]. 12<br />
<strong>The</strong> Rules thus encourage mentorship<br />
through the sharing of knowledge and<br />
experience with colleagues and students.<br />
What is interesting is that the Rules refer<br />
to informal sharing in day-to-day practice<br />
on one hand, and a host of other,<br />
more formal activities involving teaching<br />
and writing on the other. <strong>The</strong>re is<br />
no discussion of, let alone requirement<br />
to participate in, formal or structured<br />
mentorship. In fact, there is no further or<br />
other mention of mentorship in the Rules,<br />
aside from the specific sections dealing<br />
with an articling principal’s obligations.<br />
Chapter 6, section 6.2-2, Duties of Principal,<br />
prescribes particular mentoring<br />
requirements on lawyers acting as an<br />
articling principal:<br />
A lawyer acting as a principal to a<br />
student shall provide the student<br />
with meaningful training and exposure<br />
to and involvement in work<br />
that will provide the student with<br />
knowledge and experience of the<br />
practical aspects of the law, together<br />
with an appreciation of the traditions<br />
and ethics of the profession. 13<br />
It cannot be reasonably contended that<br />
completion of an advocate’s articling term<br />
brings an end to their need for meaningful<br />
training; exposure to and involvement<br />
in experiential and practical work;<br />
or guidance on the traditions and ethics<br />
of the profession. Arguably, articling<br />
serves only to pour a foundation – after<br />
which the need for guidance and mentorship<br />
remains and even increases as<br />
the remainder of the advocate’s structure<br />
is yet to be formed.<br />
In the absence of an explicit obligation<br />
to mentor beyond the principal-student<br />
relationship in articling, we think the<br />
Rules can and should be interpreted holistically<br />
to include a continuing duty on<br />
all lawyers to provide the type of meaningful<br />
training, work experience, knowledge<br />
transfer, and teaching referred to<br />
in section 6.2-2 to all students and colleagues<br />
more broadly, both within and<br />
beyond the bounds of our predominant<br />
firm structures.<br />
Making a mentor<br />
Now that we have seen the history and<br />
tradition of mentorship among advocates,<br />
and the implicit role for mentorship prescribed<br />
by our Rules of Professional Conduct,<br />
what makes an advocate a mentor?<br />
Mentorship relationships do not come<br />
in any one form, size, or shape. Mentorship<br />
can be part of a formal program<br />
within a law firm or organization or it<br />
can be a casual relationship between acquaintances.<br />
Similarly, mentorship relationships<br />
do not require a formal or longterm<br />
commitment or agenda. Mentorship<br />
can be in the form of periodic communications<br />
and even a single conversation. It<br />
is common for an advocate to have more<br />
than one mentor. No doubt at times the<br />
participants may not even appreciate that<br />
they are involved in mentorship. Because<br />
mentorship can occur in so many different<br />
ways, the attributes of the “ideal” mentor<br />
may also vary significantly, depending<br />
on the circumstances, perspectives, and<br />
needs of a particular mentee.<br />
<strong>The</strong> traditional mentorship model for<br />
advocates involves a more senior lawyer<br />
acting as mentor for a younger lawyer.<br />
This traditional model often involves the<br />
associate lawyer working closely with<br />
the senior partner. Mentorship often<br />
occurs within the confines of working<br />
together on files but can extend beyond<br />
a file-based working relationship to involve<br />
mentor-mentee pairs who do not<br />
Bringing experience to both sides of the table.<br />
To find out more, or book a mediation, visit briangrantmediation.com<br />
brian@briangrantmediation.com | 416.792.7772<br />
14 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 15
work together, are not in the same practice area, or are not even<br />
members of the same firm.<br />
One does not need to be a senior lawyer in order to play<br />
the role of mentor. Often mid-career lawyers who themselves<br />
are continuing to receive mentorship can act as very effective<br />
mentors for younger counsel and are a valuable resource for<br />
advice and support to the younger lawyer. Both senior and<br />
mid-career lawyers can provide valuable mentorship advice<br />
for younger advocates.<br />
Being a mentor comes with responsibilities and should not<br />
be undertaken lightly. <strong>The</strong>re are many elements to a good mentorship<br />
relationship. As noted in <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> Society’s <strong>2023</strong><br />
Mentoring Guide, a mentor may be able to help a mentee:<br />
l analyze specific or general legal issues;<br />
l explore ways to expand or narrow the mentee’s practice<br />
area;<br />
l connect with other practitioners in a particular practice<br />
area, geographic region, or demographic;<br />
l as a sounding board for ethical dilemmas;<br />
l with transitions (return to work after parental leave) or<br />
changing career paths;<br />
l improve practice management skills;<br />
l with advice on work-life balance; or<br />
l develop their advocacy style and the requisite skills of a<br />
successful advocate. 14<br />
A good mentor will demonstrate a number of important<br />
characteristics; namely, they:<br />
l will be a good listener;<br />
l will show that they have an interest in the mentee’s wellbeing;<br />
and<br />
l will be available and will give the mentee the time they<br />
require.<br />
A good advocate must have excellent communication skills,<br />
which include being a good listener. Advocates must listen to<br />
their clients, listen to their opponents, and listen to the courts.<br />
A good mentor makes the conversation about the mentee and<br />
seeks to identify the mentee’s concerns and identify areas where<br />
mentorship is needed. By asking questions that focus on the<br />
mentee, the mentor not only gains important information about<br />
the mentee but also shows that they care and want to help.<br />
<strong>The</strong> mentorship relationship is not about the mentor, and<br />
the conversation should not focus on the mentor. Professional<br />
and personal experiences and decisions made by the mentor<br />
should not be the focus of attention. What worked for the mentor<br />
might not be appropriate. Of course, where the mentee is<br />
interested in the mentor’s experiences and decisions, the mentor<br />
should not be closed off, limiting the trust that might be<br />
formed in the relationship or depriving the mentee of lessons<br />
that might be learned from the mentor’s stories.<br />
<strong>The</strong> mentor uses their own experiences, both positive<br />
and negative, to help inform their advice and counsel. <strong>The</strong><br />
mentor’s experience can be used to provide reassurance to<br />
the mentee that they are not alone in facing various career<br />
issues. It is not the role of the mentor to tell the mentee how<br />
to do things or to suggest that what worked for them will necessarily<br />
work for the mentee. Rather, the mentor will seek to<br />
understand the mentee’s circumstances and provide thoughtful<br />
advice, reassurance, and assistance as may be appropriate<br />
in the circumstances.<br />
Depending on the nature of the mentorship relationship,<br />
the mentor may be providing training related to the practice<br />
of law, advocacy skills, legal practice skills, and time- and<br />
stress-management skills. <strong>The</strong> mentor may also address the<br />
work-life balance challenges that all advocates face. In some<br />
cases, advocates may find they share a common interest outside<br />
of the practice of law, such as travel or fitness. <strong>The</strong> mentor<br />
must build a relationship with the mentee that will form the<br />
foundation of mentorship.<br />
<strong>The</strong> mentee’s mindset<br />
Making the most of mentorship is not the exclusive responsibility<br />
of the more experienced lawyer acting as mentor in the relationship.<br />
A mentee has an equivalent duty to actively engage in<br />
the mentorship process. While a good mentor takes an interest<br />
and makes an investment in the mentee’s growth and development,<br />
ultimate responsibility for an advocate’s skill development<br />
and career progression rests with that particular lawyer.<br />
Accordingly, the mentee’s participation in a mentorship<br />
relationship cannot be passive. For the mentee to maximize<br />
the benefits to the guidance offered by the mentor, they must<br />
take ownership of their mentorship and development. This<br />
means the mentee, not the mentor, should offer to undertake<br />
the administrative requirements of the mentoring relationship,<br />
which could include preparing a mentorship agreement, drafting<br />
a mentoring plan or proposed calendar, identifying target<br />
or focus areas the mentee is most interested in, requesting and<br />
scheduling meetings, booking meeting space or making reservations<br />
(as needed), and documenting the advice given by the<br />
mentor and the mentee’s progress toward established goals.<br />
Being an active mentee – or a “tormentee,” to borrow a<br />
phrase from one of Jacob’s mentors, Justice Peter Lauwers of<br />
the Court of Appeal for Ontario – also requires the junior participant<br />
in the relationship to seek out and accept increasingly<br />
more difficult or complex assignments, more responsibility,<br />
and advocacy opportunities under the mentor’s supervision.<br />
It is only by consistently venturing to the edge of our comfort<br />
zone that we are able to achieve growth. A “tormentee”<br />
eagerly (and respectfully) follows up for feedback and tips<br />
for improvement on the work they have completed or the<br />
advocacy they have performed. <strong>The</strong>y listen to that feedback<br />
with humility, and they make best efforts to incorporate their<br />
mentor’s advice moving forward.<br />
<strong>The</strong> active mentee should be well prepared for every mentorship<br />
session – whether formal or informal. When a mentee is<br />
seeking a mentor’s guidance on a complex legal case or a difficult<br />
ethical question in a formal mentorship meeting, for example,<br />
it is important not simply to present the problem and expect<br />
the mentor to offer a solution. Instead, the mentee should come<br />
prepared with a description of the issue, a selection of possible<br />
courses of action including the pros and cons of each, the mentee’s<br />
instinctive choice together with the reasons for it, and an<br />
open mind to hear the mentor’s thoughts. Merely undertaking<br />
the process of preparing for a mentorship session in this manner<br />
will make us better lawyers and advocates, regardless of the<br />
ultimate course of action taken – and will be far more beneficial<br />
than simply accepting the solution offered by the mentor.<br />
It is also important that the mentee capitalize on opportunities<br />
for informal mentorship. Drive time to or from discoveries,<br />
walking back to the office after court, impromptu lunches,<br />
and networking events with the mentor are all excellent<br />
occasions for the mentee to learn and<br />
grow. <strong>The</strong>se situations are well suited for<br />
informal conversations about marketing<br />
and business development strategies,<br />
client- and referral source–relationship<br />
management, career progression within<br />
one’s firm, participation in the legal profession<br />
or contributions to the advocate’s<br />
community, or even lessons learned from<br />
favourite (or least favourite) cases – after<br />
all, what advocate doesn’t love telling<br />
war stories?<br />
We have also found that mentorship<br />
is decidedly not unilateral – it is a twoway<br />
street. <strong>The</strong> mentor also learns from<br />
the mentee, has horizons broadened, and<br />
gains empathy and understanding of the<br />
challenges faced by their mentees. <strong>The</strong><br />
concept of “reverse mentoring” – a junior<br />
colleague mentoring someone more<br />
senior, with the intention of helping<br />
the senior colleague develop new skills<br />
and connect with the younger generation<br />
– has been around for a while in<br />
the business world. 15 Typically touted<br />
as an effective means of teaching the<br />
senior participant digital and technical<br />
skills or exposing the senior colleague to<br />
different perspectives – which promotes<br />
diversity and drives cultural change –<br />
reverse mentoring also offers the junior<br />
colleague a forum to gain confidence as a<br />
value-added member of the relationship.<br />
Just how indispensable effective reverse<br />
mentoring can be came to a sharp point<br />
in the height of the COVID-19 pandemic<br />
when our justice system shifted entirely<br />
to e-filing and virtual hearings. Senior<br />
advocates who successfully and seamlessly<br />
transitioned did so in large part<br />
thanks to their trust in and reliance on<br />
their juniors, who turned the tables and<br />
mentored the senior lawyers through the<br />
effective navigation of the virtual platforms<br />
that quickly became ubiquitous.<br />
Done right, mentorship strengthens all<br />
participants.<br />
Finally, just as established advocates<br />
have a duty to mentor newer lawyers,<br />
so too do young advocates, though still<br />
mentees themselves, have a duty to pay<br />
it forward. Unlike the ancient Greek origins<br />
and the traditional notions of mentor<br />
as the wise elder or the grey-haired sage,<br />
the reality is that each of us, regardless<br />
of our age and stage, is at least slightly<br />
innovative. integrated. iterative.<br />
further ahead on the path than someone<br />
else, with lessons learned and guidance<br />
to offer.<br />
Further, a younger advocate, though<br />
perhaps less experienced than a 30-year<br />
call or a seasoned litigator, is far closer<br />
to the current experience of an articling<br />
student or a brand new call. As a result,<br />
that younger advocate may be able to<br />
better connect with and understand the<br />
needs and concerns of a peer or a slightly<br />
more junior colleague: <strong>The</strong>y will have<br />
more recent memory of being in the same<br />
or a similar position, and they may be a<br />
less intimidating figure from which to<br />
seek mentorship.<br />
This is not an “either-or” proposition.<br />
A new and aspiring advocate would be<br />
very fortunate to learn from a variety of<br />
mentors at different stages in their careers,<br />
with different skills, experiences,<br />
and perspectives to share.<br />
Conclusion: <strong>The</strong> advocate’s duty<br />
Mentorship has always been an important<br />
part of the life of the advocate. It is a<br />
long-standing tradition. Advocates have<br />
a common bond that is reflected in the<br />
As Canada’s eDiscovery Law Firm,<br />
we combine legal analysis with technical expertise<br />
to provide end-to-end solutions<br />
that save you and your clients time and money.<br />
We Do Discovery Differently. Learn How.<br />
1-833-435-4321 | info@discoverycounsel.ca | heuristica.ca<br />
Toronto | Calgary<br />
16 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 17
collegiality and the respect we show to<br />
each other.<br />
Mentorship is a commitment we make<br />
as advocates and can be used through<br />
the course of our professional lives.<br />
Mentorship of advocates is essential to<br />
the profession, and it is essential to the<br />
effective administration of justice. It is<br />
critical that advocates continue to train<br />
and develop the next generation. While<br />
all lawyers receive a formal legal education<br />
and many receive some form of<br />
advocacy skills training, mentorship has<br />
always been and remains a key element<br />
in the development of every successful<br />
advocate.<br />
Mentorship skills are not taught in law<br />
school, nor do they form part of the bar<br />
admission requirements. <strong>The</strong>re are no<br />
explicit mentorship obligations in the<br />
Rules of Professional Conduct, nor in any<br />
statute or regulation. While mentorship<br />
is a well-established tradition of the bar,<br />
it is much more than simply tradition.<br />
Every advocate has the professional<br />
duty to mentor the next generation of<br />
Notes<br />
1. Veronica Ashenhurst, “Mentoring the Lawyer, Past and Present:<br />
Some Reflections,” Ottawa Law Review 41:1 (2010) 125–53.<br />
2. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> Society Mentoring Guide (<strong>2023</strong>); <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong><br />
Society, Guide to Mentoring (2017), online: < https://www.advocates.<br />
ca/TAS/Community_Events/Mentoring_TAS_Mentoring_Portal/<br />
TAS/Community_Events/Mentoring.aspx?WebsiteKey=06cf22b6-<br />
e7ad-4e74-b12b-196172e60ffc>.<br />
3. Michelle Foster, “Another Pandemic Loss: Mentorship,” Forbes<br />
(July 2022); online: .<br />
4. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> Society Mentoring Guide (<strong>2023</strong>), Introduction.<br />
5. Núria Casado-Gual, Emma Domínguez-Rué, & Maricel Oró-Piqueras,<br />
eds, Re-discovering Age(ing): Narratives of Mentorship (Bielefeld,<br />
Germany: Transcript-Verlag, 2019).<br />
6. Our references to the Law Society of Upper Canada are not intended<br />
to exclude other provincial law societies, but merely to exemplify the<br />
point. It is beyond the scope of this article to delve deeply into the<br />
history and development of legal education and mentorship across<br />
the country.<br />
7. Ashenhurst, supra note 1 at 135, citing William Renwick Riddell, <strong>The</strong><br />
Legal Profession in Upper Canada in Its Early Periods (Toronto: Law<br />
Society of Upper Canada, 1916), 38.<br />
8. Ashenhurst, supra note 1 at 137, citing Curtis Cole, “’A Hand to Shake<br />
the Tree of Knowledge’: Legal Education in Ontario, 1871–1889,”<br />
Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education 17:3 (1986) 15 at 25.<br />
advocates. Mentorship is an important<br />
part of the duty owed by every advocate<br />
to the profession, to the courts, and to<br />
the community they serve.<br />
<strong>The</strong> recent pandemic has disrupted the<br />
lives of all advocates, both professionally<br />
and personally. <strong>The</strong> ongoing effects<br />
have weighed heavily on all advocates,<br />
but particularly, on our newest and more<br />
junior advocates. <strong>The</strong> practice of advocacy<br />
has changed considerably. <strong>The</strong> use<br />
of technology now allows advocates to<br />
work remotely. A great deal of our advocacy<br />
before the courts now occurs<br />
virtually. <strong>The</strong> ability of advocates to<br />
interact with each other has been impacted<br />
by the reduced opportunities to “walk<br />
down the hallway” to speak with a colleague<br />
or step outside the courtroom<br />
or into the robing room for conversation<br />
with the opposing counsel or other<br />
colleagues at the bar. <strong>The</strong>se changes have<br />
not only impacted our ability to access<br />
formal mentoring but also hampered<br />
the informal mentoring that can occur<br />
when networking and engaging in social<br />
interactions with our colleagues.<br />
Mentorship continues to be important<br />
and relevant; in fact, we think it is more<br />
important than ever. Recent changes in<br />
our practice and the use of technology<br />
means that the form of mentorship must<br />
also evolve and change to meet the current<br />
needs of young advocates. All of us,<br />
as advocates, have a duty to engage in<br />
mentorship relationships.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> Society, which has always<br />
embraced mentorship as one of its<br />
core objectives, strives to promote and<br />
foster mentorship through educational<br />
programs and other initiatives that create<br />
a variety of mentorship opportunities for<br />
its members. However, we as advocates<br />
must do our part. We must acknowledge<br />
our duty to mentor and be mentored.<br />
We must make the commitment, and<br />
we must engage in the process. Being a<br />
mentor is a most rewarding experience,<br />
which all advocates must embrace. <strong>The</strong><br />
advocates of today bear a responsibility<br />
to ensure that we develop the advocates<br />
of tomorrow.<br />
9. Ashenhurst, supra note 1 at 137, citing C Ian Kyer and Jerome E<br />
Bickenbach, <strong>The</strong> Fiercest Debate: Cecil A. Wright, the Benchers, and Legal<br />
Education in Ontario 1923–1957 (Toronto: <strong>The</strong> Osgoode Society, 1987).<br />
10. George D Finlayson, John J. Robinette, Peerless Mentor: An Appreciation<br />
(Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2003).<br />
11. <strong>The</strong> Douglas K. Laidlaw Medal for Excellence in Advocacy; online:<br />
.<br />
12. See also Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia, s 2.2-2 (BC Code);<br />
Law Society of Alberta Code of Conduct, s 2.1-2 (Alberta Code); Nova Scotia<br />
Barristers’ Society Code of Professional Conduct, s 2.1-1 (NS Code). <strong>The</strong><br />
other provincial law societies have identical or similar provisions in<br />
their Rules or Codes.<br />
13. See also BC Code, s 6.2-2; Alberta Code, s 6.2-2; NS Code, s 6.2-2.<br />
14. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> Society Mentoring Guide (<strong>2023</strong>) at 7.<br />
Generational Learning and Developing Millennial Leaders,” Human<br />
Resource Management 51:4 (July/August 2012); Jennifer Jordan and<br />
Michael Sorell, “Why Reverse Mentoring Works and How to Do It<br />
Right,” Harvard Business Review (Oct. 2019); online: ;<br />
Maggie Wooll, “Reverse Mentorship Is One More Key to<br />
Developing and Retaining Top Talent, BetterUp (Jan. 14, 2022); online:<br />
.<br />
Rethinking credibility<br />
Cheryl Woodin, Anil K. Kapoor, and Sidney Brejak<br />
What is credibility? What are we assessing when we<br />
conclude that a witness is credible?<br />
In this article, we explain that credibility is an assessment<br />
of demeanour; nothing more, nothing less. As such,<br />
credibility is a questionable metric to assess a witness’s truthfulness.<br />
Instead, trial courts should focus on the reliability of<br />
evidence to determine truthfulness. We need to appreciate<br />
the weakness of credibility assessments against the relative<br />
strength of reliability assessments in determining the truthfulness<br />
of witnesses to improve how we make factual findings.<br />
Assessing credibility has been an essential building block<br />
of our trial system for a long time. When a witness takes the<br />
stand, a trier of fact assesses not only the content of their<br />
CONTEMPORARY ADVOCACY<br />
evidence but also whether the witness is credible: Can the<br />
witness be believed? Historically, credibility played a foundational<br />
role in our justice system. <strong>The</strong> pandemic has caused<br />
a reassessment of many of our long-held views, such as the<br />
value of in-person trials. Credibility is similarly in need of a<br />
reassessment.<br />
Credibility assessments may serve as an impediment to just<br />
and fair outcomes by unfairly focusing the trier of fact on the<br />
manner and form of a witness’s evidence. Judges and lawyers<br />
must recognize the fallibility of credibility assessments and<br />
search for better alternatives, such as deciding cases on a paper<br />
record that focuses on an objective assessment of reliability.<br />
Where the trier of fact is a jury, we urge a reconsideration of<br />
our standard jury instruction to no longer direct jurors to apply<br />
their common sense of whether a witness is telling the truth<br />
because that condones a resort to prejudice and stereotypes<br />
which are unreliable predictors of veracity.<br />
Ultimately, we urge a critical examination of whether credibility<br />
assessments actually create fairer outcomes in our justice<br />
system. We doubt they do. Credibility in the way we have long<br />
viewed it should no longer hold a front seat in the courtroom.<br />
Background and definitions<br />
History of credibility and demeanour<br />
Demeanour has always been seen as integral to assessing a witness’s<br />
credibility and has deep roots in the Anglo-Canadian<br />
legal system. In England, as far back as the 1600s, in Fenwick’s<br />
Trial, counsel for the accused objected to the consideration of a<br />
sworn hearsay statement, arguing: “Our law requires persons<br />
to appear and give their testimony viva voce; and we see that<br />
their testimony appears credible, or not, by their very countenances,<br />
and the manner of their delivery.” 1 In Canada in the<br />
1880s, Chief Justice Ritchie in McKay v Glen wrote that “the<br />
demeanour and manner of the witnesses are very material elements<br />
in judging of their credibility.” 2<br />
<strong>The</strong>se historical roots influence modern Canadian jurisprudence,<br />
as courts across the county have accepted the usefulness<br />
of credibility when deciding the believability of witnesses. In<br />
R v NS, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the ability<br />
to see a witness’s face is an important feature of a fair trial,<br />
and that “[c]hanges in a witness’s demeanour can be highly<br />
instructive.” 3 Respectfully, demeanour is possibly the least<br />
reliable metric by which to consider a witness’s evidence.<br />
18 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 19
Definitions: Reliability, credibility, and demeanour<br />
<strong>The</strong> meanings of reliability, credibility, and demeanour are at<br />
the heart of this discussion. <strong>The</strong> Supreme Court of Canada in<br />
R v GF described reliability as a witness’s ability to observe,<br />
recall, and recount events accurately. 4 Courts often look to a<br />
number of objective factors to assess the reliability of testimonial<br />
evidence, including whether the witness’s evidence<br />
is internally consistent, consistent with the documentary<br />
evidence, or consistent with the evidence of other witnesses;<br />
whether the witness has sufficient power of recollection<br />
and recall, including the circumstances in which the observation<br />
was made; and whether the witness had an opportunity<br />
and ability to observe the factual matters about which<br />
they testified. 5<br />
Reliability is not a scientific measurement; the trier of fact<br />
has a broad discretion in determining to what extent a witness’s<br />
reliability is impacted by the presence of bolstering or<br />
diminishing factors. However, the strength of reliability is it<br />
subjects a witness’s story to an objective examination of its<br />
consistency with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole<br />
as shown by the evidence to be in existence at the time. 6<br />
<strong>The</strong> Supreme Court of Canada has defined credibility as<br />
a witness’s sincerity or honesty – essentially, the witness’s<br />
willingness to speak the truth as they believe it to be. 7 Credibility<br />
is often assessed by observing the demeanour of the<br />
witness. In R v NS, the Supreme Court of Canada described<br />
demeanour as how a witness gives their evidence and responds<br />
to cross-examination; in her dissent on another issue, Justice<br />
Abella characterized demeanour as “every visible or audible<br />
form of self-expression manifested, whether fixed or variable,<br />
voluntary or involuntary, simple or complex.” 8 Courts often<br />
rely on a witness’s eye contact, forthrightness, confidence, and<br />
tone/volume of voice when observing demeanour.<br />
Credibility and reliability are distinct concepts, with credibility<br />
being determined primarily by a witness’s demeanour<br />
and conduct when testifying. <strong>The</strong> fact that a witness deemed<br />
credible may still give unreliable evidence is illustrative of the<br />
distinctiveness of the two concepts. As one judge in British<br />
Columbia put it, “credibility addresses whether a witness is<br />
lying, whereas reliability is about honest mistakes.” 9 Another<br />
approach, one which appears to be implicitly used in many<br />
trial decisions, is that credibility is a global determination of<br />
the believability of a witness and therefore encompasses both<br />
the sincerity and the accuracy of the testimony. Put mathematically<br />
“credibility = reliability + demeanour.” 10<br />
Justice Watt put the difference this way:<br />
Credibility and reliability are different. Credibility has to<br />
do with a witness’s veracity, reliability with the accuracy<br />
of the witness’s testimony. Accuracy engages consideration<br />
of the witness’s ability to accurately<br />
i. observe;<br />
ii. recall; and<br />
iii. recount events in issue.<br />
Any witness whose evidence on an issue is not credible cannot<br />
give reliable evidence on the same point. Credibility, on the<br />
other hand, is not a proxy for reliability: a credible witness may<br />
give unreliable evidence. 11<br />
Regardless of the approach, it is apparent that factors which<br />
go to assessing credibility are multi-faceted and include the<br />
unspoken criterion of a trier of fact’s belief of how an honest<br />
person comports themselves – the badges of honesty.<br />
Courts often use the same factors to assess both credibility<br />
and reliability, and they have not created a list of factors<br />
exclusive to either concept. For example, inconsistencies can<br />
lead a trier of fact to doubt the honesty of a witness or doubt<br />
the accuracy of their evidence. 12 Similarly, if a witness has an<br />
interest in the outcome of the case, one can view their sincerity<br />
or the accuracy of their evidence as tainted. However, a closer<br />
look at the factors that go to assessing credibility and reliability<br />
reveal that all factors, except for demeanour, can be, and should<br />
be, considered as going to reliability, rather than credibility.<br />
Reliability requires an objective assessment of the witness’s<br />
evidence, testing it against the other evidence on the record and<br />
its consistency with the surrounding probabilities with respect<br />
to the facts of the case. It mandates justification and logical coherency.<br />
If a factor is viewed through the prism of credibility,<br />
however, the evidence becomes susceptible to the subjective<br />
point of view of the trier of fact and their personal belief of what<br />
an honest and sincere witness should look like.<br />
However, demeanour is the only factor that can be said to<br />
exclusively go to credibility, as no method exists to assess<br />
demeanour objectively. 13 Although experts are often used to<br />
provide an objective explanation for the behaviour of specific<br />
types of witnesses – such as sexual assault complainants –<br />
experts cannot be used to explain the behaviour of a specific<br />
witness in any given case. <strong>The</strong> demeanour of a witness can<br />
be assessed only from the subjective point of view of the trier<br />
of fact, leaving it as the only factor that cannot fall under the<br />
objective supervision of reliability.<br />
Limits of assessing demeanour<br />
Permitting an assessment of demeanour to determine credibility<br />
allows triers of fact to rely on their own prejudices,<br />
stereotypes, and subconscious understanding of what a truthful<br />
person looks like – all impermissible and pernicious. <strong>The</strong>re<br />
is no demeanour that universally demonstrates veracity; demeanour<br />
is not diagnostic. In 1952, the British Columbia Court<br />
of Appeal wrote: “[I]f a trial judge’s finding of credibility is<br />
to depend solely on which person he thinks made the better<br />
appearance of sincerity in the witness box, we are left with a<br />
purely arbitrary finding and justice would then depend upon<br />
the best actors in the witness box.” 14<br />
Demeanour is a poor indicator of honesty or truthfulness.<br />
Every day, people are duped by a smooth-talking con artist,<br />
or they attribute malicious intent to an honest person merely<br />
because something “just feels off.” Some people can’t help<br />
that their demeanour does not align with the fact that they<br />
are telling the truth. Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Talking to<br />
Strangers, defines these people as “mismatched” – their external<br />
behaviour and demeanour do not match with their inner<br />
character or state of mind. 15 Without a doubt, all counsel can<br />
think of a client or potential witness who was mismatched and<br />
dreaded taking the stand because, regardless of how truthful<br />
they were, they present like a liar. As one judge of the Tax<br />
Court of Canada recounted, “I have seen some accomplished<br />
liars who will look you straight in the eye and come out with<br />
the most blatant falsehoods in a confident, forthright and frank<br />
way, whereas there are honest witnesses who will avoid eye<br />
contact, stammer, hesitate, contradict themselves, and end up<br />
with their evidence in a complete shambles.” 16<br />
We are terrible at detecting lies<br />
<strong>The</strong> unreliability of demeanour is borne<br />
out in empirical research. 17 When it<br />
comes to detecting lies, the accuracy<br />
of the average person is no better than<br />
chance – flipping a coin yields a similar<br />
outcome. 18 <strong>The</strong> rate is not much better<br />
for so-called “professional lie catchers”<br />
(e.g., police officers, customs officers,<br />
judges) who succeed in sorting truth<br />
from a lie only about 56 percent of the<br />
time. 19 <strong>The</strong> reason for this is, contrary to<br />
popular belief, there are no telltale signs<br />
of a liar; and those behaviours that are<br />
commonly associated with either lying<br />
or telling the truth are easily faked.<br />
Behaviours associated with lying, such<br />
as shifting in one’s seat or fidgeting,<br />
stuttering, or hesitation while speaking,<br />
or breaking or failing to maintain eye<br />
contact, are also signs of genuine stress<br />
or anxiety. 20 It is impossible to determine<br />
if those behaviours are because the<br />
witness is lying or otherwise reacting to<br />
the stressful, uncomfortable, and sometimes<br />
embarrassing process of testifying.<br />
An average person will experience<br />
these behaviours more readily in the<br />
artificial and unfamiliar environment<br />
of a courtroom while being subjected to<br />
IN FUTURE CARE COSTING,<br />
EXPERIENCE<br />
MATTERS<br />
For over 25 years, Carol Bierbrier & Associates’<br />
(CBA) primary focus has been life care<br />
planning. Our large team of Certified Life<br />
Care Planners have unique and diverse<br />
clinical backgrounds. Our collective experience<br />
and adherence to high standards of practice<br />
ensure the highest quality report for a variety<br />
of diagnoses and circumstances.<br />
rigorous cross-examination by someone<br />
who seeks to portray them as either a liar<br />
or unreliable.<br />
<strong>The</strong> influence of culture<br />
and the threat of stereotype<br />
Culture and stereotypes also play an outsized<br />
role in assessing demeanour. This<br />
was affirmed by the Court of Appeal for<br />
Ontario in R v GMC, where it held that<br />
“demeanour is of limited value because<br />
it can be affected by many factors including<br />
the culture of the witness [and]<br />
stereotypical attitudes …” 21 An individual’s<br />
culture, background, and manner of being<br />
raised affect how they speak, which<br />
includes how they regulate the tone/<br />
volume of speech; and how they behave,<br />
which includes displaying emotion,<br />
body language, and gaze. 22 For example,<br />
judges often look to eye contact and<br />
posture while speaking when assessing<br />
the credibility of a witness – maintaining<br />
eye contact and speaking confidently is<br />
generally seen as bolstering credibility,<br />
whereas a lack of eye contact and speaking<br />
timidly diminishes credibility. However,<br />
contrary to these Western norms, in some<br />
cultures direct eye contact and a tall<br />
posture while speaking to someone in<br />
1-866-314-7335 cbafuturecare.com<br />
authority is seen to represent defiance<br />
and disrespect, not honesty. 23<br />
Confirmation bias<br />
Because a trier of fact assesses demeanour<br />
by how they “feel” the witness presented/performed<br />
on the stand, using<br />
demeanour to assess credibility risks<br />
triggering confirmation bias – the tendency<br />
to cherry-pick evidence that confirms<br />
existing beliefs, and to disregard<br />
counter-evidence. However, while triers<br />
of fact must always guard against falling<br />
prey to confirmation bias, permitting the<br />
assessment of demeanour allows for confirmation<br />
bias to threaten trial fairness.<br />
For example, in R v S(W), the trial judge<br />
believed the complainant’s evidence<br />
solely on the basis of her demeanour and<br />
then proceeded to ignore the absence of<br />
confirmatory evidence, and the credibility<br />
of witnesses who contradicted the<br />
complainant. 24 While the trial judge’s<br />
confirmation bias in R v S(W) was reversed<br />
on appeal, it was only because<br />
the error was apparent in their reasons.<br />
In most cases, the presence of confirmation<br />
bias is clear in the reasons, or, in the<br />
case of jury trials, completely invisible.<br />
To be clear, the presence or absence<br />
20 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 21
Expedite scheduling with the most respected mediators & arbitrators from across the province, free at<br />
www.OntarioMediators.org<br />
Bruce Ally<br />
Leanne Andree Deborah Anschell Todd Archibald Harold Arkin Steven Atkinson Larry Banack Rohan Bansie Louise Barrington<br />
Bruce Lee Paul Lo Presti Ivan Luxenberg Barbara Martyn Hon. Colin McKinnon Hon. Beverly McLachlin Richard McLaren Derry Millar<br />
Marcel Mongeon<br />
Roger Beaudry<br />
Elizabeth Bennett-Martin<br />
Colm Brannigan John Burnes<br />
Esther Cantor Harold Cares Bryan Carroll<br />
Earl Cherniak<br />
Kevin Cleghorn<br />
Jeff Morris<br />
Warren Morris Bernard Morrow Paul Muirhead Judy Neger<br />
Joy Noonan<br />
Shari Novick Hon. Dennis O’Connor Brian Parnega<br />
Jonathan Cooper<br />
Vance Cooper<br />
Hon. Doug Cunningham Ronald Dash Scott Densem Andrew Diamond Jon Fidler<br />
Barry Fisher<br />
Gary Furlong<br />
Kathryn Podrebarac<br />
Donna Ranger<br />
Leslie Reaume<br />
Connie Reeve Mitchell Rose Dan Rosenkrantz Jay Rudolph Richard Sadowski Marcela Saitua<br />
Steve Gaon<br />
Hon. Richard Gates<br />
Lyon Gilbert<br />
Duncan Glaholt<br />
Frank Gomberg<br />
Brian Grant<br />
Charles Harnick<br />
Cliff Hendler<br />
Lawrence Herman<br />
Philippa Samworth Eric Schjerning Michael Schmidt Marshall Schnapp Linda Schneider Jarvis Scott<br />
Ian Stauffer Albert Suissa Joseph Sullivan<br />
Dana Hirsh<br />
Marvin Huberman<br />
Ian Hull Paul Iacono Peter Israel Kumail Karimjee Kathleen Kelly Stephen Kelly Lisa Langevin<br />
Sidney Troister<br />
Greg Wade Helen Walt Allyson Webster Rick Weiler Kimberly Whaley Tony Zuber<br />
Reserve appointments in seconds, or search for the ideal neutral for<br />
your case by case expertise, qualifications or preferred date availability<br />
Our association website is entirely FREE to law firms, funding provided by our membership.<br />
CADN is affiliated with NADN.org, the premier invite-only ADR association in the U.S.<br />
Outside of Ontario? Please visit our national directory of over<br />
170 160 top litigator-rated Mediators & Arbitrators at<br />
www.Mediators.ca
of confirmatory evidence is neither necessary nor required to<br />
assess the reliability of a witness’s story, especially in sexual<br />
assault cases or for so-called “unsavory witnesses.” Reliability<br />
is assessed based on the totality of evidence, and confirmatory<br />
evidence is one factor among many that may be considered<br />
and weighed. <strong>The</strong> Court of Appeal for Ontario in R v S(W)<br />
recognized this when it noted that “confirmatory evidence or<br />
corroboration is no longer required to support a conviction but its<br />
absence from this case is significant in the light of the considerable<br />
evidence contradicting the appellant’s allegations.”<br />
Appellate review<br />
Unfortunately, unless it is obvious in a trial judge’s reasons,<br />
like it was in R v S(W), the improper use of demeanour will<br />
go undetected. Because of the deference appellate courts<br />
give to a trial judge’s assessment of credibility, the use of<br />
demeanour in ways which undermine the administration of<br />
justice and threaten trial fairness are all but immune from<br />
appellate review. Conversely, reliability is far more easily reviewable<br />
by appellate courts, as it is based on an objective<br />
assessment of the whole of the evidence rather than a trial<br />
judge’s subjective assessment.<br />
However, in recent years, appellate courts have chipped<br />
away at the importance of demeanour in assessing credibility. 25<br />
Although R v NS still stands as binding authority that the demeanour<br />
of a witness can be instructive, appellate courts have<br />
gingerly sought to limit its impact by holding that relying solely<br />
on demeanour or giving undue weight to demeanour is a<br />
reviewable error. 26 Slowly but surely, the use of demeanour is<br />
fading. To draw on the phrase that is at the heart of Canadian<br />
evidence law, the prejudicial effect of demeanour evidence<br />
clearly far outweighs any probative value it may have.<br />
In sum, what is credibility if it is not an assessment of demeanour?<br />
<strong>The</strong> veracity of the witness is assessed by asking whether<br />
the witness seemed believable. This surrenders the assessment<br />
of credibility to the common sense of the trier of fact<br />
which, respectfully, allows for impermissible stereotypes and<br />
prejudices to influence the trier of fact’s assessment of the evidence.<br />
If we control for demeanour, that is to say eliminate any<br />
consideration of it from the credibility assessment, we will see<br />
that there remains precious little left to the credibility assessment.<br />
By definition credibility is about the witness’s honesty, not<br />
their reliability/accuracy. It directs the trier to assess the witness<br />
by the trier’s own sense of what a credible witness is like. It is<br />
almost entirely an assessment of manner, form, and demeanour.<br />
By contrast, reliability is about accuracy and, where available,<br />
confirmation, which ought to be the issue in any trial.<br />
<strong>The</strong> path forward<br />
Fair adjudication from a paper record: Summary judgment<br />
Despite the confusion that exists about how the concepts of<br />
reliability, credibility, and demeanour relate to each other, we<br />
see that the testimony of a witness can be assessed by a trier of<br />
fact both objectively (reliability) and subjectively (demeanour).<br />
This distinction is an important one when we recognize the<br />
frailties of a trier’s subjective assessment. It is also a useful one<br />
to build upon as we consider how to create the fairest possible<br />
outcomes in our adversarial system.<br />
One way to eliminate any reliance on demeanour is to determine<br />
disputes on a paper record.<br />
In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v Mauldin<br />
heralded a paradigm shift in civil litigation. 27 <strong>The</strong> case concerned<br />
the application of new fact-finding powers granted<br />
to motion judges in Ontario on summary judgment motions<br />
to weigh evidence, draw inferences, and evaluate credibility<br />
entirely from the paper record. 28 On a motion for summary<br />
judgment, the record is usually made up of affidavits and<br />
cross-examination on those affidavits before an official examiner.<br />
Regarding the new fact-finding powers, including the<br />
ability to evaluate credibility, the Supreme Court of Canada<br />
was clear that a documentary record “is often sufficient to resolve<br />
material issues fairly and justly.” 29<br />
If necessary, to support the fact-finding powers, a motion<br />
judge may order a witness give viva voce evidence – this is<br />
often done when the motion judge does not feel confident that<br />
they can fairly assess credibility where credibility is important<br />
to determining key issues. It could be argued that this power<br />
cuts against the proposition that seeing and hearing a witness<br />
testify is of limited value. However, a close look at the jurisprudence<br />
suggests otherwise. When a motion judge decides to<br />
hear oral evidence on a summary judgment motion, it is often<br />
to test the reliability of the witness and their evidence. 30 In fact,<br />
motion judges have rejected using this power where the only<br />
apparent reason is to observe the demeanour of the witness<br />
while they testify. For example, in the 2019 summary judgement<br />
decision Pavlovic v Vankar, Justice Nightingale declined<br />
to hear oral evidence from witnesses to assess their demeanour,<br />
noting the distorting effects of culture, stereotype, and the<br />
artificiality and pressure of the courtroom. 31 Similarly, other<br />
motion judges have found that little is gained from an oral<br />
hearing if its only purpose is to assess demeanour. 32<br />
<strong>The</strong> expanded summary judgment powers, and the guidance<br />
from the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak, illustrate that<br />
the old way of interrogating a witness in open court in front of<br />
the trier of fact may be an antiquated approach in our modern<br />
understanding of justice and fairness – or, in the words of the<br />
Court, “the standard for fairness is not whether the procedure<br />
is as exhaustive as a trial, but whether it gives the judge<br />
confidence that she can find the necessary facts and apply the<br />
relevant legal principles so as to resolve the dispute.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> need for better jury charges<br />
In many criminal matters, the fact-finding mission is undertaken<br />
by juries who are not legally trained. <strong>The</strong> present jury<br />
instruction needs to be revised to eliminate an instruction that<br />
directs jurors to rely on their own prejudices and stereotypes.<br />
Our present jury charges explicitly instruct jurors to use their<br />
own “common sense” when observing witness testimony as a<br />
guide to determine if the witness is believable. For example, in<br />
Ontario our standard instruction tells jurors to “use the same<br />
common sense that you use every day in deciding whether<br />
people know what they are talking about and whether they are<br />
telling the truth” and suggests that the jurors ask themselves,<br />
Did the witness seem honest? and What was the witness’s manner<br />
when he/she testified? Respectfully, permitting a juror’s<br />
common sense as a standard to assess credibility opens the door<br />
for jurors to rely upon their own prejudices and stereotypes to assess<br />
if the witness meets the juror’s common sense test of how an<br />
honest, truthful person would testify. It is an invitation to permit<br />
reliance on demeanour.<br />
We trust jurors to be diligent fact finders,<br />
to seriously consider and weigh all the<br />
evidence before them, and to return<br />
a verdict based on the evidence. It follows<br />
that we ought to steel jurors against<br />
relying on demeanour and their common<br />
sense to reveal whether someone<br />
is lying, even if some will not follow the<br />
instruction. This is because it is right to<br />
do so because there is no common sense<br />
understanding of how to tell if someone<br />
is lying. Rather, jurors should be asked<br />
Notes<br />
1. Fenwick’s Trial (1696), 13 Cobb. St. Tr. 537 (Parl.).<br />
2. McKay v Glen (1880), 3 SCR 641.<br />
3. R v NS, 2012 SCC 72 at paras 21–26.<br />
4. R v GF, 2021 SCC 20 at para 82.<br />
5. See, e.g., Wilson v Sinclair, 2022 ONSC 2154, para 18, for a more<br />
extensive list of credibility and reliability factors.<br />
6. Faryna v Chorny (1951), [1952] 2 DLR 354 (BCCA).<br />
7. R v GF, 2021 SCC 20 at para 82; R v Morrissey (1995), 22 OR (3d) 514<br />
(CA).<br />
8. R v NS, 2012 SCC 72 at paras 25, 98.<br />
9. R v PMM, 2019 BCPC 92 at para 67, cited favourably in R v Plehanov,<br />
2019 BCCA 462 at para 51.<br />
10. See, e.g., Kim v Baldonero, 2022 BCSC 167 at para 62, where the court<br />
states, “Credibility has two components – honesty and reliability.”<br />
11. R v HC, 2009 ONCA 56 at para 41.<br />
12. In R v Khesro-Mohamed-Rasheed, <strong>2023</strong> ONCJ 88 at para 15, the court<br />
stated that “[w]here an inconsistency involves something material<br />
about which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken, the<br />
inconsistency may demonstrate a carelessness with the truth about<br />
which the trier of fact should be concerned.” Conversely, in R v<br />
Grimes, <strong>2023</strong> NLSC 20 at para 92, the court noted that “a series of<br />
inconsistencies may become quite significant and cause the trier of<br />
fact to have a reasonable doubt about the reliability of the witness’s<br />
evidence.”<br />
13. See R v RD, 2017 ONSC 1856 at para 78, where the court wrote,<br />
“[T]his case is primarily concerned with the reliability of the<br />
complainant’s memory rather than his credibility as a witness,<br />
and reliability is difficult to determine on the basis of testimonial<br />
demeanour.”<br />
14. Faryna v Chorny (1951), [1952] 2 DLR 354 (BCCA).<br />
15. Malcolm Gladwell, Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know About<br />
the People We Don’t Know (Boston: Little, Brown, 2019).<br />
to focus solely on a witness’s reliability<br />
and come to conclusions based on that<br />
assessment alone.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Assessing the evidence given by a witness<br />
is not, and never will be, a science.<br />
However, that does not mean we should<br />
surrender believability to improper,<br />
stereotypical, and biased conclusions<br />
based on what we think an honest witness<br />
sounds like. Permitting demeanour-based<br />
16. Faulkner v MNR, 2006 TCC 239 at para 14.<br />
credibility assessments risks profound<br />
unfairness to witnesses who may not<br />
comport to a majoritarian understanding<br />
of what is a truthful witness. Focusing on<br />
reliability will minimize the risks inherent<br />
in credibility assessments. Ultimately,<br />
in our pluralistic multicultural society,<br />
our assessment of truthfulness cannot<br />
turn on a false notion that there is a universal<br />
way to assess credibility. Instead,<br />
we should anchor our search for the truth<br />
in a search for reliable evidence.<br />
17. See Anna SP Wong, “Looks Can Be Deceiving: <strong>The</strong> Irrelevance<br />
of Demeanour in Witness Assessments” (2020) 68 Crim LQ 345<br />
for a comprehensive breakdown of the fragilities of demeanour<br />
evidence; much of the evidence cited in this section is based on<br />
her work.<br />
18. Ibid 14, citing Charles F Bond Jr and Bella M DePaulo, “Accuracy<br />
of Deception Judgments” (2006), 10:3 Personality and Social<br />
Psychology Review 214.<br />
19. “Looks Can Be Deceiving,” supra note 17, citing Aldert Vrij,<br />
20. Ibid.<br />
Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities, 2nd ed (New<br />
York: Wiley, 2008).<br />
21. R v GMC, 2022 ONCA 2 at para 68.<br />
22. “Looks Can Be Deceiving,” supra note 17.<br />
23. Ibid, citing Anjanie McCarthy et al, “Cultural Display Rules Drive<br />
Eye Gaze During Thinking” (2006), 37:6 J Cross Cult Psychol 717.<br />
See also R v Hainnu, 2011 NUCJ 14 at para 45.<br />
24. R v S(W) (1994), 18 OR (3d) 509 (CA).<br />
25. See, e.g., R v GMC, 2022 ONCA 2; R v Ramos, 2020 MBCA 111; R v<br />
Wolff, 2019 SKCA 103; YCJA – 1710, 2017 QCCA 757.<br />
26. R v Hemsworth, 2016 ONCA 85 at paras 44–45.<br />
27. Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7.<br />
28. Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, rr 20.04(2.1)(2.2).<br />
29. Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 57.<br />
30. See, e.g., 2212886 Ontario Inc. v Obsidian Group Inc., 2018 ONCA 670,<br />
where the court found that the motion judge erred in not calling<br />
oral evidence of a witness who was not cross-examined to explore<br />
weaknesses and inconsistencies in his evidence.<br />
31. Pavlovic v Vankar, 2019 ONSC 61 at para 47.<br />
32. See, e.g., Maxwell v Altberg, 2022 ONSC 3680 at para 68.<br />
24 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 25
REFLECTIONS OF AN ADVOCATE<br />
Town mouse<br />
Neha Chugh<br />
My trial starts in five minutes. I am somewhere between<br />
the satellite courthouse and the 400-series highway I<br />
exited 20 minutes ago. <strong>The</strong>re is a tractor in front of<br />
me and a few cars behind me. Every now and then a large, bold<br />
pickup overtakes me. Snowdrifts blow off the farms adjacent<br />
to the one-lane highway, reducing visibility. Cell reception is<br />
limited. I know that when I get closer to the courthouse, I will<br />
see that my client, the Crown, and my office were trying to get<br />
through to me. I continue driving 35 kilometres an hour, turning<br />
down my podcast so I can enjoy the silence of the kid-free and<br />
client-free time. Full-time lawyer, full-time mom. I have the best<br />
jobs in the world.<br />
Me: A short history<br />
I was born in Toronto, in a downtown hospital. My parents,<br />
recent immigrants from New Delhi, started in a low-rent<br />
apartment in Scarborough while my dad requalified as an<br />
electrical engineer and my mother worked as a bank teller.<br />
One day, while finishing a shift at the bank and close to the<br />
end of her pregnancy with me, my mom felt severe cramping.<br />
She walked to the subway station, stopping every few minutes<br />
to endure the contractions. Somehow, she rode the distance<br />
on the subway, then walked through the busy station to<br />
the stairs, knowing they led toward the hospital. She clutched<br />
the railing and looked up, willing herself to get up the stairs.<br />
Commuters crowded around her, running up and down the<br />
steps. She looked upward at the daylight, her English escaping<br />
her. A contraction, tears, soft muttering in Hindi. Two strangers<br />
grabbed her arms, let her lean into them, and, as she sobbed<br />
softly, helped her up the flight and escorted her to the hospital.<br />
<strong>The</strong> strangers disappeared in the most Toronto way possible, not<br />
exchanging names or phone numbers, just moving through their<br />
evening. My father arrived, and I was born soon after. Baby girl<br />
Neha, almost born in a downtown Toronto subway station.<br />
Because of my father’s job at a robotics company, we moved<br />
from Scarborough to Guelph when I was a toddler. For my<br />
parents, the move from New Delhi to Toronto and then to<br />
Guelph symbolized their search for what they had determined<br />
defined their success: space. Guelph is hardly rural, but it<br />
always had a small-town, earthy vibe. Wide open plots of land,<br />
affordable family homes, a local university and shopping mall,<br />
good schools – an accessible city. At the time, Guelph was a city<br />
of just under a hundred thousand people. My parents added to<br />
the population by growing our family with my two younger<br />
brothers.<br />
<strong>The</strong> suburban sprawl was limited, the makeup of the city<br />
homogeneous, and the traffic and congestion minimal. Saturday<br />
evening strolls took place in the Stone Road Mall, where my<br />
dad would stop and shake hands with every other person. He<br />
proudly showed us off: “Please meet our kids, our daughter<br />
and our boys.” On many weekends we escaped to the Greater<br />
Toronto Area: Brampton for an Indian wedding, Mississauga to<br />
visit cousins and shop for Indian groceries, Rexdale for dinner<br />
and a Bollywood movie at the iconic Albion Cinemas. We had<br />
one foot firmly planted in Guelph and the other navigating our<br />
urban East Indian identities.<br />
My undergraduate years kept me close to home, at the University<br />
of Waterloo and then back to the University of Guelph.<br />
Along the way, I met my husband, an engineering student<br />
with a passion for research and writing and a trajectory for<br />
academia. My husband could trace his family roots to the Mayflower<br />
and was from Hanover, Ontario, population 10,000. It<br />
was safe to say we had little in common but somehow found<br />
our way to each other. My first trip to visit his parents in the<br />
Grey Bruce region was my first lengthy encounter with rural<br />
Ontario. Dinners made with cream and butter, long drives<br />
down country roads to visit family, no Starbucks to be seen for<br />
miles. I was struck by how happy I felt. I knew I stuck out with<br />
my dark skin, dark hair, dark eyes. But I was happy.<br />
Law school was in North York, at Osgoode Hall. Not in<br />
Toronto, but North York. I am reminded of this distinction,<br />
often, by University of Toronto graduates. In my second year of<br />
law school, I found an apartment at King and Bathurst streets,<br />
between the entertainment district and what is now Liberty<br />
Village. <strong>The</strong> commute to school was by streetcar, subway, and<br />
bus – coffee in hand and books on my back.<br />
In my third year of law school, after our great big Indian<br />
wedding, my husband became my permanent roommate. He<br />
was finishing his doctoral studies in engineering at the University<br />
of Waterloo while I articled for criminal lawyers in the city.<br />
Calmly, he would sit at his desk overlooking downtown Toronto<br />
and write his dissertation while I hustled around the city<br />
by different forms of transportation, setting dates in court,<br />
copying and delivering documents, providing legal memos,<br />
watching my principals in action. In the late evenings we would<br />
use a Groupon to get pitas or shawarmas and go for walks, the<br />
TTC rattling beneath us and beside us. We were strangers in a<br />
big city, where we knew only each other.<br />
Our first big move together was to Ottawa, to a rented townhouse<br />
close to the university in Ottawa South. Postdoctoral<br />
studies took my husband to Carleton University, while I had<br />
finished articling and had landed a job in Ottawa. When we<br />
moved to Ottawa, I wondered if this was how my parents felt<br />
after their move from New Delhi to Toronto: from a major<br />
world city, bursting at the seams, to a big city with organized<br />
traffic patterns, reliable transit, and sensible working hours.<br />
<strong>The</strong> transitions are always relative, the yardstick being where<br />
you come from and where you are going.<br />
After two years in Ottawa, it was time for the conversation.<br />
I was pregnant with baby number two. My husband’s postdoctoral<br />
funding was about to run out, and he needed a real job – a<br />
career. <strong>The</strong> academic job market at the time was like a selective<br />
lottery. Scarcity of options meant we could have ended up anywhere.<br />
At the time, he was interviewing in New Hampshire,<br />
Winnipeg, and Montreal. Every interview process was highly<br />
competitive and meant a multi-day interview, dinners, and<br />
performance evaluations based on special guest lectures. During<br />
each interview, his publications were scrutinized, as was<br />
his “fit” and long-term prognosis within the faculty. Was this a<br />
professor the university could invest in for the long term? “We<br />
want to offer you the job, but we are concerned about your wife. What<br />
are her career plans?”<br />
What about me, the wife? <strong>The</strong> trailing spouse. My criminal<br />
law practice. My membership in the Ontario bar. My bilingualism<br />
in English and Hindi. Mother of very young children.<br />
Where did I fit? Would I be a thorn in the faculty’s side? Would<br />
I interfere with my husband’s tenured commitment to the university?<br />
Was I too ambitious to be a supporting actress in a film<br />
where the university was the main character?<br />
When the university in Montreal asked this question, I<br />
traced my finger on a map and pointed to the first town over<br />
the Quebec/Ontario border. “Cornwall!” I said out loud. “We<br />
could live here,” I added, pointing to Montreal’s West Island.<br />
“You could take the commuter train to downtown Montreal,<br />
26 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL<br />
THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 27
and I could travel to Cornwall in the opposite<br />
direction.” We took a drive out to<br />
the tree-lined streets of the mature suburban<br />
neighbourhoods in the West Island.<br />
Large plots of land, big backyards,<br />
daycares and parks in walking distance,<br />
a shopping mall.<br />
I wondered if this is how my parents<br />
felt when they moved to Guelph.<br />
Cornwall<br />
“Suivant, next” says the Tim Hortons<br />
cashier in the Pauline Marois franglais<br />
that has emerged across Montreal. I am<br />
halfway through my commute to work,<br />
and I need the coffee break after the<br />
morning chaos of two small children.<br />
Ahead of me is the open road – the highway.<br />
I am the counter-commuter, driving<br />
against the notoriously slow traffic that<br />
characterizes Montreal.<br />
“But isn’t Cornwall so far?” ask my<br />
neighbours, with concern and curiosity.<br />
Not really, I assure them, especially since<br />
I am going against traffic. My spouse’s<br />
commute is routine, as he joins the herds<br />
of commuters on the AMT – the train<br />
that connects the suburbs to the city of<br />
Montreal. “It’s like the GO train,” I reassure<br />
my parents, who are relieved by<br />
the reference. My spouse spends 60 minutes<br />
travelling each way, not including<br />
his coffee stop for organic grind and daycare<br />
drop-offs and pickups.<br />
My commute, on the other hand,<br />
makes no sense to well-meaning inquisitors.<br />
“So you drive all that way? To …<br />
Ontario?” “Well, it’s only fifty minutes,”<br />
I rationalize. “I catch up on calls on my<br />
Bluetooth. I like the time with my audiobooks<br />
and my music. I map out my<br />
cross-examinations.” My commute defies<br />
common sense. Fifty minutes compared<br />
to my husband’s one-hour-plus commute.<br />
“All the way to Ontario! That is a<br />
commitment!”<br />
My family was no better. “Corn …<br />
what?” And, “Where is that?” Sympathetic<br />
stares and more questions about<br />
the commute. Why wouldn’t I want the<br />
thrill of a chic downtown Montreal practice?<br />
A few barriers to joining the Quebec<br />
bar stood in my way, notably a civil<br />
system of law, administered primarily in<br />
French.<br />
I bite my tongue. <strong>The</strong> commute to<br />
Cornwall was the easiest of the adjustments.<br />
In those early days, I was my<br />
mother standing at the bottom of the<br />
subway stairs, looking up for daylight.<br />
28 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL<br />
Here is what no one told me about<br />
small-town practice: <strong>The</strong> red carpet is<br />
fairly short. What I had to let go of quickly<br />
was my urban saviour complex. <strong>The</strong>re<br />
would be no Aladdin entrance with elephants<br />
and trumpeters. Generally, there<br />
is a welcoming vibe, with local practitioners<br />
going out of their way to introduce<br />
themselves. An announcement is<br />
disseminated by the local law association<br />
to the email listserv. That email contains<br />
your name, email address, phone and fax<br />
numbers, and practice areas. From there,<br />
the introduction emails and phone calls<br />
begin: invitations for coffee, lunch, and<br />
tours around the courthouse and common<br />
areas. This was a warm embrace.<br />
It didn’t take me long to realize that<br />
while I was embraced, I was still different.<br />
<strong>The</strong> bar in Cornwall is predominantly<br />
white, and the criminal defence bar was<br />
all white and all male. My presence was<br />
making waves. And a deeper issue: <strong>The</strong><br />
members of the bar in Cornwall had<br />
long-standing practices in the region,<br />
and most could trace their roots back to<br />
the St. Lawrence River Valley. I was an<br />
alien in every sense of the word.<br />
Most Cornwall lawyers, unlike their<br />
urban counterparts, work in small or<br />
solo practices. A “large” firm in a small<br />
city like Cornwall might be five to seven<br />
lawyers plus staff – at most. Spouses,<br />
siblings, daughters, and sons make up<br />
a firm’s staff, associates, and partners.<br />
New counsel are often the children coming<br />
home after years away at school and<br />
even practice in the big city. <strong>The</strong> overt<br />
and purposeful choice to set up practice<br />
in Cornwall, with no formal roots in the<br />
community, was unique. <strong>The</strong> decision to<br />
do this as a woman of colour could have<br />
been seen as career subterfuge. I was on<br />
autopilot, trying to change diapers, clean<br />
bottles, adjust to my spouse’s new job,<br />
and build a new practice.<br />
I started Chugh Law in Cornwall in<br />
a one-room office at the bottom of the<br />
stairs of a small building occupied by<br />
another sole practitioner and her puppy;<br />
a husband-and-wife firm at the top of<br />
the stairs; and a father-and-son team<br />
of financial planners. Slowly and surely,<br />
my practice grew. One client turned<br />
into two, two into four, four into a fullblown<br />
clientele. My early principals had<br />
instilled in me the need to be present in<br />
court and available for client meetings<br />
and calls, and I quickly learned that this<br />
presence was important to the community:<br />
a local lawyer available and present for<br />
local clients.<br />
As my practice expanded around me,<br />
I needed help. With not many connections<br />
in town, I had few places to turn. I<br />
grew my practice by hiring the daughter<br />
of another practitioner as my first staff. I<br />
started to notice other newcomers to the<br />
Cornwall area. In 2015, I watched Yashar<br />
Tahmassebipour deliver his sentencing<br />
submissions with legal acumen. I chased<br />
him out of the courtroom and asked him<br />
who he was and where he was from:<br />
“Hey, you! With the brown skin like me!<br />
I have so many questions about you! Be<br />
my friend!” A trailing spouse like me,<br />
he had moved back to Montreal from<br />
Toronto for family reasons. He came to<br />
Cornwall with his common law degree,<br />
looking for clients and work. Today he<br />
is my law partner. I saw Robert Vitulano<br />
in court, presenting his client’s case in a<br />
family law motion. Yet another trailing<br />
spouse, he had moved back to Quebec<br />
following his husband’s career. His succinct<br />
and intelligent submissions left me<br />
with little choice but to hire him. Chandler<br />
Thomas came to me via a referral from<br />
Ottawa. My brother Shunker Chugh was<br />
hired through nepotism.<br />
In 2017, we bought a building and<br />
moved our diverse group of misfits into<br />
our own space: a space in which to be<br />
free and to have joy and music; a space<br />
in a community where we never really<br />
belonged. We found our peace in our<br />
top-floor kitchen, with the afternoon sun<br />
streaming in through the skylights while,<br />
over coffee, we regaled one another with<br />
stories of our day. Tears and fears shared<br />
over files in our boardroom. A sense of<br />
togetherness and safety fostered by being<br />
safe in our space.<br />
Cornwall welcomed with open arms<br />
our work as lawyers, but the homogeneity<br />
of our local bar, the Crown attorneys’<br />
office, the police services, and<br />
other service providers weighed heavily<br />
on us. <strong>The</strong> lawyers of Chugh Law check<br />
the boxes of brown, gay, female, and<br />
young. We are outsiders to Cornwall,<br />
trying to forge our path. We feel our difference<br />
everywhere we go, whether in<br />
legal or casual spaces. We fight the impossible<br />
cases and always connect with<br />
the underdogs because their stories resonate<br />
so deeply with our own. We proudly<br />
challenge status quos, and we find<br />
ourselves in the right place at the right<br />
time in history. But we collapse with the<br />
CHOOSE FROM CANADA’S TOP<br />
MEDIATORS AND ARBITRATORS<br />
2021-22<br />
Barry H. Bresner<br />
Larry Lowenstein<br />
Barry is an arbitrator, mediator and<br />
Larry is an arbitrator and mediator<br />
investigator with over 40 years of<br />
with expertise in class actions,<br />
experience handling complex<br />
corporate governance and<br />
commercial matters. His expertise<br />
shareholder matters, commercial,<br />
includes shareholder/partnership,<br />
insurance, real estate and<br />
contract interpretation,<br />
employment disputes. Larry has been<br />
environmental liability, commercial<br />
recognized as a leader in dispute<br />
insurance and reinsurance, and<br />
resolution by Global Chambers: <strong>The</strong><br />
franchise disputes. Barry is a Fellow<br />
World’s Leading Business Lawyers,<br />
of the Chartered Institute of<br />
Legal 500, Lexpert, and Benchmark<br />
Arbitrators.<br />
Litigation Canada.<br />
2021-22<br />
READERS’<br />
CHOICE<br />
ADR & MEDIATION CHAMBERS<br />
416.362.8555 • 1.800.856.5154 • booking@adr.ca • adrchambers.com
Time & Fees<br />
exhaustion of bearing these systemic pressures.<br />
I wonder if this is how my mom felt at the bottom of those<br />
subway stairs: proud, scared, exhausted.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is a richness to rural practice. I thought about this<br />
one day, after an afternoon of sitting mid-trial with a Crown<br />
attorney under a table in a satellite court in Alexandria, Ontario,<br />
waiting for a tornado warning to pass. We were close to<br />
farmland, and the electricity had gone out. I was desperately<br />
searching for cell reception to call home to tell my spouse that<br />
I might not make the daycare pickup.<br />
But beyond anecdotes like this one, there is a palpable difference<br />
to rural practice that must be noted. <strong>The</strong> population<br />
of Cornwall has for decades held steady at just over 50,000.<br />
<strong>The</strong> surrounding rural towns and villages that make up the<br />
Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry region have varying populations,<br />
from the hundreds to ten thousand. Each small town<br />
has its own communities and hamlets. <strong>The</strong>se are subgroups<br />
of small, well-meaning, and interconnected families that have<br />
their own culture and practices. You may know a certain family<br />
from Dundela, or a group of siblings from Dalkeith. <strong>The</strong>re is<br />
warmth and generosity of spirit within these networks.<br />
Social problems hit rural communities differently since the<br />
safety net spreads wider and thinner. Poverty, hunger, and addiction<br />
do not have equality of access to the social programing<br />
that urban centres provide. People from Cornwall remember<br />
when the Domtar paper mill shut down in 2006, impacting<br />
1800 jobs. Many draw this time as a line in the sand for when<br />
social problems took root in the region. This period intersected<br />
Everything you need to run a law firm<br />
Details & Correspondence Calendar & Tasks Financial Summary Time & Fees General Account Trust Funds Safe Custody<br />
Save &<br />
Close<br />
DETAILS<br />
180025<br />
Applicant<br />
Ms Sally Penfold<br />
Matter type<br />
Property Division<br />
Respondent<br />
Mr Paul Penfold<br />
New<br />
Document<br />
James Stevenson<br />
Respondent's lawyer<br />
Harris & Jacobs Solicitors<br />
Mr Joshua Harris<br />
Client correspondence<br />
181 University Ave, Toronto, ON M5H 3M7<br />
Critical fam law details<br />
Legal Accounting & Billing<br />
Microsoft 365 Integration<br />
Support & Training<br />
Secure Document Management<br />
Cloud Solution & Mobility<br />
New<br />
Email<br />
IN PROGRESS<br />
CORRESPONDENCE<br />
TYPE ITEM STAFF MODIFIED<br />
Correspondence<br />
James Stevenson<br />
Sally Penfold and Paul Penfold Property..<br />
James Stevenson<br />
jharris@email.com<br />
Financial Statement<br />
James Stevenson<br />
Your Settlement/Property Affairs<br />
jharris@email.com<br />
Trust Statement<br />
Costs agreement - Property Settlement<br />
Letter to Mr Penfold<br />
James Stevenson<br />
Search correspondence<br />
Automated Court Forms & Precedents<br />
leaplegalsoftware.ca | sales@leaplegalsoftware.ca | 437-900-2140<br />
88 Queens Quay West, 25 th Floor, Toronto ON, M5J 0B6<br />
Forms &<br />
Templates<br />
New<br />
Comment<br />
Import<br />
Share<br />
Document<br />
eSignature<br />
Message<br />
Send<br />
Document<br />
Matter New Correspondence<br />
LawConnect Mobile<br />
Microsoft Teams<br />
JS<br />
JS<br />
JS<br />
JS<br />
JS<br />
JS<br />
JS<br />
Timesheet<br />
9:36 AM<br />
9:32 AM<br />
Apr 2, 2020<br />
Mar 29, 2021<br />
Mar 29, 2021<br />
Mar 28, 2021<br />
Mar 27, 2021<br />
with the dot-com boom and the rise of high-speed computing.<br />
It remains unclear if this area was ready for the shift in economies.<br />
But there are bigger issues. <strong>The</strong> region is on the St. Lawrence<br />
River, adjacent to the United States border. Smuggling of humans,<br />
drugs, guns, and other contraband is a going concern.<br />
<strong>The</strong> region is big and dispersed, more than 100 kilometres<br />
from end to end. <strong>The</strong> predominant linguistic heritages are English,<br />
French, and Mohawk. <strong>The</strong> Akwesasne Reserve spans the<br />
abutting lands to Cornwall, Quebec, and New York State, with<br />
the shared river.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is so much need in rural communities for professionals<br />
to set up practice and to stay. So often, we find the community<br />
receiving specialists on short-term contracts or leaving after<br />
just a short stay. <strong>The</strong> residents of our rural communities are<br />
generations in the making. <strong>The</strong> gaps in access to long-term<br />
relationships with physicians, lawyers, accountants, and other<br />
professionals exacerbate the social problems that have already<br />
taken root.<br />
<strong>The</strong> remote justice system implemented during the pandemic<br />
bridged the rural/urban access to justice gap by making more<br />
lawyers available to “be present” for Cornwall clients. During<br />
this time, there were more retirements of Cornwall lawyers<br />
than permanent replacements, with others working remotely<br />
or taking positions out of town. As courts began to return to<br />
in-person appearances, I understood the tremendous advantage of<br />
clients who have lawyers available to meet them at the courthouse<br />
or at an office in town. <strong>The</strong> depletion of available, present,<br />
and local lawyers in rural communities can be added to the woes<br />
of staff shortages that are being felt in almost every industry.<br />
Today, when I walk down the street in Cornwall to get a<br />
coffee, it is not without running into colleagues and acquaintances.<br />
We stop, we chat, we commit to a future coffee. I am<br />
my dad, proudly shaking hands with his friends in the Guelph<br />
mall, proudly showing off my associates.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Catzman<br />
I won the Catzman Award for Professionalism and Civility in<br />
2022. I was shocked. A nominator forwarded me the email with<br />
the news and I sat in stunned silence, a few tears escaping.<br />
I was nominated by angels, women uplifting women. Maybe<br />
that is how my mom felt when she was carried up those subway<br />
stairs.<br />
With my best friend, Anne Marie McElroy from Ottawa, I<br />
went to Toronto in October 2022 for the Opening of the Courts,<br />
where I would receive the award. Our drive to Toronto was<br />
laughter and music, with our favourite ’90s playlist providing<br />
the soundtrack and our traditional stop at Harvey’s in Kingston.<br />
It was Nuit Blanche weekend in Toronto so, as we pulled into<br />
the city to get to our hotel, we were rerouted because of street<br />
closures and throngs of pedestrians. We escaped the hotel on<br />
Saturday night and excitedly skipped from Nathan Phillips<br />
Square to the Old City Hall steps to see the performances. We<br />
travelled down to King Street and back, and we ordered food<br />
from a hole in the wall of the building our hotel was in. We<br />
were soaking up the Big Smoke.<br />
<strong>The</strong> day before and the day of the ceremony, we roamed<br />
Queen Street while my speech percolated in my head. Why<br />
did they pick me for this award? I was unlike past recipients:<br />
Brown, rural, legal aid practice. <strong>The</strong>re must have been a mistake.<br />
Maybe no one else was nominated? What if the committee<br />
finds out all the truths about me? That my kids often eat butter<br />
pasta and hotdogs because, frankly, I don’t know how to make<br />
anything else. That I have bad days as a lawyer and that I am<br />
fundamentally flawed. In the days between finding out I had<br />
received the award, the news being announced publicly, and<br />
the day of the ceremony, I was quietly afraid that the awards<br />
committee would change its mind. When the news came out<br />
on social media and in newsletters, I was scared that someone<br />
who didn’t like me would call <strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> Society and fill<br />
them in on the “real Neha.” My imposter syndrome ran circles<br />
around my self-confidence.<br />
“I’m so proud of you, buddy. Look at everything you have<br />
done.” Anne-Marie smiled at me and said these words while<br />
we waited at a red light at Queen and University. This intersection<br />
still terrifies me. Run fast or risk standing in the middle<br />
until the next light cycle. I looked at her with gratitude. “Run!”<br />
I shouted when the light changed in our favour.<br />
In that moment, I knew what I wanted to say to the audience<br />
at the ceremony. I wanted to blurt out that I was an imposter,<br />
but a deep breath and then a long conversation with Anne-<br />
Marie reframed the speech into a talk about the actual culprit:<br />
imposter syndrome. I wanted to assure other lawyers that they<br />
are right where they are supposed to be. I wanted to tell them<br />
that there will be no red carpet. I wanted to tell each one of<br />
them that they are more than enough for the roles they are filling<br />
and to fill the spaces they are in with everything they can<br />
and want to give. If their life is taking them to rural Ontario<br />
when they always envisioned a life in downtown Toronto, that<br />
is the space they will fill and be just right for. <strong>The</strong>re will be<br />
days when they are at the bottom of the stairs, and there will<br />
be days when they are carried to the top.<br />
Before we left the city, we walked through Nathan Phillips<br />
Square with our colleague Daniel Brown, current president of<br />
the Criminal Lawyers’ Association. In the midst of our chatter,<br />
he pointed at a tiny brown mouse scurrying through the<br />
square among all the human traffic. “Isn’t that just so typical of<br />
Toronto?” he mused. “A brave little mouse, making a run for it.”<br />
In Aesop’s fable “<strong>The</strong> Town Mouse and <strong>The</strong> Country Mouse,”<br />
the town mouse comes to visit the country mouse in the wideopen<br />
spaces where the country mouse lives. <strong>The</strong>y enjoy fresh<br />
food and drink, while town mouse scoffs at the country mouse<br />
and brags about the splendours of the city. <strong>The</strong> theatre! <strong>The</strong><br />
food choices! <strong>The</strong> apartment buildings! <strong>The</strong> country mouse<br />
joins the town mouse on the return to the city, only to find that<br />
the town mouse’s bragging points are illusory. <strong>The</strong> apartment<br />
is overcrowded, and the mice are chased by a large cat when<br />
they try to reach the tantalizing buffet. <strong>The</strong> town mouse and<br />
the country mouse hide in a hole in the wall before they creep<br />
back into the dining room, only to notice the food is gone. In<br />
most of the adaptations of this fable, the town mouse makes<br />
mockery of the life of the country mouse, while the country<br />
mouse gives the town mouse’s life a chance in earnest before<br />
retreating to rural life.<br />
We found our way to the car, parked below City Hall, and<br />
headed toward the road home. <strong>The</strong> lights and tall buildings<br />
faded into long stretches of wide-open space and ONroute<br />
plazas. Our conversation turned to more serious topics: our<br />
fears, our families, our intentions. After dropping off Anne-<br />
Marie and crossing the border into Quebec, I thought about<br />
my parents. Did they know, back in the dense urban setting<br />
of New Delhi, that a place called Guelph would be their final<br />
destination? Can we predict the places where we’ll end up and<br />
the communities that receive us?<br />
Little brown mouse, I thought, it’s time to return home.<br />
TAS Junior Members are automatically<br />
signed up. Set up your profile today!<br />
30 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 31
THE PRACTICE OF ADVOCACY<br />
Our adversary system:<br />
What advocates don’t ask<br />
CHOOSE FROM CANADA’S TOP<br />
MEDIATORS AND ARBITRATORS<br />
Anna S.P. Wong<br />
So committed is our profession to the stated premise, the<br />
brick upon which our legal system is built, that not only do we<br />
not attack it but we also seldom ask: Is the adversary approach<br />
really the ultimate factfinder? How does it compare with the<br />
inquisitorial approach favoured by civil law nations?<br />
This article seeks answers to these questions. Before we get<br />
there, a quick definition and a short history lesson are in order.<br />
If lawyers had a book of common wisdom, of truisms and<br />
dictums we live by, then one of the first entries in the book<br />
must be that adjudication is adversary. Credit the courts for<br />
spreading the word. 1 Litigators, against our trained habit to<br />
follow the evidence, accept without insisting on proof that our<br />
mode of trial is best calculated to discover the truth. Through<br />
confrontation between parties and the buildup of tension between<br />
witness and lawyer, witness and witness, and lawyer<br />
and lawyer, the full facts behind a dispute are forced into the<br />
open, allowing the court to reach the most informed decision. To<br />
quote Justice Moldaver: “[F]orceful partisan advocacy facilitates<br />
truth-seeking.” 2<br />
32 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL<br />
Adversary system defined<br />
<strong>The</strong> term “adversary” is a bit of a misnomer to describe our<br />
adjudicative method in that it is not characterized by hostility,<br />
as ordinary usage would suggest. Technically speaking, a<br />
system labelled “adversary” exhibits three essential features:<br />
(1) party control; (2) judicial passivity; and (3) formal rules to<br />
regulate the proceeding. 3 <strong>The</strong> first two elements, in particular,<br />
tend to be spotlighted in the jurisprudence. <strong>The</strong> parties, assisted<br />
by their lawyers, do all the heavy lifting when it comes<br />
to fact investigation and case presentation, while the judges<br />
remain “relatively passive” 4 until it is time to decide who wins<br />
on what issue. <strong>The</strong> process is bound by a thicket of technical<br />
and evidentiary rules, only some of which are geared toward<br />
giving the court a complete picture of the truth. 5<br />
<strong>The</strong> inquisitorial system, typically positioned as a rival to<br />
ours, 6 has the division of labour reversed. Judges there run<br />
the show; they are in charge of framing the issues, assembling<br />
the facts, and questioning the witnesses, while the parties,<br />
and their lawyers, play the supporting cast. Judges, committed<br />
to truth seeking, are free to admit evidence that would be<br />
excluded here. Compared with the adversary system, it is not<br />
rules-heavy.<br />
Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.) makes the adversaryinquisitorial<br />
distinction starkly:<br />
inquisitorial system (18th c) A system of proof-taking<br />
used in civil law, whereby the judge conducts the<br />
trial, determines what questions to ask, and defines the<br />
scope and the extent of the inquiry.<br />
adversary system (1936) A procedural system, such<br />
as the Anglo-American legal system, involving active<br />
and unhindered parties contesting with each other to put<br />
forth a case before an independent decision-maker.<br />
Though no existing legal order is purely one or the other, 7<br />
and the adversary-inquisitorial polarity has been criticized, 8<br />
2021-22<br />
Carol A. Albert<br />
Retired Construction Lien Master, SCJ<br />
Carol is available to act as<br />
mediator, arbitrator or referee for<br />
construction-related disputes. Her<br />
experience includes case managing<br />
complex litigation and<br />
participating as a dispute board<br />
member on large construction<br />
projects. Carol is an honourary<br />
Fellow of the Canadian College of<br />
Construction Lawyers.<br />
Ronald M. Dash<br />
Ron has over 45 years of experience<br />
resolving a wide variety of<br />
commercial, employment, insurance,<br />
construction and real estate matters<br />
as a mediator, arbitrator, Master of<br />
the Superior Court of Justice and<br />
litigator. He has a well-deserved<br />
reputation for getting quickly to the<br />
heart of a dispute.<br />
2021-22<br />
READERS’<br />
CHOICE<br />
ADR & MEDIATION CHAMBERS<br />
416.362.8555 • 1.800.856.5154 • booking@adr.ca • adrchambers.com
the fact remains that there are “two distinct procedural traditions”<br />
whose differences “should not be under-estimated.” 9<br />
A bit of history<br />
To litigators today and of the last few generations, adversary<br />
trials are all we ever knew. It might come as a surprise, then,<br />
to learn that our justice system does not have a long-standing<br />
tradition of being adversary. In fact, for most of England’s legal<br />
history, from which we borrowed, justice was administered<br />
inquisitorially by very active and probing judges. 10<br />
Trials in England in the Tudor and Stuart periods (1485–1714)<br />
did not allow parties to decide what information to serve up<br />
to the trier of fact. Trials in those days were judge-directed inquests,<br />
more akin to what one might find in a modern-day German<br />
or French courtroom than in one of our own. Judges bore<br />
the responsibility of investigating the facts and, along with the<br />
jurors, were the ones firing questions at the accused and witnesses.<br />
11 Lawyers had a much more limited role and, in many<br />
criminal cases, no role to play. In felony matters (e.g., theft,<br />
murder, rape, arson), they were prohibited from acting for the<br />
accused, leaving the latter no choice but to mount their own<br />
defence. 12 While lawyers appeared more frequently in civil<br />
matters, their contributions were primarily related to technical<br />
pleading, and, so, they were known as “pleaders.” 13 No court<br />
counted on them entirely to collect and present the evidence.<br />
At the Court of Chancery, for example, officials appointed by<br />
the court examined witnesses in the parties’ absence on the<br />
interrogatories the latter prepared. 14<br />
THE ADVOCATES’ SOCIETY<br />
MENTORING GUIDE<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Advocates’</strong> Society (TAS) has always embraced<br />
mentorship as one of its core objectives, and strives to<br />
promote and foster mentorship through its educational<br />
programs and other initiatives to create a variety of<br />
mentorship opportunities for its members.<br />
In conjunction with the launch of our new mentoring portal,<br />
we are proud to present our revised TAS Mentoring Guide. We<br />
hope this guide will be a valuable resource as you navigate<br />
your next mentoring relationship, whether in micromentoring<br />
sessions on the new TAS portal or other mentoring<br />
relationships at TAS and beyond.<br />
Click here to download the Mentoring Guide!<br />
Only in the 18th century and into the 19th did trials transform<br />
into adversary affairs exhibiting the three features described<br />
above. According to legal historian John H. Langbein,<br />
“[t]he adversary model came from the civil side, where the<br />
parties routinely engaged counsel to shape the course of litigation<br />
to partisan advantage.” 15 Counsel participation expanded,<br />
judicial inquiry shifted to party control, and rules regulating<br />
the contest multiplied over time. On the criminal side, we have<br />
thief-takers to thank for helping to spur the evolution. 16 With<br />
their eye on the bounty paid by the government on conviction,<br />
these hired guns, who apprehended criminals and acted<br />
as both witness and advocate at trial, were disposed to give<br />
false reports and use various manoeuvres to steer the jury to a<br />
guilty verdict. After a string of reward scandals and wrongful<br />
executions, procedural protections were put in place, allowing<br />
defendants to hire counsel to cross-examine the thief-taker so<br />
as to probe their credibility and expose fabrications. In parallel,<br />
juror interrogation of witnesses was increasingly circumscribed.<br />
17 Judges came to recognize that parties had a right to<br />
execute their own trial strategy, including in the selection and<br />
examination of their own witnesses. 18<br />
Alongside the counsel’s expanding role came another trend:<br />
Trials became adversary in the popular sense of the word.<br />
Advocacy shifted from promoting the interests of truth<br />
to selling the winning version of it. 19 With the new focus,<br />
lawyers “pushed harder,” became “more aggressive, more<br />
actively committed to their clients’ interests, and more challenging<br />
of the rules under which they were allowed to work.” 20<br />
<strong>The</strong> principle of no-holds-barred advocacy<br />
found its most famous champion<br />
in Lord Brougham whose credo, which<br />
he told the House of Lords in 1820, boiled<br />
down to this: <strong>The</strong> client is all that matters.<br />
Nineteenth-century advocates, with few<br />
ethical restraints on their behaviour, 21<br />
could be sharp-tongued, hawkish, even<br />
wily. Consider the following reaction of<br />
a barrister after he was alleged by his<br />
friend to have misled the court:<br />
<strong>The</strong> accused party, instead of taking<br />
fire at this attack on his professional<br />
character, folded his arms,<br />
and, with the most perfect<br />
composure, gravity and<br />
archness, answered, “Certainly!<br />
What am I, or any<br />
of us here for, but to mislead<br />
the court if we can!” 22<br />
In summary, the adversary<br />
approach to trying cases is a<br />
fairly recent innovation – and<br />
an accidental one at that. As<br />
was observed, “It was neither<br />
part of a grand governmental<br />
design nor the scheme of an ingenious<br />
legal philosopher.” 23 A system that was<br />
not built by design could still function<br />
splendidly, of course, so let us consider<br />
how well it works – and get to the questions<br />
posed at the outset.<br />
Adversary vs inquisitorial:<br />
Which is better at truth-seeking?<br />
Courts up and down the ladder have<br />
told us, without a lick of doubt, that “the<br />
Canadian justice system promotes the<br />
search for truth by allowing the parties<br />
to put their best cases before the court,<br />
thereby enabling the court to reach a decision<br />
with the best information possible.” 24<br />
How effective, really, is a system that relies<br />
on collision between opposing narratives<br />
to hammer out the truth? Is there evidence<br />
to endorse the sensibility of holding adversary<br />
trials over judicial inquisitions?<br />
Which system works better is something<br />
that has riveted a small number<br />
of social scientists, though they’d be the<br />
first to tell you that it is impossible to<br />
prove empirically and definitively that<br />
one trumps the other at truth-finding.<br />
After all, we can’t verify what actually<br />
happened in every court case to assess<br />
it against what the judge found. <strong>The</strong> empirical<br />
research that exists has instead<br />
involved laboratory simulations with university<br />
students. In their groundbreaking<br />
experiment, Lind, Thibaut, and Walker –<br />
two social psychologists and a law professor<br />
– had students, assigned to the role<br />
of either a client-centred (adversarial)<br />
advocate or a court-centred (inquisitorial)<br />
lawyer, gather facts and then relay them<br />
to the decision-maker. 25 <strong>The</strong> two groups,<br />
the researchers found, were similarly<br />
diligent in the search for facts, 26 but they<br />
told quite a different story to the decision-maker<br />
afterward. <strong>The</strong> advocates<br />
relayed few “bad” facts – facts unfavourable<br />
to their client – whereas the inquisitorial<br />
lawyers provided a more balanced<br />
How effective, really, is a system that relies<br />
on collision between opposing narratives to<br />
hammer out the truth? Is there evidence to<br />
endorse the sensibility of holding adversary<br />
trials over judicial inquisitions?<br />
view of the evidence. What’s more, the<br />
advocates tended to interpret ambiguous<br />
evidence as supportive of the position they<br />
were pitching. 27 Partisan engagement, it<br />
seems, colours the presentation of evidence,<br />
which could well leave the decision-maker<br />
with two distorted or otherwise<br />
incomplete sets of facts. It stands to<br />
reason that two distorted accounts do not<br />
make an unbiased whole.<br />
Another of Thibaut, Walker, and Lind’s<br />
experiments suggests that an adversary<br />
format produces fairer, more accurate<br />
decisions. 28 In that study, biased subjects<br />
– that is, those who came into a case with<br />
a preconceived notion of how they might<br />
decide – tended to decide that way when<br />
evidence was presented in a non-adversary<br />
as opposed to adversary manner.<br />
Curiously, the style of presentation had<br />
no influence on unbiased decision-makers.<br />
It was not apparent why this was the<br />
case, and the researchers could only<br />
speculate. This research, pioneering<br />
as it is, has not gone without criticism.<br />
Critics have flagged two methodological<br />
difficulties which cast doubts on the<br />
findings. First, the simulations used do<br />
not adequately correspond to reality. 29 A<br />
central feature of inquisitorial adjudication<br />
– an active judge with broad investigatory<br />
powers – was entirely discounted<br />
as, under both models, the decisionmaker<br />
was restricted to being a passive<br />
listener. Second, using students to test judicial<br />
behaviour is problematic because<br />
students lack the training, expertise, and<br />
necessary motivations of working judges.<br />
It is quite possible that judges in actual<br />
trials would not behave as 20-somethings<br />
do in mock settings.<br />
<strong>The</strong> sum total of Lind, Thibaut, and<br />
Walker’s research endorses the inquisitorial<br />
method as the better truth-finder.<br />
In their own words, a “system delegating<br />
both process and decision control to a<br />
disinterested third party is most likely to<br />
produce truth.” 30 Nonetheless,<br />
they concluded that the<br />
adversary system is “clearly<br />
superior,” 31 because participants<br />
believed it is fairer. 32<br />
This finding about fairness<br />
perception is suspect, however,<br />
given that the “inquisitorial”<br />
model in the study<br />
afforded parties no voice in<br />
the process; of course, no<br />
one would prefer it. According<br />
to later research, the vast<br />
majority of people prefer a procedure<br />
that permits them to present evidence<br />
and arguments while also allowing judicial<br />
questioning 33 – that is, a process that<br />
comes closer to modem inquisitorial procedure<br />
34 – and rank it fairer than a purely<br />
adversary one.<br />
Economists have also attempted to<br />
thrash out the comparative merits of the<br />
two systems. 35 According to economist<br />
Gordon Tullock, the adversary process is<br />
both less accurate and more expensive. 36<br />
His theory goes like this: Suppose there<br />
is a Mr. Right and a Mr. Wrong in every<br />
case. In an adversary setting, Mr. Wrong<br />
has no motive to ensure that an accurate<br />
decision is rendered, but he would have<br />
strong motives to hire lawyers to stave<br />
off judgment day or, even better, defeat<br />
Mr. Right. As it were, “a great deal of the<br />
resources are put in by someone [i.e., Mr.<br />
Wrong] who is attempting to mislead” –<br />
resources that would not have to be spent<br />
to achieve accuracy under an inquisitorial<br />
arrangement. 37 Tullock’s theory has<br />
been borne out in experiments when<br />
Mr. Wrong had the full facts incriminating<br />
him but Mr. Right did not. 38 When<br />
both sides have the same information,<br />
such that Mr. Wrong could not bluff,<br />
the adversary system is able to achieve<br />
the correct result more efficiently.<br />
Richard Posner, a defender of the adversary<br />
system, offers a very different<br />
34 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 35
perspective. 39 <strong>The</strong> inquisitorial model, he claims, relies too<br />
heavily on public sector judges who are not sufficiently motivated<br />
to turn over every pebble, lift every boulder, to get at the<br />
truth in every case since their economic self-interest is only<br />
indirectly tied to the outcome of each case. Contrast this approach<br />
with adversarial litigation. Litigants and their lawyers,<br />
who profit from winning, have every reason to look hard and<br />
dig deep for favourable evidence and to expose errors and inconsistencies<br />
in their opponent’s position. A system that leverages<br />
competition optimizes fact-finding.<br />
Posner’s theory, attractive as it may be at first blush, suffers<br />
from some difficulties. Granted, in an adversary system<br />
each side is highly motivated to search for facts that advance<br />
their interest. But what about relevant evidence that neither<br />
party thinks is helpful to them? Would that be revealed to<br />
the judge? Unlikely, which can pose a hazard to decisional<br />
accuracy. Moreover, the incentives for parties to be diligent<br />
in their search for evidence can also nudge them to suppress<br />
or bend the truth to one’s advantage. When otherwise disinterested<br />
witnesses are prepared for trial by one side or the<br />
other, as is expected under the adversary system, they risk<br />
having their memory tainted, becoming partisans themselves.<br />
Jerome Frank explains: “<strong>The</strong>y come to regard themselves, not<br />
as aids in an investigation bent on discovering the truth, not as<br />
aids to the court, but as the ‘plaintiff’s witnesses’ or the<br />
‘defendant’s witnesses.’ <strong>The</strong>y become soldiers in a war, cease<br />
to be neutrals.” 40<br />
Taken together, the inquisitorial method seems to edge out<br />
John Collins, B.A., LL.B.<br />
Barrister and Solicitor<br />
Certified by <strong>The</strong> Law Society of Upper Canada<br />
As a Specialist in Criminal Law<br />
Over 40 Years of Trial and Appellate Experience<br />
2000 - 393 University Ave,<br />
Toronto, ON<br />
M5G 1E6<br />
Tel: (416) 364-9006<br />
Fax: (416) 593-1352<br />
Cell: (416) 726-8279<br />
E-mail: john.collins@on.aibn.com<br />
Website: johncollinslaw.com<br />
johncollinslaw.com<br />
the adversary method for accuracy in fact-finding, at least in<br />
theory and in the laboratory. But even if the adversary system<br />
lends the right mix of incentives, there’s still a practical<br />
problem. For the adversary system to work as its proponents<br />
claim, disputants must have lawyers matched in competence<br />
representing them and equal resources to devote to the cause.<br />
This kind of symmetry is more illusory than real. In reality, the<br />
playing field is far from level in all cases. Instead, wealth often<br />
dictates who has the savvier lawyer, who is able to wear down<br />
their opponent and obstruct the truth-finding process such that<br />
“justice often appears to be for sale to the highest bidder.” 41<br />
<strong>The</strong> failure of the adversary process when the fight is not<br />
even was laid bare in Girao v Cunningham. 42 <strong>The</strong> self-represented<br />
plaintiff, speaking through an interpreter, was a sitting target<br />
for the coterie of defence lawyers she was up against. <strong>The</strong><br />
defence knew how to stretch the rules of gamesmanship, to<br />
put the adverse into adversary. Among other things, they filed<br />
a “joint trial brief” selectively redacted to suit their client’s<br />
interest, blocked the plaintiff from filing her expert’s report<br />
and calling the expert, and put her through a mocking<br />
cross-examination. <strong>The</strong> effect of all this, which unfolded before<br />
a noninterventionist judge who was content to let the lawyers<br />
be, was to leave the jury with a one-sided story. It is probably<br />
obvious which side prevailed at trial; less obvious is whether<br />
the truth did.<br />
What now?<br />
Perhaps the best evidence there is that the adversary model<br />
doesn’t live up to the hype lies in our move away from it. Over<br />
the years, various “inquisitorial” mechanisms have been imported<br />
into our system to dilute its adversariness. Among these<br />
mechanisms in the civil context are judicial case management<br />
and mandatory mediation. <strong>The</strong> former wrests control from the<br />
parties; the latter takes a case out of the court’s hands to respectively<br />
narrow and settle claims. <strong>The</strong> Rules of Civil Procedure<br />
also empower judges to take the reins by ordering case conferences,<br />
staying motions, even appointing independent experts<br />
“on his or her own initiative.” 43 <strong>The</strong>n there is disclosure and<br />
discovery, standard steps in criminal and civil litigation today<br />
which were foreign to adversary adjudication in its earlier<br />
history. 44 Dissatisfaction with the adversary model has been<br />
simmering to a boil in family law, where self-representation<br />
has been epidemic. Judges in family cases have acknowledged<br />
that adversarial litigation is unhelpful, if not harmful, and they<br />
willingly give away business, encouraging parties to take their<br />
disputes outside the courts for resolution. 45 Ethical guidelines<br />
for judges, updated in 2021, now recommend against “passive<br />
neutrality” in all cases. 46<br />
<strong>The</strong> “adversary” description has an increasingly fragile correspondence<br />
with reality, considering the evolution of our system.<br />
To be sure, trial judges are still cautioned to not “enter the<br />
fray” 47 or “descend into the arena,” 48 which is to say, play too<br />
active a role. But trial management powers have been construed<br />
increasingly elastically, widening the scope for judicial intervention.<br />
Judges can curtail cross-examination, 49 put questions<br />
to witnesses, and raise concerns about the case with the parties<br />
50 in order to keep a trial focused and on course. Still, the<br />
dividing line between proper and improper intervention is a<br />
shifting frontier. Where it sits, or should sit, is something over<br />
which respected jurists disagree, as split appellate decisions<br />
Notes<br />
1. A search on Quicklaw for decisions with references to “adversary<br />
system” or “adversarial system” yielded more than 3,300 hits.<br />
2. Groia v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 27 at para 72.<br />
3. Phillips v Ford Motor Co of Canada Ltd (1971), 18 DLR (3d) 641 (Ont<br />
CA) at 661; David Luban, Lawyers and Justice: An Ethical Study<br />
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988) at 56–57; Stephan<br />
Landsman, “Rise of the Contentious Spirit: Adversary Procedure<br />
in Eighteenth Century England “ (1989–1990) 75:3 Cornell L Rev 496<br />
at 500.<br />
4. Landsman, ibid; JA Jolowicz, “Adversarial and Inquisitorial<br />
Models of Civil Procedure” (2003) 52:2 Int’l and Comparative L<br />
Q 281.<br />
5. An example of a non-truth-oriented rule is settlement<br />
privilege, “a rule of evidence that protects the confidentiality<br />
of communications and information exchanged for the purpose<br />
of settling a dispute”: Association de médiation familiale du<br />
Québec v Bouvier, 2021 SCC 54 at para 95.<br />
6. Brar v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2020] 4<br />
FCR 419.<br />
7. JA Jolowicz, “Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil<br />
Procedure” (2003) 52:2 Int’l and Comparative L Q 281 at 281;<br />
John R Spencer, “Adversarial vs Inquisitorial Systems: Is <strong>The</strong>re<br />
Still Such a Difference?” (2016) 20:5 Int’l J of Human Rights 601.<br />
8. See, e.g., Máximo Langer, “<strong>The</strong> Long Shadow of the Adversarial<br />
and Inquisitorial Categories” in Markus D Dubber and Tatjana<br />
Hörnle, Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University<br />
Press, 2015).<br />
make apparent. 51<br />
Projecting ahead, it is likely that our<br />
system of justice will continue to inch<br />
slowly in the inquisitorial direction, settling<br />
on what might be called a mixed<br />
procedure. At the Opening of the Courts<br />
last fall, Chief Justice Morawetz announced<br />
that major change to civil proceedings<br />
is on the horizon: “This is an<br />
opportunity to rewrite the rules.” 52 While<br />
full details of what is in store have yet to<br />
be unveiled, no one, not for a hot minute,<br />
would believe that full abandonment<br />
of adversary practices would be entertained.<br />
Nor would that necessarily be a<br />
good idea, as adversary and inquisitorial<br />
schemes each have their strengths and<br />
weaknesses. But with backlogs and delays<br />
approaching paralyzing levels, and<br />
pro se representation on the rise, 53 there is<br />
every reason for us to look elsewhere for<br />
inspiration. International tribunals and<br />
some other legal systems have been converging<br />
on “adversarial inquisitions” 54 or<br />
blended models that try to bring together<br />
the best of both worlds. 55 In our case, if the<br />
status quo of party domination is not producing<br />
the outcomes we want as a society,<br />
9. John D Jackson, “Responses to Salduz: Procedural Tradition,<br />
Change and the Need for Effective Defence” (2016) 79:6 Modern<br />
L Rev 987 at 989.<br />
10. JM Beattie, Crime and the Courts in England, 1660–1800 (Oxford:<br />
Oxford University Press, 1986) at 345.<br />
11. See, generally, James S Cockburn, A History of the English Assizes,<br />
1558–1714 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), ch 6;<br />
John H Langbein, <strong>The</strong> Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford:<br />
Oxford University Press, 2003); Thomas A Green, Verdict<br />
According to Conscience: Perspectives on the English Criminal Trial<br />
Jury, 1200–1800 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985);<br />
Philip Girard, Jim Phillips, & R Blake Brown, A History of Law in<br />
Canada, Volume One (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018)<br />
at 293–94; Beattie, ibid, ch 7.<br />
12. Beattie, ibid, at 352–56; TP Gallanis, “<strong>The</strong> Mystery of Old Bailey<br />
Counsel” (2006) 65:1 Cambridge L J 159 at 159–60.<br />
13. Wilfrid Prest, ed, Lawyers in Early Modern Europe and America<br />
(New York: Holmes & Meier, 1981) at 67–69.<br />
14. John H Baker, <strong>The</strong> Oxford History of the Laws of England (Oxford:<br />
Oxford University Press, 2003) at 185; Amalia D Kessler, “Our<br />
Inquisitorial Tradition: Equity Procedure, Due Process, and the<br />
Search for an Alternative to the Adversarial” (2005) 90:5 Cornell<br />
L Rev 1181 at 1207.<br />
15. Langbein, supra note 11 at 8.<br />
16. Landsman, supra note 3 at 572–81; Langbein, supra note 11 at<br />
148–58.<br />
common wisdom would suggest that we<br />
explore expanding judicial controls<br />
and having judges play a more robust,<br />
inquiring part right from the very start.<br />
<strong>The</strong>y can oversee the framing of issues<br />
early on, direct experts to be engaged<br />
where the case demands it, and vet the<br />
parties’ proposed witnesses for relevance,<br />
to better ensure that the truth about the<br />
essential matters is not lost to diversions.<br />
All possibilities should be considered,<br />
even those that would, against our own<br />
interest, demote the advocate to a less<br />
critical role.<br />
36 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 37
17. Langbein, supra note 11 at 320. See also Niamh Howlin, “Passive<br />
32. Thibaut and Walker, ibid. See also Paulina Houlden et al,<br />
41. Kessler, supra note 14 at 1251.<br />
50. R v Teed, [2020] AJ No 992 (CA) at para 18; R v Hunter, [2001]<br />
Observers or Active Participants? Jurors in Civil and Criminal<br />
“Preference for Modes of Dispute Resolution as a Function of<br />
42. 2017 ONSC 2452, rev’d 2020 ONCA 260.<br />
BCJ No 2003 (Prov Ct) at paras 27–34; See also Chippewas of<br />
Trials” (2014) 35:2 <strong>Journal</strong> of Legal History 143 at 143–47.<br />
Process and Decision Control” (1978) 14 <strong>Journal</strong> of Experimental<br />
43. RRO 1990, Reg 194, r 2.1.02(1), 50.13(1), and 52.03(1), respectively.<br />
Mnjikaning First Nation v Ontario, 2010 ONCA 47 at paras 233–34.<br />
18. JH Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th ed (Oxford:<br />
Social Psychology 13.<br />
44. R v Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326 at 332.<br />
51. See, e.g., Samaniego, supra note 49.<br />
Oxford University Press, 2002) at 85; Landsman, supra note 3 at<br />
33. Blair H Sheppard, “Justice Is No Simple Matter: Case for<br />
45. Colucci v Colucci, 2021 SCC 24 at para 69. See also Nicholas<br />
52. Geoffrey B Morawetz, “Opening of Courts Remarks” (3 October<br />
531.<br />
Elaborating Our Model of Procedural Fairness” (1985)<br />
Bala, “Reforming Family Dispute Resolution in Ontario:<br />
2022); online: .<br />
of Metavalues in Trial Advocacy Advice Texts (Oxford: Oxford<br />
summarized in Mark R Fondacaro, Christopher Slobogin, &<br />
Anthony Duggan, & Lorne Sossin, eds, Middle Income Access to<br />
53. Jennifer Lynch and Margot Mary Davis, “What Can Be Done<br />
University Press, 2016), ch 3.<br />
Tricia Cross, “Reconceptualizing Due Process in Juvenile Justice:<br />
Justice (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012) 271 at 286–87.<br />
About Upward Trend of Self-Represented Litigants” <strong>The</strong> Lawyers<br />
20. JM Beattie, “Scales of Justice: Defense Counsel and the English<br />
Contributions from Law and Social Science” (2005) 57:5 Hastings<br />
46. Canadian Judicial Council, “Ethical Principles for Judges”;<br />
Daily (18 May 2021), online: .<br />
21. David JA Cairns, Advocacy and the Making of the Adversarial<br />
87:3 S Cal L Rev 699 at 711.<br />
47. R v Switzer, 2014 ABCA 129 at para 7; R v Oracz, 2011 ABCA 341.<br />
54. <strong>The</strong> term is from Keith A Findley, “Adversarial Inquisitions:<br />
Criminal Trial 1800 –1865 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)<br />
35. See, e.g., Alice Guerra et al, “Deterrence, Settlement, and<br />
48. Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v RC,<br />
Rethinking the Search for the Truth” (2011) 56:3 NY L Sch L<br />
at 87.<br />
Litigation Under Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Systems”<br />
[2008] OJ No. 4301 (SCJ) at para 14. Note that “[u]nlike trial courts,<br />
Rev 911.<br />
22. “Lawyer-Reform, or Observations on the Prevailing Moral,<br />
(2022) Public Choice; Shruti Rajagopalan, “Adversarial versus<br />
where judges typically do not descend into the arena, appellate<br />
55. Spencer, supra note 7; Felicity Nagorcka, Michael Stanton, &<br />
Standing of Legal Practice, and Hints for a Revision of it by the<br />
Inquisitorial Systems: Error and Valuation” (2017) <strong>Journal</strong> of<br />
court judges are expected to enter the fray and challenge<br />
Michael Wilson, “Stranded Between Partisanship and the Truth?<br />
Profession” (1831) 1:3 Edinburgh LJ 225 at 225.<br />
Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis 1; Luke M Froeb<br />
counsel and … to play an active role in the appeal hearing”<br />
A Comparative Analysis of Legal Ethics in the Adversarial and<br />
23. Landsman, supra note 3 at 502.<br />
and Bruce H Kobayashi, “Evidence Production in Adversarial vs.<br />
(R v Van Wissen, 2018 MBCA 100 at para 16).<br />
Inquisitorial Systems of Justice” (2005) 29:2 Melb U L Rev 448;<br />
24. Lizotte v Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, [2016] 2 SCR 521 at<br />
Inquisitorial Regimes” (2001) 70 Economics Letters 267; Richard<br />
49. R v Samaniego, 2022 SCC 9.<br />
Anogika Souresh, “<strong>The</strong> Adversarial vs Inquisitorial Dichotomy<br />
para 65. See also R v Joanisse (1995), 102 CCC (3d) 35 (Ont CA) at<br />
A Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, 9th ed (New York: Wolters<br />
in International Criminal Law: A Redundant Conversation”<br />
para 64; R v Osborne, 2019 ONSC 399 at para 18.<br />
Kluwer, 2014); Richard A Posner, “An Economic Approach to the<br />
(2019) 5:1 ICJ 81.<br />
25. E Allan Lind, John Thibaut, & Laurens Walker, “Discovery<br />
Law of Evidence” (1999) 51:6 Stanford L Rev 1477; Gordon Tullock,<br />
and Presentation of Evidence in Adversary and Nonadversary<br />
“Optimal Procedure” in Charles K Rowley, ed, <strong>The</strong> Selected Works<br />
Proceedings” (1973) 71:6 Mich L Rev 1129. <strong>The</strong>se findings have<br />
of Gordon Tullock, Vol. 9 (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004) at<br />
been replicated: Blair H Sheppard and Neil Vidmar, “Adversary<br />
274–90; Mathias Dewatripont & Jean Tirole, “Advocates”<br />
Pretrial Procedures and Testimonial Evidence: Effects of<br />
(1999) 107:1 <strong>Journal</strong> of Political Economy 1; Hyun Song Shin,<br />
Lawyer’s Role and Machiavellianism” (1980) 39:2 <strong>Journal</strong> of<br />
“Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures in Arbitration” (1998)<br />
Personality and Social Psychology 320.<br />
29:2 RAND <strong>Journal</strong> of Economics 378.<br />
26. With the exception that advocates looked harder when they were<br />
36. Gordon Tullock. Trials on Trial (New York: Columbia University<br />
initially confronted with a set of facts damaging to their client.<br />
See Lind, Thibaut, & Walker, ibid at 1143.<br />
27. Barbara O’Brien, “Recipe for Bias: An Empirical Look at the<br />
Interplay between Institutional Incentives and Bounded<br />
Rationality in Prosecutorial Decision Making” (2009) 74:4<br />
Missouri L Rev 999.<br />
28. John Thibaut, Laurens Walker, & E Allan Lind, “Adversary<br />
Presentation and Bias in Legal Decisionmaking” (1972) 86:2 Harv<br />
L Rev 386.<br />
29. Mirjan Damaška, “Presentation of Evidence and Factfinding<br />
Precision “ (1975) 123:5 U Pa L Rev 1083 at 1099.<br />
30. John Thibaut and Laurens Walker, “A <strong>The</strong>ory of Procedure”<br />
(1978) 66:3 Calif L Rev 541 at 547.<br />
31. John Thibaut and Laurens Walker, Procedural Justice: A<br />
Psychological Analysis (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1975) at 118.<br />
Press, 1980). That litigation spending is higher in the adversarial<br />
system has been confirmed and rationalized by others: Alice<br />
Guerra et al, ibid; Francesco Parisi, “Rent-Seeking Through<br />
Litigation: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems Compared”<br />
(2002) 22 Int’l Rev L & Econ 193 at 208.<br />
37. Tullock, ibid at 96.<br />
38. Justin Sevier, “<strong>The</strong> Truth-Justice Tradeoff: Perceptions of<br />
Decisional Accuracy and Procedural Justice in Adversarial and<br />
Inquisitorial Legal Systems” (2014) 20:2 Psychology, Public<br />
Policy, and Law, 212.<br />
39. Richard A Posner, “Comment: Responding to Gordon Tullock”<br />
in Stuart S Nagel, ed, Research in Law and Policy Studies, Vol. 2<br />
(Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1988) at 29–33; Posner, supra note 35.<br />
40. Jerome Frank, Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice<br />
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949) at 86.<br />
#TASPROUD<br />
Congratulations to the TAS leaders appointed to the bench in 2022/23 to serve the justice<br />
system after going above and beyond to serve our members and the work of TAS.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice Andres C. Garin, former Vice-Chair of the Quebec Regional Advisory<br />
Committee, appointed as a Judge to the Quebec Superior Court.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice Peter J. Osborne, former TAS Director, appointed to the Superior Court of<br />
Justice of Ontario.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice Joan M. Barrett, former TAS Director, appointed to the Superior Court of<br />
Justice of Ontario.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice Faisal Mirza, former TAS Director, appointed to the Superior Court of<br />
Justice of Ontario.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Hon. Justice Martha A. Cook, former TAS Director, appointed to the Superior Court of<br />
Justice of Ontario.<br />
38 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL<br />
THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 39
THE ART OF ADVOCACY<br />
Classics from the vault:<br />
Some observations<br />
on the art of advocacy<br />
Les classiques du coffre-fort :<br />
Quelques observations<br />
sur l’art du plaidoyer<br />
Joanie Lapalme and/et Michael Shortt<br />
Foreword<br />
Lord Macmillan was one of the leading advocates and judges<br />
of his day, representing Canada before the Judicial Committee<br />
of the Privy Council and having the rare honour of being<br />
appointed directly to the House of Lords from private practice.<br />
In 1935, he gave a speech to the Birmingham Law Students<br />
Society that drew upon his vast experience as both a litigator<br />
and an adjudicator. That speech now returns to print as part of<br />
the Classics from the Vault series, in recognition of its breadth<br />
and depth of insight into the art of advocacy, which Lord<br />
Macmillan defined as the art of “presenting a case to a tribunal<br />
[so] as to secure if possible a desired decision.”<br />
In his speech, Lord Macmillan gave wide-ranging advice<br />
about attaining that end. Some of his advice was ground-breaking;<br />
indeed, the speech contains one of the earliest known references<br />
to preparing a compendium (or condensed book) of<br />
documents to support oral argument. Much of his advice<br />
remains timeless, particularly his comments on judicial<br />
psychology. And inevitably, at least some of his advice was<br />
time-bound and context-specific, like his recommendation that<br />
lawyers sprinkle literary and classical references throughout<br />
their oral argument.<br />
This article represents a slight abridgement of the original<br />
text, in order to highlight the advice that remains relevant today.<br />
Additionally, Lord Macmillan’s speech will be appearing<br />
in French for the first time, thereby allowing it to reach a wider<br />
Canadian audience than it did in the 1930s.<br />
~ J.L. and M.S.<br />
Avant-propos<br />
Comptant parmi les avocats et juges phares de son époque,<br />
lord Macmillan a représenté le Canada devant le Conseil privé<br />
et a eu le rare honneur d’être nommé à la Chambre des lords<br />
directement de la pratique privée. En 1935, devant la Birmingham<br />
Law Students’ Society, il a prononcé une allocution s’inspirant<br />
de sa vaste expérience en tant que plaideur et juge.<br />
Dans le cadre de la série Les classiques du coffre-fort, ce discours<br />
est réimprimé en reconnaissance de son étendue et de sa profondeur<br />
à l’égard de l’art du plaidoyer – que lord Macmillan a<br />
défini comme étant l’art de « présenter une cause à un tribunal<br />
afin que soit rendue, si possible, la décision souhaitée ».<br />
Dans son allocution, lord Macmillan a donné de nombreux conseils<br />
pour atteindre cet objectif. Certains de ses conseils étaient<br />
révolutionnaires : le discours contient en fait l’une des premières<br />
références connues à la préparation d’un compendium (ou recueil<br />
condensé) regroupant les documents clés afin d’appuyer la plaidoirie<br />
orale. Une grande partie de ses conseils sont intemporels,<br />
notamment ceux portant sur la psychologie judiciaire. Et inévitablement,<br />
certains conseils sont ancrés dans leur époque, comme<br />
lorsque lord Macmillan recommande aux avocats de parsemer<br />
leur plaidoirie de références littéraires et classiques.<br />
Cet article présente une version abrégée du texte original<br />
afin de mettre en lumière les conseils qui demeurent pertinents<br />
aujourd’hui. De plus, ce discours de lord Macmillan va<br />
être présenté en français pour la toute première fois, ce qui lui<br />
permettra d’atteindre un public canadien plus vaste qu’il ne l’a<br />
fait dans les années 1930.<br />
~ J.L. et M.S.<br />
If I were to select the rule which in my estimation above all<br />
others should govern the presentation of an argument in<br />
Court, it is this – always keep steadily in mind that what the<br />
Judge is seeking is material for the judgment or opinion which<br />
all through the case he knows he will inevitably have to frame<br />
and deliver at the end. He is not really interested in the advocate’s<br />
pyrotechnic displays; he is searching all the time for the<br />
determining facts and the principles of law which he will ultimately<br />
embody in his decision.<br />
I remember a friend of mine on the Bench once discussing<br />
with me the advocacy of a certain counsel. He came into Court<br />
briskly, spoke well and vigorously and at reasonable length,<br />
and indeed exhibited all the outward evidences of what is<br />
known as “a good appearance.” He left the Court receiving<br />
the congratulations of his junior and the thanks of his client.<br />
All seemed well. “But,” said the Judge, “when I came to write<br />
my judgment in my study at home that night I found I had<br />
a blank note book. <strong>The</strong> speech apparently so successful had<br />
contributed just nothing to assist me in my task. On analysis<br />
I found it to consist chiefly of robust commonplaces and confident<br />
assertions.” On the other hand how often a halting address,<br />
delivered with every fault of manner and diction but<br />
manifestly the result of careful thought and thorough research,<br />
will command the respect of the Bench and provide the Judge<br />
with the very material he wants. Counsel’s task is to help the<br />
Si je choisissais la règle qui, à mon avis, devrait régir la<br />
présentation d’un argument devant la Cour, ce serait celleci<br />
: gardez toujours à l’esprit que ce que le juge recherche<br />
est primordial pour le jugement ou l’opinion que, tout au<br />
long de l’affaire, ce dernier sait qu’il devra rendre et présenter,<br />
inévitablement, à la fin du processus. Il n’est pas vraiment<br />
intéressé par les démonstrations pyrotechniques de l’avocat; ce<br />
qu’il recherche impérativement, ce sont les faits déterminants et<br />
les principes de droit qui seront, en définitive, le fondement de<br />
sa décision.<br />
Je me souviens de la discussion que j’ai eue avec l’un de mes<br />
amis, qui est juge, au sujet de la plaidoirie d’un certain avocat.<br />
Il s’est présenté devant la Cour d’un bon pas, s’est exprimé<br />
avec aisance et vigueur lors de son exposé d’une longueur<br />
raisonnable, et arborait tous les signes extérieurs de ce que<br />
l’on considère comme une « belle apparence ». Il a reçu les<br />
félicitations de son apprenti et les remerciements de son client<br />
à sa sortie de la Cour. Tout paraissait aller pour le mieux.<br />
« Cependant », a dit le juge, « lorsque j’ai voulu écrire mon<br />
jugement, attablé dans mon étude à la maison, ce soirlà,<br />
je me suis rendu compte que je me trouvais devant un<br />
cahier de notes blanc. Le discours apparemment si réussi<br />
n’avait absolument rien apporté qui aurait pu m’aider à<br />
m’acquitter de ma tâche. Après analyse, j’ai constaté qu’il se<br />
composait principalement de lieux communs présentés de<br />
40 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL<br />
THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 41
Court – to help the Court to reach a decision<br />
in his client’s favour. I used always<br />
to have before me the vision of the<br />
Judge sitting down at his desk to write<br />
his judgment after all the stir and excitement<br />
of the debate was over. Extreme<br />
propositions confidently advanced at the<br />
Bar do not help him then. He wants the<br />
clear phrase; the moderately-stated principle,<br />
the dispassionate array of facts<br />
which may appropriately find a place in<br />
his judicial finding. It is a good exercise<br />
to think out how, if you were the Judge<br />
and not the advocate of your client’s<br />
cause, you would yourself frame a judgment<br />
in your client’s favour. <strong>The</strong>n model<br />
your speech on these lines. You will be<br />
surprised to find how often the grateful<br />
Judge, when he comes to give judgment,<br />
will adopt the very words of an argument<br />
so presented. You have furnished<br />
him with the materials of judgment; he<br />
façon convaincante et d’assertions péremptoires.<br />
» Or, à quelle fréquence un<br />
discours hésitant, prononcé en commettant<br />
toutes les fautes de style et de diction<br />
possibles, mais étant manifestement le<br />
résultat d’une mûre réflexion et d’une<br />
recherche approfondie, va-t-il commander<br />
le respect de la magistrature et fournir<br />
au juge le matériel qu’il veut? La tâche<br />
de l’avocat est d’aider la Cour – de l’aider<br />
à prendre une décision en sa faveur, et<br />
en faveur du client. J’ai toujours eu en<br />
tête l’image du juge, assis à son bureau,<br />
en train de rédiger son jugement après<br />
que toute l’agitation et l’excitation du<br />
débat soient passées. Les propositions<br />
extravagantes qui ont été avancées avec<br />
confiance à la barre ne l’aident pas. Il<br />
veut l’expression claire, le principe énoncé<br />
avec modération, l’ensemble de faits<br />
décrits sans passion qui peuvent trouver<br />
place dans sa décision judiciaire. Un<br />
bon exercice à faire est de réfléchir à la<br />
façon dont vous rédigeriez vous-même<br />
un jugement en faveur de votre client, si<br />
vous étiez juge plutôt que défenseur de<br />
la cause de votre client. Adaptez ensuite<br />
votre discours à partir de ces lignes.<br />
Vous serez surpris de constater à quelle<br />
fréquence le juge reconnaissant, au moment<br />
de rendre son jugement, adoptera<br />
les mots mêmes que ceux de l’argument<br />
ainsi présenté. Vous lui aurez fourni les<br />
will be predisposed to use them because<br />
they are at hand and the more so if your<br />
opponent has adopted a less helpful<br />
though possibly more showy method of<br />
advocacy.<br />
After all, the problems of pleading are<br />
all problems of psychology. One mind<br />
is working on another mind at every<br />
point and all the time. <strong>The</strong> judicial mind<br />
is subject to the laws of psychology like<br />
any other mind. When the Judge assumes<br />
the ermine he does not divest himself of<br />
humanity. He has sworn to do justice to<br />
all men without fear or favour, but the<br />
impartiality which is the noble hall-mark<br />
of our Bench does not imply that the<br />
Judge’s mind has become a mere machine<br />
to turn out decrees; the Judge’s mind<br />
remains a human instrument working<br />
as do other minds, though no doubt on<br />
specialised lines and often characterised<br />
by individual traits of personality, en-<br />
éléments essentiels du jugement; il sera<br />
prédisposé à les utiliser parce qu’ils seront<br />
à portée de main. Il le sera d’autant plus<br />
si votre adversaire a adopté une méthode<br />
de plaidoyer moins efficace, mais peutêtre<br />
plus flamboyante.<br />
Après tout, les problèmes de plaidoyer<br />
sont tous des problèmes liés à la psychologie.<br />
Un esprit agit sur un autre esprit<br />
sur tous les plans et en tout temps.<br />
L’esprit judiciaire est soumis aux lois<br />
de la psychologie comme tout autre esprit.<br />
Lorsque le juge revêt sa robe, il ne<br />
se désavoue pas de l’humanité. Il a juré<br />
de rendre justice à tous les hommes sans<br />
crainte ni faveur, mais l’impartialité qui<br />
est le noble sceau de sa barre n’implique<br />
pas que l’esprit du juge soit devenu une<br />
simple machine à rendre des décrets; l’esprit<br />
du juge reste un instrument humain<br />
qui fonctionne comme les autres esprits,<br />
bien que sans doute selon des logiques<br />
spécialisées et souvent caractérisées par<br />
des traits de personnalité individuels,<br />
engageants ou non. Il est donc bon que<br />
l’avocat connaisse non seulement son<br />
dossier, mais aussi son juge, en ce sens<br />
où il connaît le type d’esprit auquel il<br />
aura affaire.<br />
Mais je pensais à des questions plus<br />
vastes, pas à de simples préjugés ou<br />
prédispositions, lorsque j’ai affirmé que<br />
l’esprit judiciaire était soumis à des lois<br />
gaging or the reverse. It is well, therefore,<br />
for the advocate not only to know<br />
his case but to know his Judge in the<br />
sense of knowing the type of mind with<br />
which he has to deal.<br />
But I was thinking of larger matters,<br />
not of mere prejudices or predispositions,<br />
when I said that the judicial mind<br />
is subject to well-known psychological<br />
laws. One of the most conspicuous, and<br />
perhaps one of the most creditable, of<br />
the instincts of all intellectual minds is<br />
a tendency to assist anyone who confesses<br />
that he is struggling with a difficulty.<br />
I call it the instinct of rescue. <strong>The</strong>re are<br />
occasions when it is worth enlisting on<br />
your side. When you know that your<br />
case is confronted with a serious difficulty<br />
in the shape of an awkward passage<br />
in the evidence or an embarrassing<br />
precedent, do not shirk it. Read the awkward<br />
passage with all emphasis or quote<br />
psychologiques bien connues. L’un des<br />
instincts les plus manifestes, et peut-être<br />
l’un des plus louables, de tous les types<br />
d’esprits intellectuels est la tendance à<br />
vouloir aider quiconque avoue être aux<br />
prises avec une difficulté. J’appelle cela<br />
« l’instinct du sauveur ». En certaines occasions,<br />
il vaut la peine de le rallier à vos<br />
côtés. Lorsque vous savez que votre cas<br />
présente une grave difficulté, que ce soit<br />
sous forme d’un passage délicat dans la<br />
preuve, ou encore d’un précédent embarrassant,<br />
ne vous dérobez pas. Lisez<br />
le passage délicat avec toute la mise en<br />
relief nécessaire, ou citez le précédent<br />
sans broncher, et signalez la difficulté<br />
qu’il crée pour vous. Vous constaterez<br />
presque invariablement que le premier<br />
instinct du juge sera de vous aider en<br />
soulignant que la preuve vous cause<br />
moins de tort que vous ne le supposez,<br />
ou que le précédent peut être distingué<br />
lors de l’examen. La Cour est favorable à<br />
l’absence de toute dissimulation de difficulté<br />
et est encouragée par l’affirmation<br />
même de cette difficulté à s’atteler à la<br />
résoudre ou à l’atténuer. Un homme de<br />
bien luttant contre l’adversité exerce toujours<br />
un attrait particulier pour la justice<br />
et pour tous les autres esprits généreux!<br />
La solution qu’un juge lui-même trouve<br />
à un problème est évidemment beaucoup<br />
plus précieuse pour l’avocat que celle<br />
the authority without flinching, and point out the difficulty<br />
which it creates for you. You will almost invariably find that<br />
the first instinct of the Judge is to assist you by pointing out<br />
that the evidence is less damaging to you than you represented<br />
or that the precedent is on examination distinguishable. <strong>The</strong><br />
Court is favourably disposed by the absence of all concealment<br />
of the difficulty and is attracted by the very statement of<br />
the difficulty to address itself to the task of solving or alleviating<br />
it. A good man struggling with adversity always makes<br />
an appeal to the judicial as well as to every other generous<br />
mind! A solution which the Judge himself finds for a problem,<br />
too, is always much more valuable to the advocate than one<br />
which he himself offers to the Court, for the Court is naturally<br />
tenacious of its own discoveries and your opponent who<br />
ventures to challenge its solution finds his adversary, not in<br />
you, but in the Court – a much more serious matter! I should,<br />
however, add that the expedient of disarming your opponent<br />
by anticipating him is one to be used with discretion; it is not<br />
always possible to adopt it, nor is it always desirable to resort<br />
to it. Circumstances alter cases. Nor is it always well to dwell<br />
too emphatically on the bad points of your case – you may<br />
defeat your object by satisfying the Judge that they really<br />
are fatal to you. I only desire to indicate the utility of these<br />
methods of advocacy in suitable instances.<br />
One principle, however, is of universal application. <strong>The</strong>re<br />
can be no good advocacy that is not orderly in its presentation.<br />
It is a well-known fact that a skilful exposition of a case often<br />
largely supersedes the necessity for argument. I have indeed<br />
heard it said of an artist in advocacy that he never argued his<br />
cases; he merely stated them. So orderly and adroit was his<br />
arrangement of his statement that the conclusion which he<br />
Advocates in Action<br />
Advocates in Action<br />
As part of our mission to be a voice for advocates, <strong>The</strong> Advocates'<br />
Society ("TAS") undertakes initiatives that seek to improve access<br />
As<br />
to<br />
part<br />
justice,<br />
of our<br />
promote<br />
mission to<br />
diversity<br />
be a voice<br />
and<br />
for<br />
inclusion,<br />
advocates,<br />
protect<br />
<strong>The</strong> Advocates'<br />
judicial<br />
Society<br />
independence,<br />
("TAS") undertakes<br />
and make submissions<br />
initiatives that<br />
on<br />
seek<br />
matters<br />
to improve<br />
of significance<br />
access<br />
to<br />
to the<br />
justice,<br />
legal<br />
promote<br />
profession.<br />
diversity<br />
Advocates<br />
and<br />
in<br />
inclusion,<br />
Action is here<br />
protect<br />
to keep<br />
judicial<br />
our<br />
independence,<br />
members informed<br />
and make<br />
about<br />
submissions<br />
and engaged<br />
on matters<br />
with<br />
of<br />
the<br />
significance<br />
Society's<br />
to<br />
important<br />
the legal<br />
advocacy<br />
profession.<br />
work.<br />
Advocates in Action is here to keep our<br />
members informed about and engaged with the Society's<br />
Click here for more<br />
important advocacy work.<br />
information!<br />
Scan our QR<br />
code for more<br />
information!<br />
qu’il pourrait lui-même offrir à la Cour, car la Cour est naturellement<br />
attentive à ses propres découvertes. Votre opposant,<br />
s’il s’aventure à contester cette solution, trouvera son adversaire<br />
non pas en vous, mais en la Cour, ce qui lui sera nettement<br />
plus ardu. Malgré tout, j’ajouterai que de si vous avez la<br />
possibilité de désarmer votre adversaire en le devançant, vous<br />
devez le faire avec discernement. En effet, il n’est pas toujours<br />
possible d’utiliser cette méthode, comme il n’est pas toujours<br />
souhaitable de le faire. Les situations varient selon les circonstances.<br />
Il n’est pas non toujours avantageux de trop insister<br />
sur les aspects négatifs de votre cause : vous risquez d’aller à<br />
l’encontre de votre objectif en convainquant le juge qu’ils vous<br />
sont réellement fatals. Je tiens seulement à souligner l’utilité<br />
de ces méthodes de plaidoyer lorsqu’approprié, selon les circonstances.<br />
Un principe, cependant, doit être appliqué universellement :<br />
il ne peut y avoir de bon plaidoyer dont la présentation ne soit<br />
pas ordonnée. Il est bien connu que l’exposé habile d’un cas<br />
supplante souvent largement la rigueur de l’argumentation.<br />
J’ai effectivement entendu parler d’un maître-plaideur qui<br />
n’avait jamais eu à défendre ses arguments, il lui suffisait de<br />
les présenter. Son exposé était fait si adroitement et de façon<br />
si ordonnée que la conclusion qu’il souhaitait voir en être<br />
tirée paraissait une évidence. L’expression populaire « je<br />
n’argumente pas, j’explique » s’applique avec plus de subtilité<br />
que ce que croient généralement ceux qui l’emploient. À cet<br />
égard, je m’efforce de faire comprendre à tous ceux qui ont<br />
pour ambition de réussir en tant qu’avocat qu’ils ne doivent<br />
pas négliger le côté mécanique de la préparation. L’ordre et<br />
la disposition des documents au dossier ont beaucoup plus<br />
d’importance que ce qu’on croit généralement. Lorsque ce<br />
42 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL<br />
THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | 43
wished to be drawn appeared inevitable. <strong>The</strong> colloquial retort<br />
– “I’m not arguing with you, I’m telling you” – has a subtler<br />
application than its users generally appreciate. In this connection<br />
I venture to impress upon all whose ambition it is to be<br />
successful advocates that they should not neglect the mechanical<br />
side of preparation. Orderliness in the arrangement of the<br />
documents in a case has far more importance than is generally<br />
realised. When what I may call the mechanical apparatus of a<br />
case works easily and well, the mind of the Judge is inevitably<br />
favourably impressed. He follows easily what is presented<br />
to him in orderly fashion and he is predisposed to accept as<br />
sound what is so well-ordered. Even the judicial mind is not<br />
immune from the attraction of the path of least resistance.<br />
As you will have observed from one or two passing quotations<br />
which I have already made, I have recently been looking<br />
into Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria or Institutes of Oratory.<br />
Both that great work and Cicero’s well-known dialogue<br />
De Oratore are amazing repositories of information and<br />
suggestion on the art of pleading.<br />
One topic with which they deal at great length is the use<br />
of humour in debate. I doubt if anyone has ever succeeded in<br />
defining humour, but we all know it when we hear it and it is<br />
certainly one of the most valuable parts of the pleader’s equipment.<br />
It has a curious and almost incalculable psychological<br />
effect – I had nearly said physiological.<br />
Now let me say a little about the form as apart from the substance<br />
of pleading. I believe that no advocate can be a great<br />
pleader who has not a sense of literary form, and whose mind<br />
is not stored with the treasures of our great literary inheritance<br />
upon which he may draw at will. <strong>The</strong> fortune of an argument<br />
depends much more than is commonly realised on the literary<br />
garb in which it is presented. A point made in attractive<br />
language sticks in the judicial memory. You must avoid the<br />
commonplace without falling into the bizarre. Originality is effective<br />
but eccentricity merely repels. <strong>The</strong>re is much in the way<br />
in which a speech is started; as the French with their infallible<br />
instinct put it, c’est le premier pas qui coûte. You want to arrest<br />
attention from the outset. Even the driest topic can be made<br />
interesting with a little imagination and ingenuity. To be interesting<br />
is almost as important as to be logical.<br />
Let me in passing just mention a habit of some advocates<br />
which is peculiarly exasperating to the Judge. Who has not<br />
heard counsel when faced with a difficulty endeavour to postpone<br />
the evil day by the time-worn phrase “I’m coming to<br />
that”? You know and the Judge knows that he never will, if<br />
he can help it. <strong>The</strong> better course is to deal at once with the<br />
point put to you. <strong>The</strong> question indicates the train of the Judge’s<br />
thought; he will not be diverted from it by your evasion. Have<br />
it out then and there, even although you may have to desert the<br />
progress of your argument for the moment. You can work back<br />
to your main theme with a little dialectic skill.<br />
Let there be balance and proportion in your argument. Some<br />
advocates give as much time and trouble to the exposition of<br />
their bad points as they do to their good points. <strong>The</strong>re is no<br />
worse fault. <strong>The</strong> Judge will soon be unable to see the wood for<br />
the trees.<br />
It would be attractive to dwell on the manners of the advocate,<br />
the importance of courtesy to one’s opponent, respect<br />
towards the Judge and fairness to all. But that is too large a<br />
region upon which to enter now.<br />
44 | SUMMER <strong>2023</strong> | THE ADVOCATES’ JOURNAL<br />
que j’appellerai l’appareil mécanique d’une affaire fonctionne<br />
facilement et convenablement, l’esprit du juge est inévitablement<br />
marqué favorablement. Il suit facilement le raisonnement<br />
qui lui est présenté de façon ordonnée et il est enclin à accepter<br />
comme juste quelque chose d’aussi bien structuré. Difficile de<br />
résister à l’attraction qu’exerce la voie de la moindre résistance,<br />
même pour un esprit juridique.<br />
Comme vous l’aurez probablement deviné à la lumière des<br />
citations que j’ai faites, j’ai récemment relu l’Institutio Oratoria<br />
(L’institution oratoire), de Quintilien. Cet ouvrage et le traité<br />
bien connu De Oratore de Cicéron sont d’étonnantes mines<br />
d’informations et de suggestions sur l’art de plaider. L’un des<br />
sujets qu’ils abordent longuement est l’utilisation de l’humour<br />
durant les joutes oratoires. Je doute que quelqu’un ait<br />
jamais réussi à définir l’humour, mais nous le reconnaissons<br />
tous lorsque nous l’entendons et c’est certainement l’un des<br />
éléments les plus précieux dont dispose le plaideur. Il a un effet<br />
psychologique curieux et pratiquement incalculable, que je<br />
qualifierais presque d’effet physiologique.<br />
Permettez-moi maintenant de dire quelques mots sur la<br />
forme, en dehors de la substance de la plaidoirie. Je crois<br />
qu’aucun avocat ne peut être un grand plaideur s’il n’a pas<br />
le sens de la forme littéraire et si son esprit ne recèle pas les<br />
trésors de notre grand héritage littéraire, dans lesquels il peut<br />
puiser à sa guise. La réussite d’une plaidoirie dépend beaucoup<br />
plus qu’on ne le pense généralement de la forme littéraire<br />
dans laquelle elle est présentée. Un argument présenté dans<br />
un langage attrayant reste dans la mémoire des juges. Il faut<br />
éviter le banal sans tomber dans l’insolite. L’originalité est efficace,<br />
mais l’excentricité rebute. La façon dont on débute une<br />
plaidoirie est importante; comme le disent les Français avec<br />
leur instinct infaillible, c’est le premier pas qui coûte. Vous<br />
devez capter l’attention dès le départ. Même le sujet le plus<br />
aride peut être rendu intéressant avec un peu d’imagination et<br />
d’ingéniosité. Être intéressant est presque aussi important que<br />
d’être logique.<br />
Permettez-moi également de faire mention, en passant, d’une<br />
habitude prise par certains avocats et qui est particulièrement<br />
exaspérante pour le juge. Qui n’a jamais entendu un avocat,<br />
lorsqu’il est confronté à une difficulté, s’efforcer de repousser<br />
le moment fatidique en utilisant l’expression usée « j’y arrive<br />
»? La meilleure avenue consiste à traiter immédiatement de<br />
la question qui vous est soumise. La question vous indique<br />
la ligne de pensée du juge; celle-ci ne sera pas détournée par<br />
votre dérobade. Répondez à la question sur le champ, même si<br />
vous devez renoncer à la progression de votre argumentation<br />
pour le moment. Vous pouvez facilement revenir à votre thème<br />
principal avec un peu d’habileté dialectique.<br />
Assurez-vous que votre plaidoirie soit équilibrée et proportionnelle.<br />
Certains défenseurs mettent autant de temps et de<br />
peine à exposer leurs arguments les plus faibles qu’ils le font<br />
pour leurs arguments les plus forts. Il n’y a pas pire erreur. Le<br />
juge sera bientôt incapable de distinguer la forêt qui se cache<br />
derrière l’arbre.<br />
Il serait intéressant de s’attarder sur les manières de<br />
l’avocat, sur l’importance de la courtoisie qu’il démontre<br />
envers son adversaire, de son respect envers le juge et de l’équité<br />
dont il s’assure de faire preuve envers tous. Mais il s’agit<br />
là d’un domaine trop vaste pour pouvoir s’y aventurer<br />
maintenant.<br />
Leading-edge Legal Technology<br />
With a Human Touch<br />
#BetterTogether
Patrick Healy |