Advocacy-Matters-Winter-2025

ADVOCACY MATTERS
The Advocates’ Society
WINTER 2025

The Catzman Award for
Professionalism & Civility
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS
The annual Award honours a lawyer who
demonstrates exceptional legal knowledge,
integrity, civility, mentorship, and dedication to the
highest ideals of the legal profession. This
prestigious recognition is awarded in memory of
Justice Catzman of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Deadline for nominations is
Monday, May 26, 2025.
NOMINATION FORM

CONTENTS
04
09
13
16
21
24
Govern Yourself Accordingly!
Megan Keenberg, Keenberg & Co
How to Give Negative Feedback
with a Little Sunshine
Omolara Oladipo, Ladilaw
The Problem With Passion: Creating Work You
Love Has Little Nothing To Do With Passion
Lisa Marie Buccella, Aviva Trial Lawyers
Overcoming Stage Fright
Joe Thorne, Stewart McKelvey, Jennifer Bolduc, McLeod, Green, Dewar LLP,
and Erica Tait, McCarthy Hansen & Company LLP
The Exit Interview:
Valuable Opportunity or Unnecessary Risk?
Wade Poziomka, Ross McBride LLP
Interview with Laura Bowman,
Ecojustice Canada
Compiled by David Thompson, Carroll Heyd Chown LLP
Editor: Megan Keenberg, Keenberg & Co | Deputy Editor: Joe Thorne, Stewart McKelvey
The opinions expressed by individual authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Advocates’ Society.
Advocacy Matters Editorial Team: Lisa-Marie Buccella, Laura Bevan, Jennifer Bolduc,
Kristen Duerhammer, Omolara Oladipo, Wade Poziomka, David Thompson
3

CIVILITY
Govern Yourself Accordingly!
Megan Keenberg, Keenberg & Co
Picture it: Ontario Court of Appeal, 2024. Robed and ready for our first in-person appeal since the
pandemic hit. It’s showtime. I have my out-of-office on, which states:
Thanks for your message. I’m arguing in the Court of Appeal today. While so engaged, I
will not be monitoring or responding to emails. I will respond to your message at my first
opportunity, later today or tomorrow. In the meantime, please direct any urgent inquiries
to my Office Manager at [email].
I am at the podium, and I glance at my phone which I am actively using to communicate with
4

my associate during submissions. I see that my
phone is blowing up with calls, texts and emails,
all from the same law firm, which is opposing
counsel on another matter. There are 12 missed
calls, four text messages and 16 emails, all sent
in the span of an hour. The volume of messages
alarms me. Clearly, if they keep sending messages
after having seen from my out-of-office
that I am in court, then there must be a life-ordeath
emergency happening!
So, I open and quickly scan the messages
while giving submissions.
A quick perusal shows that counsel wants me
to get on a call with their client’s banker to explain
something about their client’s case. This is something
they’ve asked for before, which I’ve declined.
And their client’s banker has also made it clear that
they don’t want to speak with anyone but the account
holder. There is no urgency or time-sensitivity
to this, at all, beyond their client’s desire to complete
a transaction. But opposing counsel insists
on an immediate response. They contact my Office
Manager. They tell her to leave the office and physically
go to the Court of Appeal to track me down,
interrupt the appeal, and try to force me to get on
a call with their client’s banker. My Office Manager
exercises her good judgment and stays put, letting
me know about the situation by text.
I refocus on the task at hand: the appeal I’m
arguing. After a long day in court, I return to the
office to find a lengthy diatribe from opposing
counsel, accusing me of ‘dereliction of duty’
and sharp practice. They threaten a Law Society
complaint against me, and also let me know
they will be seeking costs against me personally
for the time I wasted by not responding to them
while I was in court. AITA? Um, no.
Unfortunately, this kind of foot-on-the-gas,
go-go-go conduct is not at all uncommon these
days, perhaps made worse by our collective impatience
with the court’s backlog. Everything is
urgent, which makes nothing urgent.
5

How do we deal with it? The same way parents
deal with toddlers throwing tantrums at
the grocery store. We do not give in to it. We do
not add fuel to the fire. We create and communicate
our boundaries and stick to them. We do
not stoop to that level. We respond to positions
and requests, and not to bad behaviour.
In this case, my boundary was that I would not
respond to messages while in court. I communicated
my boundary in my out-of-office message.
Opposing counsel did not respect my boundary,
but they did not ‘violate’ my boundary. Only
I am capable of violating my own boundary by
doing the thing I said I would not do, which is responding
while in court. I held firm and did not
take the bait about a manufactured emergency.
Instead, once I had calmed down from my initial
reaction to their conduct and threats, I responded
the next day as follows:
I am responding to your emails, phone calls
and text messages sent yesterday. As you will
have seen from my out-of-office message, I
was in Court all day, and have not had the opportunity
to respond until now. I am not prepared
to speak with your client’s banker for
the reasons articulated previously. I do not
share your view of the necessity, propriety or
urgency of such a call, and neither does your
client’s banker, who has previously declined
a call. I understand this is frustrating for your
client. Let’s take a pause and reset.
I’m happy to jump on a call tomorrow at a
mutually convenient time to see if we can put
our heads together and figure out a pathway
to resolution for our clients. If, after speaking,
we are still at loggerheads, we will need to
determine the most efficient way to get this
dispute in front of a judge for determination.
What is omitted from this response is as important,
if not more important, than its contents.
What this email does not include is any
admonishment of counsel’s behaviour, any
commentary on the stupidity of their position or
request, or any ammunition that could be used
against my client in motion materials or costs
submissions at a later date. Written admonishments
and snide commentary in counsel correspondence
only fan the flames of incivility. They
rarely, if ever, result in an epiphany on the part
of the bad actor that makes them see the error
of their ways or modify their behaviour. And
they rarely, if ever, persuade a court that a party
or counsel has actually misbehaved.
In this instance, rising above was the better,
more strategic play. In other cases, which I will
address in future issues, it may be necessary to
directly address the bad behaviour. Until then,
govern yourselves accordingly!
THE ADVOCATES’ SOCIETY
END OF TERM DINNER 2025
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2025
METRO TORONTO CONVENTION CENTRE

Spring Symposium 2025
Friday, May 23, 2025 |9:00 am - 4:00 pm (ET)
Live Stream and In-Person at
The Advocates’ Society’s Education Centre,
250 Yonge Street, Suite 2700, Toronto
This practical program features the latest developments,
strategies and tools for adapting and succeeding in your
evolving litigation practice.
Tools and tips
for success
If you are a civil litigator serious about
Latest
developments
advocacy, this is one program you
cannot afford to miss! With in-person
and virtual attendance options
available, no matter how you
choose to join us, you will
take part in a dynamic and
engaging day of learning.
Strategies
REGISTER
And more!

CHOOSE FROM CANADA’S TOP
MEDIATORS AND ARBITRATORS
The Honourable
Thomas R. Lederer
Retired Superior Court Judge
Mr. Lederer recently retired from the
bench after 16 years conducting the full
range of civil trials and applications. He
is known for his work in a variety of
specialized proceedings, including
judicial review, human rights inquiries,
inquests, professional discipline, labour
relations, environmental assessments,
development and municipal law
hearings.
Carol A. Albert
Retired Construction Lien Master, SCJ
Carol is available to act as mediator,
arbitrator or referee for
construction-related disputes. She has
experience in case managing complex
litigation and participating as a dispute
board member on large construction
projects. Carol is an honourary Fellow
of the Canadian College of
Construction Lawyers.
416.362.8555 • 1.800.856.5154 • booking@adr.ca • adrchambers.com

EVENT REPORT
How to Give Negative
Feedback with a
Little Sunshine
Omolara Oladipo, Ladilaw
Let’s face it: delivering negative feedback isn’t exactly a cakewalk. Whether it’s a junior associate missing
a deadline, a peer overlooking key evidence, or a client conveniently ignoring your advice (again),
we’ve all wished for a magical way to critique without crushing souls—or worse, egos.
Enter Joelle Carpentier, Ph.D., and Jacques Forest, Ph.D., CHRP, who on November 22, 2024,
shared their expertise on “How to Give Negative Feedback in a Motivating Way”, a program hosted
by the Mid-Career Advocates’ Standing Committee as part of their “How to Mentor Series”.
While I’m no substitute for their insights (nor do I have a Ph.D. in constructive conversations), I
left their talk armed with tips sharper than a freshly filed motion.
9

At the heart of their discussion was self-determination
theory, which boils down to three
essential needs: relatedness, autonomy, and
competence. In plain legal English:
1. Relatedness:
People like to feel they’re
part of the team—not
just someone to whom
you forward last-minute
assignments at 11:59 p.m.
The Mission: Change-Oriented Feedback
The speakers emphasized that feedback
should be change-oriented—in other words,
aimed at improvement, not making someone
feel like they’ve just lost a high-stakes trial. The
goal? Help your audience (be it juniors, peers,
or yes, even clients) achieve their goals while
also nudging them gently toward yours.
To achieve this, Carpentier and Forest outlined
six key principles. Think of them as the
golden rules of feedback, except they’re less
“thou shalt” and more “here’s how to not
sound like an angry opposing counsel.”
2. Autonomy:
No one likes being micromanaged.
Let people make
decisions, even if they occasionally
forget to reply to
your “urgent” email.
3. Offer solutions to move forward.
Lawyers love solutions almost as much
as they love billable hours. Suggesting
actionable steps shows you’re not just
pointing out the problems but invested
in their resolution and their success.
3. Competence:
Everyone wants to be good
at what they do—or at least
not be told they’re doing it
horribly.
6. Deliver the feedback respectfully.
This one is non-negotiable and cannot
be separated from any combination
of the other five points. Respect builds
trust, and trust is the cornerstone of any
professional relationship — whether
with colleagues or clients. (And trust me,
no one responds well to shouting, even
if it’s about missed deadline).
10

1. Acknowledge their obstacles
and challenges.
Because nothing says “relatable”
like admitting it’s tough out there.
Even the best associates have bad
days, and the best clients… well,
they might still be unreasonable, but
empathy goes a long way.
2. Describe the problem neutrally.
Swap “You completely botched this
case law analysis” with “The analysis
could benefit from greater depth.” Remember,
neutral doesn’t mean emotionless—it
means tactful.
4. Provide choices in solutions.
This one is pure gold. Offering
options lets people feel like they’re
steering the ship (even if you’re quietly
setting the course).
5. Set clear, attainable goals.
Instead of vague directives like “Do better,”
try “Let’s aim to have the next draft
by Friday with additional focus on X.”
Bonus points if you set goals that won’t
lead to all-nighters.
Why This Matters
Harsh, thoughtless feedback is the legal equivalent of a poorly written
contract: it frustrates everyone involved and usually doesn’t
achieve the intended result. By contrast, change-oriented feedback
creates opportunities for growth, collaboration, and (dare I say it)
even motivation.
So next time you’re about to give negative feedback, channel
your inner Carpentier and Forest. Whether you’re managing a
firm, mentoring juniors, or just trying to get your client to follow
advice, the key isn’t just what you say—it’s how you say it.
And remember: even the best feedback might not fix everything
overnight or at all. But hey, neither did your first draft of
that brief you wrote as a junior.
Ed note: Missed
the program? TAS
members can access
this and other great
sessions hosted by
MASC and YASC on
the free TAS Member
Resource Library.
11

Arbitration Advocacy
Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Conducting arbitrations requires unique skills
you may never learn in court. This program
will provide practical techniques and tools for
succeeding at your next arbitration, whether
remote or in-person.
Learn More
Appellate Advocacy:
Perfecting Your Oral Submissions
Wednesday, April 02, 2025
The most high-pressure step in an appeal is
often the oral argument. Join our faculty of
experienced appellate judges and counsel to
learn what to do and what not to do in the
(usually brief) time you have to effectively
advocate your client’s position.
Learn More
Mediation Strategies
Wednesday, April 09, 2025
Don’t leave your mediation skills to chance. This
program for litigators of all practice areas will
take you through a mediation step-by-step and
teach you the techniques you need to succeed as
an advocate at mediation.
Learn More
Appellate Advocacy:
Perfecting Your Written Submissions
Wednesday, June 04, 2025
Make every page count in your appellate
materials. How can you craft leave documents
that command attention and persuade from the
first line? Join us to discover proven strategies
for creating compelling written arguments that
resonate with the court.
Learn More

HAPPY LAWYER PROJECT
The Problem With Passion:
Creating Work You Love
Has Little Nothing To Do
With Passion
Lisa Marie Buccella, Aviva Trial Lawyers
If you’ve ever told someone to go follow their passion, author Cal Newport would tell you that that
was bad advice. In So Good They Can’t Ignore You, Newport explains why the commonly held belief
that work fulfillment comes from identifying and following your passion is flawed. His 2010 book
was borne out of his curiosity about why some people end up loving what they do for a living and
others don’t. The title of his book is a quote from an answer that comedian Steve Martin gave when
asked about the best advice for aspiring entertainers, to which he replied, “Be so good they can’t
ignore you”. Through his case studies, interviews and research, Newport learned that “compelling
careers often have complex origins that reject the simple idea that all you have to do is follow your
13

passion” which confirmed his initial suspicion
that “when it comes to creating work you love,
following your passion is not particularly useful
advice”. This is true for a number of reasons:
1. Basing career success on the conventional wisdom
of ‘follow your passion’, “fails to describe
how most people actually end up with compelling
careers”. Despite giving the “follow your passion”
advice to a crowd of 23,000 people during a Stanford
graduation ceremony in June 2005, Steve
Jobs’ own success wasn’t because he followed his
own advice. His initial passion was not technology
at all. Not even close. It was Buddhism.
2. The pressure from feeling that you must pursue
your passion in order to be satisfied can
backfire with devastating effects such as chronic
job shifting, unrest, and frustration when “reality
falls short of the dream”. That’s because a
passion-driven mindset makes you hyper-aware
of what you don’t like about your job, leading to
chronic unhappiness and self-doubt.
3. Relying on passion for career fulfillment ignores
the reality that passions are rare; they take
time to develop and are usually a side effect
of mastery. While this goes against the overly
simplified perception that the key to job satisfaction
is just to figure out what you’re passionate
about, if you enter the working world with
a passion mindset, you’re at risk of becoming
overwhelmed and miserable by the irritating
and mundane tasks of the job.
4. More importantly, the deep questions driving
a passion mindset can cause career confusion
and insecurity because they are virtually impossible
to answer with any certainty (i.e. “who am
I?”; “what do I truly love?”; “is this who I really
am?”; “ do I truly love what I’m doing?”). Ruminating
on these questions is almost guaranteed
to keep you perpetually unhappy, and doubting
whether you are living out your true calling.
Since passion tends to come after getting really
good at your craft, Newport suggests adopting
a “craftsman mindset” which involves building
up career capital through rare and valuable
skills. This happens through deliberate prac-
14

tice and having sufficiently challenging work to
ensure there is continuous learning. Newport
describes deliberate practice as the process of
stretching your abilities beyond your comfort
zone and receiving ruthless feedback on your
performance. This method is familiar to musicians
and athletes, but less so for knowledge
workers such as lawyers.
Intentional skill development can be uncomfortable
at first, but is necessary for mastery
and will ultimately help to create work you love
- regardless of whether or not you believe it’s
your true calling. To that end, consider participating
in any number of the skills training programs
through The Advocates’ Society where
you spend the first part of the day learning and
observing specific skill demonstrations by seasoned
advocates, and then get to practice these
skills in front of instructors who are trained
to provide constructive feedback. If it sounds
daunting - it is. I’ve done it as part of my own
instructor training. While the process felt intimidating,
it was a phenomenal opportunity to receive
on-the-spot advice and correction.
With this in mind, I urge you to reconsider
the traditional notion that career satisfaction
comes from aligning a pre-existing passion to
work. Focus instead on skill mastery, the result
of which usually becomes passion.
You don’t need to have a perfect job to experience
job happiness or fulfillment. You need a
better approach to the work you’re already doing.
As Newport sums up, “working right trumps
finding the right work”.
Ed. note: The Advocates’ Society’s CLE
programs have supported the development
of skilled and dedicated Canadian
advocates for over three decades. Learn
more here.
15

Legal Drafting
for Litigators
Plenary
Wednesday, February 19, 2025
1:00 pm - 4:00 pm (ET) | Via Zoom
Workshop
February 26, 2025
1:00 pm to 4:30 pm (ET) | Via Zoom
Elevate your advocacy with our powerful
two-part virtual program! Join leading
litigators and judges on February 19 for
game-changing strategies in digital-age
legal writing. Then, take it further with our
February 26 intensive workshop led by
renowned expert Jane Griesdorf.
You’ll master grammar as a style tool,
learn proven rhetorical techniques, and
discover the secrets of reader engagement.
From compelling arguments to polished
prose, this comprehensive program will
revolutionize your legal writing.
To learn more visit www.advocates.ca

EVENT REPORT
Overcoming Stage Fright
Joe Thorne, Stewart McKelvey
Jennifer Bolduc, McLeod, Green, Dewar LLP
and Erica Tait, McCarthy Hansen & Company LLP
One of the best parts of being a litigator is getting on your feet, whether it’s in court or before
a tribunal, in med/arb, or even in discoveries. That’s where litigators shine – convincing a decision-maker
of the correctness of our argument, building our case, and prying as many admissions
out of the witness as possible.
For some, the public speaking aspect of litigation comes easily. For most, it comes a bit harder
– sometimes much harder.
How can litigators become more at ease on their feet? And how can we deal with “stage fright”
17

that often comes with oral advocacy?
On October 31, TAS hosted an hour-long program
called “Advocacy Hour: Managing Stage
Fright”. I, along with my TAS colleagues Jennifer
Bolduc and Erica Tait, offered our views on
how best to deal with anxiety in the lead-up to a
hearing, and how to handle it on the day.
Here are some tips and tricks for each situation.
Setting Yourself Up for Success
The number one tip: know thyself. What kind
of advocate are you? Do you need a script, or
are you comfortable with bullets? Or are you
off-book entirely? Do you need to “rehearse”?
Do you need a big breakfast to fuel up? Or are
you good to go on a cup of coffee? Do you need
all your materials printed, tabbed, and arranged
just so? Or do you prefer electronic documents
(or platforms like CaseLines, for those lucky
enough to have access to them)? Consider what
works best for you, and then set yourself up for
success by doing those things.
Another tip: know the room. Who is the
judge/decision-maker? Getting familiar with
the audience is critical to delivering a message.
Some judges want to have a conversation,
so a script might be useless. Some judges
don’t interject at all. Some are interested or
experienced in particular areas of your case,
so you may want to focus on those topics. If
you are examining a witness, learn as much
as you can about them before you walk into
the room. What is their background? What
are their interests in the litigation?
Ultimately, preparation is key. Anxiety comes
hard and fast when you’re not prepared. And
not just on the lofty legal principles, but also
18

on the mundane issues. Have you been to this
courthouse or office before? Do you have a lot
of paper to bring? Do you know where to park,
and how to get to the courtroom or boardroom?
Plan ahead to get properly situated in the room
before the hearing starts.
When you are ready for almost everything,
almost nothing can shake you.
Managing Stage Fright in the Moment
So, you’ve prepared. You know yourself, and
you know your audience.
to fill every silence. Taking your time will calm
your nerves and help you prepare to respond.
Do What You Gotta Do
Ultimately, no matter what kind of advocate you
are, we’re all human and we all share the same
weaknesses. Hopefully you will find some of
these tips helpful in dealing with anxiety before
and during oral advocacy. But whatever helps
you to calm down and do your best advocacy
work – do it.
The number one tip (again): know thyself.
Before you head into the courtroom or boardroom,
go to the bathroom. Nothing creates anxiety
like a full bladder.
Another tip (again): When you get to where
you’re going, know the room. Make sure your
papers, or your laptop, are where you want
them to be. You want to be able to quickly put
your hands on a document if you need it, not
scramble around shuffling through stacks of
paper. Have a glass of water handy – speaking
can be thirsty work.
Ultimately, preparation is key (again). You’ll
know your case (and, ideally, the other side’s
case too), so now it’s about delivering your message
or getting the evidence you need to build
your case.
The best way to fend off stage fright is to take
your time. Speak slowly. When we speak slowly, not
only can we better process our thoughts and allow
the audience to take in the information, we also
slow down our heart rate and breathing. We’ve all
had the experience of being anxious or nervous
on our feet – we speak faster and faster, which
makes us more and more anxious. It becomes a
tailspin that is hard to pull yourself out of.
Take your time. Judges aren’t scoring you on
speed, they’re scoring you on persuasiveness. If
you need a moment to consider a question, or
find a case, take that moment. You don’t need
Ed. note: Missed the program?
Managing Stage Fright is available
on-demand on our new Video Collections
page where TAS members
enjoy special pricing.
Advocacy Hour Series
One-hour programs focused on
specific advocacy skills
$75.00 for TAS members
VIEW PROGRAMS
19

Relax and recharge at Toronto’s prestigious members club, just steps from the Court of Appeal
www.universitycluboftoronto.com

PRACTICE MANAGEMENT
The Exit Interview:
Valuable Opportunity or
Unnecessary Risk?
Wade Poziomka, Ross McBride LLP
When an associate lawyer resigns unexpectedly, law firms often find themselves scrambling to
manage the aftermath. Priorities typically include transitioning files and ensuring clients stay with
the firm rather than follow the departing employee. When the dust settles, however, firms turn
their minds to whether to conduct an exit interview.
I discussed the practice of exit interviews with several Ontario firms to determine if these interviews
are a standard part of the firm’s process, and whether they result in tangible benefits.
Opinions varied considerably, with some firms believing that exit interviews introduce unnecessary
risk and the possibility of significant costs if the information gathered in that interview
21

requires an investigation.
On the one hand, discovering issues like discrimination
or harassment that were previously
unnoticed by leadership can be crucial for addressing
and rectifying these issues. The Ontario
Human Rights Commission identifies exit
interviews as a best practice, noting that they
can “help employers determine whether discrimination,
harassment or a failure to accommodate
were factors in an employee leaving”.
On the other hand, uncovering issues of harassment
and discrimination could compel employers
to undertake costly investigations. The
Occupational Health and Safety Act and Human
Rights Code mandate that employers investigate
incidents of harassment and allegations
of discrimination, respectively, regardless of
whether a complaint is made.
Some employers prefer to avoid uncovering
non-apparent allegations to avoid costly investigations.
This avoidance may allow subtle discrimination
and harassment to persist, risking
additional employee departures and poor morale
for the employees who stay.
There are also other benefits of exit interviews.
Walied Soliman, Managing Partner of
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, outlines how
exit interviews are a critical part of offboarding
an employee: “It is important to understand
why people are exiting, what their plans are,
and how we can maintain a connection with
our departing employees. They are our alumni,”
explains Soliman. He values all feedback, positive
or negative, as essential for maintaining a
healthy workplace culture.
However, not every exit interview is equal.
Poorly planned interviews can cause more
harm than good. Firms should determine what
they hope to achieve from the exit interview.
The following tips and best practices can lead
to healthy and useful exit interviews:
• Conduct interviews in a neutral location,
and not with an employee’s direct manager.
Employees may be more open with a
member of management or HR who is not
directly involved in their day-to-day work.
Creative. Efficient. Effective.
Law firms and corporate law department clients consistently tell us that
Heuristica provides a distinct and measurable competitive advantage,
including solicitor client privilege, workflow efficiencies, increased speed and
accuracy, defensibility, and heightened knowledge transfer to legal teams.
We Do Discovery Differently. Learn How.
1-833-435-4321 | info@discoverycounsel.ca | heuristica.ca
Toronto | Calgary
HEU_010524_A_SpringAd_Ad_7.5x4.9167.indd 1
2024-01-05 7:06 AM

• Ensure confidentiality of responses to the
extent possible.
• Focus on organizational issues rather than
interpersonal conflict.
• Provide the opportunity for a two-way
dialogue, rather than interrogating the
departing employee. Prepare open-ended
questions, listen without judgment,
and validate the information even if the
interviewer disagrees with the perspective
shared.
• Seek to understand the motivation behind
the decision to look for opportunities elsewhere,
and seek feedback on ways the organization
could improve. Consider questions
such as:
Q If you could change anything about your
role with us or our firm, what would you
change?
Q What prompted you to look for other opportunities?
If you had concerns, did you
feel comfortable addressing those concerns
with your manager?
Q What could we have done better?
Q Is there anything about your new position
that enticed you to accept it that we
don’t have here?
• Maintain an amicable tone and thank the
departing employee for their time at the
firm and participation in the interview.
Departing employees are the firm’s alumni
and will often have influential careers
elsewhere. Their perceptions of the firm,
including their departure, will impact their
impression of the firm in the future, which
in turn can impact the firm’s reputation.
The relationship between the firm and the
departing employee does not have to end
simply because they have accepted another
opportunity.
When conducted effectively, exit interviews
are invaluable tools for enhancing workplace
culture. Departing employees are often more
candid due to having less to lose, and may provide
direct and honest feedback if the interview
is conducted effectively. This can lead to meaningful
improvements within an organization.
By embracing effective exit interviews firms
can seize the opportunity to gather this valuable
insight, rather than viewing exit interviews
as a mere formality or a risk that outweighs the
benefits. With careful and thoughtful planning,
firms can gain deep insight into their organizational
culture, identify areas for improvement,
and ultimately create a better work environment
for remaining employees.
Connect on
the TAS
Mentoring
Portal
EXCLUSIVELY FOR TAS MEMBERS
CLICK HERE FOR
MORE INFORMATION

INTERVIEW
Interview with
Laura Bowman,
Ecojustice Canada
Compiled by David Thompson,
Carroll Heyd Chown LLP
Laura Bowman is a lawyer at Ecojustice Canada in Toronto. She was called to the Ontario Bar in 2007
and has a Juris Doctor from the University of Toronto and an LLM from Osgoode in administrative law.
She has lived and practiced in three different provinces and in Nunavut.
She represents environmental groups, First Nations, and community groups at all levels of
court in judicial reviews. She is on Ecojustice’s Healthy Communities team and is fascinated
by sprawl and food systems and how they drive the triple planetary crisis: climate emergency,
toxins/pollution and biodiversity loss.
Laura is a member-at-large of the TAS Regulatory and Administrative Law Practice Group.
24

Q. What are you most passionate about?
A. Environmental justice. Abuse of the environment is the gateway to corruption and human rights
abuses against the most vulnerable. I see that trajectory so much in my work. Lawyers interested
in human rights and colonialism could improve their work if they were more attuned to those connections
which harm our non-human relationships.
Q. Most proud moment as a litigator?
A. Getting laughs from the bench at the Supreme
Court of Canada.
Q. Favourite way to unwind?
A. A swim in a lake, cross-country skiing,
playing music, or a hike.
Q. Best advice for dealing with media?
A. If you want to be quoted to get your
client’s perspective out there, answer the
question you wish you were asked, briefly,
accurately and with maximum drama.
I am not a natural at doing this.
Q. Best advice for dealing with difficult
counsel?
A. Don’t take it personally and don’t fuel the
fire. Don’t waste your client’s money fighting
where it doesn’t advance your case. You don’t
need to paper every wrong thing they say, or
every outrage. Much of it can be ignored.
Q. Most embarrassing moment as a litigator?
A. I teared up a bit the first time I got yelled at in court, which was so embarrassing! The judge
was kind enough to ask me to chambers the next day to smooth things over and give more constructive
feedback including what I did well. That was all completely terrifying but ultimately really
helpful so it turned out great, and left me with more confidence in my abilities the next time it
happened. I wish more judges would do that for junior litigators.
Q. Do you identify with any fictional lawyer and why?
A. I feel like I am somewhere between Helen Fisk and Kim Wexler. Helen Fisk because I’m very
uncool, unfashionable, and tend to do unglamorous things, and Kim Wexler because I work hard,
take risks, and enjoy the company of underdog subversive people.
25

Q. What advice would you have for anyone considering a career in the non-profit sector?
A. Non-profits will give you the best work, but it is easy to get over-invested in the treadmill of the
cause and forget about your own ambitions and long-term financial needs. The career path isn’t
clear like working at a firm and really requires creativity, risk-taking, and intentionality. Maintain
your professional connections and profile outside the non-profit sector.
As a litigator working for a non-profit, you will unfortunately be seen as an issue lawyer and
therefore untrustworthy by the court compared to corporate or government opponents. You will
be seen as trying to use the court for political ends and there will be a lot of suspicion. This can
be exacerbated if the bench or opposing counsel perceives you as junior or you are racialized or
female. Opponents can take advantage of this, sometimes unethically. It can be a frustrating hill
to climb and sometimes unfair as most legal non-profits are extremely picky and rigorous about
what they do.
You need to be unimpeachable, highly prepared, and highly reasonable to succeed in those
conditions as you can’t afford to reinforce that imbalance. It is helpful when higher profile senior
members of the private bar partner with top non-profit litigators because that eases the resistance
of the bench to trusting our submissions and taking risks. It also keeps opponents’ unethical
behavior better controlled.
Q. Who inspires you?
A. So many community activists in this sector,
mostly women, who never get any thanks for
what they do for their community. Whenever I
think of these women I’m inspired.
Q. Worst advice you ever received?
A. Don’t apply for a promotion during
maternity leave.
Q. Best mentoring advice?
A. Don’t do environmental and social justice work to score an immediate win because much of the time
you will lose. Your job is to create the conditions for change by speaking truth to power. You cannot
control when the stars will align for that change to actually happen. It might be another generation
from now but the foundation of truth and resistance that you lay now still contributes to that. There are
invisible wins. This has proven very true in my 17 years of doing this work and this longer-term thinking
and attitude about the nature of my contribution has helped me weather a lot of storms. Thanks to my
articling principal for that one!
26
Q. What would you go back and tell your law school self?
A. You don’t need to impress everyone or do what is expected of you. It is okay to follow your own
path. I think I judged myself for not fitting the mould a lot early on. Embrace who you are as it will
take you to better places.

Be the one to send the postcard
FALL CONVENTION 2025
SAVE THE DATE: NOV 12/13-16, 2025
WALDORF ASTORIA | COSTA RICA | PUNTA CACIQUE

28
The Advocates’ Society Medal Dinner
October 30, 2024 | Toronto Hilton

29

30
Fall Convention 2024
November 13/14 - 17, 2024 | Rosewood Baha Mar, The Bahamas

31

The Arleen Goss Young
Advocates’ Award
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS
Celebrating emerging legal talent who embody the
passionate spirit of Arleen Goss, this prestigious
award recognises Ontario lawyers practising 10
years or less. We seek nominees who demonstrate
innovative advocacy, dedication to social justice,
and meaningful community engagement. Your
candidate could join a distinguished legacy of
advocates who shape both law and community.
Deadline for nominations is
Monday, February 24, 2025.
NOMINATION FORM

Mid-Career Women Advocates’ Winter Mixer
January 22, 2025 | The Calgary Petroleum Club
33

34
www.advocates.ca