DOCSLIB.ORG

The Future of Advocacy in Canada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Future of Advocacy in Canada The Advocates’ Society The Right to be Heard: The Future of Advocacy in Canada Final Report of the Modern Advocacy Task Force June 2021 Table of Contents Foreword 4 Acknowledgments 6 Executive Summary 8 Part I—The Modern Advocacy Task Force: Genesis, Mandate and Objectives 10 I.1 The Advocates’ Society 10 I.2 The Genesis and Raison D’être of the Modern Advocacy Task Force 10 I.3 The Mandate and Organization of the Modern Advocacy Task Force 12 I.4 The Modern Advocacy Symposium 13 I.5 The Structure of this Report 14 I.6 A Broader Call to Action 15 Part II—The Origins of Oral Advocacy 16 II.1 The Foundations of Oral Advocacy in History and Jurisprudence 16 Overview 16 Discussion 16 Conclusion 30 II.2 Indigenous Perspectives and Oral Traditions 31 Overview 31 Discussion 31 Conclusion 39 Part III—Learning from the Past, Moving to the Future 40 III.1 Learning and Persuasion: An Examination of Other Disciplines and the Legal Experience 40 The Right to be Heard: The Future of Advocacy in Canada | Page 2 Table of Contents Overview 40 Discussion 40 Conclusion 48 III.2 Modes of Hearing in Canada and Beyond 49 Overview 49 Discussion 49 Conclusion 58 III.3 Perspectives from Canadian Justice System Stakeholders 59 Overview 59 Objectives 59 Methodology 60 Results of Stakeholder Consultations 64 Conclusion 88 Part IV—The Way Forward: Key Observations and Task Force Recommendations 89 IV.1 The Work of the Task Force 89 IV.2 Key Observations and Principles Informing the Task Force’s Recommendations 90 IV.3 Recommendations: Model Framework for Determining the Mode of Hearing 94 IV.4 Recommendations Regarding Further Action 98 Endnotes 100 Appendix A 113 The Right to be Heard: The Future of Advocacy in Canada | Page 3 Foreword from Guy J. Pratte, President of The Advocates’ Society For most litigants, involvement in the justice system will be a rare and import- ant, if not seminal, event in their lives. It will often culminate in a hearing held at a courthouse. Until very recently, such hearings have almost universally taken place in an actual courtroom where real people (judge, lawyers, litigants, witness- es) gathered together. Whether the courthouse was as impressive as the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, or a more modest building in a small town, that court- house held a certain aura. The delivery of justice in the physical spaces designed for that purpose has always represented our collective effort to capture and re- flect the importance of open and transparent justice in a civil society. We could have devised an entirely different system, as some contend we should. Indeed, we could dispense justice in many (if not most) cases by proceedings con- ducted entirely in writing. This, some believe, would be much more efficient. But even if we were to accept that exclusive reliance on a written process results in equally sound judicial decision-making (a proposition at odds with the limited re- search and the experience of many judges), such reliance would in any event miss a critical dimension of achieving justice aptly captured in the well-known adage, “justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done”. Indeed, experience teaches that nothing renders an unfavourable decision more acceptable to the losing party than her having been in the courtroom with the judge, able to see and hear that the judge kept an open mind and understood her case thoroughly. That human experience can simply not be duplicated or re- placed by exclusive reliance on written advocacy. With the onset of the COVID pandemic, the tradition of oral advocacy conduct- ed in the presence of all participants in the same physical place was upended and often displaced by video technology. The use of this technology to conduct hearings outside of physical courtrooms has allowed judges, litigants, lawyers and the public to “gather” virtually. For some, these new platforms have demon- strated that the old ways of dispensing justice in stuffy courtrooms were not only antiquated, but an impediment to access to justice that should be relegated to the trash heap. There is no denying that the availability of new video technology essentially “saved the justice system” during the pandemic: it allowed for the delivery of justice at a time when health and safety exigencies required alternate means of The Right to be Heard: The Future of Advocacy in Canada | Page 4 conducting court proceedings, and did so with relative ease, unthinkable just a few years ago. Its undeniable advantages have led many – judges, litigants and counsel – to support its permanent use, at least for routine and administrative matters and for substantive matters where practical impediments hinder in-per- son participation. This recent experience, forced upon us by the pandemic, af- fords us a great opportunity to consider the scope of the permanent use of video technology to improve access to and the administration of justice. As we consider these new possibilities, we should not, in my view, equate virtu- al reality with reality. It is not. For judges and lawyers who regularly (if not daily) spend their lives in courthouses, the courtroom environment may have become second nature. But that is not so for most litigants and witnesses or even some advocates. The delivery of justice – or at least the good faith effort to do so – is a most profound, important and human endeavour which requires solemnity, transparency, visibility and communication between all individuals involved in the process. To repeat: justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. “Seeing” on video when there is effectively no safe alternative has been a reasonable facsimile, but it is a facsimile. Indeed, in other areas of our lives, the availability of virtual platforms, while undoubtedly helpful during this pandemic, has served to underscore the critical importance of in-person interaction. In this time of crisis, we have conducted parliamentary activity, primary and secondary school education, religious ser- vices, and family gatherings – to give a few examples – remotely. Yet few would say that this remote way of conducting activities of such importance to our civic, community, and personal lives is the “right” way to proceed when we are not in a worldwide pandemic. I, for one, will not choose to have “FaceTime dinners” with friends or family when social distancing measures are lifted and it is again possi- ble to have actual in-person get-togethers. The Report of the Modern Advocacy Task Force readily recognizes the very sig- nificant contribution that video technology can make to improving the admin- istration of justice, and recommends its permanent use for many matters. The Report also seeks to remind us all that the seeking of justice is, after all, a human endeavour, where the crucible of the actual courtroom allows all to know, hear, and see that we are together involved in that enterprise. Conducting justice in the same room; being able to observe and listen to the judge in the same room; having the witnesses confronting the court and the parties in the same room – few The Right to be Heard: The Future of Advocacy in Canada | Page 5 activities are more important to the cohesion of civil society than the meting out of justice by an independent judiciary in a truly public and common setting. In my view, we should think long and hard about its wholesale replacement by reason- able facsimile, except where circumstances genuinely and reasonably justify it. I hope that, as we seek to learn from the recent pandemic experience, we do not forget entirely the reasons why in-person hearings and oral advocacy have always played such a prominent role in the administration of justice in Canada. Improvements to the justice system made possible by modern technology can and should be made, as the recommendations made in this Report clearly attest. But these changes should not be mistaken as a panacea for the grave challenges of access to justice, nor as an adequate replacement for in-person justice in all, or even most, cases. In-person oral advocacy consecrates the gravity, importance and solemnity with which the administration of justice is ideally imbued. Of course, ideals are just that: they cannot always be realized, and we must bend to the imperatives of pragmatism when the ideal becomes an enemy of the good. But we should never lose sight of the ideal – lest, having lost our beacon, we lose our way altogether. Acknowledgments Since its founding some sixty years ago, The Advocates’ Society has been dedi- cated to protecting and promoting the right of Canadians to be heard through ro- bust and effective advocacy. Nearly a year in the making, this Report faithfully re- flects that commitment. I hope that it will serve as a valuable resource to all those concerned with modernizing our justice system and making it more accessible, without compromising the fundamental values that have informed its legacy. On behalf of our Board of Directors and members of The Advocates’ Society, I would like to acknowledge and express my sincere gratitude to all those who contributed so much of their time, energy and talent to this Report. We especially thank the members of our Modern Advocacy Task Force and Modern Advocacy Advisory Group. Guy J. Pratte, Ad. E., LSM President, The Advocates’ Society The Right to be Heard: The Future of Advocacy in Canada | Page 6 Members of the Modern Advocacy Task Force Peter J. Osborne, Lenczner Slaght, Chair Lillian Ying Pan, Q.C., Dentons Canada LLP, Co-Chair, Scott C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Carissima Mathen*
    C h o ic es a n d C o n t r o v e r sy : J udic ia l A ppointments in C a n a d a Carissima Mathen* P a r t I What do judges do? As an empirical matter, judges settle disputes. They act as a check on both the executive and legislative branches. They vindicate human rights and civil liberties. They arbitrate jurisdictional conflicts. They disagree. They bicker. They change their minds. In a normative sense, what judges “do” depends very much on one’s views of judging. If one thinks that judging is properly confined to the law’s “four comers”, then judges act as neutral, passive recipients of opinions and arguments about that law.1 They consider arguments, examine text, and render decisions that best honour the law that has been made. If judging also involves analysis of a society’s core (if implicit) political agreements—and the degree to which state laws or actions honour those agreements—then judges are critical players in the mechanisms through which such agreement is tested. In post-war Canada, the judiciary clearly has taken on the second role as well as the first. Year after year, judges are drawn into disputes over the very values of our society, a trend that shows no signs of abating.2 In view of judges’ continuing power, and the lack of political appetite to increase control over them (at least in Canada), it is natural that attention has turned to the process by which persons are nominated and ultimately appointed to the bench.
    [Show full text]
  • For Immediate Release – June 19, 2020 the ADVOCATES' SOCIETY
    For immediate release – June 19, 2020 THE ADVOCATES’ SOCIETY ESTABLISHES THE MODERN ADVOCACY TASK FORCE The Advocates’ Society has established a Modern Advocacy Task Force to make recommendations for the reform of the Canadian justice system. The recommendations of the Task Force will seek to combine the best measures by which Canadian courts have adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic with other measures designed to ensure meaningful and substantive access to justice for the long term. The Advocates’ Society believes that permanent changes to our justice system require careful research, analysis, consultation, and deliberation. “This is a pivotal moment for the Canadian justice system,” said Guy Pratte, incoming President of The Advocates’ Society. “There is no doubt that we are learning a great deal from the changes to the system brought about by necessity during this crisis. We have a unique opportunity to reflect on this experience and use it to enhance the efficiency and quality of the justice system. We must do that while preserving the fundamental right of litigants to have their cases put forward in a meaningful and direct way before courts and other decision-makers.” The Task Force is composed of members of The Advocates’ Society from across the country. They will be guided by an advisory panel of some of the most respected jurists and counsel in our country. The Task Force’s mandate is to provide insight and analysis to assist in the modernization of the justice system. It will be informed by experience, jurisprudence and Canadian societal norms. The Task Force will offer recommendations designed to ensure that the Canadian legal system provides a sustainable, accessible and transparent system of justice in which litigants and the public have confidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: a 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 Canliidocs 33319 Adam M
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 67 (2014) Article 4 Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 Adam M. Dodek Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Dodek, Adam M.. "Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 67. (2014). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol67/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit* Adam M. Dodek** 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 The way in which Justice Rothstein was appointed marks an historic change in how we appoint judges in this country. It brought unprecedented openness and accountability to the process. The hearings allowed Canadians to get to know Justice Rothstein through their members of Parliament in a way that was not previously possible.1 — The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, PC [J]udicial appointments … [are] a critical part of the administration of justice in Canada … This is a legacy issue, and it will live on long after those who have the temporary stewardship of this position are no longer there.
    [Show full text]
  • International Journal of the Legal Profession Judging Gender
    International Journal of the Legal Profession Judging gender: difference and dissent at the Supreme Court of Canada MARIE-CLAIRE BELLEAU* & REBECCA JOHNSON** ABSTRACT Over 25 years ago, Justice Bertha Wilson asked “Will women judges really make a difference?” Taking up her question, we consider the place of difference in gender and judging. Our focus is on those ‘differences of opinion’ between judges that take the form of written and published judicial dissent. We present and interrogate recent statistics about practices of dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to gender. The statistics are provocative, but do not provide straightforward answers about gender and judging. They do, however, pose new questions, and suggest the importance of better theorizing and exploring the space of dissent. 1. Introductory observations In a controversial 1990 speech, Justice Bertha Wilson, the first woman judge of the Supreme Court oF Canada, posed a question that has occupied many theorists of law: “Will women judges really make a diFFerence?” (Wilson, 1990). With the beneFit oF 25 years with women judges on Canada’s highest court, it is worth returning to Justice Wilson’s question. But in asking about judges, gender and diFFerence, we want to Foreground a particular kind of diFFerence often present For appellate judges: a ‘diFFerence of opinion’. All judges grapple constantly with the unavoidable tension at the heart oF law—a tension between the demands of stability and responsive change (Fitzpatrick, 2001). But the grappling is intensiFied For appellate judges, who bring multiple skills and divergent liFe experiences to bear on a single case.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Judicial Nomination Processes and the Press: ‘Interesting, in a Sleepy Sort of Way’
    Oñati Socio-legal Series, v. 4, n. 4 (2014) – Law in the Age of Media Logic ISSN: 2079-5971 Canadian Judicial Nomination Processes and the Press: ‘Interesting, in a Sleepy Sort of Way’ ∗ DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN Schneiderman, D., 2014. Canadian Judicial Nomination Processes and the Press: ‘Interesting, in a Sleepy Sort of Way’. Oñati Socio-legal Series [online], 4 (4), 685-708. Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2511239 Abstract Most of the recent appointees to the Supreme Court of Canada have participated in a new Canadian judicial nomination process initiated by the current Conservative government. As originally formulated in early policy platforms, the process was intended to mimic features of US Senate judicial confirmation hearings and so would highlight the distinction (popular in US political discourse) between ‘applying’ and ‘making’ law. This led to widespread fears that any new public process would politicize judicial appointments and functions at the Supreme Court. The process turned out to be much more tepid than anticipated and so raises questions about what Canadians may have learned as a consequence of this new nomination process. This paper undertakes a qualitative analysis of reporting of four nomination processes from a select number of Canadian newspapers. The main object is to determine the degree to which readers might have been alerted to the distinction between law and politics or, put another way, between judicial activism and restraint. It turns out that this framing was not dominant in the coverage and that, instead, distinctive Canadian political preoccupations, like language politics, got channeled through this new political opportunity structure.
    [Show full text]
  • The Collection Includes
    The collection includes: Foreword • The Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Chief Justice of Canada – Keeper of the Lighthouse / Gardien du phare • The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, former Prime Minister of Canada – An Appointment with Destiny • The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, former Governor General of Canada – Incomparable Judge, Inspiring Woman • Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts – A Leader Among Chiefs: An American Perspective on Beverley McLachlin’s Legacy as Chief Justice LIVING LEADERSHIP • The Honourable Warren K. Winkler, Chief Justice of Ontario – A Leader Born and Bred: The Story of Beverley McLachlin • Emmett Macfarlane – Leader and Representative: Examining the Legacy of Beverley McLachlin Inside and Outside of Court • The Right Honourable Lady Justice Mary Arden, DBE, Judge-in-Charge, Head of International Judicial Relations for England and Wales – The Distinct Leadership Profiles of Intermediate and Final Appellate Courts • L'honorable Marie Deschamps – Beverley McLachlin : femme, juge, porte-étendard • The Honourable Thomas A. Cromwell – Keeping Our Promises: Access to Justice • Catherine Dauvergne – Immigration Law under the McLachlin Court THE CANADIAN IDEA • David Schneiderman – The Separation of Powers and Constitutional Balance at the McLachlin Court • Kate Glover Berger – The Constitution of the Administrative State • Richard Albert – The Expositor and Guardian of Our Constitutional Values • Wade Wright – Federalism(s) in the Supreme Court of Canada During the McLachlin Years • Janice Gross Stein and Benjamin Smalley – The Global and the Local: Connections across Borders in the Thought of Beverley McLachlin • Guy Canivet, Premier président, Cour de cassation de France and Judge of the Counseil constitutionnel – Cours suprêmes et questions de société: la question des mariages entre personnes de même sexe HARMONY • Marcus Moore – Justice as Harmony: The Distinct Resonance of of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's Juridical Genius • Peter W.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Law and the Claim of Causation
    COMPARATIVE LAW AND THE CLAIM OF CAUSATION JEAN HO To accept that everything happens for a reason is to accept the connection between cause and effect that forms the basis of the notion of causation. Although causation or un lien de causalité has long been regarded as integral to the law on extra-contractual obligations, its use in the study of the development and status of comparative law in various legal systems has not been attempted. This article pursues a novel train of inquiry by claiming that the actual importance of comparative law to a legal system should be understood as a chain of events that culminate to inform the regard in which comparative law is held today. The claim of causation in comparative law posits that the history of engaging in comparative law in a legal system influences the type of scholarship on comparative law produced which in turn influences the pedagogy of comparative law. The veracity of this claim is tested by considering the history, scholarship and pedagogy of comparative law in selected legal systems in Europe and North America. This article then looks at several legal systems in Asia in one of which the claim of causation risks total displacement. Such an occurrence, far from defeating the claim of causation, reveals the difficulty of dissociating the pedagogy of comparative law (the effect) from its history and scholarship (the causes). TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. THE CLAIM OF CAUSATION IN CONTINENTAL EUROPE (FRANCE, GERMANY AND ITALY) A) HISTORY B) SCHOLARSHIP C) PEDAGOGY III. THE CLAIM OF CAUSATION IN ENGLAND A) HISTORY B) SCHOLARSHIP C) PEDAGOGY IV.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Constitutional Courts, a Comparative Law Perspective
    The role of constitutional courts, a comparative law perspective Canada: The Supreme Court STUDY EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Comparative Law Library Unit PE 640.134 - July 2019 THE ROLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS, A COMPARATIVE LAW PERSPECTIVE Canada: The Supreme Court STUDY July 2019 Summary This study is part of a wider project investigating, from a comparative law perspective, the role of constitutional courts of different states. Following a brief historical introduction to the jurisdiction of the state in question, the various reports examine the composition, internal organization, functioning, jurisdiction of the various highest courts, as well as the right of access to its courtroom, its procedural rules, and the effects and the execution of its judgments. The present study examines Canada’s highest court, the Supreme Court. While all judicial courts may rule on constitutional matters, the Supreme Court of Canada enjoys a privileged status in the Canadian legal landscape. As the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, it has the final word with respect to constitutional interpretation, notably in constitutional matters. It thus plays a central role in Canada’s federal democracy. EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Study AUTHOR This study was written by Professor Johanne Poirier of McGill University’s Facutly of Law, Montreal, at the request of the Comparative Law Library Unit, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (DG EPRS), General Secretariat of the European Parliament. The author wishes to thank Elena Sophie Drouin, Mélisande Charbonneau-Gravel and Catherine Mathieu for their effective research assistance. NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR, PROF. JOHANNE POIRIER This Report was written at the request of DG EPRS, following the publication of Johanne Poirier, ‘Legal Proceedings available to Individuals before the Highest Courts: a Comparative Law Perspective – Canada’, European Parliament Research Service, Brussels, 2017, 94 pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity, Transparency & Inclusion in Canada's Judiciary
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Articles & Book Chapters Faculty Scholarship 12-2016 Diversity, Transparency & Inclusion in Canada’s Judiciary Samreen Beg Source Publication: Debating Judicial Appointments in an Age of Diversity, Graham Gee and Erika Rackley (eds.) Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works Part of the Judges Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Beg, Samreen and Lorne Sossin. "Diversity, Transparency & Inclusion in Canada’s Judiciary." In Debating Judicial Appointments in an Age of Diversity, eds. Graham Gee and Erika Rackley (London: Routledge 2017) This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. Diversity, Transparency & Inclusion in Canada’s Judiciary Samreen Beg and Lorne Sossin Introduction “Of 100 new federally appointed judges 98 are white, Globe finds”.1 This arresting headline from the Globe and Mail in 2012 created waves in the legal community and beyond. While it was known that the Canadian judiciary – particularly federal judicial appointments2 – suffered from problems related to diversity and inclusion, the extent of the problem had not been explicitly laid out before. The headline and report that followed not only highlighted the fact that the judiciary was not seeing any progress with respect to representation, but was actually regressing from gains that had been made in previous years. Canada is one of the most culturally, ethnically, religiously and linguistically diverse countries in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Leaflet 2005A
    LEAF The newsletter of West Coast LEAF VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1 JANUARY 2005 let Both Bertha Wilson and Claire issues in L’Heureux Dube were attacked for being places such reason feminists, activists, and dissenters, much as the Sudan like our two new appointments, particu- and Iraq. In to be larly Rosalie Abella, who have attracted November, A this label even before they had begun. she had the proud Protesters outside the Ottawa court passion and building on October 4, 2004 carried courage to he Supreme Court of Canada has placards denigrating them as radical femi- speak out T two new judges this fall, and they nists with an alleged history of biased against are both women. Four out of nine judgments against men in divorce pro- the Bush judges are now women in the top court ceedings and stressing the importance of Administra- in our land, an extraordinary statistic. We a “No” vote to same-sex marriage. I tion and should be proud that we live in a country haven’t made an exhaustive search of the question Jennifer Conkie that supports and promotes this achieve- archives, but I suspect that this was the the use of ment. When Madam Justices Rosalie first time protesters ever gathered at any unnecessary violence against unarmed Abella and Louise Charron joined Chief Supreme Court appointment, and the civilians in the current Iraq conflict. Justice Beverly McLachlin and Madam media paid attention. Another woman lawyer from our Justice Marie Deschamps in October to province, Senator Mobina Jaffer, is repre- form this remarkable foursome, they senting Canada in international work in made history for our Canadian legal sys- Simply by being present the Sudan, where genocide and systemic tem, and for women generally.
    [Show full text]
  • Female Justices, Feminism and the Politics of Judicial Appointment: a Reexamination Rosalind Dixon
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers Working Papers 2009 Female Justices, Feminism and the Politics of Judicial Appointment: A Reexamination Rosalind Dixon Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/ public_law_and_legal_theory Part of the Law Commons Chicago Unbound includes both works in progress and final versions of articles. Please be aware that a more recent version of this article may be available on Chicago Unbound, SSRN or elsewhere. Recommended Citation Rosalind Dixon, "Female Justices, Feminism and the Politics of Judicial Appointment: A Reexamination" (University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No. 283, 2009). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Working Papers at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY WORKING PAPER NO. 283 FEMALE JUSTICES, FEMINISM AND THE POLITICS OF JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT: A RE‐EXAMINATION Rosalind Dixon THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO November 2009 This paper can be downloaded without charge at the Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/index.html and The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. Female Justices, Feminism and the Politics of Judicial Appointment A Re-Examination Rosalind Dixon* “The question should not be whether Justice O'Connor's seat ought to be filled by a woman but why half of the nine justices are not women .
    [Show full text]
  • 2016-2017 YEAR in REVIEW in 2016-2017, the Supreme Court Advocacy Institute Completed Its Tenth Year of Operation, During Which
    2016-2017 YEAR IN REVIEW National Advisory Committee In 2016-2017, the Supreme Court Advocacy Institute completed its tenth year of The Honourable Frank Iacobucci, Chairperson operation, during which it continued to provide counsel appearing for argument C.C., Q.C., ​ The Honourable Gérald V. La Forest, before the Supreme Court of Canada with rigorous practice sessions. The Honorary Chairperson C.C., Q.C., ​ Institute’s advocacy program aims to increase the effectiveness and quality of The Honourable Peter Cory, C.C., advocacy by simulating for counsel the experience of oral argument before the Honorary Chairperson C.D. Q.C., ​ highest court. A panel of seasoned Supreme Court advocates hears counsel’s The Honourable John C. Major, C.C., Honorary Chairperson Q.C., ​ argument and offers candid and constructive feedback to assist counsel in The Honourable Michel Bastarache, making their oral submissions effective and helpful to the Court. Honorary Chairperson C.C., ​ The Honourable Louise Charron, Honorary Chairperson Demand for the Institute’s advocacy program is high. Over the past year, the C.C., ​ The Honourable Ian Binnie, C.C., Institute provided free, non-partisan advocacy sessions in 40% of cases before Honorary Chairperson Q.C., ​ the Court. Participation rates were particularly high in Ontario (where 57% of The Honourable Marie Deschamps, Honorary Chairperson appeals benefitted from the Institute’s services) and Alberta (where 57% of C.C., ​ appeals benefitted from the Institute’s services). The Institute’s advocacy The Honourable Morris J. Fish, C.C., Honorary Chairperson Q.C., ​ program was used for a wide range of appeals in civil and criminal matters, by The Honourable Louis LeBel, C.C., counsel working in private practice as well as in government, and by seasoned Honorary Chairperson advocates as well as first-time counsel before the Court.
    [Show full text]