Advocacy Matters - Winter 2021

ADVOCACY MATTERS
WINTER 2021

What the TWEET is this?
When you see this icon, throughout the publication,
click on it to see what members are tweeting about.
Renew
Your TAS
Membership
Today
05
09
12
15
19
CONTENTS
Chair Chat
Yola S. Ventresca, Lerners LLP
Is History Repeating Itself or is it Business as
Usual in American Politics?
Christine Vanderschoot, Vanderschoot Family Law
Becoming “Lawyer Inc.” – The 10+ Business of
Law Series Tackles Professional Corporations
Nathan Sutherland, Pink Larkin
Report from “The Bench Speaks”
Michelle Alton, Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
The New Wave of Women-Founded
Boutique Firms
Compiled by Megan Keenberg, C.S., Van Kralingen & Keenberg LLP
Renew your TAS membership today and continue to be part
of our national advocacy community. TAS Members can now
enjoy exclusive access to a Free Member Resource Library that
features a selection of archived TAS programming 24/7.
RENEW TODAY
25
Réussir le mentorat : entrevue avec
Me Valérie Lemaire, récipiendaire du prix
Excellence en Mentorat du Québec 2020
Daniel Baum, Langlois Avocats, S.E.N.C.R.L.
Editor: Tamara Ramsey, Dale & Lessmann LLP (Editor)
The opinions expressed by individual authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Advocates’ Society.
Advocacy Matters Editorial Team: Andrew Gibbs, Department of Justice, Christine J. Vanderschoot, Vanderschoot Family Law, Megan Keenberg,
Van Kralingen & Keenberg LLP, Daniel Baum, Langlois Avocats, S.E.N.C.R.L., Ayesha Laldin, Department of Justice, Michelle Alton, Workplace Safety
and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
3

UPCOMING PRACTICE GROUP EVENTS
Connect with the bench and bar in your practice area, learn and share insights through our
15 Practice Groups. Membership in TAS Practice Groups is included in member dues.
(Click on the program to learn more)
MAR 02
Fire Sale?
Sale Processes
in the Pandemic
(Live Online)
MAR 04
Mingling
with
Mediators
(Live Online)
MAR 23
I’ll Take Labour
& Employment for
$300, Alex
(Live Online)
MAR 25
Admin Law &
Judicial Reviews
in the Tax
Litigation Context
(Live Online)
CHAIR CHAT
Chair Chat
Yola S. Ventresca, Lerners LLP
APR 20
Pleadings in the
Tax Court of
Canada -
Best Practices
(Live Online)
MAY 19
Specialized
Arbitration:
Construction and
Technology
(Live Online)
APR 08
Shareholder
Activism on
Environmental
and Social Issues
(Live Online)
APR 12
Construction Law:
Cross-Country
Meet-Up
(Live Online)
And so we’ve reached 2021.
It is difficult to think of a time in recent memory when that lofty but ill-defined notion of the rule
of law has enjoyed such prominence in our public discourse. Maybe more than ill-defined, the
problem is that the concept of the rule of law is scarcely understood even by those who invoke it to
respond to events like the violence that rocked the US Capitol the first week of January. These were
tumultuous events that disrupted for the first time in a long time the lawful, peaceful transition of
power, one of the hallmarks of constitutional democracy. It’s not surprising, then, that many of us
– especially those who play a central role in preserving and promoting the rule of law – are deeply
unsettled by the prospect of a seemingly well-established constitutional order unmoored from its
historical, ethical and legal foundations; of norms and practices dangerously overwhelmed by a
flood of misinformation, conspiracy theories and lies about rigorous electoral processes and the
5

legal adjudication thereof – the integrity of which
are vital to any functioning democratic system.
Yet as unsettling as all of this has been, challenges
to the legitimacy of electoral processes
and outcomes have proven how vital the rule
of law is to a truly free and democratic society,
and to preserving and promoting civil and human
rights. Consider, for instance, the role that
lawyers and judges have played in adjudicating
fairly and diligently the many specious legal
challenges mounted against electoral outcomes
in several American states; challenges which,
had they succeeded, would effectively have disenfranchised
millions of voters – largely African
Americans. These challenges were a disturbing
reminder (as if we needed one) of the persistence
of systemic racism and discrimination
in politics, law and society.
Yet in the end, the courts, on the whole, adjudicated
specious legal claims as we would have
wanted them to – by respecting due process, listening
to claims and complaints, inviting plaintiffs
to present their evidence and rendering
judgement. In the end, those fundamental pillars
of the rule of law - evidence, proof, reasoned
argument – won the day as the vital guardrails
of due process and judicial review held. In the
end, the rule of law – that vital guardrail of democracy,
civility and human dignity – prevailed,
delivering a blow to the powerful forces of disinformation
and hate.
It would be naïve, however, to think that all is
well. The many challenges we confront in these
uniquely disturbed times demand a renewed
commitment to understanding the historical
foundations of the rule of law, and the vital role
that lawyers, jurists and legal scholars can and
should play as ethical advocates in the service
of individual rights and the common good.
Wishing you all a happy and healthy 2021.
SPRING SYMPOSIUM
The Advocates’ Society and the American College of Trial Lawyers invite you to attend the 20 th Annual
Spring Symposium, a flagship program featuring the highest caliber speakers, topics and thought pieces.
This year, Spring Symposium will be delivered virtually as a 2-part series. Part 1 features the latest
developments, strategies, and tools for effective virtual advocacy. Part 2 explores important access to
justice and pro bono issues. Register for one or both sessions. No travel required!
Spring Symposium:
The Effective Advocate
April 21, 2021 |1:00 pm to 4:00 pm (ET)
Program Chairs:
Bradley E. Berg, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Alexandra S. Clark, Ministry of the
Attorney General Crown Law Office Civil
Sandra A. Forbes,
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
Topics Include:
• The Year in Review: Key Cases in 2020
• Effective Remote Advocacy:
Hearing from the Trenches
• Debate: Virtual Advocacy is Inferior to
In-Person Advocacy – True or False?
• Special Keynote Presentation
Spring Symposium:
The Advocate Making a Difference
April 28, 2021 | 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm (ET)
Program Chairs:
Sandra A. Forbes,
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
Doug Mitchell, IMK S.e.n.c.r.l.
Guy J. Pratte, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Topics Include:
• The Bench Speaks:
The Advocate Making a Difference
• A View from Corporate In-House Counsel:
The Importance of Pro-Bono Work
• Fireside Chat with Kimball R. Anderson
• ACTL Keynote Presentation by
Douglas R. Young
Faculty includes:
The Honourable Chief Justice
George R. Strathy,
Court of Appeal for Ontario
The Honourable Frank Marrocco,
Retired Associate Chief Justice,
Superior Court of Justice
The Honourable Jonathan
Lippman, Latham & Watkins LLP
The Honourable Justice
Wendy M. Matheson,
Superior Court of Justice
The Honourable Justice Rita J.
Maxwell, Ontario Court of Justice
Kimball R. Anderson,
Winston & Strawn LLP
Sandra L. Barton, Gowling WLG
Kirsten Crain,
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Simon A. Fish, General Counsel
Emeritus, BMO Financial Group
Scott C. Hutchison,
Henein Hutchison LLP
Matthew Milne-Smith,
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
Yashoda Ranganathan,
Ministry of the Attorney General,
Constitutional Law Branch
Junior Sirivar, McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Douglas R. Young,
Farella Braun + Martel LLP
For an updated faculty list visit,
www.advocates.ca
6
www.advocates.ca

LOOKING BACK
Is History Repeating Itself
or is it Business as Usual in
American Politics?
Christine Vanderschoot, Vanderschoot Family Law
In the 2000-2001 Winter Issue of The Advocates Society Journal, Hillel David and Leah K. Bowness
co-authored an article entitled The Florida vote count decisions: A Canadian perspective. This was an
in-depth examination and discussion of the legal aspects of the recounting of votes in the 2000
Bush/Gore election and surrounding legal issues at play, by authors who were admittedly not experts
in American constitutional law and therefore relied upon a more common understanding
of principles of law than staunch constitutional law tenets. Twenty years later, “Florida” could be
swapped out for “Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan” leading Canadians once again
to ask whether history is repeating itself or is it business as usual.
Many of us, as Canadians and lawyers too, remained glued to the news as it developed (let’s
face it, Canadian elections just don’t have this kind of drama). As neighbours to a super-power we
have a vested interest in what happens south of the border. And as legal minds, many of us have
watched from a legal perspective once again.
9

As a reminder, the 2000 U.S. election hinged
on 537 votes in the state of Florida and ultimately
was resolved by a Supreme Court decision in
mid-December 2000. The SCOTUS found that
ongoing Florida recounting violated the equal
protection clause of the 14 th Amendment. By
this finding the Court declared Bush the winner.
In relation to voting and recounting those votes,
the issue under the equal protection clause
arose when it became apparent that different
U.S. counties, let alone different U.S. states, applied
differing standards to what an acceptable
ballot looked like (we remember the new vocabulary
that sprung up around “dimpled chads”
and “hanging chads”, etc.) The underlying point
though was not just of pop-culture interest; jurisdictional
inconsistencies regarding the acceptance
or refusal of ballots based on appearance
and the re-counter’s view of the voter’s “intention”
necessarily raises the question: What constitutes
a legal vote?
In contrast to the Bush/Gore controversy,
Trump’s accusations around the voting process
have been more widespread. Trump made court
challenges seeking recounts of election results
in swing states based on unsupported allegations
of fraudulent voting practices. In early December,
Georgia was the last state to recertify
its presidential election results confirming in
Biden’s favour. Biden clearly won the electoral
college votes he needed to claim the Presidency.
While the 2000 process dragged on for about 37
days, Trump’s challenges and threats of further
challenges at the state and federal certification
proceedings ran their course without success.
The issue of what constitutes a legal vote is
crucial to democracy; David and Bowman’s article
reminds us that a fundamental tenet of a
democracy is the people’s right to vote and the
right to have one’s vote counted. They further
explain that public confidence in the election
process is essential; if the voter cannot be assured
of an accurate vote count, voters will not
have faith in other parts of the political process.
In the Bush/Gore controversy, the Gore camp
supported the route chosen by the Florida Court
which was to “overlook” irregularities in the voting
process that the court felt did not compromise
the integrity of the election based on the
court’s theory that laws must be “liberally construed”
to protect the overarching principle of
the right to vote and have each vote counted.
In essence, the Florida Supreme Court sought
to follow its interpretation of the state legislature’s
election laws without expansive rulings
that may result in the court rewriting the Florida
election code, a role reserved for the legislature
and not the judiciary.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Its focus
was on the State’s lack of clarity around how the
recount would occur, including what standards
would be applied during the review of ballots
cast. The SCOTUS believed that the Florida court
was insufficiently concerned with uniform standards
and therefore the SCOTUS judged that
without adequate statewide standards, any
recount directed by the Florida courts risked
non-uniformity in the recounting process, resulting
in a violation of the 14 th amendment.
At the same time, the SCOTUS recognized that
state by state, and even within states, the reality
is that different voting systems and differing
tabulation standards exist.
David and Bowman note that “the statutory
right to contest an election result requires evidence
of the receipt of a number of illegal votes
or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient
to change or place in doubt the result of the
election”. This is relevant to the ongoing Biden-
Trump controversy given that Trump made numerous
legal challenges. While the Bush-Gore
legal focus was on the physical ballots and
whether or not the ballots clearly indicated the
voters’ intention, the Biden-Trump dispute is
somewhat more abstract. Trump’s legal position
mainly challenges the nature of how votes
were made and when they were counted, given
his claim that the mail-in ballot process was insecure
and manipulable. Trump’s legal challenges
all failed to show evidence of significant or
meaningful election fraud.
The Gore-Bush and Trump-Biden controversies
all share one common denominator. Each
proclaims the importance of accurate and fair
voting processes to ensure that the public retains
confidence in the election process that is
a cornerstone of a democracy, but each seeks
to bend to their own advantage what may
make accurate and fair voting processes. For
example, David and Bowman show that Bush
argued that a subjective voting standard risked
at best manipulation and at worst fraud, while
the Gore camp argued that a fixed and strict
standard risked the disenfranchisement of
many voters due to the impossibility, according
to the Gore team, of implementing a uniform
standard that considered all possible voter
accommodation needs. In 2020, Biden championed
mail-in ballots, having access to data
that showed these usually favoured a Democratic
candidate, while Trump fought hard to
have this process severely limited based upon
the same understanding that this method may
favour Biden. Clearly, self-interest will be pursued
along party lines when issues of voting
methods are at issue.
Regarding the Biden-Trump election, the ongoing
high-level debate focuses on the ability
and, let’s be honest, the appropriateness of a
sitting president reacting the way Trump has.
Before and after the election his social media
posts warned of looming legal challenges and
had outright accusations of his belief that the
Democrats would cheat and “steal” the election,
and he now has been impeached by the House
of Representatives for inciting insurrection.
Trump’s hyperbole may inspire support among
some Republicans while further alienating more
moderate Republicans and Democrats.
But as any Canadian obsessed with American
politics can tell you, Trump v. Biden was no Bush
v. Gore. Given the above, and leaving out any
allegations and/or suspicions of some votes on
either side being questionable or even fraudulent,
I must conclude that history has not repeated
itself 20 years later. That said, the drama
in 2020 may very well outlast the 2000 hullabaloo
in terms of duration and scope.
10 11

10+ EVENT REPORT
Becoming “Lawyer Inc.” –
The 10+ Business of Law
Series Tackles Professional
Corporations
Nathan Sutherland, Pink Larkin
On November 9, 2020 the 10+ Standing Committee hosted the first of its “Business of Law”
events of the 2020-2021 calendar. The event focused on professional corporations, something
many lawyers explore as they move into mid-career or start their own firms. The program
featured four accounting professionals to guide attendees through the ins and outs
of professional corporations: Sanjaya Ranasinghe
(Ernst & Young), Kerry Smith (MNP),
Dal Deol (KMPG), and Katie Rogers (Deloitte).
After an initial roundtable type presentation
from these four, the session concluded with
small-group break-outs to allow further discussion
with each of the panellists.
At the risk of being overly simplistic, the
main theme was that incorporating can have
definite benefits, but they have to outweigh
the costs. With the changes to taxation of
split income in 2017, certain tax benefits no
longer apply. For lawyers practising in a partnership,
incorporation will make most sense
for those with sufficient income and savings
– likely those mid-career or later – who are
looking at ways to shelter additional savings
for retirement. Lawyers not already contributing
the maximum amount to RRSPs, for instance,
likely will not see a great benefit from
incorporating. This is due to the up-front and
ongoing costs of incorporating, both time and
financial. One of the presenters memorably
described having a professional corporation
as “almost like having another child”.
The discussions in the break-outs were lively.
Another recurring theme of the session
was that the decision to incorporate is – as
they say – “fact dependent”. The break-outs
allowed participants to explore more pointed
questions based on personal circumstances.
Overall, the session was a great introduction
to professional incorporations. The 10+
Standing Committee thanks the sponsors,
MNP and Deloitte, and each of the presenters
for helping make the event a success.
12 13

CPD REPORT
Report from
“The Bench Speaks”
Michelle Alton,
Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
Now Live! Friends Who Argue - A new TAS podcast jointly
hosted by our Young Advocate and 10+ Standing Committees.
Segments will feature dialogue with the people who get what you
do, as we delve into both the serious and lighthearted aspects of
life as an advocate in Canada. Know a TAS member we should
talk to? Contact Webnesh Haile at WHaile@singleton.com
Thank you to our Technical Sponsor Dentons Canada LLP
for their support in producing this podcast!
“The Bench Speaks” program (previously called the Senior Counsel Forum) took place on
Friday, November 27 th , 2020. Once again, the program’s co-chairs, Linda Rothstein and Alf
Kwinter, delivered a comprehensive, timely and insightful program featuring a diverse group
of judges from across Canada.
The program began with a fireside chat with The Honourable Justice Sheilah Martin. Justice
Martin reflected on her career before her appointment to the country’s highest court
noting that her academic career had helped with both her writing and viewing questions
positively and not as an interruption. When asked about the issues that the Supreme Court
15

of Canada will likely need to grapple with in
the future, Justice Martin noted equality issues
and systemic prejudice, as well as the
profound impact that technology now has
on all aspects of our lives. Justin Martin also
spoke positively of the important and unique
perspective that intervenors can bring to
proceedings heard by the SCC.
The overall benefits of technology and its
important role in responding to not just the
COVID-19 pandemic but access to justice
challenges generally were noted by several
judges. At the same time, it was recognized
that access to technology, and therefore justice,
is not equal, and that different participants
in the justice system require specific
solutions based on their unique circumstances.
The need for in-person hearings was also
discussed, with a general recognition that
virtual hearings in some form will likely be
the new norm going forward. The judges encouraged
advocates to become comfortable
with remote advocacy while also emphasizing
the need to prepare and in particular test
out technology in advance. At the same time,
the importance of written advocacy was emphasized,
as it was acknowledged that strong
oral advocacy cannot save poorly written
materials. The judges also discussed alternative
adjudication methods and the need to
leverage all available tools to ensure timely
justice. Overall, the judges recognized their
important role in ensuring fair hearings and
the opportunity for parties to be heard.
The Bench Speaks is just one of the many
programs offered by The Advocates’ Society
that provides participants the opportunity to
hear directly from judges. A recording of this
program is available on demand on The Advocates’
Society webpage.
Puzzled
about how to get more involved with TAS?
10+ Standing Committee could be your answer.
Interested in getting more involved with TAS? Applications
are now being accepted for our 10+ Standing Committee.
Canadian Edition
For years, lawyers in the United States have trusted our
on-line deposition prep program to help prepare their
clients to testify. Recognizing that you give much of the
same advice in discoveries and cross-examinations,
we worked closely with Canadian litigators to adapt
our program for the Canadian practice.
Try it now for FREE:
www.depositiontestimony.com/canada
www.newmedialegal.com 1.888.826.2898
The 10+ Standing Committee (“10+SC”) seeks engaged,
hard-working volunteers to promote the interests of midcareer
advocates through planning and implementing
information and networking events, administering
Advocacy Matters newsletter and participating in the
work of The Advocates’ Society (the “Society”).
The Society welcomes applications to 10+ SC from Society
members who are about 8 to 20 years of call. Successful
applicants will serve a two-year term starting May 2021.
Parental leave will be accommodated.
Deadline to apply: March 15, 2021
Apply for 10+ Standing Committee 2021/22 term
Questions? Please contact Emily Lawrence at
emily.lawrence@paliareroland.com
16

Preparation Series
Preparation Series:
Examination-in-Chief
Tuesday, April 13, 2021
Preparation Series:
Cross-Examination
Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Preparation Series: Opening
Statement and Closing Argument
Tuesday, September 21, 2021
Trial preparation is an ongoing and
constant task. It starts from your first
meeting with a client and extends into
trial. Yet, no two litigators prepare
the same way.
Hear their stories, discover their
methods and learn from the best.
Register for each session individually
or for all 3 to take advantage of our
special bundle rate.
To learn more or register visit
www.advocates.ca
ROUNDTABLE
The New Wave of
Women-Founded
Boutique Firms
Compiled by Megan Keenberg, C.S.,
Van Kralingen & Keenberg LLP
The last few years have seen the increasing proliferation of boutique law firms across Canada,
many of which are founded by women lawyers. In 2017, I joined this new wave of female firm
founders by co-founding Van Kralingen & Keenberg LLP, a commercial litigation and employment
law boutique firm in Toronto. The transition from single-hatted lawyer to hybrid entrepreneur/
manager/ lawyer has been daunting, liberating, and incredibly rewarding. I’ve been supported
through this transition by other women founders who have been generous with their time, wisdom
and practical advice about running a law firm. Here, I have assembled a group of women law
firm founders to talk about starting their own firms:
Elizabeth S. Dipchand, Founder of Dipchand LLP, a corporate, IP law and litigation boutique in Toronto;
Tanya Pagliaroli, Founder of TAP Law, a civil litigation boutique in Toronto;
Krysta Ostwald, Q.C., Co-Founder of WK Family Law LLP in Calgary;
Alexi Wood, Co-Founder of St Lawrence Barristers, a civil litigation boutique in Toronto.
19

Q: What drove you to start your own firm? Do
you think your lived experience as a woman
in the legal profession shaped your choice
to start your own law firm, and shaped how
you run your firm?
Alexi Wood: I do think my experience as a
woman litigator shaped my path and my ultimate
decision to start my own firm. While there
has been progress for women in private practice,
many barriers still exist for women, and
many unconscious biases act to prevent their
advancement. There are many creative ways
to practice law that are not based on an “old
school” or traditional model. I think women are
more interested in exploring those creative, collaborative
options.
I envisioned a firm that valued its people and
its clients, while providing excellent legal services
without sacrificing my personal values. I
could not find a firm that provided legal services
in the way I knew they could be - and should be
- provided. So, I created it! Also, I wanted to be
able to bring my dog to work.
Elizabeth S. Dipchand: As an Indo-Canadian
woman in this profession, my lived experience
includes some of the same experiences as my
colleagues and also includes some other experiences
that are decidedly not the same. By virtue
of who I am – a woman, a person of colour –
there is a different perspective through which I
live, how I’m perceived by others and how we all
perceive events as they unfold. Hopefully, this
reality is something we all know by now.
I was raised to believe that in this country anyone
can succeed if they have the desire, capability
and work ethic to do so. Education and
this belief brought my parents to Canada and
continues to fuel my drive in this profession.
Privilege (another reality that I would hope is
widely acknowledged by now) accrues to different
people in different ways making the path to
success either much easier or much harder to
achieve. I know enough excellent people who
successfully play the game, even if they started
with fewer pieces on the board, to know that
merit-based achievement is not a fallacy. But
imagine a world where a healthy margin of players
didn’t also have one hand tied behind their
backs. The unequal allocation of game pieces
manifests as inherent bias and is as prevalent
in our profession as it is in all other aspects of
our society.
Challenging inherent bias and shifting harmful
defaults is rooted in the concept of “see it
to be it”. People who look different, have different
perspectives and who excel based on their
excellence need to be seen and heard so that
future generations who do not fit the stereotypical
“lawyer” mold have an example of excellence
that is reflected back at them when they
look into a mirror. Our firm is doing our part to
advance this important mission by being purposeful
about our foundation of excellence, integrity,
ingenuity, and fun.
Q: What was the best advice you received about
the business of law before you took the leap?
Krysta Ostwald: My co-founders and I found
ourselves in conflict with the other partners at
our prior firm. We were eight partners at the
former firm and four of us left together. The
best advice we received was to spend time
thinking about the aspects of the prior business
we wished to adopt and why – along with the
opposite – which aspects of the prior business
did we want to change and why. This allowed
us to focus in on our core goals.
Alexi Wood: When starting a new business,
there are some expenses that are necessary
upfront. Don’t skimp on those expenses or
it will cost more in the long run. I invested in
technology and ensuring that we had a robust,
flexible, and stable system. It has allowed us
to be efficient, provide excellent service to our
clients, and to seamlessly move to work from
home when the pandemic hit.
Krysta Ostwald: In terms of good business decisions,
the best advice we received was to limit/
cap each partner’s capital account on an annual
basis. This avoids accumulation of capital accounts
that cause succession planning failures
by crippling future partners’ abilities to buy out
retiring partners.
Q: What was your greatest challenge in launching,
and how did you overcome it?
Tanya Pagliaroli: The logistics of launching
(which included everything from software choices,
IT, brand design, website, bookkeeping etc.)
was my greatest mental challenge. I overcame
it by taking a deep breath, making a to do list,
consulting with my colleagues and friends about
their choices and getting it done. The logistics
may seem overwhelming, but it is neither rocket
science, nor is it as daunting as it appears.
Krysta Ostwald: Our former partners asked that
we leave the space three weeks following our decision
to depart. The scramble to organize four
busy practices to relocate on such a tight deadline
seemed overwhelming. We started by calling
everyone we knew for ideas. This turned out to
be the best approach and our band-aid solution
resulted in some of our fondest memories. We
found colleagues at a law firm with extra space
to accommodate us for the five months it took to
find and renovate our long-term space. We were
temporarily a firm within a firm and many years
later still consider the wonderful group at Scott
Venturo LLP our rescue heroes. Our reputations
and the relationships we had within the profession
flourished during those five initial months
of organized chaos.
Alexi Wood: I had thought about starting a firm
for a few years, and the greatest challenge was
my own self-doubt that I would not be successful
and would not attract the calibre of client to
which I had become accustomed. I am fortunate
to have a fabulous support network who
Elizabeth S. Dipchand, Founder of Dipchand LLP
Tanya Pagliaroli, Founder of TAP Law
20 21

Krysta Ostwald, Q.C., Co-Founder of WK Family Law LLP
Alexi Wood, Co-Founder of St Lawrence Barristers
encouraged me to believe in myself and the reputation
I had built. It was through that support and
encouragement that I developed the confidence
to take the leap. Three years later, I am very proud
of the firm my team has built and, in particular,
the varied and exciting work we have attracted.
Q: What is your approach to business development,
and why is it successful?
Krysta Ostwald: We believe quality work speaks
for itself. We also believe our relationships with
our colleagues in the legal profession are extremely
valuable. Lawyers in other practice areas
are a tremendous source of referrals. Most
people who need legal services call a lawyer they
know, rather than research within the particular
area of law in which they find themselves in need.
Because lawyers are so specialized in their own
practice areas, they are likely to refer to a lawyer
they know in the specialization required. Be that
lawyer they know! We believe that lawyers within
your practice area are equally valuable potential
sources of referral. If you are a respected, trustworthy
colleague with a no-nonsense approach
to the practice of law, other lawyers will want to
work across from you. Build and cherish these
relationships, not just as referral sources but to
ensure your own enjoyment of the practice of law.
Elizabeth S. Dipchand: Business development is
not about developing business; it is about developing
relationships. Excellence, integrity and ingenuity
are foundational expectations upon which
our business development philosophy manifests
through the following principles:
1. Prioritize Happiness and Fun – Success
does not drive happiness, happiness drives
success. We focus on doing the work that
makes us happy. For me personally, this represents
work where I get to exercise my brain
in a variety of ways including learning about
new technology and innovations.
2. Prioritize Relationships – Don’t connect
with people just for the sake of business.
Choose to work with people with whom you
resonate on the big things and be curious.
3. Strict No A$$hole Policy – Our shop has
adopted a strict no a$$hole policy which applies
internally to our people and externally to
our clients and vendors. We are mindful and
selective about what organizations and people
we invite into our literal and figurative space,
actively avoiding those who lack self-awareness
and who have an unhealthy dose of entitlement
in favour of those who view the world
with a sense of curiosity, compassion, and a
willingness to serve something greater.
4. The Inequality of Money – Not all money
is equal. Some clients and their work may
not be worth the money earned on the file.
In this respect, trust your gut.
5. Do Not Settle/Do Things on Purpose –
Do not settle for anything less than professional
excellence. Do not settle on sub-par
clients and/or work. Do not settle by doing
things that make you unhappy and/or unhealthy.
And above all else, do not get in
your own way. Be mindful and purposeful of
your values and motivations. Be mindful of
who you, your firm and your clients are and
advance your business with purpose.
Q: What have you learned about yourself as
a leader?
Tanya Pagliaroli: What I’ve learned is that I
have high expectations of my associates when it
comes to client service and productivity but am
otherwise quite agnostic about the formal trappings
of when, where and even how they deliver.
This has become particularly true during
the pandemic as my firm has transitioned to a
mostly remote working environment. My flexibility
has, I believe, fostered not only a healthy
sense of independence in my associates but
also given them control over their own work life
balance which is something I struggled with for
years as a young lawyer. I’ve also learned that
what I enjoy most about being a leader is the
mentorship opportunities it regularly provides.
Finally, I’ve learned my sense of humour is an
effective tool as a leader.
Alexi Wood: You need to be flexible. I try to guide
and support when needed but also recognize the
need to step back and provide people with the
freedom to forge their own path. I find the best
approach is to ensure that people feel they have
good direction and are fully supported, while encouraging
them to push beyond their limits.
Q: What is the one thing you wish you knew
before starting your firm?
Krysta Ostwald: The one thing I wish I knew before
starting my own firm would be: how quickly
things can change. 2020 and COVID-19 has
brought so much change for my firm, it is a little
bit overwhelming. One of my founding partners
retired, another was appointed to the bench.
Several other significant changes to our business
model, size and plans moving forward have developed
since these events. I am a self-proclaimed
control-freak and 2020 has been a remarkably
unexpected combination of letting go of so many
things I cannot control and tremendous professional
development within my mediation / arbitration
practice. Always be ready for anything and
be prepared to re-design yourself constantly!
Elizabeth S. Dipchand: The root of my unease
and dissatisfaction with my early days of practice
did not stem from the law, but rather from
the way in which I was taught that I should be
practicing law. I was trying to be someone who
I was not and would never be. Practicing in accordance
with who I am and with clients who
share our values has created the foundation of
a profoundly fulfilling and profitable practice.
Tanya Pagliaroli: The one thing I wish I knew
before starting my own firm was that I could do
it and could have done it sooner.
22 23

1. Quels sont vos meilleurs conseils pour les jeunes plaideurs en début de carrière?
Il importe d’être rigoureux, connaître parfaitement les faits du dossier pour ensuite l’appliquer au
droit. La préparation aide à combler l’écart entre un avocat d’expérience et un jeune avocat. Mon
deuxième conseil est d’observer. Lorsque vous êtes à la cour, regardez comment font les autres
avocats sur la forme et sur le fond. Souvent les tribunaux permettent l’accès virtuel aux auditions
par le public. Consultez leurs sites web. Observez virtuellement. Si on vous demande une recherche,
remarquez comment la procédure ou l’opinion a été écrite. Enfin, être curieux et s’intéresser
véritablement et sincèrement aux activités de son client.
ENTREVUE
Réussir le mentorat :
entrevue avec Me Valérie
Lemaire, récipiendaire du
prix Excellence en
Mentorat du Québec 2020 1
Daniel Baum, Langlois Avocats, S.E.N.C.R.L.
2. Comment votre engagement comme
mentor se manifeste-t-il au quotidien?
J’effectue du mentorat individuel auprès des
jeunes avocats impliqués dans mes dossiers et
aussi auprès d’eux pour leurs propres dossiers.
Nous avons un système d’assurance qualité au
cabinet qui impose la révision de chaque opinion
ou procédure par un associé. Je révise donc
régulièrement les documents des plus jeunes
collègues. Nous parlons alors du dossier, de la
théorie de la cause et de la stratégie. Je révise
leurs devis d’interrogatoires ou plan de plaidoirie.
J’aime bien prendre le temps de leur expliquer
la rationnelle derrière mes suggestions ou
corrections. Lorsque j’implique un jeune avocat
dans l’un de mes dossiers, j’essaie toujours de
trouver un volet du dossier qui lui permettrait
d’être en première ligne que ce soit interroger un
des témoins, plaider un argument, et aussi avoir
l’occasion de parler directement au client.
3. Qui est une personne dans la
profession que vous admirez et
pourquoi?
J’ai beaucoup d’estime pour plusieurs
confrères et consœurs. Un qui m’a
marquée davantage dernièrement
est Clément Gascon, l’ancien juge
de la Cour suprême. J’admire qu’un
juriste à la carrière aussi exceptionnelle
ait accepté de parler d’enjeux
qu’il a connus personnellement en
santé mentale. Sa générosité a contribué
à ouvrir le dialogue sur cet enjeu
réel, envoyant par le fait même
un message fort encourageant aux
avocats que des solutions existent.
Ses propos ont aussi sensibilisé le milieu
juridique sur le fait que la santé
mentale se traite au même titre que
la santé physique.
À l’occasion du prix d’Excellence en Mentorat du Québec 2020, Daniel Baum de Langlois
Avocats a parlé avec sa collègue, le récipiendaire Me Valérie Lemaire, de son succès et des
astuces de mentorat.
4. Décrivez votre moment le plus fier en tant qu’avocate.
Chaque victoire apporte certainement une dose de grande satisfaction personnelle mais ce qui
m’apporte davantage de fierté est lorsque j’ai le réel sentiment d’avoir aidé un client à trouver
une solution à son problème et surtout de l’avoir aidé à gérer le stress ou angoisse lié à son litige.
Je pense notamment à un client, qui au terme d’un procès fort émotif, m’avait remerciée en me
disant que peu importe l’issue, il avait le sentiment d’avoir finalement obtenu une paix d’esprit
après avoir pu présenter sa version de l’histoire. J’avais vraiment eu l’impression que la qualité de
mon travail avait fait une différence.
24 25

5. Comment entrevoyez-vous la place des femmes dans le cadre du mentorat et du
parrainage?
Je pense que l’avancement des femmes – et des plaideuses– au sein de la profession est
fondamental et que grâce au mentorat, il va continuer à prendre de l’essor. Au cours de ma
carrière, j’ai toujours pris le temps de motiver plusieurs jeunes avocates dans la poursuite
de leur pratique de droit en cabinet privé, malgré les enjeux que cela pouvait soulever, en
les encourageant et en les soutenant dans leurs projets de parcours atypique, bien souvent
liés à la conciliation travail-famille.
6. Votre clé pour rester en bonne santé (physique et mentale) dans une profession
stressante?
J’essaie de marcher quotidiennement plusieurs kilomètres et fais à l’occasion de la randonnée de
vélo ou de ski de fond les fins de semaine. Pour gérer le stress inhérent à la profession, ce qui a
fonctionné pour moi est d’être organisée et de discuter des dossiers qui me tracassaient avec mes
collègues. Être soi-même au sein de son cabinet, se donner le droit à l’erreur plutôt qu’afficher
en tout temps une attitude de contrôle parfait, réduit considérablement le stress. J’ai aussi eu la
chance d’avoir des enfants, ce qui m’a apporté un réel équilibre et m’a beaucoup aidé à relativiser
et décrocher rapidement au retour à la maison.
7. Dernier livre que vous avez lu?
Nous étions le sel de la mer de Roxane
Bouchard. Un excellent suspense qui se
déroule dans le milieu de la pêche en
Gaspésie.
3e Gala Annuel de Montréal (édition Virtuelle)
Commandité par :
8. Recommandation de restaurant à
Québec pour les avocats de l’extérieur
de la ville?
· Cendrillon
· Tapas et liège
· Kimono Sushi Bar
Quiz Mixer
Thursday, April 15, 2021
8:00 pm - 9:15 pm (ET)
Live Online
We know all you “legal eagles” are
bursting with trivial knowledge, so
let’s see what you’ve got! Join the 10+
Standing Committee for our national
Quiz Mixer, a networking quiz night
exclusively for mid-career advocates
from coast to coast. And there’s no
need to set up a team! Just sign up
and you will be placed into a small
team that will compete together. It’s
a great chance to take a break, meet
new people from across Canada and
“show what you know” at this fun-filled
collegial event.
Hosted by the 10+ Standing Committee
To learn more or register visit
www.advocates.ca
26
Note
1. Dans ce document, le genre masculin est utilisé dans le seul but d’alléger le texte.
Generously sponsored by:

Alberta Advocacy Symposium 2020
Thursday, November 19, 2020 | Live Online
The Bench Speaks
Friday November 27, 2020 | Live Online
Guy J. Pratte, Ad. E., LSM, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
The Honourable Justice Marina Paperny, Court of Appeal of Alberta, The Honourable Justice Susan Griffin, Court of Appeal for British Columbia,
The Honourable Justice Mahmud Jamal, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Linda R. Rothstein, LSM, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
28 29
The Honourable Louise Arbour
The Honourable Chief Justice George R. Strathy, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Alf Kwinter, Singer Kwinter Personal Injury Lawyers,
The Honourable Chief Justice Mary T. Moreau, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

The Art of Networking for Women Advocates: Today & Tomorrow
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 | Live Online
President’s Festive Member Mingle
Wednesday, December 9, 2020 | Live Online
30 31

Civility in a Post-Pandemic Era
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 | Live Online
32 33

Tricks of the Trade
Friday, January 29, 2021 | Live Online
Advocates
in Action
As part of our mission to be a voice
for advocates, The Advocates’ Society
(“TAS”) undertakes initiatives that
seek to improve access to justice,
promote diversity and inclusion,
protect judicial independence, and
make submissions on matters of
significance to the legal profession.
Advocates in Action is here to keep
our members informed about and
engaged with the Society’s important
advocacy work.
Sabrina A. Lucenti, Dooley Lucenti LLP, The Honourable Justice Fred Myers, Superior Court of Justice,
Stephen G. Ross, Rogers Partners LLP, Tara Sweeney, Soloway Wright LLP
Read the December 2020 issue
Read the January 2021 issue
Read the February 2021 issue
To learn more or register visit
www.advocates.ca
Sandev Purewal, Gluckstein Personal Injury Lawyers
35

10+ Committee Meeting
Live Online
36 37

38
www.advocates.ca