Keeping Tabs - Spring 2021

KEEPING TABS
The Advocates’ Society
Spring 2021

CONTENTS
04
06
08
12
14
19
Chair Chat
Chris Horkins, Cassels
How to Network on Zoom and Build Your Brand
Using Social Media
Carlo Di Carlo, Stockwoods
Truth be Told, Supreme Court Splinters on Duty
of Honest Contractual Performance
Waleed Malik, Osler
Lawyer Turned Chef:
A Virtual Cooking Class in London
Elizabeth Harding, Lerners LLP
Mentorship in the Time of COVID: Accessing
Mentorship Resources in Unprecedented Times
Safina Lakhani, Crawley MacKewn Brush LLP and
Wade Poziomka, Ross & McBride LLP
Interview
Compiled by: Carlo Di Carlo, Stockwoods
Mastering the art and craft of advocacy is a career-long commitment and we are
here to help. The Advocates’ Society has been the premier provider of advocacy
skills training for over 30 years. We are proud to provide lawyers across Canada
with the training and the confidence they need to execute on their feet when it
counts. The Judge will notice…your clients will too.
Visit www.advocates.ca. Be part of the legacy of extraordinary advocates.
Editor: Frédéric Plamondon, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt S.E.N.C.R.L./s.r.l.
FPlamondon@osler.com
Keeping Tabs Editorial Team: Kanon Clifford, Bergeron Clifford LLP, Carlo Di Carlo, Stockwoods LLP, James Foy, Addario
Law Group, Web Haile, Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP, Matthew Huys, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Alexandra
Shelley, Torys LLP, Rebecca Shoom, Lerners LLP
The Young Advocates’ Standing Committee (“YASC”) is a standing committee of The Advocates’ Society with a mandate to be a
voice for young advocates (advocates who are ten years of call or fewer) within the Society and within the profession. We do this
through networking/mentoring events, by publishing articles by and for young advocates, and by raising issues of concern to
young advocates as we work with the Society’s Board of Directors. The opinions expressed by individual authors are their own
and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Advocates’ Society.
3

CHAIR CHAT
Chair Chat
Chris Horkins, Cassels
Since the last issue, we celebrated
an auspicious milestone here at
YASC. March marked a year since
the last time we were able to meet
in person. In the past year, we’ve
tried to bridge the gap with a host
of virtual events.
We hope you got to join us for
Breakout with the Bench on April 7
to connect with judges and masters
outside the courtroom, or for our
London-based readers, the virtual
cooking class hosted by Jill’s Table
which you can find out more about
in Elizabeth Harding’s article in
this issue. For those looking for
upcoming virtual events to attend,
we hope you’ll consider registering
for our virtual mentoring event on
May 5 and competing with young
advocates from coast to coast in
the Battle for Canada, our first
ever national trivia night on May
13. Before you log on for your next
virtual networking event, be sure to
check out Carlo Di Carlo’s article on
“How to Network on Zoom and Build
Your Brand Using Social Media”
which features some great advice
from our recent virtual escape room
event with social media strategist
Eva Chan. Hopefully, someday soon,
we’ll be able to meet in person
again for a Young Advocates’ Social
(and when that day comes, the first
round’s on me)!
In honour of Women’s History
Month and International Women’s
Day, this edition of Keeping Tabs
features interviews with four
outstanding women litigators:
Geetha Philipupillai, Morgan Sim,
Lindsay Scott, and Stephanie Di
Giuseppe. Geetha, Morgan, Lindsay
and Stephanie aren’t just rising stars
in our profession – they are stars.
I’m so grateful to each of them for
sharing their inspiring stories and
insights with us in this issue.
Finally, it’s with a heavy heart that I
am signing off on this, my final Chair
Chat as YASC Chair. In the next issue
I’ll be handing things off to Erin Pleet
who I know will do a great job. It’s
been an honour to serve as YASC
Chair this past year, even if it didn’t
look exactly like what I’d imagined
going in, and I look forward to seeing
the great things that YASC will do
with Erin at the helm!
End of Term TM 2021
Save the date for the 2021 End of Term
June 17, 2021
Join advocates and judges from across Canada online
as we continue to celebrate advocacy and mark End of
Term together. More information coming soon.
To learn more visit www.advocates.ca
Generously sponsored by:
4
Premier Sponsor
After-Party Sponsors

EVENT REPORT
How to Network on Zoom
and Build Your Brand Using
Social Media
Carlo Di Carlo, Stockwoods
On January 28, 2021, YASC organized a (very timely) nation-wide event on
how to network in the confines of the COVID-19 era. When all of us are
stuck at home, what can you do to build your brand?
Well, quite a bit, it turns out. Social Media Strategist Eva Chan provided
several critical insights and tips on how lawyers can maximize their social
media presence and leverage that into an increased network. The night
began with a virtual escape room, which at first impression seemed
unconnected to the topic of the evening (but
was incredibly entertaining!).
Unbeknownst to participants, Ms. Chan sprinkled
into the escape room clues some examples
of impressions that we all leave across our various
social media platforms. Whether it is the
LinkedIn profile that does not have an updated
picture, or the Tweet that reveals something
about your character, Ms. Chan used the clues
as a jump off point to provide participants with
tips about what they can do to create a more
engaging social media presence that will facilitate
network building. Little tips like updating
your experiences, or revealing something about
your personality can go a long way to building
your brand and adding depth to interactions
currently restricted to video conferencing that
are otherwise stripped of that kind of context.
Ms. Chan also provided more targeted advice
about how to reach out to potential referral
sources and strategies to make new contacts
during Zoom conferences.
After the presentation, attendees broke up
into smaller groups for a “mingling” session,
which allowed everyone the opportunity to
put some of Ms. Chan’s advice into practice. Although
the pandemic has brought a lot of restrictions
to YASC’s events, virtual platforms allow
Young Advocates from across the country
meet each other and network in ways that they
otherwise would not have been able to do with
traditional in-person events.
6 7

CM CALLOW INC v ZOLLINGER
Truth be Told,
Supreme Court Splinters
on Duty of Honest
Contractual Performance
Waleed Malik, Osler
Nearly six years ago, the Supreme Court established a seemingly simple
rule of contract law: one cannot lie to or knowingly mislead a contractual
counterparty on matters directly linked to the performance of the contract.
However, when the Court revisited that rule late last year in CM Callow Inc
v Zollinger, it divided sharply. The Court’s division revealed disagreements
about both the duty of honesty and the proper role of comparative legal
analysis that will likely play out in future cases.
Background
In 2012, the respondent condominium corporations
(Baycrest) entered into two contracts
with the appellant Callow: one for winter maintenance
services and one for summer maintenance
services.
Baycrest could terminate the winter contract
early on 10 days’ notice if Callow’s services were
no longer needed for any reason. Baycrest decided
to terminate the contract in early 2013
but did not inform Callow at that time. During
spring and summer 2013, Callow had discussions
with Baycrest about renewing the winter
contract and believed Baycrest would renew the
contract. Baycrest was aware of this misapprehension
but did not correct it. During this time,
Callow also performed extra work at no charge
to incent Baycrest to renew the winter contract.
In September 2013, Baycrest terminated the
contract on 10 days’ notice. Callow sued for
breach of contract and bad faith. The trial judge
found that Baycrest violated its duty of honesty
by causing Callow to believe the winter contract
would be renewed when Baycrest had already
decided to terminate the contract early. Baycrest
appealed and the Court of Appeal for Ontario
reversed the trial judgment. Callow then
appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Decision
A majority agreed with Callow and restored the
trial judgment. That majority consisted of two
opinions – Kasirer J. for five judges and Brown J.
for three judges – that diverged sharply. Côté J.
dissented alone.
The three opinions addressed many issues.
This articles summarizes two significant disagreements
between Kasirer J. and Brown J.’s opinions:
why Baycrest’s non-disclosure amounted to a
breach and the appropriate measure of damages.
Non-Disclosure and Duty of Honesty
Everyone agreed that generally there is no duty of
disclosure owed to contractual counterparties but
non-disclosure can sometimes breach the duty
of honesty. The two majority opinions found
that Baycrest not disclosing that it had decided
to terminate the winter contract until September
2013 breached its duty of honesty but disagreed
strongly on why.
Kasirer J. drew heavily on the civil law concept
of abuse of rights and held that the duty of honesty
constrains the manner in which a party exercises
any contractual rights. He found that by
not disclosing its intention to exercise its termination
right and failing to correct Callow’s misconceptions,
Baycrest misled Callow into believing
that the winter contract was not in danger of
being terminated early. As such, Baycrest exercised
its termination right in a dishonest manner
and breached its duty of honesty.
Brown J. vociferously disagreed with Kasirer
J. relying on civil law principles and argued that
it was both unnecessary and inappropriate to
engage in any comparative legal analysis in this
case. He instead analogized the duty of honesty
8 9

sate a plaintiff for losses resulting from relying
on the defendant’s representations.
to the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation and
held that nondisclosure breaches the duty of
honesty if the defendant’s other representations
or conduct contributed to a plaintiff’s misconception.
He found that Baycrest had contributed to
Callow’s belief that the winter contract would be
renewed and so its non-disclosure was a breach.
Conclusion
The extensive opinions in CM Callow contain
many takeaways. Two are highlighted below.
First, the majority’s disagreements suggest
that the duty of honesty will need to be refined
or revisited in future cases, particularly on the
issue of damages. In this case, the measure of
damages made no difference. That will not always
be the case. In particular, courts will likely
consider cases where a defendant fulfils its contractual
obligations while breaching its duty of
honesty and the plaintiff’s only loss will result
from its reliance on the defendant’s representations.
In such a case, expectation damages
may provide no recovery and courts will have to
wrestle with whether reliance damages may be
the appropriate measure in some or all cases.
Second, the disagreement on referring to civil
law concepts may reflect a broader methodological
split. The Court had a similar debate last year
in a very different context in Quebec (Attorney
General) v 9147-0732 Québec inc over the proper
role of international law when interpreting
Charter rights. These decisions suggest disagreements
within the Court on the appropriate role
of comparative legal analysis and how far afield
judges should look for authorities for resolving
disputes before them, which disagreements may
affect cases in many different areas beyond just
the duty of honesty or contract law.
10
Measure of Damages
Both majority opinions agreed that the trial
judge’s damages award should be restored but
disagreed on the proper measure of damages
for the duty of honesty in general. Kaiser J. held
that, like ordinary breaches of contract, courts
should generally award “expectation damages”
that put the injured party in the position it
would be in if the duty was performed. Brown
J. would have modified the general rule and
awarded “reliance damages” which compen-
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!

EVENT REPORT
Lawyer Turned Chef:
A Virtual Cooking Class
in London
Elizabeth Harding, Lerners LLP
tee, hosted by Jill’s Table, and sponsored by
Lerners LLP. As someone who has been missing
restaurants keenly in the pandemic, I registered
for the event without hesitation. I had
done classes through Jill’s Table—a local institution
for premium cookware and ingredients—in
the ‘before times’, but not since we
all took our lives virtual last year. I was curious
to see how the combination of cooking demo
and storytelling translated out of the physical
classroom and onto my laptop screen.
Several days before the class, we were given
the recipe along with a list of the ingredients
and equipment we would need. The menu consisted
of an appetizer salad with pear, walnut
and blue cheese and an entrée of homemade
On a chilly Friday evening in mid-January, I hopped on Zoom for what felt
like the hundredth time that month. On this occasion, instead of yet another
discovery or case conference, a group of 15 London lawyers and articling
students convened for a virtual cooking class.
The event was organized by the Young Advocates’ Standing Commitgnocchi.
Reading through the gnocchi recipe, I
was both intrigued and intimidated.
On the night of the class, we were guided
through the recipes by Chef Ran Ai. We followed
along as Chef Ai regaled us with stories of her
years as a prep cook in a local Italian restaurant
where she made pasta and gnocchi daily
by hand. Before I knew it, I had pulverized Russet
potatoes with flour, cheese, egg, and salt
to form long ropes of barely-together dough,
which were then cut into ¾ inch pieces. Using
a gnocchi board supplied by Jill’s Table, I fumbled
my way through the first few dumplings,
trying my best to roll them along the corrugated
wooden surface as instructed in order to
achieve the characteristic ridges of restaurant
gnocchi. I ultimately abandoned the procedure
in favour of tossing the dough directly into boiling
water. With or without ridges, the gnocchi
still tasted amazing.
When dinner was ready, it looked like a bomb
had detonated in my kitchen. My mise en place
could use some work. My husband was thoroughly
impressed with the results—both in flavour
and technique—and generously ignored
the fact that I used every mixing bowl we own
to make a two-course meal.
By far my favourite part of the experience
was seeing colleagues outside the work-fromhome
context. Rather than seeing the usual
backdrops of home offices, I got to see people
in their kitchens, cooking with spouses and children,
wearing aprons – you know, being human.
I’m glad YASC put on this unique event for
lawyers and students in London. I hope versions
of this event will be available in other
cities, even as we get closer to meeting in
person again.
I will definitely revisit the gnocchi recipe the
next time we can safely have a dinner party. As
for the gnocchi board, it has found a safe place
at the bottom of a drawer somewhere, already
long forgotten.
12 13

MENTORING
Mentorship in the
Time of COVID: Accessing
Mentorship Resources in
Unprecedented Times
Safina Lakhani, Crawley MacKewn Brush LLP and
Wade Poziomka, Ross & McBride LLP
We believe that all lawyers need guidance and mentorship. As our careers
have progressed, we personally have been fortunate to have had both formal
mentors, through the firms at which we have worked, and informal
mentors, who we met organically through chance encounters at legal functions,
outside the courthouse or simply randomly while going about our
daily lives.
However, the pandemic has changed the way
we interact with our colleagues and has significantly
reduced the opportunities for meeting
mentors organically through social gatherings.
The “new normal” created by the pandemic has
made it more difficult for young lawyers and
solo practitioners to access mentorship. This
puts the onus on lawyers seeking mentorship
to reach out and ask for it over email or the
phone, in a way that we can appreciate can feel
awkward and unnatural.
That said, mentorship IS available, whether it
is through a formal program, or by seeking out
mentorship independently. While we all have
busy practices and home lives, most lawyers
will, in our experience, answer the call to help a
colleague and give back to the profession.
Below, we have provided a list of some organizations
that offer mentorship resources; however,
we recommend that you consider making
the “ask” for informal mentorship, awkward
feelings notwithstanding.
Here is why:
1. Choosing a specific mentor forces you
to identify what you are looking for from a
mentor. This up-front work will go a long
way to identifying the key issues that you are
looking to tackle and will likely make your interactions
with your mentor more helpful.
2. You can decide who your ideal mentor
would be. You have the option to select a
mentor with a specific year of call, practice
area and experience, which is often not the
case when you are working through a mentor-matching
program.
You may be looking for advice on juggling
your work commitments and a young family,
or advice on how to manage up to more senior
lawyers. The most useful advice may be from a
lawyer who is at a similar stage of their career
14 15

16
as you are and who has had similar experiences.
Do not discount the insights of lawyers who
are at your stage of practice. Learning together
can ease anxiety and help overcome the isolation
felt by many of us these days as we forge
ahead in our legal careers.
It is also worth noting that mentorship does
not have a single definition and does not always
involve a long-term relationship with a single
mentor. Mentorship could involve one or two
isolated interactions, which we refer to as “Micro-Mentoring.”
Micro-Mentoring is often specific
to a particular issue or decision, and allows
you to select a mentor whose experiences and
insights are tailored to that particular issue. It
can be effective and efficient.
Here are some tips that may make it easier to
ask for mentorship:
1. Attend virtual social events offered by the
Young Advocates’ Standing Committee and
other organizations. Attending these events
will give you the opportunity to make a connection
with potential mentors and identify
people you think would be able to assist
you. Having an existing touchpoint will help
change a “cold” request for mentorship to a
“warm” one.
2. Frame your request for mentorship
as an “ask” for a Micro-Mentoring session
and explain why you have reached out
to that particular potential mentor. This will
make the “ask” less daunting for the potential
mentor. In addition, you are likely to get a
more positive response if the potential mentor
believes that he or she can provide you
with valuable insights.
Some useful resources are:
· TAS Mentorship Portal The TAS Mentorship
Portal connects junior and senior members
of the bar. Mentoring (advocates.ca)
· Special interest organizations Many
special interest organizations offer events
and mentorship programs. Some examples
include:
· Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers
· Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
· South Asian Bar Association
· Group of Racialized (Ontario) Women
Litigators (GROWL)
· Young Women in Law
Ultimately, mentorship is available. And it is
worth seeking out. Whether it be through a
formal program or through a self-directed micro-mentoring
session, we have personally benefited
from mentorship, and believe that many
of you will too.
Battle for Canada:
Young Advocates’
National Trivia Night
Thursday, May 13, 2021
7:30 pm - 9:00 pm
Live Online (ET)
Which team will win the YASC Battle
for Canada Trivia Challenge in 2021?
Connect with your peers from coast to
coast at this one-of-a-kind national trivia
competition for young advocates. Teams
will test their knowledge in a variety of
fun, themed rounds but only one team
will take home the glory. Compete to win
prizes and bragging rights!
After the game, stay for optional
mingling in breakout rooms to
re-connect with your advocacy
community from across Canada.
Hosted by the Young Advocates’
Standing Committee
To learn more or register visit
www.advocates.ca

Preparation Series:
Cross-Examination
Tuesday, June 1, 2021
1:00 pm - 4:00 pm
Live Online (ET)
Join us for the second installment of
our Preparation Series focusing on
Cross-Examination and find out how
to develop and execute a successful
cross-examination strategy, with a
special focus on remote preparation
this year. Skilled litigators and
distinguished judges will discuss
the key goals of an effective crossexamination,
how to decide whether
or not to cross-examine a particular
witness, how to start strong and end
strong and how to organize and frame
your questions in a way that keeps you
in control of the testimony.
To learn more or register visit
www.advocates.ca
YASC INTERVIEWS
Interview
Compiled by: Carlo Di Carlo, Stockwoods
In honour of March being Women’s History Month, as well as the fact that International
Women’s Day (March 8) just passed, YASC decided to use the Spring issue’s interview segment
to “pass the mic” to four women lawyers to share their insights into what their experiences
and practices are like.
19

Geetha Philipupillai, lawyer
Goldblatt Partners LLP
Q. You clerked before starting your practice;
did you experience challenges in this process
(either applying or clerking itself) as a
woman of colour?
It’s difficult to discuss experiences of discrimination
in the clerkship process, but I think it’s important
to acknowledge that it does happen before
we can address it. The experience that probably
threw me off the most during the application
process was arriving to check-in for an interview
(not at the court I clerked at) and being asked by
court staff if I was sure I was there for a clerkship
interview and not for “the library position”. I was
also told by a Black woman lawyer that when she
showed up for her clerkship interview she was
told “the bail hearings aren’t on this floor.” To
highlight a contrasting experience, a white male
lawyer once told me that when he went to one
of his clerkship interviews, his friend’s dad was a
judge on the court and his interviewers broke the
ice with an inside joke from the judge he knew.
Q. You are a junior call (2018); how do you
think that has impacted your experiences?
My first few years of practice have been such a
steep learning curve. I feel really lucky that the
lawyers I practice with have been my champions
and mentored me thoughtfully.
For example, last fall, Jim McDonald, a senior
partner, offered to observe me conducting a remote
discovery. Much of the examination consisted
of the opposing counsel (a white man,
much more senior than me) telling me my questions
were stupid and that I was wasting my client’s
money. The examination ended abruptly
with the lawyer and his client virtually “walking
out” on the examination by shutting their laptops
down. Jim told me what I had done well
and what I might do better next time. But he
also recognized that how I had responded in the
moment was different from how he might have
- because of our different personalities, but also
because of the difference between us in age,
seniority, gender and race. More than anything
he showed me the impact that unselfish mentorship
can have on a junior lawyer. Jim passed
away suddenly in January and I never got to tell
him how much of an impact his mentorship had
on me. I definitely hope to carry on his example.
Q. You practice in the civil litigation and class
actions world; in these spaces, what are the
barriers or experiences that you face that
others may not appreciate?
It can feel frustrating to see the profession keep
having a conversation about whether discrimination
exists. It’s also exhausting and distracting
from my work to be in a situation where I’m
having to figure out if I’m misreading a situation
or if the way someone is treating me is because
of my gender and race, and then try to figure
out what to do about it. Where I have decided
to raise an issue, it’s taken me a long time to do
that. The best responses I’ve had as a junior are
from lawyers who hear me out, talk me through
options to deal with a situation, step in where
appropriate, and try to protect my time and energy
so that I can focus on my work.
Morgan Sim, founding partner of
Parker Sim LLP
Q. What led you to start your own law firm?
I’ve always felt really sad about the fact that
so many women lawyers who become mothers
feel that their only option for achieving balance
is to leave private practice. As my peers
started leaving in droves, it always seemed to
me that controlling your own overhead should
allow lawyers to be more intentional about the
type of and amount of work they take on. It
also allows you to have more flexibility in the
rates you charge.
Q. Shortly after you started your firm,
COVID hit; what was the biggest hurdle
that this caused? How did you overcome
it?
The huge irony of Parker Sim LLP’s first year
is that we started this firm in part because we
both wanted to spend more time with our kids
while they are little. Then, two months into
our firm’s existence, the schools and daycares
closed and we were forced to spend all of our
time with our children.
We didn’t really “overcome” this challenge.
We couldn’t overcome it because the problem
was (and remains) systemic. Children’s
wellbeing and care was not prioritized in the
government’s response to the pandemic, so
we did the best we could while helping our clients
navigate these issues in their own workplaces
and, whenever possible, advocating
for better policies and systemic change.
Q. What advice do you have for other
women lawyers who are considering to
follow your lead and start their own firm?
Reach out to other women who are already
doing this in your particular area(s)
of practice. There are so many of us now
and the network of women building little
law firms that suit their lives, their families,
and their communities is super dynamic
and welcoming.
I’d also recommend thinking about who
you want to build a business with. For me,
my partner Cenobar was a huge factor in
my decision to take this leap and launch
our firm. She wanted the same things out
of practice, was already running her own
practice, and is so good at the parts of
running a business that don’t come naturally
to me. If you can find one other person
whose work you trust and admire and
whose values and goals are aligned with
your own, striking out together can make
the whole experience a bit less daunting
and lot less lonely.
Geetha Philipupillai, Goldblatt Partners LLP
Morgan Sim, Parker Sim LLP
20 21

Lindsay Scott, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Stephanie Di Giuseppe, Ruby Shiller Enenajor Di Giuseppe LLP
Lindsay Scott, partner
Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Q. You have been a strong advocate for racialized
women litigators. What led you to
take on this work?
In 2017 in response to the LSO’s release of its
2016 working group report on challenges facing
racialized licensees, Tina Lie, Emily Lam, and
I formed GROWL (Group of Racialized Ontario
Women Litigators), a group to support racialized
women litigators in Ontario. Among other
important findings, the LSO working group
found that racialized licensees face widespread
barriers within the profession at all stages of
their careers, and that associations of racialized
lawyers are beneficial for fostering collaboration
and creating a sense of belonging.
Tina, Emily, and I saw a pressing need for ways
that racialized lawyers could feel supported,
included, and part of the legal profession. Although
there were many professional organizations
that represented individual equity-seeking
groups, at the time, there were no organizations
that provided networking, support, and collegiality
specifically for racialized women practicing
litigation. We wanted to create a place where
racialized women litigators could give voice
to their experiences, support each other, and
work to improve the profession for themselves
and future racialized women lawyers entering
the profession. Thus, GROWL was born.
Q. What are your hopes for racialized women
litigators going forward?
My hope is that we continue to do this important
work, and that GROWL can continue to
support members of the profession in building
careers we love that are consistent with
our commitment to equity, giving back to our
communities, and using our voices in the legal
profession to create positive change for equity-seeking
groups. GROWL has grown to nearly
300 members across 100+ law firms and government
workplaces in Ontario, and has recently
begun accepting law student members
from Ontario law schools. We host networking
events and substantive panel discussions
and support each other’s practices through a
shared work-referral list, share new job opportunities
in the community, and amplify each
other’s voices wherever possible.
Q. What do you think is one thing that others
in the profession may not appreciate about
the challenges that women litigators face?
Only one? Maybe the challenge that women
still face when the image of “lawyer” in Canadian
law is still largely male, and white. Women,
particularly racialized women, still have to work
to be viewed as credible in many legal spaces
whereas male counterparts are often afforded
that benefit without effort.
Stephanie Di Giuseppe, partner
Ruby Shiller Enenajor Di Giuseppe LLP
Q. In the criminal law world, what unique
challenges do you think women litigators
face?
Though certainly not universal to all women and
not unique to criminal law, the greatest challenges
I have faced as a female litigator have
revolved around balancing a trial-based litigation
practice with the joys and struggles of parenting.
I have three children under the age of
five (not quite by design - there’s a pair of twins
in there!) and I have had to forge my practice
around pregnancy, doctor-ordered bed rest,
giving birth, breastfeeding, and the daily demands
of mothering.
Q. What are the aspects of your experiences
that you think male lawyers may
not appreciate?
For this question, I would point to some of the
more “medical” aspects of pregnancy and childbirth
and how difficult it is to sustain a litigation
practice during this period. So many examples
come to mind: running out of courtrooms to
throw up during the early stages of pregnancy;
making submissions or cross-examining witnesses
in the late stages of pregnancy where it
is painful to stand and difficult to catch one’s
breath; I was once required to personally attend
a continuation six weeks after giving birth
to twins; many courthouses don’t even have a
private place to pump breastmilk – I have had
to choose between pumping in a bathroom stall
or in my car in the parking lot! And the list goes
on. For criminal lawyers, the courthouse functions
like workplace - we normally spend more
days in court than out. I think it’s ironic and unfortunate
that the court system, which has been
instrumental in achieving workplace equity for
others, has yet to turn its eye inward and examine
how courthouses fail to create an equitable
environment for litigators experiencing pregnancy,
breastfeeding, or caregiving obligations.
Q. What advice do you have for other female
identifying lawyers who are considering a
career in criminal law?
If you are planning to have children, find a workplace
with female parents in partnership roles.
It doesn’t guarantee flexibility or accommodation,
but it’s a good sign. Better yet – consider
starting your own practice. Though not without
its challenges, being able to set the volume
and pace of my practice has been critical to my
success as a female litigator during these early
years of parenthood.
22 23

YASC Social: How To Network Online & Build Your Brand
January 28, 2021 | Live Online
24 25

Arnup Cup Winners
February 5 & 6, 2021 | Live Online
Hon. Justice Clayton Conlan
Hon. Justice Marie-Andrée Vermette
26 27

Fireside Chat on Advocacy
February 23, 2021 | Live Online
Laura M. Wagner, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Dina Awad, Dentons Canada LLP
28 Michael Bryant, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Pam Hrick, Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund
29

Sopinka Cup Winners
March 19 & 20, 2021 | Live Online
Crossword Puzzle
1
ord Puzzle
Jade Barrière, University of Ottawa (Civil Law)
1
4
2
7
3
5
Ingrid Mavoli, University of Ottawa (Civil Law)
Crossword 6 Puzzle
Summer Trial
Advocacy College
Less time. Less money.
Maximum learning.
Happening across Canada.
t a
l
3
Spring has Sprung!
Down:
1. To seek review by a higher court, or what a
likeable person has
2. This Canadian city is known for its annual
spring tulip festival
3. This animal predicted six more weeks of
winter this year
5. What TV judges yell
6. The current Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of Canada
5
The snow has begun to melt, and temperatures are slowly
creeping up. Spring is in the air! Enjoy this spring-themed
crossword puzzle to get you ready for the season.
8
Across:
6
4. This Canadian public holiday is celebrated
on the Monday preceding May 25
7. Another term for a litigator
8. The spring equinox is in this month
4
8
Across:
2
7
3
4. This Canadian public holiday is celebrated
on the Monday preceding May 25
7. Another term for a litigator
8. The spring equinox is in this month
1
8
6
5
Alberta Ontario Québec Atlantic
Master the art of civil trial advocacy
at our popular intensive two-day
workshop. This hands-on virtual
program will test and refine your
skills in case analysis, opening and
closing statements, examinationin-chief
and cross-examination.
Limited spaces available!
To learn more or register visit
www.advocates.ca
ANSWERS: 1D: appeal; 2D: Ottawa; 3D: groundhog; 5D: order; 6D: Wagner; 4A: Victoria Day [without the space]; 7A: advocate; 8A: March

Breakout with the Bench
April 7, 2021 | Live Online
Sînziana Ruxandra Hennig, Stikeman Elliott LLP
The Hon. George R. Strathy, Chief Justice of Ontario
32 Sapna Thakker, Lax O’Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb LLP
The Hon. Chief Justice Geoffrey B. Morawetz, Superior Court of Justice
33

www.advocates.ca