Honourable Jill Miriam Copeland's Questionnaire

Under the new judicial application process introduced by the Minister of Justice on October 20, 2016, any interested and qualified Canadian lawyer or judge may apply for federal judicial appointment by completing a questionnaire. The questionnaires are then used by the Judicial Advisory Committees across Canada to review candidates and submit a list of "highly recommended" and "recommended" candidates for consideration by the Minister of Justice. Candidates are advised that parts of their questionnaire may be made available to the public, with their consent, should they be appointed to the bench. The information is published as it was submitted by the candidates at the time they applied, subject to editing where necessary for privacy reasons.

Below are Parts 5, 6, 7, and 11 of the questionnaire completed by the Honourable Jill Miriam Copeland.

Questionnaire for Judicial Appointment

Part 5 - Language

Please note that in addition to the answers to the questions set out below, you may be assessed as to your level of language proficiency.

Without further training, are you able to read and understand court materials in:

• English: Yes
• French: Yes

Without further training, are you able to discuss legal matters with your colleagues in:

• English: Yes
• French: Yes

Without further training, are you able to converse with counsel in court in:

• English: Yes
• French: Yes

Without further training, are you able to understand oral submission in court in:

• English: Yes
• French: Yes

Part 6 - Education

Name of Institutions, Years Attended, Degree/Diploma and Year Obtained:

Columbia University, New York City, USA; Attended September 2000- May 2001; LL.M. awarded May 2001 (with Honours)

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; Attended 1989-1992; LL.B. awarded May 1992 (with Honours)

University of Western Ontario, Huron College, London, Ontario; Attended 1985-1989; Hon. B.A. (in French Language and Literature and History) awarded May 1989 (Dean's Honour List)

Continuing Education:

Throughout my legal and judicial career I have regularly attended continuing legal and judicial education, both as a participant, and as a teacher (teaching is discussed below in Part 7). The conferences I attend typically involve criminal law, constitutional law, and administrative law issues. Conferences I have attended in the past few years, since being appointed to the Ontario Court of Justice include:

• October 2016 - GTA Region Conference of the Ontario Court of Justice, Haliburton, Ontario (3 days)
• May 2016 - Annual Conference of the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto, Ontario (3 days)
• April 2016 - Federal Judicial Affairs Judicial French for francophone judges, Quebec City, Quebec (5 days)
• October 2015 - GTA Region Conference of the Ontario Court of Justice, Collingwood, Ontario (3 days)
• May 2015 - Annual Conference of the Ontario Court of Justice, Niagara on the Lake, Ontario (3 days)
• April 2015 - New Judges School for Provincially Appointed Judges (CAPCJ), Bromont, Quebec (5 days)
• November 2014 - New Judges School for Provincially Appointed Judges (NJI), Niagara on the Lake, Ontario (5 days)
• October 2014 - GTA Region Conference of the Ontario Court of Justice, Collingwood, Ontario (3 days)

Honours and Awards:

Columbia University (2000-2001 for LL.M.):

• Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar (Academic Honours)
• Bretzfelder Constitutional Law Fellowship

University of Toronto (1989-1992 for LL.B.):

• Graduated with Honours
• Dean's Key (awarded for excellence in extra-curricular activities of an academic nature) (1992)
• Laskin Prize in Constitutional Law (1990)
• Borden & Elliot Advocacy Award (1992)
• Member of Grand Moot Team (1991)
• Member of First Place Team, Laskin Memorial Moot (1991)

Huron College (1985-1989 for B.A.)

• Graduated with Honours
• Huron College Corporation Scholarship (1988-89)

Part 7 - Professional And Employment History

Please include a chronology of work experience, starting with the most recent and showing employers' names and dates of employment. For legal work, indicate areas of work or specialization with years and, if applicable, indicate if they have changed.

Legal Work Experience:

• Judge, Ontario Court of Justice (Brampton) - August 2014 to present - Criminal court trial judge
• Partner, Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP (Toronto) - September 2010 to August 2014 - Criminal defence, administrative law (including professional discipline), constitutional law, at trial and appellate levels
• Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice of Canada, Supreme Court of Canada - May 2007 to June 2010 - all areas of law - Counsel and Chief of Staff to the Chief Justice of Canada
• Legal Counsel, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario - July 2005 to May 2007 - Professional discipline prosecutions and appeals, and provided legal advice to regulator of the medical profession in Ontario
• Counsel, Ruby & Edwardh (Toronto) - February 1995 to July 2005 - Criminal defence, administrative law, constitutional law, at trial and appellate levels
• Law Clerk to Mr. Justice Peter Cory, Supreme Court of Canada - August 1993 to July 1994 - all areas of law
• Articling Student, Ruby & Edwardh (Toronto) - June 1992 to June 1993 - Criminal defence, constitutional law, and administrative law
• Summer Student, Tory Tory Deslauriers and Binnington - Summer 1991
• Summer Student, Advocates for Injured Workers Legal Clinic - Summer 1990

Non-Legal Work Experience:

Worked for Canada Trust summers and part-time during undergraduate degree - bank teller and other financial office work - 1985 to 1989

Other Professional Experience:

List all bar associations, legal or judicial-related committees of which you are or have been a member, and give the titles and dates of any offices which you have held in such groups.

• Secretary to the Board of Governors of the National Judicial Institute, May 2007 to June 2010
• Supreme Court of Canada Media Committee, May 2007 to June 2010
• Advocacy Advisor, Supreme Court Advocacy Institute, 2010 to August 2014
• Judicial member of the Advocates Society (and previously member as a lawyer)
• previous member of the Criminal Lawyers Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Toronto Lawyers Association

Pro Bono Activities:

• Pro Bono Duty Counsel before the Ontario Court of Appeal for Inmate Appeals, December 2010 to August 2014; 1999 to 2000
• Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, member of case subcommittees on infanticide (R. v. L.B. in Ontario Court of Appeal, 2011 ONCA 153), and competence to testify (R. v. D.A.I. in Supreme Court of Canada, [2012] 1 SCR 149)
• Pro Bono counsel in numerous cases: Kazemi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, [2014] 3 SCR 176, counsel for Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights; Agraira v Canada, [2013] 2 SCR 559, counsel for the BC Civil Liberties Association; Batty v. Toronto, 2011 ONSC 6862, counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Ruzic v. Canada, [2001] I SCR 687, counsel for the Canadian Council of Churches and the Canadian Council for Refugees; Little Sisters v. CBSA, [2000] 2 SCR 1120, counsel for PEN Canada; Diashowa v. Friends of the Lubicon, 1995 CanLII 7298 (ONSC), counsel for Friends of the Lubicon

Teaching and Continuing Education:

List all legal or judicial educational organizations and activities you have been involved with (e.g. teaching course at a Law Faculty, bar association, National Judicial Institute, Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, etc.)

I have regularly taught at continuing legal and judicial education conferences for organizations including: The Ontario Court of Justice, the National Judicial Institute, the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General Crown School, various law schools in Ontario, the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, the Federation of Ontario Health Regulators. A list of my teaching for the past 10 years is below:

• October 2016 - Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto Regional Conference - Panel discussion and small group session on developments in sentencing law, Haliburton, Ontario
• October 2015 - Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto Regional Conference - presentation on testimonial aids for witnesses in criminal trials, Collingwood, Ontario
• June 2015 - Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General - Crown School Appellate Advocacy Course instructor - London, Ontario
• June 2014 - Osgoode CLE Professional regulation - Presentation on penalties in professional discipline prosecutions under the Regulated Health Professions Act - Toronto, Ontario
• August 2013 - Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General - Crown School Appellate Advocacy Course instructor - London, Ontario
• November 2012 - Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators - Decision Writing Course - Panel discussion re: Decision writing and sufficiency of reasons - Toronto, Ontario
• October 2012 - Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice - Advanced Administrative Law Conference - Presented Paper: Sufficiency of Reasons: Are the Standards Relaxing? - Ottawa, Ontario
• October 2011 - Federation of Health Regulators of Ontario - Discipline Committee Training Course discussion re: Sanctions under the Regulated Health Professions Act, Toronto, Ontario
• July 2011 - Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General - Crown School Appellate Advocacy Course instructor - London, Ontario
• March 2011 - University of Toronto Faculty of Law -- The Supreme Court of Canada: A Unique and Comprehensive Overview - Panel discussion re Supreme Court of Canada and the Media
• March 2010 - United States Supreme Court - Presentation to Justices of the United States Supreme Court about the media relations program at the Supreme Court of Canada, Washington DC, USA
• 2008 and 2009 - Presentations to delegations visiting the Supreme Court of Canada about the media relations program of the Supreme Court of Canada (delegations from the United Kingdom, Russia, Ukraine), Ottawa, Ontario
• November 2006 - University of Toronto Faculty of Law - Panel discussion on ethics in criminal law during law and ethics bridge week
• November 2006 - Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario - Panel presentation on expert evidence, Toronto, Ontario

Community and Civic Activities:

List all organizations of which you are a member and any offices held with dates.

Member of the Board of Directors, Elizabeth Fry Society of Toronto, 1999 to 2005

Member of the Board of Directors, Queen's Park Childcare Centre, 2005 to 2007

Part 11 - The Role Of The Judiciary In Canada's Legal System

The Government of Canada seeks to appoint judges with a deep understanding of the judicial role in Canada. In order to provide a more complete basis for evaluation, candidates are asked to offer their insight into broader issues concerning the judiciary and Canada's legal system. For each of the following questions, please provide answers of between 750 and 1000 words.

1. What would you regard as your most significant contribution to the law and the pursuit of justice in Canada?

My most significant contribution to the law and the pursuit of justice in Canada is my work both as counsel and as a judge to ensure that individuals who come before the courts receive a fair hearing according to law. In addition, I believe that I have made important contributions to criminal law and other areas of public law in areas that affect many people.

In my current work as a trial judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, my most important duty is to ensure that the defendants who appear before me receive a fair trial, and that witnesses in criminal cases are treated with respect and according to law. An important aspect of carrying out that duty is ensuring that individuals in my courtroom, in particular defendants, understand the court process and why various decisions are made. If an individual has counsel, to a large measure counsel will make sure that the individual understands the process. But I regularly preside over trials where defendants do not have a lawyer and represent themselves. In those cases, I have a legal duty to ensure that the trial is fair, and that the individual understands the trial process. I believe that I do this well, and I believe that it is fundamentally important that individuals before the courts understand how the court process works and why decisions are being made, because it is at the core of justice both being done and being seen to be done.

When I was a lawyer, ensuring that individuals before the courts received a fair trial according to law was also my most important contribution to law and justice in Canada. In criminal trials and appeals, I mostly acted as defence counsel. In cases where I was defence counsel, I ensured that my clients understood the case against them, and the strengths and weaknesses of their case both factually and legally. I put forward the strongest factual and legal cases I could on behalf of my clients, in accordance with the law. I also contributed to access to justice by regularly acting a pro bono duty counsel in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

I did not act only for defendants in criminal cases. I also regularly acted for witnesses in third party records applications regarding personal records (for example, counselling records or CAS records). Similarly to my role as defence counsel, when acting for witnesses, I would make sure my client understood the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments on their behalf, and I would put forward the strongest case I could for my clients, in accordance with the law. My experience acting both for defendants and witnesses, and my current work as a trial judge, gives me a good perspective on the needs of the different players in a criminal trial, and the need to manage a trial in a way that treats all interests fairly in accordance with the law.

Finally, I have made important contributions to criminal and constitutional law and other areas of public law as a judge and when I was counsel. Many of my reported cases as a judge involve issues in relation to constitutional rights or interpretation of provisions of the Criminal Code which address legal principles of importance beyond the individual cases (see for example in my list of judgments above, Singh, Patel, Bassi, Minhas). Similarly, the list of my reported cases and cases heard by courts of appeal when I was a lawyer also shows these contributions. The areas include: issues related to mental health and the criminal justice system (Penatanguishene v. Ontario), gun control (Reference re: Firearms Act), freedom of expression and association (Little Sister's Book Store v. Canada; Batty v. City of Toronto; Daishowa v. Friend of the Lubicon), issues related to extradition and the death penalty (USA v. Burns and Rafay), and public access to information about government (my regular work on behalf of the federal Access to Information Commissioner).

2. How has your experience provided you with insight into the variety and diversity of Canadians and their unique perspectives?

My work as a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice and as counsel has provided me with significant insight into the variety and diversity of Canadians and their perspectives, due to the individuals who now appear before me in court as defendants and witnesses, and due to the individuals who I represented as counsel when I was a lawyer.

I currently preside in Peel Region, which is one of the most culturally and ethnically diverse judicial regions in Canada. Peel is also a fast-growing region, which is home to many new Canadians. The diversity of the people who come into my courtroom has an impact both on substantive law issues, and on trial management. In terms of substantive law issues, I have presided over cases where issues of Charter rights involve issues of diversity, such as freedom of religion for an observant Sikh who wears a turban as a sign of religious observance, or the issue of language rights for someone for whom English is not their first language in the context of the s. 10(b)) right to counsel (these cases are listed in my reported decisions above, Singh, Bassi, Minhas).

On the trial management side, I regularly preside over trials and other proceedings such as guilty plea and sentencing proceedings where either the defendant or a witness (or both) uses an interpreter. Very recently I presided over a guilty plea with two interpreters, a Punjabi interpreter for the defendant, and an American Sign Language interpreter for the complainant. As a trial judge, it is very important in these cases to monitor throughout the trial that there are no issues with the interpretation, because it is fundamentally important that a defendant understand the proceedings, and that the evidence of witnesses is interpreted accurately.

I also have to be sensitive to cultural differences in assessing evidence in a trial. It is not unusual where a defendant or witness is from a culture different than my own that the evidence about the circumstances of a particular case is different than things I have experienced in my own life, or that some individuals may be uncomfortable giving evidence in court or discussing certain issues in court. I need to be sensitive to that in assessing credibility of evidence, and not unfairly find against someone's credibility because something is outside my own experience. However, I also have to be aware that there are limits to accommodation of cultural diversity. For example, some individuals who come before my court may not have the same view of equality between women and men that is accepted in Canadian law. In that situation, I must ultimately decide a case in accordance with Canadian law.

In addition to cultural and ethnic diversity, I am alert to issues of socio-economic level, and issues of mental illness. Many people who come into my courtroom are not socio-economically well-off. This can be relevant to issues of sentencing (for example, amounts of fines). Mental health issues are also common among the people who appear as defendants in the Ontario Court of Justice. I regularly preside in our Mental Health Court. I am thus aware of the challenges some individuals in the criminal justice system face in dealing with mental illness. I am also familiar with the Criminal Code provisions in relation to mentally ill defendants.

In addition to being alert to the need to address legal and practice issues that arise out of the diversity of people in my courtroom (such as Charter issues, and interpreters), I believe it is fundamentally important that as the presiding judge I set the tone in the courtroom to ensure that everyone who enters my courtroom in whatever role (defendant, witnesses, family member) feels welcome, respected, treated with equal dignity.

As counsel, I had clients from a variety of cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds. I also regularly acted for individuals living with mental illness, and for individuals of limited socio-economic means (either on a legal aid certificate, or through the Ontario Court of Appeal inmate appeal duty counsel program). I was also involved in the LEAF case review committee for the D.A.I. case in the Supreme Court of Canada, which dealt with the issue of competence to testify for a complainant/witness who was developmentally disabled. Further, I have acted both for defendants in criminal trials, and for witnesses. Usually when I acted for witnesses it was in the context of third party records applications for counselling or CAS or other private records. Very often, the witnesses were women who were complainants in sexual assault cases. So, I am also aware of the way that equality issues can sometimes be at play in a criminal trial.

3. Describe the appropriate role of a judge in a constitutional democracy.

The role of a judge in a constitutional democracy is to do justice in the individual cases that come before the court, according to law. There are several aspects to this role. How the role is carried out varies to some extent with the level of court.

Judges of both trial and appellate courts decide the cases that come before them based on the evidence and legal issues in each case. Cases are based on a specific dispute between parties, whether criminal, civil, family or administrative law (not including reference cases referred by government, which more typically involve only a legal issue). Judges hear the cases that come before them, and do not seek out cases to hear.

In deciding cases, a judge's role is to hear the evidence, and ensure that the proceedings are conducted fairly to all parties and in accordance with the law. A judge must then decide the case based on the applicable law. In many cases the law in a particular area will be clear and its interpretation settled, in which case the judge's role is to apply the law to the facts that the judge finds based on the evidence. In some cases the law either will not be settled, or it may not be settled how the law should apply to the facts of a particular case. In such cases the judge will also need to engage in interpretation of the relevant legislation or common law rule, and then apply that interpretation to the facts the judge has found based on the evidence.

In a constitutional democracy, the common law is interpreted by the courts, but the legislatures can pass legislation to change a common law rule. Legislatures enact legislation, and the role of a judge is to interpret and apply the law. However, Canada is a constitutional democracy, which means that the Constitution is the supreme law. If in a particular case a party challenges legislation or government action as being contrary to the constitution, it is the presiding judge's role to hear the parties on the issue and to decide if the law or government action complies with the constitution. If the judge finds that the law or the government action does not comply with the constitution, the judge will also have to consider the issue of the appropriate constitutional remedy.

In considering constitutional issues, a trial judge must consider the context in which the legislation was enacted or the government action taken. Particularly with respect to constitutional challenges to legislation, a judge must consider what level of deference is warranted within the assessment of constitutionality to a government decision to choose among competing priorities. Where legislation impacts on the rights of a defendant in a criminal case, usually less deference to the legislature will be warranted. By contrast, where legislation involves competing social priorities or issues of allocation of scarce government resources, more deference to a legislative decision may be warranted. But judges must not shy away from making rulings that legislation or government action is unconstitutional when that finding is warranted on the record before the court. It is a judge's constitutional duty to do so in appropriate cases.

As I have noted above, in carrying out his or her judicial role, a judge is primarily concerned with doing justice according to law in individual cases; however, a judge must also bear in mind the effects of a ruling on future cases. Consistency is an aspect of the rule of law. Legal rules and judgments must take into account their practical effects and produce workable results.

The need for stability in legal interpretation and legal rules is also something that judges must bear in mind at all levels of court. Trial courts are bound by stare decisis by the decisions of higher courts. Courts of Appeal are bound by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Although not bound by its own prior decisions, even the Supreme Court is concerned not to lightly overrule previous precedent, as predictability is an aspect of the rule of law. However, courts must also be sensitive to the social context in which they make their decisions, and to changes and developments in society. Where there has been a significant change in society over time, or where a legal rule has been shown to be problematic in how it operates, interpretations of the common law or the constitution can change over time (this is less so for statutes, since the legislatures can amend legislation). This is more often the work of the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada (but it can also begin at the trial court level, particularly where changes in society have called into question an older constitutional ruling: see for example the trial decisions in Bedford v. Canada and Carter v. Canada, where trial judges began the process that ultimately led to the Supreme Court overturning previous constitutional precedents).

Although the primary role of a judge is to do justice according to law in the individual cases that come before the court, as one goes up the hierarchy of courts to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, the issue of precedential value and providing guidance to lower courts takes on increased importance, At the Provincial Court of Appeal level (or Federal Court of Appeal), the bulk of appeals are issues of error correction and applying the law to individual cases. But a significant number of cases also involve legal issues where the Court of Appeal provides guidance to lower courts which has effect beyond the particular cases before the court, for example on issues of statutory interpretation, or a common law rule, or a constitutional issue.

The role of providing guidance to lower courts is strongest for the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court has a limited role as a court of error correction (for example, criminal appeals as of right), but its primary role is to provide guidance to all of the lower courts in Canada (and other actors in the legal system) on important issues of statutory interpretation, common law rules, and constitutional issues. This guidance is especially important at the national level in Canada as it forwards the aspect of the rule of law of consistency within the different jurisdictions that make up Canada.

4. Who is the audience for the decisions rendered by the court(s) to which you are applying?

All courts have a variety of audiences for their decisions. These audiences include the immediate parties to a case, the public, the legal profession, lower courts, and in a limited way, higher courts. How a court weighs which audiences it wants to ensure it is writing for in a particular decision can vary according to the level of court, and also according to the nature of the case.

The first audience for decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal is the immediate parties, including people affected by the decision who are not technically parties, such as the complainant or family members in a criminal appeal. The Court of Appeal writes reasons to explain to the parties what it has decided and why. It is particularly important in writing for the parties that the Court of Appeal bear in mind the losing party or party adversely affected by the decision. The party who prevails in an appeal will usually be happy with the result (often no matter what the reasons!), but a losing party will often be disappointed or hurt. A Court of Appeal's reasons are probably not likely to achieve the goal of making a losing party like a decision or agree with it, but the Court of Appeal should strive to make sure that its reasons allow a losing party to understand what the court decided and why the court reached the decision it reached.

A further audience for some Court of Appeal decisions is the legal profession as a whole and trial courts. Many appeals heard by the Court of Appeal are issues of error correction and impact only on the particular parties. But one role of the Court of Appeal is to provide guidance on the law to the legal profession and trial courts. This is done by way of decisions in individual cases. Usually the Court of Appeal will know when a particular cases deals with a legal issue of broader importance. In such cases, in addition to the need to be clear in its reasons, the court needs to give particular attention to whether the legal rule it is using to decide the particular case is clear and workable for future cases in which it will be applied.

The public is also an important audience for Court of Appeal decisions. Judicial independence structures and limits the way that judges are accountable to the public. Written decisions (or oral decisions with adequate reasons) are one of the most important ways that judges are accountable to the public for how they carry out their judicial role. This is not a process of pandering to the public or trying to write a decision that the public will like. Judicial independence and impartiality prevent a judge from proceeding in that manner. But a judge has a duty to explain what decision he or she has made and why. This is an aspect of justice being done and being seen to be done. The public has a right to review the reasons for decision, and comment on and criticize them if they feel that is warranted.

In a small number of cases where it is clear from the legal issue in a case that there is some likelihood that the case may proceed further to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, then that Court is also an audience for the decision. I say this not in the sense that the Court of Appeal should worry about whether its decision will be upheld or not by the Supreme Court. I do not think that should play into the Court of Appeal's decision making or writing. But where a case is likely to be heard by a higher court, it is important that the Court of Appeal's decision be clear as to what it is deciding and why, in order that what has been decided is clear for purposes of appellate review.

The audience for the Ontario Superior Court is more often focused on the immediate parties and the public and not the larger legal profession or lower courts than is the case for Court of Appeal decisions. Where a Superior Court judge is deciding a case with fairly settled legal issues, the primary audience for a decision is the parties. When I refer to the parties in this context I include not only the named parties in the litigation, but in some circumstances also individuals affected by the decision, such as the complainant in a criminal case, or family members, or the police where there is a Charter issue raising issues of how the police conducted themselves in an investigation. It is vital that a trial judge write reasons in a way that the parties can understand what is being decided and why the trial judge has decided that. It is particularly important that the trial judge bear in mind the losing party to litigation, or person or persons adversely affected by the decision. A trial judge is unlikely to always convince the losing party that his or her decision contrary to their interests is correct, but a trial judge can at least strive to ensure that the losing party understands why a trial judge has made the decision her or she made. Also, in relation to Charter issues, the police are sometimes one of the audiences, where there is a finding of a Charter breach and one aspect of the reasons is to play an educational role to try an avoid similar breaches in the future.

The public is also an important audience for many Superior Court decisions, for reasons similar to those I have outlined as to why the public is an important audience for Court of Appeal decisions.

Because it is a trial court, writing for the legal profession as a whole or to provide guidance to lower courts is less frequent. However, there are cases that are heard as trials in Superior Court that raise important legal or constitutional issues that other trial courts or members of the legal profession will consider in future cases, even though they are not binding precedents for other trial courts. Also, when the Superior Court sits as a summary conviction appeal court, where it decides appeals that raise legal issues that have an impact beyond the particular cases, the Superior Court is also writing to provide guidance to trial judges of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Finally, the Superior Court must also bear in mind the Court of Appeal as an audience for its decisions. The Court of Appeal is an audience not in the sense that a trial judge is writing with the goal of being upheld by the Court of Appeal. Rather, the trial judge should strive to make his or her reasons for judgment clear about what factual findings the judge is making and why, and what legal rules the judge is applying, so that the appellate court can effectively perform its function. This is what I try to do as a trial judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, to be clear about what factual findings I am making and why, and about what the legal rules I am applying and why have reached the conclusions I have reached. If one of my decisions is appealed, the appellate court may or may not ultimately agree with my decision, but I want to make sure that what I have decided and why is clear, so that the Court of Appeal can effectively carry out its function of appellate review.

5. Please describe the personal qualities, professional skills and abilities, and life experience that you believe will equip you for the role of a judge.

I believe that my personal qualities, varied professional experience, legal and analytical skills, and life experience give me the tools to be a strong, independent, and impartial judge of the Court of Appeal or Superior Court Judge. In addition to my legal skills and experience, I am bilingual (federal government levels E,E,C). Public service has always been an important aspect of my work as a lawyer, and as a judge. I would consider it a privilege to use my skills and experience to serve the people of Canada on the Court of Appeal or the Superior Court.

I am patient, and an attentive listener. I approach legal and factual issues with an open mind. But after analyzing and researching an issue, I am decisive about a course of action. I am able approach a case independently. As a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, I have at times handled cases that have received media attention. As a litigator, I have represented clients both popular and unpopular in the public eye. But I do not let public opinion affect my judgments about how to handle a case.

I am able to manage a heavy workload, stress and time pressures, and balance competing demands and priorities. As a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, a litigator in private practice, a professional discipline prosecutor, and as Executive Legal Officer at the Supreme Court, my work has always required that I deal with these sorts of pressures and competing demands.

As a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice I have extensive experience with criminal law, procedure and evidence, which are a significant part of the workload of the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court. I have experience managing a courtroom to ensure fair and efficient trials. I am familiar with the professional distance required by judicial independence and impartiality. I also understand the pressures of the judicial role. Although a judge can discuss a difficult problem with judicial colleagues, ultimately, the judge must reach his or her own decision based on the evidence before them, and the law. Sometimes a judge may be subject to criticism for a decision, fair or unfair, to which the judge may not be able to respond. I appreciate these aspects of the judicial role, and believe I have the qualities to handle them.

Prior to being appointed a judge, I worked as a lawyer in a variety of different practice environments, including at the Supreme Court of Canada, in private practice, and at a professional regulatory body with a statutory mandate to protect the public. My background gives me a broad perspective on the justice system, and the ability to consider legal issues from an objective and independent perspective. I have extensive litigation experience before a variety of courts and administrative tribunals, including the Ontario Court of Justice and Superior Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Federal Courts, and the Supreme Court of Canada. This experience has given me the ability to analyze complex legal and factual issues, and to write about these issues clearly and effectively. I am comfortable in a courtroom, and understand the skills required to manage judicial proceedings fairly and efficiently.

In June 2010, I completed a three-year term as Executive Legal Officer at the Supreme Court of Canada. As Executive Legal Officer, I worked closely with the Chief Justice of Canada and the members of the Supreme Court. My responsibilities included providing advice in relation to appeals and applications for leave to appeal before the Court, and on procedural matters. The legal issues and factual issues I dealt with were usually complex, and covered a wide range of areas of law.

During my time in private practice, my work has consisted primarily of constitutional, criminal and administrative law. I have been counsel on many trials and appeals, including serious indictable offences, regulatory prosecutions, and applications for judicial review. Many of these matters were legally and factually complex, and some of the trial matters were lengthy hearings lasting several weeks.

At the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, my work consisted primarily of conducting discipline prosecutions of doctors for allegations of professional misconduct, and related appeals and applications for judicial review. The goal of my work at the College was to ensure that the public interest in the safety and integrity of' the medical profession was protected. Many of the prosecutions I handled involved very serious allegations of sexual abuse, or failure to maintain the standard of practice. They were often lengthy hearings, and frequently involved difficult legal issues and expert medical evidence.

As a result of my variety of work experience, I am familiar with many of the areas of law which are the daily work of judges of the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court, including criminal law and procedure, the law of evidence, administrative law, constitutional law, and civil procedure.

My current work as a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, and all of my previous positions have require that I exercise sound judgment. As a trial judge, I hear trials where counsel have varying skill levels, and in some cases where defendants are self-represented. This means that sometimes cases that come before me are not presented in as focused a way as might be ideal. As a trial judge, I have the judgment and discipline to focus on the main issues that really matter in a case, and not to get lost in peripheral issues. When I was a lawyer I similarly had to exercise judgment about the factual and legal strengths of a case, and based on those judgments, decide how best to proceed. It is essential to focus on what is central to a case, and spend unnecessary time on peripheral matters. I believe the same skills are essential to a judge in deciding cases and writing reasons for judgment.

The individuals who appear before me in court, and previously my clients when I was a lawyer, include a diverse range of people. I understand the importance of treating everyone who enters a courtroom with respect and dignity, regardless of their racial or cultural background, gender, socio-economic status, sexual orientation and physical or mental ability.

For these reasons, I believe I possess the skills, experience and temperament to be an excellent Court of Appeal or Superior Court judge. It would be a privilege for me to serve the people of Canada in this role.

6. Given the goal of ensuring that Canadians are able to look at the justices appointed to the bench and see their faces and life experience reflected there, you may, if you choose, provide information about yourself that you feel would assist in this objective.

There is still work to be done to accomplish the goal of having Canada's federal judiciary reflect the diversity of Canadians. One of the areas where the federal courts still do not reflect the make-up of Canada or of the legal profession is the number of women judges. In my legal career, I have always strived to do challenging and interesting work that often also had a public interest aspect. This work is demanding in the time it requires, and can be stressful. I have had to balance my commitment to my work and the demands of my work with my family life. I have three children. When each of my children was born I took a short time out the practice of law for maternity leave. In addition, after my second child was born, I left private practice for in house counsel work for a number of years (but later returned to private practice). In order to forward the goal of a more diverse and reflective federal judiciary, I believe it is important to consider applicants for the bench from a variety of different career paths.