JusticeLorne Sossin

2Thanks for having me, and I'm a fan of the podcast and the terrific lawyers and leaders in the justice community that you've been getting to know, and it's a privilege to be asked to join you.

4So I'm from Toronto, and, you know, what was a very uninteresting origin story over the evolution of Toronto has, I think, become more rare, and that's someone who not only grew up in Toronto and was born here, but whose parents were born here, whose grandparents on one side here as well, and my children were born here, so my children are now fifth generation Toronto. And it's come to be quite a rare day to run into someone else who has that same sense of place. Now again, it may be a lack of imagination of— on my part and my family's part to stay rooted here, but that sense of connection to Toronto I've come to really value, and it's become more important over time.

5And it's the kind of place easy to take for granted when you grew up here. You go around and see some of the world and you start to appreciate just what a remarkable community and environment it really is.

7So I grew up in Midtown. My family originally was in the Bathurst and College area, Kensington Market before that. And then there was a migration to that Bathurst and Eglinton kind of zone by the time I was growing up. And then, you know, in a move that the older generation couldn't quite fathom, when I was looking for my first apartment, I went back to Bathurst and College and had a place on Markham as my first apartment. And got to know that area with a whole new generation and have really loved exploring different parts of the city ever since. And family spread out to all corners of it. And it's, again, a place that really feels part of, part of me and part of my story.

9So the— my mother just passed away in 2019. My father is happily still with us, retired down in Costa Rica. But they were, you know, a product of their time and, and place. My father was involved in running some small businesses, and my mother was a schoolteacher. And it was a, you know, a very, I think, reflective growing up of Toronto of that era, of the Jewish community in particular, in that sense of being insiders and outsiders in a growing city and in a changing country. So it's something again that you don't sense when you're going through it so much as when you're reflecting back on it, but it was again an important sort of place to start for me, a point of departure in my understanding of the world around me.

10And again, it's something I've come to really value. Having a big family, most of whom are in the GTA, is something again I don't take for granted for a moment.

12Well, you know, it's never for the kid to say, but they've been The whole family, including parents, of course, have been super supportive over the years. But, but also, you know, it was a sense of wanting children to fulfill everything they could, they could do and be in a sense that, that, you know, was not, you know, something that had limits imposed by the outside. And again, I've in my roles, I've seen so many families where that isn't the ethos, where limits are there from outside imposed in, sometimes from inside as well. And I, you know, I've really, again, seen how valuable it is to have that family support and how, again, you can't assume it's there.

13And when it's not, it just imposes so many additional barriers and burdens for people. So I'm lucky on that count as well.

15No, it was like many, more the latter than the former. It was a chance to be starting, you know, my own life, to be in an exciting place, which Montreal was, and is. And I remember coming, you know, my grandfather, I think, sat me down. He'd run a dress shop on Bloor for 40 years after emigrating here from a small, small town in Poland. And he couldn't understand it because there was a university right here and I could live at home and save money and still get an education. Why would I want to go to Montreal and have to have the expense of finding a place and so on. And so I realized it was a hard thing to explain, that sense of wanting independence along with an education, but McGill provided both.

17You know, I think from an early point in time, figuring out those relationships of power, of who makes decisions over whom and what impact those decisions have. Those dynamics were always interesting to me. It was, of course, a lively time in politics. This is in the, you know, late 1970s, early 1980s. It's a time of change and foment, and so I felt very engaged by that, although, you know, it was also still exploring what, you know, what was going to be the the passion that would be to be pursued. So it wasn't like I started off and said, you know, I really want to be a policy expert or a lawyer or, you know, a person in government.

18It was really a time when, because tuition was low and time seemed to not be quite so compressed and intense, the question was what's interesting and what grabs you and Again, I've seen that evolution in, in the lives of post-secondary students where it's become so much more focused and intense and with so much more pressure that when I look back, you know, you kind of fell into things more than pursued them with a laser-like focus in many cases. And that was certainly so in my case.

20No, she absolutely went to McGill, both undergrad and law. And I was going to say not just went there but was a poster child of McGill. She ran everything, was editor-in-chief of the law journal, was a leader in in law school in in many facets, and has a passion for the university that's continued on various committees. And she grew up in Montreal and really embodies so much of what's special about that, you know, university and community. And yet she's embraced all things Toronto and has had terrific roles at some great institutions here, including a long stint as general counsel and vice president at Ryerson, and now, as you said, at Holland Bloorview.

22It would, and we actually did overlap in studies at McGill, but no, we met in another city known for romance here in Canada, and that's Ottawa, while we were clerks at the Supreme Court of Canada, and it was a a really terrific experience from a career perspective. But of course, for us, the much more meaningful connection was finding each other, and went off from Ottawa to graduate school in New York, and, and then moved back to Toronto.

24That's right. It was Borden& Elliott at the time and was to become BLG.

26Well, you know, I had done a lot of the preparatory work for academic career actually before going to law school. I was already in a PhD program and had done significant work towards a dissertation. And so, you know, entered law school not quite straight through in the way that many people did, so I already had an academic hunger, if I can put it that way, a real sense of wanting to finish that journey, and I did finish the doctorate as I was completing law school as well, so it wasn't out of the blue to keep that career in mind, but I really also wanted to explore life in practice, and the litigation group I joined at BLG, had some terrific luminaries there.

27It was led by Dennis O'Connor, subsequently Associate Chief Justice and a member of the Court of Appeal, but at the time he ran a public law litigation group with a number of others, including Freya Kristjanson, now on the Superior Court, Chris Bredt, Benjamin Glustein, now on the Superior Court, many others. So it was a terrific place to learn litigation and a terrific place to start that career. But then an opportunity came because of a contract, so just to fill in for someone for a year or two and join Osgoode Hall Law School and the Department of Political Science at York. It was a shared position, came up in, I think it was around '97, so a couple of years into my practice.

28and I thought, you know, if I'm ever going to have a chance to explore that academic side of life, this was the opportunity to do it, but didn't necessarily think it would be the end of legal practice. Just wanted to try to build in as much experience, squeeze as much from the opportunities as I could, and so took that plunge. And of course, one thing leads to another, and a full-time position ensued and an academic career that I feel very fortunate to have been at the, the right place and the right time to, to be able to take advantage of.

30That's right.

32No, absolutely. And in fact, you know, when you take that other plunge and submit an application, you know, you tick typically all the boxes for any kind of judicial path that is open, and for me, at that point, the idea of another learning curve, another set of challenges was particularly, you know, interesting and attractive, and of course, the life of a Superior Court judge is focused on exploring legal principles and ideas, but also really seeing that fact-finding, problem-solving, decision-making role. And what bridged those two experiences for me, and I do, just to come to your question, think that being an academic is excellent preparation for judicial life of all kinds, and an excellent preparation for a lot of other roles, because you are constantly put in the position of reflecting on core principles, thinking about how people are affected by law, for example, in ways that if you're a busy litigator, you may not always have those moments to reflect on the bigger picture, the systemic kind of influences and impacts in a way that academics can.

33But of course, if academics are untethered to those realities of what's happening in courtrooms, in law offices, in people's lives, then I think they're not as effective as academics as they could be. So the style of academic life that I really cherished and tried to pursue was one of being engaged in those realities throughout the legal system, throughout the, the many walks of practice that our students pursued. And again, where the ideas about law were coming from, a really diverse and disparate set of places in our society. So for me, the, the bridge was really administrative law and administrative justice, being able to participate on a number of administrative tribunals. So seeing that connection between adjudication and, and impact and seeing ideas in action, that was really important.

34Getting to know, of course, some terrific lawyers and administrative leaders in the justice community was a terrific exposure, and seeing that sense of engagement in some shared enterprises. So for me, the academic life and the life in practice, life in adjudication, these were shading into each other in ways that I felt very, again, lucky to have the opportunity to to be exposed to, and I think it made me better in each of those roles to have seen the other perspectives. I hope that answers the question that you posed, but the short answer, of course, is yes, I think this pathway to judicial life is, you know, is one that has a lot of important connections and ways to prepare for, for the role and enrich the role.

36That's right, it's actually the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board and the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which are related but two separate tribunals, and had the good fortune to be part of both of them over that, that long period.

38Well, what it does— and the, the two tribunals had slightly different mandates. This Health Services Board really focused on those who had decisions by OHIP, for example, not to fund certain services out of the country or experimental, and they were challenging typically decisions by OHIP The other was reviewing the decisions by all the health colleges and self-governing health professions to not refer things on to discipline or to make some remedies that were short of what aggrieved parties wanted, or in some cases went too far and health professionals wanted to challenge those decisions. So it wasn't fact-finding in that sense of building evidence from the ground up. It was reviewing a record, reviewing decisions, and sitting in panels of 3.

39So collaborative work as well. And of course, the main insight that I drew is understanding that statutory mandate, understanding the impact of these disputes on the parties involved. Typically, you wouldn't have both parties represented. Sometimes one would be the health professional you know, more typically, but dealing with access to justice issues, dealing with, again, the impact of these disputes on people's lives, why they matter so much, and seeing that administrative justice system in action were, were again, really important areas of exposure for, for me to understand the field that I also studied and taught in of administrative law. And to get a better understanding of the justice system and its limits and possibilities.

41life? No, it's an entirely different role, and I think we sometimes do a disservice to tribunals when we see them as kind of court light, somehow, you know, measuring them against courts as if that's the the standard and deviations from the standard are somehow, you know, lesser than or not as rigorous as. I think of the judicial role as really a very different kind of space for adjudication, different, of course, expectations on decision makers. Tribunals, you'll often have, as we did, a number of legally trained members and a number of non-legally trained members, and of course in a judicial context there is that shared education and background. So fact-finding, of course, was, as we were saying, one of the really signature roles that Superior Court judges play, and I was both active in the civil team and the family team in the Toronto Region, and So really had a great opportunity to see between motions and trials and case management, all the aspects of the litigation process.

42Again, the possibilities and limits of what happens in our courts. And, and it was a terrific learning curve for me just because what you don't have when you're an academic is that sense of the choreography of the courtroom, you know, who stands when, what gets said at a given time. It had been, of course, a long time since I was in courtrooms on a regular basis. So once appointed, just coming to understand those ways of getting at the ideas and solving the problems and what, you know, what kind of advocacy was going to be effective, what kind of courtroom atmosphere I wanted to create and to maintain. Those were all really important areas of the transition, and I loved the experience and really valued all the contributions of the counsel and parties and court staff in making that such a rich place for me to do that learning.

44Well, you know, I think what is striking about that environment for those who, again, have had the opportunity to be a part of it is just the intense collegiality, the intense sense of a shared pursuit, not just of particular cases, particular panels, but of wanting to really bring out the best in each other. So lots of mentorship, lots of people who are experts, gurus in their field, incredibly generous to share their thinking, to share their experience, and and, you know, people who've been on the court for a few months, people who've been on the court for a couple of decades really acting in in supportive ways for each other, and in a sense that I was really struck by and, and have been, of course very grateful for.

46That's right.

48Well, look, I think that first of all, that's absolutely right, and for some people you know, their challenge is the writing up of decisions. For others, it's the piecing together all the evidence or the submissions or the advocacy. But at the end of the day, that is the quintessential role that is expected of a judge. And, you know, some would say you've got to learn to paint fences before you do elaborate portraits. You've got to keep your eyes focused on the work you need. So it's not just deciding, but deciding in a timely way, deciding in a well-reasoned way, deciding in a way that can be defended and that is proportionate to what's going on around you.

49To take a case that people need an answer in a few weeks and decide to make it your magnum opus for a few months is not an effective kind of decision-making. So I think having been in that tribunal world, in those academic worlds, and of course in some administrative capacities as well in universities where you see the importance of decisions, of finality, of being able to move forward, gave me a real sense of the importance of deciding. And again, it's not to say I'm not often challenged with great arguments on both sides, or seeing the implications as a real difficult shoals to navigate between. But I rely on the fact that there are some important touchstones for judges to look to.

50So for example, at the Court of Appeal, the deference to a judge below who's already had a chance to see the evidence, the record, the issues. You're, you're never starting from, from scratch. You're always looking at what another judge has done.

54No, I think we can absolutely do better and need to do better. And part of it, again, I saw through the law school and legal education experience. I think we for too long have viewed the value-add of lawyers as complexifiers, as people who see the, you know, what's written, parsing the words, parsing between the lines, looking for precision, looking at all of the perspectives that can be brought to language, which leads to more sophistication, more adjectives, more search for precision. But there's no reason why lawyers can't be adding value as simplifiers, as people who are able to cut through the complexity, make more transparent and accessible the relationships that matter. But again, I think it hasn't been the model for ascribing that value to lawyers.

55So in In law school, we've really moved from how to be a kind of artisan of complexity to how to be a problem solver, and the adoption of problem-solving curriculums, of seeing law in action through clinical placements, through working with clients from the very outset, rather than assuming, you know, that parsing appellate judgments is the high point of legal analysis. It's working, or ought to be working, with people to solve the problems that matter most to them, and then building a set of principles from that experience. That's really the common law's claim, I think, to being a, a both functional and just system. Civil law, of course, is the— just give me a moment— a civil law is, of course, the law something like three-fifths of the world lives under, and it's got claims to why it is an effective system.

56But again, I think some of those claims are evolving as well as the civil system moves to try to modernize and try to update its claims to having order and consistency. And again, the common law has never sought out order and consistency. It sought out evolution through experience. So each system, I think, has its important claims. And of course, we're both coming to learn more about Indigenous systems of law and alternative approaches to problem solving that hopefully will give us a greater insight into how to improve and continue to evolve the system we have. But absolutely, simplification and adding value by solving problems is something we don't focus on enough. And whether it's civil procedure rules or court forms or other access to justice barriers.

57We're never going to solve these problems by simply throwing more people and more resources into the existing mix unless we change some of those fundamental principles along the way as well. Again, from complexity to simplicity, from additional steps and barriers to much more immediate access. And I think new generations of law students and lawyers are going to lead the way.

61Terrific question, Pulat, and I think the tension that you're reflecting and how you're casting the question is also part of the answer, that that tension is an important one not to ever see as settled or static. We've seen this, for example, in some of the debates around mandatory minimum sentences coming out of legislatures and then being challenged in courts. And, you know, I think the general rule of thumb in my experience is there's about, you know, that 80/20 rule that in 80% of the cases, not only are bright lines appropriate, but they need to be rigorously enforced to give certainty and simplicity to how people govern their lives. In the 20%, and of course the numbers don't always add up, that imposition of the bright line will do real injustice.

62And the reason for the bright line isn't apparent in the circumstances of that case, and the justice of the case needs to have some attention. Or if we're going to close off the justice of the case, it needs to be a very narrow subset of contexts where that's the case. So I think that 80/20 rule generally applies, but you've got to get both sides right. In other words, you've got to be rigorous on the 80 in order to free up the time and space to focus on those contextual facets, the justice of the case facets in the 20. If you're looking at the justice of the case in all 100, then it's going to grind to a halt.

63And similarly, Over time, I think you start to get some predictability to when that 20% needs to be in place and what role judges need to have to explore. But rather than look to solve that or find the solution to it, I think the journey to discuss it, to debate it, to what's your 80 versus my 20, that to me is a sign of a vibrant and healthy legal system. We accept that we don't have resources to— nor would it be fair to make the system so complex and take so long that it does that kind of justice in every case at the expense of ever being able to move on with your life.

64And similarly, that we don't have any tolerance for the injustices that Brightline rules may impose in some of those very rare cases. So I think the debate's a healthy one. And I've seen some real reason for optimism in sorting out the distinction between the two, and proportionality as a, as a kind of big theme of the justice system in the last 10, 15 years is, I think, emblematic of trying to get that right. And also not having a one-size-fits-all approach to problem solving, that there is a way to customize, to make people and their problems and their needs something to which the justice system responds, not just the convenience of the institutions and, you know, the, the way the rules have, have played out over time.

66Yeah, no, first of all, I think it's great to see the new generation and new voices of an increasingly energetic and diverse profession come into their own in that setting. But not everyone has the networks and resources to do that with confidence and support. So the advice I always give is never be on your own and never think of yourself on your own. That whether through some of the legal organizations and networks coming out of law school or shared interests, there's always a group not only that you can go to, but who would welcome the opportunity to pick up the phone or be on the other end of a DM or an email and share their experience of what to expect.

67Be a sounding board, do a mock-up of your submissions, get feedback. So that sense of "I'm on my own and I'm overwhelmed," I think, is a terrible experience and an avoidable one. And that tradition of mentorship, of support, of building community, especially where some counsel are not in settings where that's already built into their firms or their practice life, is hugely important. It's where I think the legal community here has, you know, in its best traditions, done extremely well. And we know it's incomplete. We know some communities get called on more than others to do that mentorship, and it's an extra burden and challenge. So I think it's not just a good news story.

68I think it's, it's an important tip. but it's a tip of an iceberg of the need to build that community, provide that support, and make sure we do welcome that new generation into the courthouse in a way that doesn't replicate some of those conditions of exclusion that we know have been present in the past.

70It's a pleasure. Thanks for the opportunity. Look forward to continuing discussions. And thanks for including the judiciary in the podcast and in the conversation.