Blog

Interview with Faculty of Law Dean Paul Paton: Suffrage, Diversity, & Social Media

Dr. Paul D. Paton was appointed Dean of Law and Wilbur Fee Bowker Professor of Law at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law in July 2014. An expert on legal ethics, professional responsibility, the regulation of lawyers, and corporate governance, he has written and spoken extensively on these issues and has been recognized for his work in the United States, Canada and England. He was appointed as Reporter to the ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission to support its work on Alternative Business Structures between 2010-12, and he served two terms as Chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s National Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee between 2009-2011, following two years as Vice Chair. He is a Member of the ABA Business Law Section Professional Responsibility Committee.

Prior to entering the academy full-time in 2004, Dr. Paton practiced for over a decade as Bay Street associate and partner, senior government policy advisor, and in-house counsel. He served as Research Director for and authored the joint CBA/CCCA practice resource on Privilege and Confidentiality for In-House Counsel, and is recognized as the leading Canadian legal ethics academic on issues facing the corporate counsel bar. 

Dr. Paton holds a B.A and law degree from the University of Toronto, an M.Phil in international relations from Cambridge, and a JSM and JSD from Stanford, where he was a Fellow in what is now the Stanford Center for Ethics. He received a Distinguished Service Award from the Ontario Bar Association in 2014 for his contributions to the legal profession, and was a finalist in the 2015 Canadian Lawyer "25 Most Influential Lawyers in Canada" survey. Dean Paton also currently teaches Professional Responsibility at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law.

Yesterday Ms. Suffragette sat down with Dean Paton to discuss the women’s suffrage movement, diversity hiring, and social media. Please see below for an overview of the wisdom shared by Dean Paton with Ms. Suffragette.

Unbeknownst to many, on January 28 and March 14 respectively, Manitoba and Saskatchewan were the first two provinces to celebrate 100 years of women’s suffrage at the provincial level. Alberta will celebrate the same milestone on April 19th. Ms. Suffragette asked Dean Paton: why is it important to commemorate 100 years of women’s suffrage, or is it important at all?

Dean Paton explained that commemorating 100 years of suffrage is a reminder that we have come through a period of remarkable challenges and change in Alberta and Canada when it comes to equal rights for women. Dean Paton shared that his maternal grandparents immigrated to Alberta in the late 1800’s. It struck him as remarkable that female members of that family who were so important in establishing the family unit, both privately and as contributors to public life, would not have had the opportunity to vote.

Dean Paton also shared an anecdote which speaks to the progress made in the status of women over time. He informed us that one of his distant cousins served as an MLA under former Premier Peter Lougheed in the 1970’s. He and his spouse are both commemorated in the village of Andrew, Alberta for their efforts and contributions to civic life.

This milestone is also a reminder to everyone of the need to participate actively in public life. Dean Paton is troubled by reports of elections where voter participation rates are low amongst men and women. He explains that we have an extraordinary privilege, and lawyers bear a special responsibility for ensuring not only that we take an active part in the political process, but also to celebrate those from the legal profession who have been leaders and contributors in the courts and in securing equal rights.

As Dean of the Faculty of Law, Dean Paton holds an important responsibility in regards to hiring faculty members. We asked him: at a Town Hall meeting this past January, you discussed the Faculty’s progress in hiring new professors, including having interviewed an equal number of male and female candidates for the open teaching positions. Why was this decision made?

Dean Paton clarified the statement made at town hall with respect to the hiring process. The Advisory Selection Committee, including a student representative, provides advice and recommendations on faculty hiring to the Dean. Dean Paton explained that he informed the Advisory Selection Committee that diversity in all of its facets is important to him and important to consider in endeavouring to ensure a broadly diverse candidate pool for advertised positions. Dean Paton requested that the Assistant Dean of Administration canvass the University of Alberta’s resources to determine if any would be available to the Committee which could inform their consideration of diversity in the hiring process. The Committee advertised widely, and sought faculty help in reaching out to candidates who could potentially enhance and enrich the diversity of the Faculty.  

In the end, 5 women and 5 men were the finalists interviewed, but those individuals were identified from a pool of 63 exceptional candidates including 43 men and 20 women. The final candidates included a visible minority female, an openly gay male, and a self-identified Indigenous person as well as a Non-Status Indigenous person. Within the range of considerations gender was an important issue. Dean Paton advised that diversity in all of its forms, to be supported and encouraged, requires an active approach to ensure the best candidate pool possible, as informed by the different perspectives which the Advisory Selection Committee brings. His goal was to hire the most qualified candidates, many of whom interviewed with different institutions and received multiple job offers.

Last year Dean Paton was interviewed by a Ms. Magna Carta member in the inaugural Law and Social Media Course. Therein he discussed this course as a model for bringing experiential learning forward. Ms. Suffragette asked Dean Paton: have other law schools shown interest in the Law and Social Media project, or demonstrated interest in developing similar courses?   

Dean Paton advised that he has discussed the course with individuals from other law schools, and people have certainly taken notice of this course. Comments included that the members of the team are very actively engaged and have achieved success in drawing attention to their initiatives. One of the things that struck Dean Paton is how much of the work and innovation of this course was the result of unleashing student creativity.

As social media becomes and remains an especially important vehicle for communication by the public and the legal profession, Dean Paton thinks that focusing on the way in which social media is used, paying particular attention to professional responsibility and ethics, is very important. A recent American Bar Association study confirmed that increasing numbers of lawyers are integrating social media not only into marketing and advertising, but also as a platform to engage potential clients and comment on legal and social developments.

Dean Paton explained that as the Faculty expands experiential learning, use of social media is one area amongst many that merits exploration. This year Professor Roderick J Wood chaired an Advisory Committee on experiential learning, the report from which will be received in June. In the meantime, the Faculty is moving onward with a new experiential learning course in the fall called Gladue Sentencing Principles: Aboriginal Justice Externship, and other exciting initiatives are also being explored. Last year at the market modifier debate, students identified experiential learning opportunities as a priority. It is great to have students lead a successful model for others to follow both within our Faculty and potentially at other schools across Canada.

In September 2014, Dean Paton wrote an article for Lexpert Magazine on the use of social media by lawyers and law students. We asked him: can you comment on some of the dangers which you cited in that article regarding the use of social media by lawyers and students, such as posting unprofessional pictures, or use of comment sections on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and other platforms?

Dean Paton advised that there have been so many instances where lawyers or law students have posted intemperate remarks, negative comments, and other outrageous statements. Judges in the United States have also been chastised for such conduct. Dean Paton states that social media has huge potential for positive use, but as outlined in his article, also requires an abundance of care. Law students are not necessarily attuned to the fact that future employers will look at online profiles and posts. The things which people post have permanent presence even after taken down. One thing Dean Paton teaches in his Professional Responsibility course is that reputation matters, and a reputation for being a thoughtful commentator or active participant in online discourse does not need to be obliterated, but social media use does need to be approached with care. Dean Paton explains that it is too easy to get caught in the heat of the moment typing 140 characters and hitting “tweet”. One of the best friends that any lawyer or student has is “save as draft”.

The misleading mantra of "balance" in Canadian climate change policy

Interested in whether Canada can continue to be a player in oil and gas extraction and meet its international legal obligations under the U.N. climate change agreement? Please check out my piece in Policy Options on the misleading mantra of "balance" in Canadian climate change policy here, as part of Policy Options' special feature After Paris: Next Steps on Climate Change.

Ms. Suffragette Interviews U of A Law Students

Ms. Suffragette spoke to students around the law school and asked them to share their thoughts on our project. Their responses were articulate and reasoned, which evidences what an incredible law school the University of Alberta has. Thank you to Paul Welke, Caliena Swick, Sandy Brophy, Pavin Takhar, Michael Seed, and Afshaan Jiwaji for their comments! We are grateful for the continued support from our fellow students at the Faculty of Law, and are excited to share their thoughts on the women’s suffrage movement and the Law & Social Media course. Check out the video below to see their take on the Ms. Suffragette blog.

 

Ms. Suffragette Interviews U of A Law Faculty

Over the past few weeks, Ms. Suffragette had the opportunity to interview various members of the Faculty of Law regarding their perspectives on the Law & Social Media course, the women’s suffrage movement, and women’s rights generally. Thank you to Gail Henderson, James Muir, Barbara Billingsley, Steven Penney, and Gloria Strathern for their time! We would also like to take this opportunity to thank all professors and staff at the Faculty of Law for their continued support of our project. Check out the video below, where our faculty members share their thoughts.

 

Women's Suffrage and Art

Happy Easter!

    In today’s holiday post, we thought we’d take the opportunity to briefly discuss female artists in light of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta’s call for submissions for an exhibition commemorating the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage in Alberta. U of A Law Professor Gail Henderson has discussed how art can help us understand law in a previous blog post, and today we will relate art to the women's suffrage movement. 

    Although the relationship between suffrage and art may not be obvious at first glance, the position of women as artists was propelled forward by women’s enfranchisement. In effort to attain suffrage women became engaged in gendered politics, and “some women artists were able to develop representations of their diverse experiences that took different forms than those which characterized contemporary avant garde art practice”[1]. During this same time, women were slowly permitted access to higher education and professional occupations, thereby erasing some of the boundaries preventing women from being members of artist clubs and producers of modern art [2]. Additionally, the suffrage movement provided a forum for some artists to express their committal to the political equality of women [3]. Yet, “women, and women artists among them, are not and have never been a homogenous group”, and subsequently those women who gained access to art education were often privileged by class and economic status [4]. Even after suffrage was attained, the “Victorian ideology of separate spheres was frequently repeated to women through family members, teachers and partners in terms of a clear choice: one must be an artist or a wife and mother. Such an ideology treated as incomprehensible or a contradiction in terms the idea of the woman artist as a mother”[5]. The study of women as artists requires an acknowledgement that women’s art was often trivialized or devalued, based on art history ideologies which define appropriate subject matter and define artists as ‘major’ or ‘minor’ [6]. While the suffrage movement irrevocably altered the way in which women as a group could effect change in larger society, barriers still remained throughout much of the 20th century.

    Today, female artists undoubtedly have greater opportunities than their counterparts from 100 years ago, and many cities throughout the country make an effort to ensure the fine arts remains a priority. Edmonton is also known as Canada’s Festival City, and has a dynamic arts following with facilities such as the Citadel, the Jubilee, the Royal Alberta museum, the Telus World of Science, and the Art Gallery of Alberta. Ms Suffragette is fortunate to feature a piece created by a local artist (and submitted for the upcoming exhibition), which explores and celebrates women’s suffrage. We encourage you to check out the full exhibit at the Borealis Gallery between June 6 - August 6, 2016!

^{[Image courtesy of inspirations by jani <online: www.inspirationsbyjani.com>]}

[1] Rosemary Betterton, “Modern Women, Modern Spaces: Women, Metropolitan Culture and Vorticism” in Katy Deepwell, ed, Women Artists and Modernism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998) 18 at 18 [Betterton]

[2] Betterton, at 19

[3] Betterton, at 32

[4] Katy Deepwell, “Introduction” in Katy Deepwell, ed, Women Artists and Modernism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998) 1 at 9 [Deepwell]

[5] Deepwell, at 8

[6] Deepwell, at 2-5

Ms. Suffragette’s Interview with the Honourable Madam Justice Topolniski

We recently had the privilege of interviewing the Honourable Madam Justice J.E. Topolniski, who is a Justice on the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in Edmonton.  In 1983 Justice Topolniski received her Bachelor of Laws from the University of Alberta, and she was admitted to the bar in 1984.  In 1999 she was appointed Queen’s Counsel and, prior to being appointed as a Justice on the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in 2003, she worked in the areas of commercial litigation and insolvency law.[1]  Currently, Justice Topolniski primarily hears cases in that area of law through the Court of Queen’s Bench commercial chambers stream.  The University of Alberta Faculty of Law also has the honour of learning from Justice Topolniski this year, as she currently serves as the Justice in Residence.

We are very grateful to have had the opportunity to interview Justice Topolniski, and would like to thank her for sharing her insights with us. Please see below to read our interview with Justice Topolniski, where she discusses the importance of the women’s suffrage movement, and gives her perspective on the role that the legal profession and judiciary should play in the fight for gender parity.  Justice Topolniski also provides advice for female law students and lawyers, in light of the recognition that women continue to face barriers in the legal profession.

 

1. In celebration of Canadian women receiving the right to vote for the first time 100 years ago, Ms. Suffragette has been examining issues related to the women’s suffrage movement and women’s rights.  Why you think it is important to continue to study the history of women’s suffrage today?

The suffrage movement was the launchpad from which the feminist movement sprang.  Despite the many gains that have been achieved, in the past century, truly equal rights for women, globally and nationally, has not been attained.  Sadly, violence against women, discrimination in pay, and the ubiquitous 'glass ceiling ' continue.  Viewed through a larger lens, the suffrage movement is an early example of a nonviolent, organized protest as an effective instrument of change.  It also teaches us about the power of publicity, even negative publicity.

 

2. The barriers that women historically faced were not limited to suffrage.  For example, women were not always eligible to attend university or be admitted to the bar.  Moreover, in 1916 Emily Murphy became the first female Magistrate in Canada, and it was not until 1982 that the Honourable Bertha Wilson became the first female judge on the Supreme Court of Canada.  Moreover, in 2002 the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin became the first female Chief Justice on the Supreme Court of Canada.  As a woman who has achieved great success both as a lawyer and a Justice on the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, do you believe that women continue to face barriers in the legal profession?

Regrettably, yes.  While the profession has made great strides towards gender parity, there is still work to be done.  Of particular concern is the spectre of delayed or thwarted careers attributable to child bearing and child rearing.  

 

3. Before you were appointed as a Justice on the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, you received your Bachelor of Laws from the University of Alberta, and subsequently worked in commercial litigation and insolvency law.  Based on your experiences as a female lawyer and Justice, what advice do you have for female law students and lawyers?

If you are keen on a particular field of law, embrace it regardless of whether it is a field that seems more challenging for women to break into.  Seize opportunities and make them where none seem to exist.  

Work diligently to build a reputation as an ethical, diligent, and courteous lawyer, with a hunger for knowledge.  From that all else will follow.  

Participate in professional activities and organizations.  You will extend your network, give back to your community, and in the end, will very likely be the net beneficiary of your endeavours.

 

4. Women in Canada and across the world continue to face discrimination and corresponding barriers to meaningful participation in society.  What role do you think the judiciary and legal profession should play in the fight for gender parity?

Our roles as judges and lawyers in the context of achieving gender parity are much the same as for everything else we do that engages the rule of law and human rights.  Lawyers must strive to advocate their cause to the best of their ability.  Judges must strive to interpret and apply the law fairly.  Both must strive to lead and educate.

[1] http://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/files/newsletters/Advisory_Volume _1_Issue_2_May2003.pdf

Interview with Professor Linda C. Reif - Part II

As promised, here is part two of our interview with Professor Linda C. Reif!

CEDAW’s protections include ensuring the elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations, or enterprises. Given recent reports which indicate that Canadian women still suffer from discrimination such as the gender wage gap, does this show that Canada still has a long way to go when it comes to gender equality?

Canada still has problems with achieving gender equality in employment, including the gender pay gap.  The World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap 2015 Report ranks Canada at number 30 out of 145 countries in closing the overall gender gap.[1]  With Nordic countries at the top of the list, Canada also ranks below many developed and some developing countries in its efforts to close the gender gap.  While Canada has closed the gender gap in the educational attainment index (tied for number 1 with 24 other countries), we still rank 28th in the economic participation and opportunity index and only 80th in terms of wage equality for similar work.

While there are multiple factors that contribute to the gender pay gap, public sector laws and policies do influence the size of the gap.  In 2015, the Human Rights Committee issued its most recent Concluding Observations on Canada’s implementation of its International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights obligations.[2]  One of the concerns of the Committee is the persistent gender pay gap, which is comparatively greater in some provinces such as Alberta.  The Committee called for equal pay for work of equal value legislation in all provinces/territories and promotion of better representation of women in leadership positions in all sectors.  Clearly, more work needs to be done by government and business.

 

[1] World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap 2015 Report: <http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GGGR2015/cover.pdf>.

[2] Human Rights Committee Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Canada, para 7:   <http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR/C/CAN/CO/6&Lang=En>.

 

On March 15, 2016 the Honourable Patty Hajdu, Minister of Status of Women, announced that Canada is seeking election to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, which underscores Canada’s commitment to advancing gender equality globally, and the protection and promotion of the rights of women and girls. If Canada is elected, how could this help Canada become a world leader and a strong voice in the promotion of gender equality and full realization of human rights for women?

The UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) is the main UN intergovernmental body focusing on gender equality and women’s rights.[1]  It is a commission of the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).  If Canada is elected to the Commission, the country will gain a higher profile and voice in promoting women’s rights and interests.  However, the CSW is a political body that meets only once a year for two weeks and forwards its work on to ECOSOC.  While there has been an emphasis on gender mainstreaming in the UN for years, women’s rights issues nonetheless are still dispersed, and arguably diluted, among various political and treaty-based bodies, including CSW, UN Women and the CEDAW Committee.[2]

Another way to advance gender equality within and through the UN is to advocate for more women to be appointed to senior positions inside the UN.  More to the point, the current UN Secretary-General’s term expires in December 2016.  Serious attention is being paid to identifying and promoting qualified female candidates for the next Secretary-General.  There is even a campaign of professionals, called WomanSG, lobbying for the selection of a female Secretary-General.  The WomanSG list of qualified candidates include three Canadians: Louise Arbour (formerly UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, SCC justice), Louise Fréchette (formerly UN Deputy Secretary-General, diplomat, senior public servant) and Michaëlle Jean (past Governor General, currently Secretary-General of la Francophonie).[3]  A Canadian woman as the first female UN Secretary-General would definitely put Canada on the gender equality map.

 

[1] UN Commission on the Status of Women: <http://www.unwomen.org/en/csw>.

[2] UN Women:< http://www.unwomen.org/en>.

[3] WomanSG: http://www.womansg.org/  (see “Outstanding Women”, “Western Europe and Others Group”).

 

Interview with Professor Linda C. Reif

To conclude our discussion on the importance of human rights legislation as it relates to gender discrimination and inequality, we interviewed one of our own professors at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law, Professor Linda C. Reif. We are very thankful to have had the opportunity to interview Professor Reif and are excited to share another perspective on this topic!

Please see below for our interview with Professor Reif, where she discusses Canada’s involvement and obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (“CEDAW”), and the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Check back at noon for part two of our interview with Professor Reif, wherein she discusses the gender wage gap issue, Canada’s interest in seeking election to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, and the involvement of various groups, such as the WomanSG, in advocating for a qualified woman to be elected as the next UN Secretary-General!

Canada was one of the first counties to sign and ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (“CEDAW”), which set international standards for eliminating gender discrimination. Can you briefly describe what Canada’s obligations are under the Convention? Further, has Canada complied with the standards outlined by the Convention or are there areas where Canada still needs improvement?

CEDAW enshrines civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for women based predominantly on a non-discrimination standard.[1]  CEDAW parties are obligated to eliminate discrimination against women in both the public and private sectors.  For example, gender equality is required in political and public life, education, employment, health care, equality before the law and all matters relating to marriage and family relations.  The treaty body that monitors state compliance with their CEDAW obligations is the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee).  The members of the CEDAW Committee are experts who serve in their personal capacity.  CEDAW was drafted in the 1970s, when some important issues impacting women did not have sufficient visibility to be addressed explicitly or in depth.  Violence against women was one of these neglected issue areas.  Subsequently, however, violence against women in the public and private spheres has been found by the Committee to violate CEDAW provisions.    

The Committee’s most recent Concluding Observations (2008) on Canada’s CEDAW implementation efforts highlight numerous areas where Canada is deficient. These areas have also been noted by other human rights bodies.  They include Canada’s longstanding failures with respect to murdered and missing indigenous women, domestic violence against women and girls, gender inequality in employment, low levels of political participation by women, over-incarceration of indigenous women and women of color, poor prison conditions for female offenders and the female poverty rate.

Canada is also a party to CEDAW’s Optional Protocol (OP) which empowers individuals under Canada’s jurisdiction to submit complaints (“communications”) to the CEDAW Committee arguing that Canada is violating one of more its CEDAW treaty obligations.[2]  If a complaint is admissible, the Committee issues its “views” on whether the state has violated CEDAW and, if so, its recommendations for redress.  Kell v Canada illustrates Canada’s continued failure to uphold the CEDAW rights of indigenous women.[3]  Cecilia Kell suffered domestic violence and lost her home due to the improper conduct of her partner acting in conjunction with the NWT housing authority. In 2012, the Committee held that Canada had violated its CEDAW obligations by engaging in intersectional discrimination against Kell based on her gender, aboriginal identity and as a victim of domestic violence, which in turn led to the impairment of her property rights.[4]  Also, Canada failed to provide her with effective legal protection due to a dysfunctional NWT legal aid system that stymied her attempts to regain her home.

 

[1] CEDAW: <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CEDAW.aspx> (Canada ratified CEDAW on December 10, 1981; CEDAW now has 189 parties).  CEDAW rights also apply to girls where relevant.

[2] CEDAW OP: <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CEDAW.aspx>.  Individuals can petition  alone or in groups, or can be represented by a third party under certain conditions.

[3] Kell v. Canada (Committee Views adopted February 28, 2012): <http://juris.ohchr.org/Search/Details/1718>.

[4] Under public international law, Canada is also responsible under CEDAW for conduct of provincial and territorial governments.

 

In 2013, CEDAW members visited Canada to conduct a confidential inquiry into allegations by Canadian non-governmental organizations that Aboriginal women in Canada faced systematic violations of their rights. In their report, the Committee concluded that there had been grave violations of rights under CEDWA, and consequently made 38 recommendations for action. As a result the Government of Canada launched a national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Should the onus to follow the Committee’s recommendations fall solely on the government, and if so, can the Canadian government properly deal with this issue. What would the next steps likely be?

The CEDAW OP also enables the CEDAW Committee to conduct a confidential inquiry when they receive reliable information that a CEDAW state has committed grave or systematic violations of CEDAW rights.  The accumulated frustration over inadequate responses to the murdered and missing indigenous women led to the inquiry’s 2011 launch and the 2015 report.[1]

The Committee found that Canada had violated multiple CEDAW provisions such as through its institutionalized gender stereotyping, discrimination by public institutions and failure to provide socio-economic conditions to enable indigenous women to enjoy a spectrum of rights and thereby escape violence.[2]  Canada was also found in violation of its due diligence obligation to prevent, investigate and punish violence against indigenous women and girls by private actors through its insufficient police response, inadequate investigations and insufficient measures.  In a parallel development, pursuant to Canada’s Organization of American State (OAS) obligations, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) issued its report on the Missing and Murdered Women in British Columbia, Canada at the end of 2014.[3]

There are many factors that have contributed to the launch of Canada’s national inquiry, including recommendations for such an inquiry in both the CEDAW and IACHR reports.  Based on state responsibility norms, the CEDAW recommendations were addressed to the Canadian government.  Given the extreme violence and institutionalized discrimination against indigenous women and girls, many of the recommendations address the conduct of public authorities involved in the criminal justice field, such as the police, prosecutors, judges and legal aid schemes.  Improving the living conditions of indigenous communities is another area where the onus is on the government.  However, based on the due diligence obligation, the CEDAW Committee has also called on the Canadian government to work with various private actors to try to bring about positive change, including victim and community service organizations,  lawyers, counsellors, the media and educators.  The next steps will be undertaking the national inquiry and then acting on its recommendations, as well as those made in the CEDAW and IACHR reports.  Given the immense scope of the work to be done, the CEDAW Committee recommends the development of an integrated national plan of action in consultation with aboriginal community representatives.

 

[1] CEDAW Committee, Report of the inquiry concerning Canada (March 30, 2015): <http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=3&DocTypeCategoryID=7>.

[2] Based on CEDAW violence against women norms and e.g. Kell v. Canada.

[3] OAS IACHR Report (December 21, 2014): <http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/indigenous-women-bc-canada-en.pdf>.

Interview with Executive Director of the Centre for Constitutional Studies Patricia Paradis: Part II

Here is part two of our interview with Ms. Patricia Paradis. In addition to her video interview, Ms. Paradis provided some insight into LEAF's efforts as an intervener in human rights cases brought before the courts!

 

Would you provide an example of LEAF's work that impacts women's equality but that does not specifically deal with sex discrimination?

In the early 1990's, the Church of Jesus Christ Christian Aryan Nations (essentially an offshoot of the Klu Klux Klan) came to Alberta for an Aryan Fest which it held on a farm near Provost. People driving by or walking by the farm could see what was going on. There was a large nazi banner hanging on the barn, men with nazi armbands holding guns, and most disturbing, a large wooden cross in a field which was eventually lit in the evening.. Men in Klu Klux klan robes surrounded the cross shouting slogans such as, 'death to the Jews'! Harvey Kane filed a human rights complaint against the Church and a human rights hearing (one of the largest and most expensive in Alberta history) was held in 1991. The church argued freedom of expression allowed it to express itself in the way it did, especially as this was a private farm. LEAF intervened and I was counsel in the case. LEAF's legal argument was that there need to be limits on freedom of expression, especially where that expression causes harm. In this case, we argued that, for example, the very sight of men in Klu Klux Klan robes, the burning cross, the nazi symbol, caused fear and created harm for people of colour and for Jewish people, and that the effect of that was compounded for women. We had difficulty finding a person who would testify to this fear (because of fear of repercussions). And so we brought in Catherine MacKinnon (famous American feminist who has written extensively on pornography) to testify to the harmful effects of some expression. There were also experts called in this case who testified about the impact and effects of certain signs and symbols on vulnerable groups such as, in this case, Jewish people and people of colour.

Why did LEAF intervene in this case?

Because it wanted to establish the groundwork for changing the legal test for what constitutes pornography. Once the court accepted a harms-based approach to determining whether some forms of expression were discriminatory in the context of the Aryan Nations case, it was then more straightforward to make the argument for a harms-based approach in relation to the harmful effects of pornography on women and girls. LEAF made these arguments at roughly the same time as it was intervening in the Butler case (1992). The Butler case involved the sale of pornography in Winnipeg. The test for what constituted pornography at that time was based on whether it offended a community standard. The latter was to be decided by a largely all male bench. LEAF argued that the test should be changed to whether the expression in question harms women and/or girls. As a result of this case, the test for what constitutes pornography was changed by the Supreme Court.

The decision in Butler was severely criticized, primarily because of the way in which this harms-based approach was subsequently interpreted by police officers and customs officials. But the approach employed by LEAF to change the test for what constitutes pornography, based on freedom of expression in cases such as Aryan Nations, was in my view, highly strategic and effective. Few, I think, ever understood LEAF's strategy in linking the Aryan Nations and Butler cases.

Interview with Executive Director of the Centre for Constitutional Studies Patricia Paradis

We are grateful to have had the opportunity to interview Ms. Patricia Paradis, Executive Director of the Centre for Constitutional Studies at the University of Alberta and human rights expert! She has been Executive Director of the Centre for Constitutional Studies since 2010, and teaches human rights law as a sessional instructor at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law. As well, Ms, Paradis was a former National Board Chair for the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (“LEAF”), and she received a Life Time Achievement Award in 2010 for her work with LEAF.

Please see below for our interview with Ms. Paradis, which provides her perspective on the role of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in relation to gender equality. She also discusses the inception of section 15, the involvement of LEAF in section 15 cases brought before the courts, and perspectives that female judges may bring to deliberations involving female claimants. We would like to take this opportunity to thank Ms. Paradis for sharing her insights on the role section 15 has played, and continues to play, in the realization of gender parity.

 

 

 

Interview with Ms. Zurbrigg on the Role of the Alberta Human Rights Commission - Part II

As promised, here is part two of our interview with Ms. Terri Susan Zurbrigg! 

 

3. A recent development in employment law is that under the Alberta Human Rights Act, the protected ground of family status now covers child care needs. Although this decision is not gendered as it is not limited to women, do you think it impacts women in any distinct ways?

Under Alberta’s legislation, family status is defined as a relationship of "blood, marriage or adoption.” Although this has been interpreted by courts and tribunals as including child care, it also includes eldercare and other family obligations. Although not a human rights statute, as of 2014, Alberta’s Employment Standards Code was amended to include compassionate care leave which provides employees with an unpaid, job protected leave when they are the primary caregiver for a critically ill family member. All this is to say that the law is evolving in a direction that recognizes the competing spheres of family obligations and workplace obligations.

Although family status complaints are made by individuals of all genders, the jurisprudence in this area reflects that these complaints are more frequently made by women, which in turn reflects the social reality that, although things are slowly changing, women still disproportionately shoulder child care obligations. In the absence of legal protection such as that afforded by human rights legislation (and collective agreements into which human rights protections in the workplace are “read in”), women would not be able to request accommodation that enables them to balance childcare needs with workplace obligations, which would lead to reduced participation by women in the labour force.

 

4. Historically, women had to fight to achieve equality in different areas, such as in the women’s suffrage movement. Do you think we now have the necessary tools to achieve gender equality, for example through legislation like the Alberta Human Rights Act? Is there a need for individuals to continue to fight for gender equality in areas such as the workplace?

Human rights legislation creates a mechanism for making complaints and for resolving them either by agreement or through a more formal hearing process. It is an important tool for achieving gender equality because it provides the means through which discrimination complaints can be adjudicated, and where meritorious, remedies may be awarded.

Although legislation creates the mechanism and the means, only people courageous enough to bring complaints will result in legal and social change. The gender wage gap is but one example demonstrating that there is absolutely still a need to fight for gender equality. Notwithstanding express statutory provisions on equal pay for the same or substantially similar work (see: s. 6 of the Alberta Human Rights Act), women who perform the same work as men still earn less money in Canada, and elsewhere: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/gender-pay-gap-in-canada-more-than-twice-global-average-study-shows/article24274586/.

 

5. What effect did the women’s suffrage movement have on both human rights generally and current legislation relating to discrimination, such as the Alberta Human Rights Act?

Human rights legislation aims at creating an inclusive society by eradicating discrimination. The suffrage movement was an early, critical step towards equality for women. As the civil rights movement gained momentum decades later, the law responded by legislatively enshrining protection against discrimination, including gender discrimination. Although the vote had been won when human rights legislation started to be introduced across Canada in the 60s and 70s, the pivotal stepping stone provided by recognizing women as equal in terms of the vote arguably provided an important platform supporting subsequent strides towards equality such as legislative protection against gender discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace, a particularly pernicious form of gender discrimination, that, as Presteve Foods demonstrates, is still happening today.

Interview with Ms. Zurbrigg on the Role of the Alberta Human Rights Commission - Part I

Over the past three months, we have examined different perspectives on the importance of the women’s suffrage movement and highlighted its contemporary manifestations. To further this discussion, we interviewed various legal professionals and professors on their areas of expertise in relation to women’s rights and the women’s suffrage movement – we are excited to share their perspectives with you over the final two weeks of our project.

This week, we will examine the importance of human rights legislation as it relates to gender discrimination and inequality by interviewing three human rights experts. Although the enfranchisement of women in Canada was a significant step in the fight for gender equality, as it gave them an equal voice in the political process, Canadian women continue to face considerable inequality. There are many contemporary forces which aim to help mitigate this inequality, including provincial, national and international human rights legislation and conventions. Today’s post will focus on Alberta’s provincial legislation – specifically, the Alberta Human Rights Act (“AHRA”). We will discuss national and international legislation and conventions later this week in our interviews with Executive Director of the Centre for Constitutional Studies Patricia Paradis and Professor Linda Reif.

The AHRA is administered by the Alberta Human Rights Commission, and works to prevent discrimination against individuals in various protected areas on the basis of certain protected grounds [1]. These protected areas include, inter alia, employment practices, tenancy, membership in trade unions, and goods and services “customarily available to the public” [2]. Further, the protected grounds include place of origin, marital status, sexual orientation, race, and, most importantly for today’s post, gender and family status [3]. Specifically, in regards to protections in the workplace, section 7 of the AHRA provides that “no employer shall (a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ any person, or (b) discriminate against any person with regard to employment or any term or condition of employment because of … gender… [or] family status” [4]. The importance of the protections provided by this section will be examined more fully in today’s interview.

We are fortunate to have had the opportunity to interview Ms. Terri Susan Zurbrigg, who is legal counsel at the Alberta Human Rights Commission and a sessional professor at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law. Please see below for part one of our interview, which provides her perspective on the role of the Alberta Human Rights Commission in regards to gender discrimination. Check back at noon for part two of our interview with Ms. Zurbrigg, wherein she discusses the protected ground of family status and the effects that the women’s suffrage movement had on human rights legislation! 

 

1. What proportion of complaints brought before the Alberta Human Rights Commission are related to gender discrimination? Are gender inequality and discrimination still prevalent issues today?

Gender is the second most frequently cited ground of discrimination in human rights complaints received by the Alberta Human Rights Commission (the most commonly cited ground is physical disability). Last year, the Commission accepted a record-breaking number of 853 complaints. According to its most recent Annual Report, gender was included as a ground of discrimination 409 times, and comprised 18% of the total grounds of discrimination alleged (complaints may engage more than one protected ground of discrimination – in total, last year’s complaints listed 2, 243 protected grounds).

See:  Alberta Human Rights Commission Annual Report, pg. 12: http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/about/annual_report.asp

 

2. Are there any recent Alberta cases regarding gender discrimination that are indicative of the direction that courts will be likely to take in the future?

Presteve Foods is not an Alberta decision – it's a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (2015 HRTO 675) – but its disconcerting facts demonstrate the ongoing importance of human rights legislation and the protections that it provides in the sphere of sexual harassment in the workplace. This case involved two female temporary foreign workers (TFWs) from Mexico who were subjected to repeated sexual advances and sexual assaults in the workplace.  

Where Presteve Foods is ground-breaking is the remedies that the Tribunal ordered: $150,000 for one complainant and $50,000 for the other. Historically, damages awarded by human rights tribunals for sexual harassment have been nominal – one need not go back that many years in the jurisprudence to find awards across Canada that are under the $5000 threshold. Although the egregious conduct in this case certainly justified a high damages awards, there has been a demonstrable shift in recent years towards higher damages awards in human rights complaints generally, especially in British Columbia and Ontario. It will be interesting to see how damages awards in Alberta respond to this shift in the law.

 

[1] Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5 [AHRA].

[2] “Protected areas and grounds under the Alberta Human Rights Act” (February 2012), online:<http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/publications/bulletins_sheets_booklets/sheets/ history_and_info/protected_areas_grounds.asp>.

[3] Ibid.

[4] AHRA, supra note 1, s 7.

Women of Valor

    Today’s post will focus on women in the military, beginning with a history of women’s roles since Canada’s confederation. Canadian women obtained the right to vote in federal elections in 1918, and provincially at different times throughout the first half of the 21st century. In a previous post, we explained that one unfounded argument raised by opponents to female suffrage in the United States was the notion that women did not perform “acts of service” to their country, including participation in war. However, notwithstanding the onerous and unprecedented duties on the home front during war times, women in the United States were army members prior to their enfranchisement, as were Canadian women.

    The Canadian story starts in 1885, when the first woman Loretta Miller, who was followed by 11 others, served as a nurse in the army during the North-West Rebellion.[1] Women continued to serve in the military as nurses during the South African War, and were issued official uniforms for the first time. On January 25, 1890, the government of Canada also stated that these nurses were to be “accredited as Lieutenants with the pay and allowance of that rank.” [2] The Canadian Army Nurse Service was established in 1901, which gave nurses a rank of “Nursing Sister” – a rank relative to that of lieutenant, but devoid of any military command or authority. In World War I women continued to fill the role of Nursing Sister, and their valued service challenged society’s perceptions about the social roles of women.[3] Britain’s request for assistance from the Canadian Forces led to the first wartime recruitment of Nursing Sisters, and after interviewing hundreds of candidates, the order to mobilize nurses was issued in September 1914. After WWI, most of the Nursing Sisters returned to civilian life, other than a few who were posted in military hospitals across Canada.[4]

    Women continued to fill nurse roles in World War II, but due to a shortage of manpower they also began to fill administrative, communications, and clerical support roles. Notably, women received 2/3 the pay (raised to 4/5 within a few years) of men of a similar rank during this time. Women also received rehabilitation grants, exemption from income tax if serving overseas, separation allowance, and eventually a dependents allowance.[5] The Canadian Women’s Army Corps, Royal Canadian Air Force (Women’s Division), and Women’s Royal Canadian Naval Service were the three organizations established during WWII to assist women’s entrance into the forces, but the organizations disbanded shortly after the war. Women’s membership returned to minimal levels after WWII, save for a brief influx during the Cold War.

    The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 required the Canadian Forces to consider equal employment of women in the services, and in 1989 the Canadian Human Rights Commission required the Armed Forces to meet a quota for the employment of women within 10 years.[6] This ruling gave women the right to enter into all military occupations, save for serving on a submarine (which was later allowed, in 2001) and serving in the Roman Catholic chaplaincy. As a result, Canada became the first country to allow women to enter combat roles, and to date only a handful of other countries permit women to fight in similar roles. For example, the ban against women in combat roles was not lifted in the United States until 2013.[7]

    Although the recruitment and employment of women in the Canadian Armed Forces has expanded in the 21st century, women are still grossly underrepresented, especially in the higher ranks - specifically, they only account for approximately  15% of the Canadian Military.[8]  As well, women have a significantly higher attrition rate than their male counterparts. Nevertheless, in comparison with other NATO countries, Canada is a leader in the integration of women in the military in terms of breadth, level of participation, and human resources policies.[9] The Canadian Armed Forces currently has a goal to increase women's representation to 25% within the next 10 years by raising awareness of career opportunities, and ensuring retention of female recruits.[10]

    Ms Suffragette would like to thank all the women and men for their service (past and present) with the Canadian Armed Forces. Canadian Armed Forces Day is Sunday June 5th this year, and we encourage everyone to take the time to celebrate our soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen.

 

[1] Barbara Dundas, “A History of Women in the Canadian Military”, (Montreal: Art Global, 2000) at 17 [Dundas]

[2] Dundas, at 22

[3] Dundas, at 27

[4] Dundas, at 38

[5] Dundas, at 52

[6] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11; Gauthier v Canada (Canadian Armed Forces), [1989] CHRD No 3

[7] Dundas, at 128

[8] National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, "Women in the Canadian Armed Forces", (08 Mar 2016) <online:http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=women-in-the-canadian-armed-forces/ildcias0> [WCAF]

[9] Maj Lisa Bourgon, “The CF as an Employer of Choice: The Key for a Successful Gender Integration”, (19 Apr 2007) <online:http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/293/287/bourgon.pdf>

[10] WCAF 

 

Movie Review: "Suffragette" (2015)

Director: Sarah Gavron

Released: October 2015 (UK), November 2015 (Canada)

 

Cast:

Carey Mulligan: an underpaid, abused, laundry worker; a loving wife and doting mother. Demure Maud Watts falls in with a group of suffragettes, much to her husband’s chagrin. The group takes to public civil disobedience to garner support for votes for women. Watts reluctantly appears before Chancellor of the Exchequer Court, David Lloyd George (who later became Prime Minister), where she testifies to the lower wages and more dangerous work assigned to women in the laundry.

Helena Bonham Carter: Edith Ellyn, a respected pharmacist and known militant suffragette who campaigns and “agitates” for legal reform to allow women to vote. She and her husband both served jail-time for suffrage related activities. Ellyn is the organizing force for most of the main suffragette characters.

Brendan Gleeson: Police Inspector Arthur Steed arrests, interrogates, and intimidates the women who campaign for legal reform. Reminiscent of gangland detectives in HBO’s The Wire, Steed photographs suffragettes and preys on them in hopes of turning them on their friends.

Anne-Marie Duff: Violet Miller, a fellow laundry worker, is caught between fighting for women’s voting rights and struggling to provide for her family. Considered a delinquent worker and stigmatized as an outcast, she served several prison sentences for her activism. Her young daughter also endures abuse as a laundry worker.

Ben Whishaw: Sonny Watts, husband of Maud Watts, also works in the laundry. Mr. Watts endures shame and derision from coworkers and neighbours as a result of his wife’s actions. Ultimately, he forces a life-changing sacrifice upon himself and his wife.

Meryl Streep: Emmeline Pankhurst, founder of the Women’s Suffrage and Political Union, gives  inflammatory speeches to women’s rights activists. The film has been credited for its accuracy in depicting the divide between more aggressive “suffragettes” like Pankhurst and more moderate “suffragists”, including Pankhurst’s own daughter, Sylvia.[1]

Natalie Press: Emily Wilding Davison, a well-known suffragette and confidante of Pankhurst. A seasoned veteran of the militant phase of the suffrage movement in England, she was incarcerated nine times and torturously force-fed forty-nine times.[2]

 

Suffragette is a fictional historical drama set in London, UK, in 1912-1913, which follows the main character Maud Watts as she enters the women’s suffrage movement.[3] Overall it is engaging and, at times, graphic. I’ll try not to spoil the story for you, but do note that some of the content is quite emotional. One scene in particular had me babbling like a baby. Other scenes were difficult to watch, such as the police beating women who were angrily, yet peacefully, protesting parliament’s unwillingness to reform the suffrage laws. Some of the scenes depicting suffragettes in jail were disturbing, especially when those enduring hunger strikes were force-fed through tubes plunged down their nasal passages. The hunger strikes were significant because suffragettes were not considered political prisoners. The authorities would not risk death of a prisoner by starvation as it would draw media attention to the movement.

Watts’s entry into suffrage activism was not calculated. Moreover, her testimony at the Court of Exchequer related to the working conditions at the laundry where she worked. Specifically, the “laundresses” had more difficult and dangerous tasks than their male colleagues, they worked longer hours, were paid less, and some endured sexual abuse. Initially, Watts is more focused on improving working conditions for women than she is on getting the vote, perhaps because, as her husband reminds her, getting the vote for working class women was a pipe dream. During the time that this film takes place, 1912-1913, working-class women like Watts and Miller had more obstacles preventing them from voting than just their gender.[4] The United Kingdom enfranchised women over the age of thirty who met minimum property requirements in 1918, after the second world war. However, women who did not own property eventually received the right to vote in 1928.

The three historically accurate characters in the film are David Lloyd George, Emmeline Pankhurst, and Emily Wilding Davison. Pankhurst, the famous suffragette, makes an inciteful speech in the film, which accurately depicts her life as a fugitive.[5] The film also references fracturing in the suffrage movement between militant and moderate activists, including Pankhurst’s own daughter.[6] The activism, experience, and sacrifice for the movement by Emily Wilding Davison (played by Natalie Press) is also historically accurate.[7] Spoiler alert: click here for actual footage of Davison’s extreme sacrifice to rattle lawmakers enough that they would realize the desperation of women who sought voting rights.

Overall, the film was enjoyable and engaging with a great cast. One need not be a feminist, in any sense of the word, to understand the human struggle portrayed by the characters. And speaking of "militant" suffragettes, check back tomorrow to read about women in the military.

 

[1] “Suffragette (film)”, Wikipedia (online): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_(film)> [Wikipedia].

[2] Dr. Jennifer Frangos, “Emily Wilding Davison - Suffragette Martyr?”, University of Missouri--Kansas City Womens and Gender Studies, 28 October 2013 (online): <http://info.umkc.edu/wgs/2013/10/28/emily-wilding-davison-suffragette-and-radical/> [Frangos].

[3] Wikipedia, supra note 1.

[4] AO Scott, “Review: In ‘Suffragette’, Feminist Insight That’s About More Than the Vote”, The New York Times, 22 October 2015 (online): <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/movies/review-in-suffragette-feminist-insight-thats-about-more-than-the-vote.html?referrer=google_kp&_r=0>.

[5]  “Emmeline Pankhurst (1858 - 1928)”, BBC Historic Figures (online): <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/pankhurst_emmeline.shtml>.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Frangos, supra note 2.

The Women of Star Wars

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens, which opened on December 18, 2015, was everything that fans of the saga had hoped for. It was action-packed, caught us up on what our favorite heroes had been up to for the past 30 years, and introduced hope that balance may yet be restored in the galaxy. This hope came in the form of Rey, a young woman scavenger living on Jakku. After a chance encounter with an AWOL stormtrooper named Finn who hopes to join the Resistance against the evil First Order which he previously served, Rey becomes involved in a mission to track down the last Jedi, Luke Skywalker. Along the way Rey discovers that the Force is with her, making Rey the new hope to rise up against the First Order alongside the Resistance. On her journey she meets Han Solo, Chewbacca, some new heroes, and General Leia Organa who leads the Resistance.

This film was praised for its use of a strong female lead, who wore a functional outfit, and “whose central purpose was not to be a love interest”.[1] Throughout the movie Finn makes attempts to save Rey, only to find that she is a superior fighter and can artfully escape dire situations. In fact, it is Rey who saves Finn’s life from a rathtar (space monster). Another refreshing fact of Episode VII in comparison to the earlier Episodes is that there are multiple important roles played by women. General Leia commands the Resistance, Captain Phasma is a high-ranking stormtrooper, and Maz Kanata fills the role of a wise mentor similar to Yoda. Why is this a big deal? As explained by Jake Minton, “of all characters who spoke at least one word in the top 100 movies [in 2014], only 28% were women…. 26% of all female characters that appeared in the top movies were fully or partially nude at some point, only 9% of the guys.”[2] The statistics show that women tend to receive far less screen time than men, and that much of the screen time they do receive is for a sexual purpose, rather than to advance the storyline.  

While Rey is not the first strong female hero in a film, one fails to think of another movie franchise which has successfully replaced a traditionally male role with a female lead. For example, Star Trek: Voyager, which casted a female Captain, performed poorly compared to Star Trek’s original series (Captain Kirk), or Star Trek: the Next Generation (Captain Picard).

Perhaps the successful introduction of a female lead was fostered by the use of a strong female character in the first Star Wars film, Episode IV: A New Hope. In A New Hope, Princess Leia is not only a Diplomat but also a member of the Rebels who hope to take down the evil Galactic Empire. She takes great risk to send blueprints of the Deathstar to the Rebels, and is tortured and mind-probed by the Imperials for the whereabouts of the Rebel base. She withstands it all, talking only when the alternative is having her home planet destroyed, and still she gives false information. Leia is unimpressed by Han Solo’s efforts to woo her, although he wins her over in the subsequent Episodes.

Despite the strong role played by Leia in Episode IV, critics note that her role was reduced to being the love interest in the next two Episodes, and that Leia was the sole female to have a significant role in those movies.[3] In Episodes I - III Padmé Amidala was the female co-star who filled an important role within her planet and galaxy’s government, first as Queen of Naboo and then as Senator in the Galactic Senate. Unfortunately she was quickly shifted to a role of love interest/damsel in distress. But, due to space constraints of blogging, and the general preference of all Star Wars fans to gloss over Episodes I, II and III, that is all we will say about Padmé.

Instead of comparing Episode IV to Episode VII in order to call out the portrayal of women in the earlier film for being dismal, I find it more appropriate to consider each film in the context of the time in which it was made. To have a female not only in a position of power within government, but to also show her as competent in combat and capable of withstanding torture against Darth Vader himself, is admittedly impressive for a film released in 1977. In Episode VI (1983), Leia attempts a dangerous and brave rescue mission in hopes of saving her love, Han Solo. He does not chastise her for risking her “pretty little head” to save him, and although Leia is forced to adorn a gold bikini while enslaved by Jabba the Hutt, she ultimately kills her captor with the chains he had used to bind her.

However, despite these positive undertones in relation to the portrayal of women via Princess Leia, Episode IV does not pass the Bechdel test. The Bechdel test analyzes women’s involvement in films by asking: 1) are there two female characters with names, 2) do they speak to each other, and 3) do they talk about something other than a man?[4] Despite failing this very low threshold for meaningful women’s involvement, Princess Leia was a heroine in the inaugural film, and perhaps it was this demonstration of female competency that resulted in fanboys and fangirls everywhere embracing Rey as the lead in the newest film!    

[1]http://www.firstpost.com/living/the-feminism-is-strong-with-this-one-star-wars-the-force-awakens-reinforces-gender-balance-in-pop-culture-2568062.html

[2] http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Men-Children-The-Final-Frontier;search%3Afeminism

[3] Supra note 1.

[4] http://bechdeltest.com/

March 14, 2016: Saskatchewan's 100th Anniversary!

Today is an important day in the history of the women’s suffrage movement, as it marks the 100th anniversary of women receiving the right to vote in Saskatchewan! The enfranchisement of women began in the prairie provinces in Canada - Saskatchewan was the second province to afford women this right, preceded only by Manitoba on January 28, 1916. The suffrage movement in Alberta, where women received the right to vote on April 19, 1916, closely paralleled the Saskatchewan movement, as the two provinces had similar political and demographic conditions. Today’s post is dedicated to celebrating this momentous event in Canada’s history, which also acted as a catalyst for enfranchisement in other provinces. The movement in Saskatchewan was unique because although there was relatively minimal opposition to women’s enfranchisement, there was also markedly minimal campaigning in support of it [1].

The timeline of the women’s suffrage movement in Saskatchewan began as early as 1909, when a petition was made that argued for married women’s municipal enfranchisement, and continued to gain momentum in the following year. Specifically, a plethora of petitions that requested “municipal franchise for married women with property” formed the “foundation of several Homemakers’ Clubs in the autumn of 1910 under the leadership of Mrs. A.V. Thomas” [2]. These Homemakers’ Clubs, which were “a project of the Extension Service of the… University of Saskatchewan”, became “hives of suffrage activity” [3]. In 1912, a resolution for equal rights was endorsed by the Saskatchewan Grain Growers’ Association (the “SGGA”), and the provincial government also became involved in the suffrage issue during that year [4]. Specifically, on December 16, MLA J.E. Bradshaw offered and discussed a potential suffrage resolution. However, although “almost all members declared they were in favour of the principle… [they] were simply not convinced that women themselves wanted it” [5].

Women demonstrated their support for enfranchisement using different means. For example the Grain Growers’ Guide, edited by Francis M. Beynon, contained a women’s column dedicated to suffrage. Beynon was devoted to women’s rights and educating women on the prairies [6]. Further, “in February 1913, a women’s meeting held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the [SGGA] circulated a petition for woman suffrage” [7]. However, despite this public support for women’s suffrage, and the thousands of signatures contained within approximately 100 petitions, the Saskatchewan government continued to deny women the right to vote. Specifically, in December 1913, although Bradshaw’s resolution in support of enfranchisement passed unanimously, Premier Scott indicated “his reluctance on the ground that this legislature had not come into office pledged to woman suffrage and that its hands were therefore tied until it should receive a direct mandate from the constituents” [8].

In response, in 1914, political equality leagues formed in various towns including Moosomin, Prince Albert and Battleford [9]. As well, women in Saskatchewan formed the Women’s Grain Growers’ Association (the “WGGA”), an auxiliary of the SGGA, which was the first of its kind in Canada [10]. The WGGA’s objectives for 1914 included “a concentrated effort to organize locals in every remote corner of the province and an intensive campaign to secure suffrage petitions” [11]. To further these goals, the president of the WGGA, Violet McNaughton, advocated for the creation of a federation of pro-suffrage organizations. Her goal was realized in February 1915, when the Provincial Equal Franchise Board (the “PEFB”) was created, which contained delegates from the WGGA, political equality leagues, and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (the “WCTU”). The PEFB “decided to press for parliamentary suffrage rather than seek municipal privileges first, as older suffrage organizations in other province often did” [12]. In May 1915, the PEFB organized a suffrage delegation, which presented a petition containing over ten thousand signatures to the government. Premier Scott responded by acknowledging that while he no longer believed it was crucial to obtain a direct mandate from the voters, he urged the collection of more signatures. A small victory was won when the Municipal and Town Acts was amended by the legislature in 1915 to “grant married women property owners the privilege of voting in civic elections” [13].

In early 1916, more petitions were collected to convince the government that women were dedicated to receiving the right to vote, and on Valentine’s Day that year, a delegation from the PEFB presented their petition. Finally, in response to the concerted efforts of suffragists in Saskatchewan, Attorney-General W.F. Turgeon introduced a bill on March 1, which granted “Saskatchewan women the right to vote in provincial elections on equal terms with men”, and on March 14, this bill received royal assent [14]. The enabling statute through which enfranchisement was achieved was entitled An Act to amend the Statute Law [15]. The suffrage campaign in Saskatchewan was notable because “the campaign was brief and without rancour, and … prairie men and women almost universally were convinced of the justice and rightness of the principle of equality” [16]. The enfranchisement of women in Saskatchewan on March 14, 1916, was an important moment in the history of both this province and Canada generally, and ought to be commemorated and celebrated!

 

[1] Elizabeth Kalmakoff, “The Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan, Woman Suffrage”, online: <http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/woman_suffrage.html> [Kalmakoff].

[2] Catherine L Cleverdon & Ramsay Cook, 2nd ed The Woman Suffrage Movement in Canada, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974) at 75 [Cleverdon].

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid at 76.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid at 77.

[7] Kalmakoff, supra note 1.

[8] Cleverdon, supra note 2 at 78.

[9] Kalmakoff, supra note 1.

[10] Cleverdon, supra note 2 at 77.

[11] Ibid at 79.

[12] Ibid at 80.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Kalmakoff, supra note 1.

[15] “Women’s Right to Vote in Canada”, online: <http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/compilations/provinceterritory/ ProvincialWomenRightToVote.aspx>.

[16] Cleverdon, supra note 2 at 82.

Baseball and the Law: from hot dogs to home openers

My Twitter bio states that my ambition is to be a professor of “baseball law”. I meant this to be tongue in cheek – although I’ve often thought that the principles of statutory interpretation could be taught using MLB’s Official Rules. I could come close to this ambition though: I recently learned that at least thirteen US law schools have offered a “Baseball and the Law” course. Now such courses have a definitive casebook in the form of Louis Schiff and Robert Jarvis’ Baseball and the Law: Cases and Materials (Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2016).

The casebook’s coverage is comprehensive. Cases are organized from baseball’s point of view, rather than traditional categories of legal subject areas. There are chapters on Commissioners, Teams, Stadiums, Players, Fans and Amateurs. I think this is a helpful approach: generally speaking, outside the walls of law schools and law firms, clients’ legal problems are not organized into legal categories, and the sooner students realize this, the better.

The casebook is understandably US-focused (but see Davidson v Toronto Blue Jays, dealing with the rights of ticket-holders), and many of the cases deal with US-specific legal questions, such as the application of anti-trust legislation and the level of scrutiny in sex discrimination claims. I wondered whether women would be missing entirely from such a casebook, but this isn’t true of Baseball and the Law and it feels like the authors made a deliberate effort to address this concern. In addition to a number of cases dealing with sex discrimination (including Ludtke v Kuhn striking down MLB’s ban on women reporters in locker rooms), the Notes discuss MLB’s domestic violence policy and women’s history and future in professional baseball as players and umpires; a number of women are cited in the Notes, particularly in the Introduction; and there are photos of Justice Sonia Sotomayor (“the woman who saved baseball” and the 1995 season) throwing out the first pitch at a Yankees game and of Little League World Series pitching phenom Mo’ne Davis.

One thing that becomes apparent reading the cases in Baseball and the Law is that baseball has always been a business: in an 1885 decision, Judge Thayer describes baseball as “very lucrative”. Another realization is that a significant number of judges are huge baseball fans. The most famous example is Justice Blackmun’s list of greatest players in Flood v Kuhn. See also Judge Bauer in Selig v United State (who started each part of the judgement with a quote about baseball) and Judge Black in Niemiec v Seattle Rainier Baseball Club, Inc (“Professional baseball is a great American institution.”). In a number of instances, this works in favour of professional baseball’s powers that be, such as baseball’s anti-trust exemption, and the “baseball rule” precluding liability for injuries caused by hazards inherent in watching a live baseball game – which, by the way, do not include hot-dog hurling mascots (see Coomer v Kansas City Royals Baseball Corporation). But not in every case, as when Steinbrenner tried to play the Yankees’ home opening series in Denver (“No money damages can measure or assuage this kind of harm.”). For anyone interested in how judges’ personal preferences help shape the law, the casebook is a fascinating study.

It’s clear that the law has done a lot for baseball. It’s less clear what baseball has done for the law. Given the breadth of subject areas covered – from contract interpretation to intellectual property to labour rights to tort liability – I would have liked more in the Notes following each case explaining how the cases have shaped the law beyond baseball. For the law professor or law student as baseball fan, however, the Notes are a goldmine of baseball facts and lore, and, more importantly, help to place the cases in their historical and social context. This brings the cases to life and made me want to read the next case – which is exactly what law professors want their students to do, and should be the ultimate goal of any law school casebook.

Interview with Dr. Harris Part II: Queens Behaving Badly

As promised, here is the second part of the interview with Dr. Harris!

4. In 2015 you released a new book, titled Queenship and Revolution in Early Modern Europe: Henrietta Maria and Marie Antoinette. You have stated that both of these Queens were accused of transgressing gender norms, and that both Queens engaged with debates of their time on the proper role to be played by women. Can you tell us more about gender norms and roles in the eras of Henrietta Maria and Marie Antoinette?   

Queen Henrietta Maria (1609-1669), consort of King Charles I of England and Scotland and Queen Marie Antoinette (1755-1793), consort of King Louis XVI of France both experienced marriage and motherhood in the public eye during times when women’s roles within their families were the subject of intense debate and popular scrutiny.

When Henrietta Maria – a French, Roman Catholic Princess – married the Protestant King Charles I in 1625, there was intense anxiety about Roman Catholic women within otherwise conformist Protestant families influencing their husbands and children. Public adherence to the Protestant faith was essential to hold public office in seventeenth century England and Scotland but women could not hold public office and therefore had less to lose by remaining Roman Catholic. Henrietta Maria’s marriage contract guaranteed her the practice of her faith and forbade the king from attempting to influence her to become a Protestant. She became unpopular with members of both faiths as Roman Catholics were disappointed that she did not intercede more on their behalf while Protestants were concerned that she would influence her husband and children to become Catholics. The religious conflict of the seventeenth century raised the question of whether should ultimately follow the example of their husbands or their own faith and convictions.

Marie Antoinette – born an Austrian Archduchess - was Queen during the French Enlightenment when prominent philosophers debated the place of women within in their families. While Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond d’Alembert, authors of The Encyclopedia, argued that women’s roles in the family and society were created by man-made legislation, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that women’s natural role was marriage and motherhood within the domestic sphere. Marie Antoinette embraced certain aspects of “natural” motherhood and took a close interest in the upbringing of her children but at the same time, she attempted to influence Louis XVI’s policies according to the advice of her Austrian relatives and became an extremely controversial figure. There was a long delay between Marie Antoinette’s marriage and the arrival of her children, which contributed to intense speculation about the personal life of the King and Queen.

Criticism of the Queen became a key aspect of political discourse during the English Civil Wars and French Revolution. Criticism of the Queen served as a means of expressing opposition to a monarch’s policies without attacking the king himself – unpopular policies could be blamed on an unpopular advisor who was both female and foreign. Critiques of the Queen also served as a means for women and people of diverse social backgrounds to engage with politics as marriage and motherhood were stages in the early modern life cycle that were familiar to everyone. Henrietta Maria was impeached in absentia by England’s House of Commons and fled to France in 1644. Marie Antoinette was placed on trial by the Revolutionary Tribunal in 1793.

What exactly are "suffragettes", and Why Did Queen Victoria Hate Them?

Dr. Carolyn Harris is a historian, author and royal commentator who teaches history at the University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies. She released two books last year, one commemorating Magna Carta and It’s Gifts To Canada: Democracy, Law, and Human Rights, as well as Queenship and Revolution in Early Modern Europe: Henrietta Maria and Marie Antoinette. Dr. Harris is an expert in the history of the European monarchy, and recently discussed the royal attitudes towards the women's suffrage movement in Britain with Ms. Suffragette. Read below for part one of the interview, and check back at noon for part two, wherein Dr. Harris discusses the consequences Queens Henrietta Maria and Marie Antoinette faced for transgressing gender norms!

1. In Canada, activists in the women’s suffrage movement were called “suffragists”, whereas in the United Kingdom they were often referred to as “suffragettes”. Can you explain the difference in titles, and the different tactics used by these groups to attain the vote?

The term suffragist was used in both the United Kingdom and Canada to refer to a person who supported women’s suffrage. The words suffragist and suffragette come from the same root wood – suffragium, the latin for the vote and political support. Suffragist was the more respectable term and came to be associated with advocates of women’s suffrage who made use of peaceful tactics to advance their aims such as writing to their member of parliament.

The term suffragette emerged as a derogatory term for women who engaged in violent tactics – such as breaking windows – in support of women’s suffrage. Since these militant activities became the most well-known aspect of the campaign for women’s suffrage in Britain, the term suffragette continues to be associated with the British women’s suffrage movement, most notably the title of the recent film, “Suffragette.”

2. Regarding the women’s suffrage movement in the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria stated that if women were to “‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.” Is this quotation reflective of her stance, or did she ultimately come to appreciate the importance of women’s democratic equality?

Queen Victoria was a female head of state who was in close contact with other female leaders. She maintained a regular correspondence with the reigning Queen Maria of Portugal and five of Queen Victoria’s granddaughters became queens or empresses consort in Europe. Nevertheless, Queen Victoria viewed female leaders as exceptional figures rather than an example for other women to follow. She held the same views concerning distinct roles for men and women that were widespread in the nineteenth century English speaking world. According to the Queen and many of her contemporaries, the domestic sphere was feminine and the public sphere was masculine. The political arena was therefore a masculine realm.

During her twenty-year marriage to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Queen Victoria included her husband in her political and domestic roles, deferring to his advice on a variety of topics from the education of their children to the importance of promoting British trade and industry through such initiatives as the Great Exhibition of 1851.

Despite Queen Victoria’s opposition to women’s suffrage, the fact that she was a woman in a prominent leadership role was inspirational to suffragists.  In Canada, Nellie McClung wrote “Queen Victoria, in her palace of marble and gold, was able to retain her virility of thought and independence of action as clearly as any pioneer woman.”

3. Was Queen Victoria’s view of the women’s suffrage representative of royal attitudes generally in the United Kingdom?

There was a generational divide between Queen Victoria and her daughters concerning women’s suffrage. Queen Victoria’s daughters had a strong interest in improving the lives of ordinary women. Princess Alice, who became Grand Duchess of Hesse-Darmstadt in Germany, was concerned with maternal mortality rates and established the Heidenreich Home for Pregnant Women in 1864 to ensure they received proper medical care. Princess Helena was admirer of the work of Florence Nightingale and advocated the growth of nursing as a profession for women at a time when there were few accepted employment opportunities for middle and upper class women. Helena became President of the British Nurses' Association (RBNA). Princess Louise, a talented sculptor, supported women’s education and opportunities for female artists both in Britain and in Canada, where she lived for long periods during the time when her husband, John Campbell, Lord Lorne was Governor General of Canada (1878-1883).

Princess Louise in particular was associated with suffragist circles. She met privately with suffragists and expressed regret that she could not support them publicly because of her mother, Queen Victoria’s opposition to women’s suffrage. Louise’s sister-in-law, Lady Frances Balfour was a prominent suffragist. The press made the connection between the two prominent women and was careful to emphasize that Lady Balfour was not involved in militant activities.

“The Lady Frances Balfour, who is coming to Devonshire to address four meetings in support of the cause of Women’s Suffrage, is the daughter of the late Duke of Argyll… She is consequently, the sister-in-law of Princess Louise…For many years she has been a member of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, which has dissociated itself wholly from the militant section.” – Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, February 19, 1909.

Women and Men in the Practice of Law

“When half of your talent pool is comprised of women, there’s a danger that you’re missing out on keeping some of the best and the brightest.”[1]

 

Last week we published an interview with the Right Honourable Kim Campbell. Ms. Campbell is widely known for her cabinet positions where she was the first female Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the first and only female Minister of National Defence, and the first and only female Prime Minister of Canada.[2] As Ms. Campbell discussed in her interview, when all people in society are equally free they are able to pursue goals based on their personal interests, rather than what is conscribed by gender roles required for the survival of the species.

In today’s post we examine the current role that women have in the legal system; however, it is first necessary to examine the history behind women’s role in the legal profession. A parallel can be drawn between the women’s suffrage movement and women becoming members of the legal profession, as women were not always eligible for admission to the bar. Specifically, women first gained admission to law schools in 1891, several years after Canadian universities established permanent law schools.[3] Further, the first female lawyers in Canada pressed for admission to the bar in the late 1800s and early 1900s, which was done concurrently with the suffrage movement.[4] The Ontario bar admitted the first woman, Clara Brett Martin, in 1897. In 1906 in New Brunswick and in 1912 in British Columbia, after being denied admission, women unsuccessfully challenged the provincial bar associations in the courts. Shortly after these court cases, both provinces amended their legislation to allow women to be admitted to the bar and to practice law.[5]

Today, law schools across Canada show that women and men are entering and graduating from law schools at an approximately equal rate.[6] The Law Society of Upper Canada estimated that women accounted for more than 50% of law school graduates during the 2000s.[7] However, women tend to leave private practice earlier than men. For example, a recent CBC Radio interview explored the major reason that female criminal lawyers leave private practice: discrimination.[8]

However, in a casual conversation with a female partner at a mid-size Edmonton-area law firm, I discovered a positive trend. In this particular firm, though the equity partners are almost all men, lawyers at the associate-level are almost all women. Without any direct intention to create more diversity among the lawyers, the lawyers involved in the hiring process noticed that women who applied to this firm simply tended to stand out above men who applied. On the lack of gender bias in their hiring practices, the partner joked that they almost need to start focusing on hiring men at the associate level.

It is certainly encouraging that some law firms are equally impressed with the qualifications and achievements demonstrated by men and women graduating from law school, and that diversity can be well represented among junior lawyers. But what about senior lawyers, who greatly contribute to the legal community as they have a significant number of years of experience? The following quotation from a law professor at York University in Toronto discusses the relevant statistics:

[In the United States, w]omen comprise only about 15% of equity partners and 26% of non-equity partners, even though 46% of law firm associates are women. Among equity partners, women make about 89% of men. The gap in [median] compensation of male and female equity partners cannot be explained by differences in billable hours, total hours, or books of business. Women are vastly underrepresented on the powerful governance committees that make key firm decisions: they hold only 20% of the positions on those committees. Only 4% of law firms have female managing partners. Seventy percent of in-house counsel jobs are held by women.[9]

Specifically, in Canada:

• In 2010, there were 22,261 practicing women lawyers and 37,617 practicing men lawyers.
• For new lawyers practicing 0-5 years, in many areas, women are the majority, or close to the majority, and their numbers and percentages increased from 1998 to 2012 
  • Manitoba: 52.4% of the newest lawyers are women
  • Saskatchewan: 50.4%
  • Ontario: 52.3%
  • British Columbia: 51.2%
  • Barreau du Quebec: 62.1%[10]

[10.1]

Further, the Justicia Project examines diversity and attrition rates among lawyers. Developed in Ontario, the initiative has spread to other provinces in Canada.[11] The Law Society of Upper Canada cites that 38% of lawyers are women, but 60% of lawyers leaving private practice are women.[12] The Law Society of Alberta reports “that in Alberta as law firm size increases, the diversity within the firm is more likely to decrease.”[13] In British Columbia, women comprise 67% of lawyers in private practice while men comprise 82%.[14] The chart pictured at the top of this post, although referencing data from 1995, provides a visual illustration of the staggering differences between male and female lawyers across different age brackets.[15] This graph is also significant because it shows the disparity between lawyers, workers who have a degree other than in law, and the working population in general. Moreover, it demonstrates that while women comprised approximately 50% of lawyers entering practice twenty-one years ago, today women are still not in equal representation as equity partners.

The Law Society of Upper Canada notes that an overwhelming reason that women leave private practice jobs is to achieve a “work-life balance”, especially when women have young children.[16] In our modern economy, it can be financially challenging for two-parent families to allow one parent to stay at home to raise the children, which is a full-time non-paying job. However, due to personal choices among families and arguably also due to the structure of our gender-stereotyped culture, mothers tend to be the parents who elect to reduce time at an out-of-home paid job in favour of spending more time in the home to care for their children. For lawyers, this sometimes includes switching from a time-demanding, private practice in a large firm to in-house counsel positions or government legal positions.[17] Often, these latter types of jobs offer lawyers a work schedule that is more predictable and more manageable in relation to the needs of their families.[18]

Equal representation among lawyers with diverse qualities, interests, and backgrounds is a challenge recognized by the Canadian Bar Association and provincial law societies. While no one should dictate what personal career choices a person makes, the Law Society of Upper Canada asserts that “we need to make sure [lawyers] don’t leave [private practice] because of gender-related issues.”[19] Part of the reason that women’s suffrage and related equality issues was chosen as the topic for our Ms. Suffragette blog is due to the recognition that there are issues which some lawyers face that other lawyers do not. Gender discrimination is one of these issues.[20] With discourse, awareness, and diverse engagement on issues that law students and lawyers face, we can further deconstruct discrimination and create a more fairly representative community among lawyers. Achieving diversity and equality among lawyers, law professors, and judges will help reflect the reality of diversity in our society, and can better inform the legal community of society’s values.

 

[1] Ann Macaulay, How to Retain Top Female Talent, and What Women Should Look for in a Law Firm, The Canadian Bar Association, 10 October 2014 (online): <https://www.cba.org/Publications-Resources/CBA-Practice-Link/Young-Lawyers/2014/How-to-Retain-Top-Female-Talent,-and-What-Women-Sh> [Macaulay].

[2] The Right Honourable Kim Campbell, “Accomplishments” (online): <http://www.kimcampbell.com/node/26> [Campbell].

[3] Mary Jane Mossman, “The First Women Lawyers: ‘Piecemeal Progress and Circumscribed Success’”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal vol 45, no 2 (online): <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1645369>.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Macaulay, supra note 1; Federica Schutz, QC, “Justicia Project Aimed at Retaining Women Lawyers in Prive Practice”, The Advisory: Volume 10, Issue 3, July 2012, Law Society of Alberta (online): <http://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/advisory_2012/advisory_volume_10_issue_3_Jul2012/news/justicia.aspx> [Schutz].

[7] Trisha Crawford, “Women lawyers leaving in droves”, Toronto Star Newspapers, 11 February 2011 (online): <http://www.thestar.com/life/2011/02/25/women_lawyers_leaving_in_droves.html> [Crawford].

[8] Maureen Brosnahan, “Women Leaving Criminal Law Practice in Alarming Numbers”, CBC/Radio-Canada, 7 March 2016 (online): <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/women-criminal-law-1.3476637>.

[9] David Doorey, “Women’s Situation Not Improving in Law Firms, But I (Still) Have a Plan”, Doorey’s Law of Work blog, 7 March 2016 (online): <http://lawofwork.ca/?p=5727#sthash.ooej3vaa.dpuf> [Doorey], emphasis added. Please note this refers to USA statistics; Dr. Doorey does estimate that they are similar to Canadian statistics.

[10] "Women in Law in Canada and the US", Knowledge Center, 3 March 2015, Catalyst Inc (online): <http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-law-canada-and-us>.

[10.1] "Statistical Snapshot of Lawyers in Ontario", The Law Society of Upper Canada (online): <http://www.lsuc.on.ca/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147488150>.

[11] Macaulay, supra note 1.

[12] Crawford, supra note 7.

[13] Macaulay, supra note 1.

[14] Ibid.; Crawford, supra note 7.

[15] Abdul Rashid, Chart: “Earnings of Lawyers”, Perspectives, Statistics Canada, 2000 (online): <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2000001/4886-eng.pdf>.

[16] Crawford, supra note 7.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] As we recognized in our 630 CHED radio interview with @RyanJesperson, cultural heritage and ethnolinguistic diversity in law school and the practice of law is also an issue in our society.