Canadian Lawyer 4Students

C A N A D I A N L a w y e r 4 s t u d e n t s F a l l 2 0 1 4 15 stage of what the government will do, so in the days leading up to the Supreme Court releasing its decision I was filled with this dread that we may have lost but also if we won the government could step in and potentially make things much worse, which is of course what happened," she says. She describes the federal gov- ernment's proposed legislation in response to the ruling as "aw- ful, absolutely horrific." For Mahon, it was an important lesson in how to approach constitutional litigation. "It's not our role as lawyers to legislate — that's the government's job — but it made me think of advocacy in a different way and reminded me of my grassroots advocacy work before law school and how I could incorporate it into my profession. I don't really have an answer to that yet but the gov- ernment's response certainly reminded me of that," she says. She has hopes the new legislation won't pass and is putting her faith in the lawyers of the Justice Department who will assess the constitutionality of it and hopefully reject it. "I think if the legis- lation gets passed it will create an even more dangerous working situation for sex workers," she says. Mahon's graduation day was the same day Bedford was argued at the Supreme Court so unfortunately she couldn't attend in per- son but she was there in spirit, just moments before receiving her law degree. "We were watching the webcast right up to the moment we had to walk on stage," she says. For many students, working a Supreme Court case is the ul- timate experience. Lidiya Yermakova was an articling student at Lerners LLP in Toronto this past spring when she was asked to work on R. v. Summers, in which the SCC was called on to in- terpret the Truth in Sentencing Act and determine factors a sen- tencing judge is entitled to look at when considering the amount of credit available to an offender for time spent in pre-sentence custody. Lerners was acting for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and argued "circumstances" ought to be in- terpreted broadly, and in a way that accorded with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — particularly the right to be presumed innocent and the fundamental principles of parity and proportionality in sentencing. As the file progressed, Yermakova took on more tasks and found herself preparing the first dra of all submissions such as the application for leave and the actual factum that went to the Supreme Court. e partners she worked with at Lerners would go over her work and they reviewed it together. In doing her research Yermakova brought forward a case called R. v. Harrison, a companion to R. v. Grant, which dealt with the test for exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Charter. It be- came a key part of the submission. "When she first brought it to me I said, 'Well, I'm not really sure where this is going,'" says Jasmine Akbarali, the partner who led the case. "Lidiya convinced me to put it in the factum and the more we talked about it, the more I came to the view she had really come to something good, and in fact Har- rison formed the basis for the oral submissions that we did." Unlike two other cases they had been considering involving two battered women, Harrison involved a man who was pulled over improperly with 35 kilograms of cocaine in his bag. "Harri- son was not a sympathetic guy," says Akbarali. "e Charter case there was that the evidence of the cocaine should be excluded because there was an illegal search of the car. We thought why not make the point with the least sympathetic of the accused? You need people to hold the state to account for abuses of power via Charter claims and you need people to take cases that advance the law and Harrison, together with Grant, is where the Supreme Court of Canada said, 'Here's the test.'" Akbarali says it was really Yermakova pushing and saying, "ink about this some more," that brought them around to her point of view and convinced them to use Harrison. "In fact, I heard from the client later that an academic who was interested in the issue had, unprompted, phoned Lidiya to say they were watching the appeal on CPAC and indicated they loved the way they used Harrison in the submission," she says. "I think that was a neat full-circle moment for her." Yermakova became very engaged in the work and says the freedom Lerners gave her to not just be task-oriented but part of the team gave her latitude to think more broadly. "I send my oral submissions to everyone working with me on an appeal and when I send them to [senior partner] Earl Cherniak he's not shy on com- menting but a lot of times students will just tell me I have a spelling mistake or typo but Lidiya was really good about commenting on substance. She wasn't shy and was ready to take that role on," says Akbarali. "I don't always see that in students — I see a reticence, a lack of decisiveness, a lack of critical thinking, a fear of failure. ere was none of that with Lidiya, which I thought was fantastic." Yermakova was also able to go to the SCC in Ottawa to watch the oral argument. "at was amazing," says Yermakova. "I got a phone call from Jasmine and it was so unexpected but they wanted to bring me for the experience and it was terrific. I really enjoyed being in the court and rehearsing for it." Taking initiative and identifying cases you want experience on is key for articling students who want to get good files while ar- ticling, says Alvin Wong. He finished his articles this past spring at Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP in Toronto and is now an as- sociate. As a student, he worked with one of the firm's restructur- ing and insolvency partners, Jennifer Stam, as part of the team Don't be shy — if you hear of a case you want to work on call the lawyer up and ask to have coffee with them and express interest. Frances Mahon

• Cover