What Was Your Path into Law and onto the Bench?
My path to the law was shaped in large part by my upbringing as a first-generation Canadian, which I am immensely proud of. My parents immigrated from Italy, and like many immigrant families, they faced significant obstacles – economic struggles, language barriers, and limited educational opportunities. My sister was born with a disability, which required greater external supports. From an early age, I became the bridge between my family and the outside world, whether it was advocating for my sister’s needs or helping my parents overcome bureaucratic hurdles. Looking back, I realize that experience gave me a strong foundation in advocacy from an early age and a deep appreciation for accessibility, fairness, and clear communication – values that are central to my role as a judge today.
My path to law was circuitous. It was not something I ever thought about. I initially wanted to be a journalist, and then I pursued a business career, completing a Bachelor of Commerce and MBA and working as a business analyst for CN Rail in Edmonton and Montreal. After five years, I decided to pursue a law degree at McGill University. I found that my prior work experience made me a more mature and engaged student. Having worked in industry, I was able to see how the law applied in real-world contexts.
As for my path to the bench, that too was unexpected. I was a partner in a large law firm at the time and had a very diverse practice, spanning areas such as child protection, constitutional law, privacy, intellectual property, estates, and family law. I didn’t have just one big client. I was someone who would knock on doors and take on different cases, which gave me exposure to a wide range of legal issues. I also was engaged in several community initiatives on issues close to my heart.
Eventually, I was approached to apply for a judicial appointment. At first, I thought it was a preposterous idea! I was young and had a thriving practice. I did not want to leave the clients I had developed a close relationship with. However, the more I considered it, the more I realized that it was my next calling. I feel incredibly grateful for the opportunity and reflect regularly on my responsibility to the community in this role.
The transition to the bench has been like coming full circle. I sometimes feel like an articling student again, staying up late to research and write decisions. But there is a great sense of pride in working through a problem, and I enjoy the deep engagement with the law.
My background continues to shape my approach as a judge. I strive to speak and write in plain language, ensuring that self-represented litigants and those unfamiliar with the legal system feel heard and understood. Access to justice is about more than just applying the law – it’s about making sure people can understand it and feel welcome in the courts, even if the decision does not go their way.
I am now involved in several initiatives with the Courts - in my role as co-chair of the Restorative Justice, Family Law, and French Committees. This work allows me to think about how to improve access to justice and outcomes for litigants and ultimately reduce the stress and hardship that litigation brings to people’s lives.
What experience in your legal career best prepared you for work on the bench?
Client management, without a doubt. In litigation practice, you deal with real people facing real problems, often in highly emotional situations. You have to guide them through complex legal processes while remaining calm and composed. The ability to bring stability and clarity is just as important on the bench, especially when dealing with self-represented litigants or cases where emotions run high.
In addition, the diversity of my legal practice was invaluable preparation. As a judge in a generalist court, I see a wide variety of cases. Having worked in multiple areas of law, I am better able to recognize legal issues across different disciplines. Having said that, every day presents a new learning opportunity for me, and I try to remain open-minded to necessary changes in how we interpret the law.
What advice do you have for counsel who appear before you?
One of the biggest issues I see, particularly in contentious matters like family law, is counsel becoming overly identified with their client’s case. It’s important to be a zealous advocate, but not at the expense of professionalism and objectivity. Some counsel take on their client’s anger as their own, allowing emotions to dictate their interactions with opposing counsel and even with the court. This doesn’t serve anyone well, as it only escalates conflict, prolongs litigation, and ultimately does a disservice to the client. Lawyers should see themselves as mentors and stabilizing forces for their clients, not as extensions of their clients’ emotions.
I’ve seen too many cases where counsel will argue with each other in front of judges and their clients. That should never happen. Judges should never see lawyers arguing with each other. My advice is simple: always maintain professionalism and never write something you wouldn’t want reviewed by the Law Society or a court. I can’t stress that enough because I’ve seen reputations built over years completely tarnished by one moment of unprofessional conduct.
One simple practical piece of advice, which I was taught by a law professor and used daily in my own practice, is to start every piece of correspondence with a thank you. Even something as small as “Thank you for your letter of X date” can set the right tone. It keeps interactions professional, prevents hostility from escalating, and helps maintain a level of mutual respect.
What do you wish the public knew about the justice system?
I wish people understood that judges are human. We feel the weight of the cases before us, and we often struggle with the decisions we must make. While we sympathize with the litigants, we must base our rulings on the law, not our emotions.
I also wish the public knew how much pressure the judicial system is under. We often don’t have as much time as we would like to engage with parties. Despite these constraints, we do our very best to ensure fair and just outcomes.
Finally, I’d want people to appreciate that most cases don’t have a single “right” answer. Reasonable minds can, and do, disagree. Judges bring their backgrounds and experiences to the bench to reflect the diversity of Canadian society. But that also means different judges may view issues differently, and that’s part of a healthy, functioning legal system.