Tag Archives: Feminist Faculty

Being a Feminist Lawyer

W. Anita Braha

by Susan Boyd and Camille Israel

W. Anita Braha gave an inspiring talk titled “A Feminist Practice: A Chronicle of Issues Over the Years” about her experiences as a feminist and a human rights lawyer. Her stories showed us that her work on feminist projects as a student gave her experience and contacts that paid off in future opportunities.

Law was not Anita’s first career choice – she told us she used to want to be a comedian, and certainly her sense of humour was evident in her talk. Once she settled on law, though, her clear goal was to be a human rights lawyer. She went to graduate school to pursue a Master’s in Political Science at the University of Toronto, where she was part of a coalition of students and administrators who, after a long struggle, got the university to pass one of the first sexual harassment policies in Canada. Anita then studied law at Osgoode Hall Law School, which in the 1980s could be a hard and hostile environment for feminists and lesbians. While there, she was active in the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL), which had a number of caucuses across Canada. In her third year, she undertook a directed research project on the issue of pay equity, meeting feminists who were working in the field, such as Carole Geller of the PayEquity Coalition, with whom she later worked.


After graduating in 1986, Anita articled with the Official Guardian of Ontario (now the Children’s Lawyer), which provided an interdisciplinary environment due to its focus on child protection and mental health. Her principal was Susan Himel, now a judge on the Ontario Superior Court.


In the late 1980s, Anita moved to Vancouver, where, through her involvement with NAWL, she met a number of feminist lawyers, such as Gwen Brodsky and Shelagh Day, who hired her as a researcher on their important 1989 publication Canadian Charter Equality Rights for Women: One Step Forward or Two Steps Back? She then (re)articled at the BC Public Interest Advocacy Centre, and was offered a position despite the fact that they did not normally hire back articling students.


During this time, she was asked to represent the first complainant under the University of Toronto’s sexual harassment policy, who was an engineering student. At issue was whether leering constituted sexual harassment. The defendant, 60-year old chemical engineering professor Richard Hummel, was accused of following and intensely staring at female swimmers at Hart House Pool. The board held that his actions did constitute sexual harassment. The decision was immediately appealed, and the defense hired Morris Manning, a prominent criminal litigator. As co-counsel, Anita retained Kate Hughes, who later represented LEAF in its intervention in Meoirin v. BCGSE, the landmark gender discrimination case. Anita’s client won the appeal, but the decision was not uncontroversial. Maclean’s columnist Barbara Amiel strongly criticized the case as “the utter debasement of the genuinely serious nature of sexual harassment.”

Anita worked on other groundbreaking cases, including a worker’s compensation case that established Rape Trauma Syndrome (RTS) as a compensable injury. In that case, the victim had been brutally attacked and raped, but had no lasting physical injuries. Anita worked with Vancouver feminist legal consultant Sandra Goundry and an expert witness to show that RTS constituted an injury, and her client received a full disability pension.


Anita started her own law firm with a colleague in 1992, sharing a library and other resources with another small firm. She eventually ended up taking institutional as well as individual clients, and has, somewhat unusually, worked for unions, employers and individuals. She has done policy work as well as litigation and education. She has also collaborated with other lawyers on many files. She was an appointed adviser to the City of Vancouver Women’s Task Force.


Anita’s talk contained many nuggets of wisdom. She told students interested in pursuing a feminist/social justice legal career to follow their passion, and that volunteering with people or organizations doing the kind of work that interested them is a great way to make connections, which could turn into paid opportunities down the line–sometimes in unexpected ways! It is important to help other lawyers and activists and they will reciprocate sooner or later. She said that creativity, persistence, preparation and hard work were crucial in her pursuit of the kind of career she wanted. Most of all, she reminded students to stand by their convictions and principles and to draw strength from them. In her experience, people are drawn to those who have strong core principles, including feminist principles. It is important to speak up and to “stand up and be counted” whenever possible. You may be attacked for your convictions, but others will rally around you. Finally, Anita told us that it is important to be respectful of one’s clients and that she had learned a tremendous amount from her own clients about strength and grace in the face of hardship.


This piece is an excerpt from an article that first appeared in LawFemme Volume 10, Issue 2.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Legal Profession

Sex (In)equality on the Canadian Bench

by Janine Benedet, CFLS Director

‘Portrait of the Honourable Bertha Wilson,’ 1999, by Mary Lennox Hourd.

It was in 1990 that Justice Bertha Wilson gave her now-famous speech at Osgoode Hall Law School entitled, “Will Women Judges Really Make a Difference?” Having recently stepped down as the first woman judge on the  Supreme Court, she considered whether women’s ascent to the judiciary had influenced the development of the common law and the shaping of the Charter. She answered this question in the affirmative, influenced in particular by her decision in R. v. Lavallee, in which the Supreme Court held that the law of self-defence should reflect the reality of battered women’s lives. She was later joined on the Supreme Court by Claire L’Heureux-Dube who openly confronted rape myths and sex discrimination in family law, among other areas of particular concern to women. Justice Wilson went on to Chair a very important CBA task force on gender equality whose 1993 report noted the hostility faced by women judges who were labeled feminists by their male colleagues.

Recently, UBC Law was honoured by the visit of Justice Marie Deschamps as this year’s Donald J. Mawhinney lecturer in ethics and professionalism. Justice Deschamps recently retired from the Supreme Court of Canada. She was replaced by Justice Richard Wagner, reducing the number of women on the court to three (Chief Justice McLachlin and Justices Abella and Karakatsanis). In a recent interview, she lamented the fact that she had not been replaced by another woman, noting that “I was sad that I was not replaced by a woman. We are looked at not just as a model for the courts in Canada, but around the world – and I think it’s very important that the Supreme Court of Canada remains a model.”

Of course the Supreme Court of Canada is not the only court where sex equality has recently been eroded. In British Columbia, between January 2009 and December 2012, 28 of the 33 appointees to the British Columbia Supreme Court were men. No women were appointed at all in 2011 and 2012. The B.C. advisory committee to the Minister on judicial appointments (as listed online) is also all-male. Three decades of slow but steady progress threaten to be wiped out as a generation of trail-blazing women nears retirement age.

Those of us committed to sex equality in law and in the legal profession must  resist this disturbing trend. There is a tendency to forget the efforts that were required to achieve past progress and that resistance to such progress has not disappeared. We need to mentor and encourage each other to seek entry to the highest reaches of the profession and to demand change to the structures of those institutions if they exclude women. We should not allow ourselves to be brushed off with the claim that no women are applying to be judges any more than we should content ourselves with the dismissive supposition that women do not want to be law firm partners. I am not ready to hear the speech, “Why did Women Judges Cease to Be?”

This piece first appeared in LawFemme, Vol. 12, Issue 1, under the title “Message from the Director”.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Legal Profession