Angela Ogang: So yes. I want to be able to participate fully in the legal profession without having to face obstacles that are linked to my colour, my gender, my religious belief, or my cultural background. If anything those add spice to the whole bowl. And those are strengths. I think that anyone can benefit from that cultural diversity and gender diversity. Those are different perspectives that come into play and that can make you innovate, that can make you be creative, that can make you be competitive, compared to your – to others. So we should be celebrating these things rather than using them as excuses to not let people in.

Prabhpreet Sangha: It’s just shocking that when you’re a non lawyer sometimes, or you’re not a lawyer yet or people don’t know you, sometimes you do deal with certain biases. Or people just assume things of who you are. And whether you’re a lawyer or not at the end of the day, we’re all people and everyone deserves respect. I mean, I think it doesn’t even matter what your race, or religion, culture, age is respect is – just everyone should respect one another in the ideal world. [Laughs]

Male Speaker: This is The Every Lawyer presented by the Canadian Bar Association.

Amanda McBride: In terms of the profession and women, I think we still have a long way to go. In terms of the profession and minorities, Indigenous people, and anyone who has a disability, there’s a huge way left to go. And it doesn’t mean that we’re not making progress. And we can’t forget where we came from and the huge progress we’ve made since ’93, but it’s been a long time now and we’ve just made a couple of minor steps.

Christina Cook: I was called uppity by an Opposing Counsel who said, “I didn’t know my place.” Another Opposing Counsel who was a gentleman, called me an idiot once, in his email. And I was like, “Oh my goodness.” [Laughs] Another Opposing Counsel, during Examination for Discovery said that he was going to keep me on a short leash. And I was like, “Oh my goodness.” And I tried to maintain my composure and I said, “You know should you have an objection, please state it for the record and we can attend Chambers to have it adjudicated. But I’m not going to have you answer. The purpose for this examination, is to have your client answer these questions so.”

I felt like I was practicing in the 1950’s. Clients would say things like, “Oh my goodness.” After a successful result I had one client who said, “Wow. You know I can’t wait to tell my wife that I had a lady lawyer.” “Oh. Okay.” I had a client refuse to have me defend them. He was a client of the Firm. And I was assigned to [Ed Spano? 00:03:32] and he refused to have me act as his Counsel – the sole reason – that I was a woman. This was a couple of years ago. This wasn’t 30 years ago. So I feel lucky to now be practicing back where there is a certain level of decorum and collegiality.

Gurpreet K. Gill: I was point blank, in the middle of an interview and asked, “So I hear you have like a daughter, or something like that?” And I was totally thrown off guard because I was like, neither did I disclose that I’m married. Neither did I disclose that I have a child. And I just was so stunned. And I was just like, “What does that have to do with my qualifications for this position?” And I just flipped the script on the guy and I did. I said, “What does that have to do with anything at this point in time? How does that fill the job description?” I was absolutely livid. But these are the type of things that we experience. And nobody really gets to air out their grievances, especially when you’re young and you’re just trying to get your foot in the door, you feel like you can’t say anything because at the end of the day, our community is so small people might speak. It might be held against you.

Vasi Sivapalan: I had a judge who was frustrated as heck, pronouncing my name. And at the end of it just gave up and just treated me so poorly during the hearing. Even the Sheriffs sitting there were like, “Oh. I don’t know what to say.” And I’m just like, “Oh I’ve lost the Hearing already.” [Laughs] But what can you do as a younger lawyer? You have to unfortunately take it. And in that case, I had to take it. I had no way of even standing up for myself, given just the position that this Judge had so. And I’ve had people at the Courthouse again say, “Oh I’m surprised,” especially when I first came here that, “I’m surprised you don’t have an accent and things like that.

Amanada McBride: I have a great network of friends. And the fact that some of them had to work for free for their articling, because they couldn’t get a position based on their last name back when we were in Law School, signifies that there was an issue. I was fortunate because I – my last name does not reveal my background. And so when I would apply blind, I would be selected above my friends who had visibly Indigenous names.

Sameera Sereda: But I thought, you know what? I’m just going to tell him because he’ll understand. I mean I’m pregnant. I hadn’t told anybody that I was pregnant. And so I went to him and I said, “You know I am so sorry. I’m going to need an extension on this. I am so sick.” And oh, I still remember the look on his face of disappointment. I still didn’t want to tell him I was pregnant. I just told him I was really sick and the look of disappointment, so I thought maybe he’ll understand if I tell him that I’m pregnant. And so that’s when I told him that I was pregnant. And he looked at me and he said, “Well that’s not my fault.” And I’ll never forget that. I mean, obviously I’ve never forgotten it. [Laughs] It was 35 years ago and I’ve never forgotten the look on his face, or how those words made me feel.

The second example was I had left practice. I was already an Owner and a Manager of the Counsel Network. And I had just given birth to my second child, my daughter. And that was an easy pregnancy. And I worked throughout, right up until – the day I pushed her out I was working. I was making calls from the hospital. It was ridiculous. And I don’t tell you this story as a badge of honour at all. In fact it's quite the opposite.

So I came back from mat leave. And there was no mat leave because now I’m a Business Owner. So I’m not an employee. I don’t really have a mat leave. So six weeks I thought, oh that’s all I can really afford. I was sitting at a Boardroom table at a Law Firm – my client – because we were doing a big search for them. And I remember sitting at the head of the Boardroom table and I was the only woman in the room and I was the only racialized woman in the room. And this is not new. I mean my entire career I’ve sat in a Boardroom with only men and the only woman and certainly the only racialized woman.

So I remember going through the meeting and doing a really good job and everything went really well. And then right at the end of the meeting, one of the partners who knew that I just had a baby, said to the rest of the group, “And can I just say, you know Sameera, didn’t you just have a baby?” And I said, “Yes. I did. Six weeks ago.” And he said, “Well you are an example to all other women. You’ve come here and you’ve come back to work so quickly, and we applaud you for that.” And they all clapped for me. They all clapped for me and applauded and said that, “I was a role model for other women.” And I remember feeling pretty proud of myself. And it wasn’t until reflecting on that years later, where I realized that I was not a role model at all. In fact, I was doing my gender a disservice by trying to push through and go back to work so quickly and not giving myself and my body enough time to heal.

And look I’m not suggesting – women can certainly go back to work when they want and not go back to work when they want – so it’s not about that choice. It was about how the men in that room revered the coming back to work quickly, as being something that should be applauded. And that is the part of this story that I think I wanted to share.

Praph: When I was looking for articles, I had a random interview. And the entire firm was all men. And he told me that, “You should not even try to do litigation because you’re going to have children one day. That was when I was starting my career. And I was shocked. I didn’t respond to that because I was very surprised. I’m like, “Holy. It’s 2000, whatever it was, I mean I’d only been practicing about four years. So the fact that someone had the courage to say that it was quite disrespectful.

Amanda McBride: I would go to Court and I never faulted the Judges for assuming I was a student, because I was quite young. And then once we cleared that up, I was treated on equal par. I never experienced any discrimination from the Judiciary. None from my colleagues. It was just a very collegial Bar. But when I moved to Toronto, I can notice the differences right away. And it was very different because in the Regions, there’s more Indigenous representation within the communities. And when you move to Toronto, the first question you’re asked is, “Where are you from?” And I thought that was very interesting because nobody would ask me that, until I moved to the city. And I never knew what the proper answer to that was because then I’d have to explain that I was Indigenous.

And what I thought was interesting in Toronto, was that when I would explain that I was Indigenous, the first response from the majority of lawyers would be, “No you’re not, because you don’t present as Indigenous. Your skin’s too light.” And so that was the first shock for me when I was working in Toronto, is the other lawyers did not consider me to be Indigenous because of the colour of my skin – despite the fact that I grew up on Reserve; despite the fact that my family has a long history in our First Nation. And I just thought that was very interesting, in terms of experiences.

Angela Ogang: A lot of times we navigate through this profession almost invisible.

Kathryn Sainty: I don’t know if this is how it happened to you but I’ve been dealing with male lawyers who’s like, “Oh, would you bring me a coffee?” [Laughter] It’s more than my pay is, but you know.

Kamljit Lehal: I’ve been mistaken for the Court Reporter, the Interpreter, and not the Lawyer.

Kathryn Sainty: Yes.

Kamljit Lehal: So many times.

Andrea Menard: What happened is the lawyers, who I was hanging around with on my floor, they would make fun of people like me. They would say stuff like, “Oh. My Indigenous client, I don’t know how she ever lived. I don’t know how my Indigenous client ever went through that, because my Indigenous client has suicide, addictions, assaults in their background.” And they would sit and chat about it like it was funny. And I’m, “You’re not understanding that I’m sitting here and I have that same background.”

They don’t – they are so powerful and privileged that they think that everyone in their spheres are also from the same cutting board. So I’m sitting there looking at them and I’m like, “Oh my gosh. If they ever knew anything about my history, I don’t think they’d be my friend.” So again, it’s more cover up. Cover up mental health. Cover up about my family. Cover up my circumstances where I come from. Pretend that I’m a robot just like them. But what it does, is it ostracizes me from the group, so that I don’t want to hang out with these people. So then once I’m isolating myself from the group, then I don’t have a team. Then the team, they don’t trust me. They don’t know what I’m up to. And it’s all because they’ve assumed that, I come from this wonderful family that’s always supported me, which unfortunately stuff has happened and I don’t.

Manroop Ghuman: People have expectations when you come from a different culture. And I think from my culture it was, “She doesn’t have anyone that’s White-Collar. She doesn’t come from money. She doesn’t come from this. So there were instances when I was referencing my parents’ farm, et cetera, and someone actually said to me – they called it a [flex? 00:15:26]. That I was trying to prove a point or say that I’m from a rich background. And I was like, “What?” And I was stunned. And this person, I would speak to them outside. They left and I actually went after them. I was like, “Hey. Did I say something wrong? Why did you get so offended? I was just talking in generic terms.” And they were like, “No. No. It’s a, me issue, not a, you issue.” And I was like, “Wait. What?”

And to this day, I don’t know what their issue was but all I could gather was, this person comes from a rich background, or they have money, they have all this. But when they saw that I had similar things, or my parents had similar things, they were like, “Oh wait. No. That’s not what we expected of you. This is weird. Now you’re throwing it in our face and you’re rubbing it.” But it’s like, when you do it, it’s okay but when I do it, it’s not okay because I’m not supposed to be like that. Or I’m not supposed to come from that type of background. And I think that was another huge shocker. And I was like, “I can’t deal with it.”

I think at the time I did it because I was afraid. I was like, “Oh. Who do I speak to? What do I say?” But I think when I eventually did – I mean it wasn’t someone from the same Firm – but they were probably like, “Oh. Maybe you’re overthinking it. Maybe it’s not this.” So then it comes down to the gaslighting. Because it’s like I remember this conversation exactly how it happened, but then when you say it it’s, “No, no, no. That’s not how it was framed. It was framed differently.” And I was like, “Really?” And then you start thinking to yourself, “Is that the case? Did that actually happen?” And I think that was a huge part for me.

Because then eventually, to be quite honest, I started noting things down because I’m like, if this was happening to me. And I’d speak to other friends. And quite honestly, depending on what their culture was, they either understood what I was saying, or they didn’t understand what I was saying. And they were like, “No, no. You’re overthinking this.” And the other one was like, “I get what you’re saying because that’s exactly what happened to me.” Or, “I have had this conversation too.” And I’m like, “Oh.” So I think it was very different.

And one advice, as horrible as it is, was from someone who’s senior to me at a different Firm. And he essentially said to me like, “You should just put your head down and continue to work, if you want to go up in the Firm.” And I was like, “Wow.” And I was, “But that’s how I guess people make it.” And I was like, “Oh maybe I should think about that.” And you start thinking, “If I want to improve and if I want to go further, I need to do that.” Because when I went into the big Law Firm life I was like, “I’m going to stay here. I’m going to stick to it. I’m going to be become a partner. This is what I really want to do.” And then when I started seeing these things, I was like, “I don’t want to deal with this.” And I understand you have to stay and people were telling me, “You have to stay to make that change.” And I was like, “But do I want to stay and make that change? Why is that responsibility on me? I don’t want to be dealing with that, like spend my entire life trying to change a Firm that’s not wanting to change. It’s really hard when the people aren’t wanting to change.” If everyone was wanting to change I’d be like, “Yes. Yes. Let me help. But if no-one wants to change, there’s no point. It’s like talking to a wall.

Vasu Sivapalan: Obviously we think about this idea of billables. We think about most things in life. And you can even do it like a very visible example. So a building. Your Law School building has a set of stairs to physically access a door. It’s available for everyone to use. “Look. We’re making it equal access to everybody. We’re not preventing anyone from walking through that door.” But you are. If you’re in a wheelchair and there’s no ramp available, you can’t get in. So we think that just because we are presenting the one option for everyone, we think that’s equal. And for me, actually it’s a little bit meaningless, because if there are individuals who physically, or mentally, or in any capacity, financially, can’t access it, we would not say, “Oh well.” You’re not going to build that ramp. We would never say that today. “We are not going to build that ramp for you to access it.”

So why do we do it from this, billable hours perspective? Because people don’t even realize, especially my parents were refugees to this country so obviously they brought us, my brother and I along. And there’s this mentality as an immigrant that you just do what you’re told. You suck it up and do it. You don’t ever ask for proper conditions for employment, or living, or anything like that. You just take what you get and you’re happy to get it.

And so you think about the amount of extra hours my family had to do to just educate themselves outside of the working hours. So it’s if we think about this billable hour structure, you don’t know what people need to do outside of those hours.

Amanda McBride: I often have a conversation with people that I mentor. And I say that within the Law profession, you have to consider the various circles. We won’t reach true reconciliation or even fairness, until you look at each person’s individual circle. So from my perspective, who do you invite into your home, is my test. You have your work colleagues that you will go out for lunch with. In terms of circles they’re on the outskirts. Then you have the people that you invite with you to meet your spouse or your family. They’re your friends. But until you’re willing to invite those people into your home, have a meal with them, there’s no real reconciliation. Because if your inner circle around yourself is surrounded by people who are not diverse, then you are not promoting diversity within the profession.

If on the opposite spectrum you have a great amount of diversity within your life, then perhaps you’re more inclined to sit down and have a conversation about how we can improve the profession and access, not only for lawyers but also for the general public, in terms of access to Justice.

Angela Ogang: And just to give you an anecdote, I remember the time when I was called to the Bar. I left the Ceremony. I was with my parents and my sisters and my nieces and my nephews. And I was walking down the street in downtown Toronto with the robe and I was wearing my heels and the whole thing. I was looking good. [Laughter]

Julia Tétrault-Provencher: Oh. I’m sure you were. [Laughs]

Angela Ogang: I felt so proud because it had been so difficult for me to be called to the Bar. My personal story is that I did the Bar exams in 2009, after doing the equivalences. So it took me 2-1/2 years to do the equivalences when I emigrated from England and then I [sat? 00:22:32] the Bar exams, but I couldn’t complete the article component, because I couldn’t find articles. And so my results expired. And I had to start the whole thing all over again. So they expired in 2012 and I started the process again in 2017. Because to be honest with you, [laughs] I was [gutted? 00:22:55]. Yes.

And so I ended up going to Kenya and becoming a Lawyer there before deciding, “Okay. I think I’ve made peace.” [Laughs] I started the whole process again. And I was finally called to the Bar in 2018. So when I was walking down the streets of Toronto dressed like that, it was a unique moment for me and it’s one that I will always remember. Because it was like, “Oh my God. I finally made it.” And even my parents felt the same way. They were just overcome with emotions. And I came across – there were some Black kids that were just sitting in a corner and just chatting between themselves and they saw me. And they just went, “Oh my God.” And then they wanted to take pictures and everything. And in that moment I realized, “Oh wow. These kids are not used to seeing a Black lawyer. To them this is new. Or to them this is like a spectacle in a good way, because they don’t see that.” And in that moment I was like, “Oh my God. There’s so much that we need to do. We’re not even there yet.”

And even when you look at the numbers, we aren’t that many practicing Law in this province. I don’t know what it’s like in other provinces. So I’d like to see that. And yet we’re overrepresented in jails. We’re overrepresented in the Welfare system. So it would be good to see more Black people in those roles because yes, we [laughs] are part of this society and so we should be able to. And in terms of our intellect, we’re no different from other people.

Julia: No. You guys are, exactly. I mean absolutely not. And you don’t have less interest in Law or in the legal profession. It’s not only a White male privilege who love the legal profession. There are many other people who love that.

Sophie: Hi. My name is Sophie Bourque.

Daphne: Hi. I’m Daphne Dumont.

Patricia: Hi. I’m Patricia Blocksom.

Melina: Hello. I am – my name is Melina Buckley.

Julia: And you have just heard from, back to front, Angela Ogang, Amanda McBride, Vasu Sivapalan, Manroop Ghuman, Andrea Menard, Kamaljit Lehal, Kathryn Sainty, Gurpreet K Gill, Sameera Sereda, Christina Cook and Prabhpreet Sangha. They are some of the many women lawyers we have spoken to over the last six months for this Podcast series, marking 30 years since the release of the CBA Touchstones report.

Hi. I’m Julia Tetrault-Provencher. Welcome to Episode 3, Intersectionality. In Episodes 1 and 2, we got to know Sophie, Daphne, Pat, and Melina very well. But there were other Taskforce members. Here’s WLF Secretary, Angela Ogang again, explaining who they were and why their inclusion was so significant.

Angela: You know when they went in, they went in wanting to advance the opportunities that were available for women lawyers. But as soon as they started going to all these different universities to meet up with people – because they had some sort of Town Halls in different places across the country – and as people came to them and started opening up about their issues, the things that they were going through, they realized that the problem was much bigger than they had actually initially thought. And that a lot of times there’s women, but then there’s that issue of intersectionality as well.

There is the fact that some people will face barriers, not just because they’re women, but because they belong to a certain ethnic group, or race, or because of their sexual orientation. And those things became very obvious as they were writing the report. They also realized that the Taskforce wasn’t diverse, which made them at least try and make it as diverse as they could at the time by inviting, for example Justice Corrine Sparks to join the Taskforce and Sharon McIvor as well, who is Indigenous. So Justice Sparks is a Black woman and so that added a bit of spice to the work of the Taskforce group. Because of that little change, someone like me could see myself in that report. Or someone like me could see that they made an effort to include me in their work.

And when I was listening to them talk about that issue of intersectionality, I have to admit, I had to go off camera. And I cried because I was just really overwhelmed. And later I spoke to Kamaljit, who’s the Chair of the Touchstone 2.0 Committee, we talked about it. And she had the same reaction. And I think what we had in common was that idea that we were seen. And you can’t imagine how powerful it is to make people feel seen.

Julia: We continue now with more segments from the series of the fireside chat we held in the spring and summer of 2023 with Pat, Daphne, Melina and Sophie.

Sophie: But personally I think that all the credit should be given to those women that has brought the issue to the Taskforce because we didn’t realize the privileges that we had as White women in the society. And this was way back in – well not that way back [laughs] – it was back in 1990.

Female Speaker: That’s way back.

Sophie: And you know intersectionality was not even a word at that time. It was we were talking about double discrimination. That’s what we were talking about. And we were talking only about two layers of discrimination, but for what I understand back then. Those are kind of a sociological movement. It was in the fabric of society. It was rising at the time. Thank God everybody on the Taskforce were actually feminist and open-minded to sit on the Taskforce. And we soon came to realize also that there’s no way we can do Justice to the reality of what then we called double discrimination, within the mandate of the Taskforce. It was a much bigger issue. And that’s why one of the recommendations was to have another Taskforce on racism in the profession.

Because we became aware of it and we tried to integrate it in our work and to see where there might be issues of double discrimination adding, which is all across the Board basically. And I think – and I might be wrong – but the reaction was even stronger when we say that there is racism in the profession. It was even stronger than when we say there is sexism in the profession. That was [part of the Venetian seawall? 00:31:23] was rising in front of the lagoon, [“I know. Not here. Not here.” 00:31:29].

And I remember at one of the sessions at the Counsel trying to say, “There’s no racism in the profession. It’s not true.” And somebody will rise and say, “Well look around the room.” There was only White person and a majority of White men. The truth is in the pudding, as they say in English.

Patricia Blocksom: When we did our first Conference, which was October – I think it was within the first ten months of the Taskforce being implemented – and we invited many different groups to that Conference. And they said so clearly to us that, “You need to look at intersectionality and you need to broaden the scope of who’s on this Taskforce. Because you don’t represent me. There are no women of colour on this. There are no Aboriginal women. There are no disabled women.” And we really had to regroup and say, “You’re right. That we have to talk about all women. And women aren’t just White women. We need to talk about all women when we look at this report and look at all forms of discrimination. And it was a really important moment for us. And I think it was really critical to the credibility of our Taskforce that we were able to take that feedback and say that, “You’re right. You’re absolutely right. And we need to expand the scope of our work, our inquiry, and the depth of the people that are working on this Taskforce. Not just the Taskforce itself, but also our provincial working groups.

Daphne: But it was so stimulating when we got together and particularly when Judge [Corrine] Sparks came and when Sharon started coming. Sharon would come and tell us that she had been a bit late because she was out meeting her spirit animal. [Laughs] She was astonishing to even know. I knew zero members of any Aboriginal community at the time. I met some at my Law School but Sharon particularly, Dr. McIvor. And so when they came it really broke it open and we had a whole other analysis. So it was phenomenally exciting. It really was. And Melina and the staff, the work, and the scholarship they put into it, and the statistical stuff they got for us, it was very stimulating. And I think generally, in fact always in my recollection, the discussions were very respectful.

Melina: The period of time for writing the report was quite short. So I feel like Daphne, I agree 100 percent that there was lots of exchange of ideas and that when [Corrine] and Sharon joined the table, it was really a great opportunity to revisit and open up some of that. And really I agree with all the comments there. I feel like it expanded the discussion in a very important way and that the report would not have been the same without it. We had, of course been consulting with people so we’d heard some stories. Very different having someone at the table, as we all know, who is there, particularly [Corrine] I have to say, who was the one who was the most able to sit right across from them, per se, and go, “Well. You know I’m not disagreeing with you but, you know I have another perspective.” There was something about that dynamic. It wasn’t a tension but it was a dynamic and there was a level of judicial respect there that was quite interesting to me, as sort of the person who was more recording the discussion.

And then I do recall actually that the one meeting where we had some of the best conversations, was actually one where Bertha wasn’t able to attend. And my recollection is that everybody talked a lot more [laughs] at that meeting. And because I think naturally we really would prefer to listen to Bertha, because she just had so much to say and had such a beautiful way of expressing herself. So I did feel like it took quite a long time to get past that.

And then we had that one meeting, I remember it was in March of ’93. So it was when we were talking about the outline for the report. And we already knew that there were going to be chapters and everybody had a responsibility for the chapter. And I had done some work for the preliminary part that Daphne talked about, the more theoretical or the framing kind of sections. But it was there that we really started to wrestle I think with some of what the content would be ultimately. And then we had a series of meetings, three months, May, June and July, where we were actually looking at drafts.

And definitely Daphne, my recollection is the same as yours, where once we had the text in front of us and we were trying to figure out what kind of response and how should we couch it in a way that was strong enough to make people act but not so strong that it created a backlash. Although of course we couldn’t completely avoid that and that’s okay, I think, because you can write a report that’s very easy, kind of bland, and it would have landed and people would have gone, “Great. We can just put up our hands today about that.”

So I think the mood of that room as I recall, was taking us just to the edge. Let’s go as far as we can. We’re not going to have another Taskforce report like this. We are recommending that there be a Taskforce specifically about systemic racism, but let’s move all of the milepost as far as we can with this report. And definitely this was a very brave Taskforce. There was not a voice on it that was against that. It was really unanimity about that. And the discussion, as I recall was more about nuance and people saying, “Well you know I feel like this will work and this won’t and so on.”

And then at one meeting, Bertha came in with a few specific recommendations about the duty to accommodate. I may have said this during our first call, I can’t remember now, but fully written out. So there was that process, where it just came directly from her. And those ended up obviously being ones that attracted lots of attention, because they tied the duty to accommodate with the idea of reducing billable hour targets, as being one way to accommodate people with parental responsibilities and particularly women with parental responsibilities but tied into that – or family responsibilities – but tied into that idea. And so that was kind of a late addition that really energized our discussions, I would say. And yes, I can tell you what we talked about at every meeting. I remember. [Laughs] I probably have the agenda –

Daphne: I think that’s a –

Melina: I probably have the agenda somewhere. [Laughter] Yes. Anyway.

Sophie: One thing for me that was also really a changer, is the issue of racism and homophobia. Back then, gay lawyers didn’t have a place at the CBA and even less in the profession. It was still the time where for gay lawyers, or lesbian lawyers, they were not talking about their spouse. They were always coming alone and so on. And racism was the same thing. It was mostly a White male association, that’s what it was. And the presence of [Corrine Sparks], was very revealing and after the meeting we had with I think the association of Black women lawyers in Toronto. And back then it was very much focused on the situation of women in the profession, but the issue of, how do we treat all forms of an equality? We were just talking about double inequality. That was about [unintelligible 00:40:08] at the time. It was very revolutionary.

Now you talk about double discrimination and it kind of dates you [laughs] and you’re talking about your age then when you use that kind of vocabulary so. And the place of this intersectionality, that was not a word invented at that time, how will that play out into the future? How to integrate that? And I remember very vividly that what the Taskforce made me realize, is that racism was way worse than sexism. And for me, I thought that because there’s women and they’re men, so that’s the big distinction. I have never realized it. And that created kind of a situation of, “Okay. So how do we integrate? Where does that fit? How can I defend women issues, if I don’t think at the same time as racism issue, as homophobic issue, and so on? So I think that those issues also have shaken the [unintelligible 00:41:26]. Do we say that in English? I can say that in English, the expression. No? They could understand. Okay. No. It’s probably not okay. Forget about that expression. [Laughter]

Daphne: Just say it in French. [Laughter]

Sophie: The same thing with the situation of Aboriginal people. And I remember when Sharon got on the Taskforce, we had to get educated about, how can we talk to each other? How do we communicate? How do we listen to each other? Because I remember that one thing that struck me very much from the beginning, is what a powerful listener Bertha Wilson was. She was always sitting, of course, at the end of the table. And she has this black little [non-English? 00:42:21]. You know the one that you buy in Chinatown that are black cover with red corners and you have a little Chinese at the bottom of every page. And she was taking notes on that. That’s when she was taking notes. And contrary to most of the members of the Taskforce, she was not interrupting. She was never interrupting anybody. Well sometimes, not often, usually we listen too. So we learned to listen. Well I learned to listen to each other, although we were lucky because since I was not speaking very good English, I was a little bit more shy to intervene. [Laughs] But that was also part of what changed the reflection and certainly my reflection on those issues.

Patricia: Yes. I want to follow up on that Sophie, because I think that was really such an important consequence and natural step from the Taskforce, is that having the intersectionality that we did, opened the door for a more fulsome discussion about all forms of exclusion that existed in the profession. And so the CBA, I mean I have to say a big kudos to the CBA, in moving all of those issues forward and making sure that there were standing committees and forums to have this discussion on an ongoing basis. And I think that the Taskforce was the seed that planted a big mighty oak tree, where we could have these big important discussions in a safe way, in a supported environment. And I’m really happy that that was one of the things that happened. Because it did kind of naturally evolve but we had to think about it. We had to think about it and we had to talk about it. And it was a revelation to me to start thinking more in that direction. And it’s changed the way I think about discrimination, about systemic discrimination, about the layers of discrimination. And that has had a big impact for sure on my worldview.

Daphne: I think and I don’t want to just always be blowing the horn of the Bar Association beyond the great initiative that they started, but National organizations such as that, are quite quick to understand intersectionality, just in how they have to run themselves. There’s the Constitution. There’s their Private Practice Lawyers. And we would sit at a meeting mostly of senior Private Practice Lawyers. It was often hard to hear the Public Lawyers saying that, “That’s not going to help us at all. Those initiatives aren’t going to help us. We’re working for the government as the Military Lawyers.” The Francophone Lawyers who practice in English Commonwealth jurisdictions, or mixed jurisdictions like New Brunswick, I mean they had a whole other set of interests. And I make this sort of symbolic graph here with my hands because that is something that I think we were able to pick up pretty quickly.

And it was only within a month or two of that, as I recall that the young women lawyers who were lesbians were coming forward very quietly, hesitantly, at a young Women’s Lawyers Conference in Banff. They’d invited Bertha. I don’t think any of the rest of us were there. Maybe you were Pat, but – you were there – and it was, “Oh shoot. Sexual orientation. We missed that one for a year, [laughs] or whatever. But we just had to hear about it and we were on it. And the stories of young women who couldn’t bring their partner to the Firm dance or whatever, that would be absolutely, “I’d be out of there, if I had to disclose who I loved.” But I think we did have a tendency to pick these things up and go with them, because that’s how we think as lawyers, to a great degree.

Patricia: Totally. Yes.

Melina: It was so basic. It was multiple discrimination, double discrimination. We were really struggling with those words. And even having them in the original mandate of the Taskforce, that was the last sub-issue of what should be looked at. And I remember there was quite a bit of discussion about, “Why should you be looking at that? It’s just women.” And we’re like, “No women.” So I agree with you Pat, we didn’t have the language really. I mean not that it wasn’t being developed in the feminist movement, but certainly it was at the forefront of some of those ideas. And that was the area I would say – well one of the areas – where there was the most resistance, as we talked about lesbians and we talked about women of colour and so on.

And we say that so many times in the report and that was a deliberate choice to, rather than saying, “Women,” to game those various intersecting ways that women and trans people – which of course was not on our radar at all I would say at that time – what their experience is. And trying to get at the idea of how much bigger the barriers were for women who are further away from the White middle class male norm, of what a lawyer was. That was the norm, absolutely.

When I was in Law School in the early 80’s or mid-80’s, that absolutely was. And there was barely a tolerance in some ways for women. There was active defacement when you let women in the Law activities at the Law School and so on. And when the Taskforce met, especially with younger lawyers and the students in particular – I’m thinking of those wonderful, powerful, strong Black women lawyers in Toronto that we met with who really made an impact on the work of the Taskforce, I would say – and they brought this dimension. It's not a glass ceiling, it’s a brick wall, which I think some women, depending on where they practice and the kind of community they’re in, that would be their experience regardless of their colour. But there was no doubt and nobody really needed to be convinced very far about how much more difficult it was for women that were not recognizable within that norm, to break into the practice. And that’s why, I think the Taskforce report actually pays quite a bit of attention into the entry. It’s like we pay a lot of attention into the barriers to entry and the barriers to advancement and then a little bit about the everyday kind of difficulties that women face in different ways.

Julia: Melina that’s beautiful because you all seem to remember the discussions and how strong it was. So I think that’s very beautiful to hear. When you say Melina, you went to the edge. You didn’t want it to be too much, but you also wanted it to have a real impact. And I think it clearly did. And just the fact that now it’s 30 years from now and we talk about it and it’s still so relevant. And you mentioned Patricia, you said it’s like you planted a seed and it became an oak. Now I kind of feel like we have a forest.

Amanda McBridge: Amanda.

Andrea Menard: Andrea.

Daphne: [Cecelia Johnston (00:50:29].

Sameera: Sameera Sereda.

Daphne: Judge [Corrine] Sparks.

Sophie: And she’s, “Oh you have a telephone from President Chapman.” “President Chapman, who is that?”

Vasu: Vasu Sivapalan.

Patricia: And the other person I want to give some credit to, is Sheila Martin.

Daphne: [Germaine Greer? 00:50:44].

Christina: Oh. [Non-English 00:50:46]. Indigenous, Christina Cook and [unintelligible 00:50:50]. Hello. My name is Christina Cook and I’m from Brokenhead Ojibway Nation.

Melina: So I’m Melina Buckley. I’m a retired Lawyer and Legal Policy Consultant.

Gurpreet: I’m Gurpreet K Gill, but I also go by GG. I was called in May of 2021.

Patricia: Hi. I’m Patricia Blocksom. I graduated from Law School in 1982 and was called to the Bar in 1983.

Angela: Oh I’ll jump in. My name is Angela Ogang. I am the current Secretary of the Women Lawyers Forum.

Daphne: So I’m Daphne Dumont. So I’m also a future retired Family Lawyer. I just turned 70. I’ve been in a small firm. Moved to a larger firm now.

Prabhpreet Sangha: Well so my name is Prabhpreet Sangha. I am an Immigration Lawyer. I’ve been practicing – I got called in December 2019.

Manroop Ghuman: Manroop.

Prabhpreet: [Crosstalk 00:51:47].

Rebecca: The Rebecca Brown.

Sophie: Well thank you very much for the invitation. I’m Sophie Bourque as you know, a future retired Judge.

Julia: [Linda Silvergweneth and Judith Oudart? 00:51:59].

Sophie: But if we take one segment just to name every woman that has participated to the Taskforce effort, [here of? 00:52:12] Canada, you have all of those provincial communities, all those that there’s written paper and papers that were commission, it will take such a long time. But we’re here, kind of the original members of the Taskforce. But in my opinion, I had the fun part of the Taskforce being in the receiving end of it. But we have all those women that have put so much effort. I’ve never done the list but it will be a very, very long list.

Patricia: It will be. It will be a very long list.

Sophie: That have got involved. It’s really a collective effort.

Patricia: And do you know what, there were some men that got involved too. It wasn’t just –

Sophie: Yes. Absolutely.

Patricia: – women. There were really a lot of men that worked hard that maybe sat on provincial working groups. Or there were men on the Taskforce. Alex Robertson and –

Sophie: And John [Hagan? 00:53:06].

Patricia: John [Hagan]. Yes.

Daphne: John [Hagan]. Yes. I never sensed an atom of resistance in him to what –

Sophie: Oh no. No, no, no. He was fantastic.

Daphne: – the research he was doing. I think he worked a lot on how the statistical work would come.

Sophie: Yes.

Daphne: Alex Robertson, who I think was from B.C., wasn’t he?

Patricia: Yes.

Daphne: He was put in more as a Senior Statesman I think, to give credibility to our otherwise pretty feminist group. But I’m not saying –

Sophie: [A scientific brain? 00:53:34]. [Laughter]

Patricia: Yes, I mean Alex, he required some educating, let’s be clear. [Laughs]

Julia: And we all need educating all throughout our lives. Thank you so much for listening to us. And thank you to all of the women who have shared their time, insight, and experiences with us. We will be releasing some of the complete, in depth interviews we conducted as Episodes in their own rights, as the year goes on.

In our next and final Episode with Melina, Sophie, Pat, and Daphne, we will be adding still more diverse women lawyers to the Podcast and asking the question, where would we like to see the profession in another 30 years time, in terms of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion? Please feel free to reach out to us anytime at Podcast@cba.org. I’m Julia Tetrault-Provencher and this is The Every Lawyer.

Male Speaker: This is The Every Lawyer presented by the Canadian Bar Association.

Angela Ogang: Thank you for the opportunity to even share. I think that’s amazing.