The Honourable Renu Mandhane’s Questionnaire

Under the new judicial application process introduced by the Minister of Justice on October 20, 2016, any interested and qualified Canadian lawyer or judge may apply for federal judicial appointment by completing a questionnaire. The questionnaires are then used by the Judicial Advisory Committees across Canada to review candidates and submit a list of “highly recommended” and “recommended” candidates for consideration by the Minister of Justice. Candidates are advised that parts of their questionnaire may be made available to the public, with their consent, should they be appointed to the bench. The information is published as it was submitted by the candidates at the time they applied, subject to editing where necessary for privacy reasons.

Below are Parts 5, 6, 7, and 11 of the questionnaire completed by the Honourable Renu Mandhane.

Questionnaire for Judicial Appointment

Part 5 – Language

Please note that in addition to the answers to the questions set out below, you may be assessed as to your level of language proficiency.

Without further training, are you able to read and understand court materials in:

• English: Yes
• French: No

Without further training, are you able to discuss legal matters with your colleagues in: 

• English: Yes
• French: No

Without further training, are you able to converse with counsel in court in: 

• English: Yes
• French: No

Without further training, are you able to understand oral submission in court in: 

• English: Yes
• French: No

Part 6 – Education

Name of Institutions, Years Attended, Degree/Diploma and Year Obtained:

MASTER OF LAWS, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF LAW (2003)

JURIS DOCTOR, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW (2001)

- Exchange to National University of Singapore (Spring 2001)

BACHELOR OF ARTS (WITH DISTINCTION), QUEENS UNIVERSITY (1998)

- Medial in Economics and English; minor in History

Continuing Education:

Honours and Awards:

THE TOP 25 MOST INFLUENTIAL LAWYERS, CANADIAN LAWYER MAGAZINE (2017)

GRANT'S DESI ACHIEVER AWARD, DESI MAGAZINE (2016)

J.S.D. TORY WRITING PRIZE, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW REVIEW (2001)

SMITH LYONS ESSAY PRIZE, DALHOUSIE JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES (2000)

DONNER CIVIC LEADERSHIP FELLOWSHIP, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW (1999)

Part 7 – Professional And Employment History

Please include a chronology of work experience, starting with the most recent and showing employers’ names and dates of employment. For legal work, indicate areas of work or specialization with years and, if applicable, indicate if they have changed.

Legal Work Experience:

CHIEF COMMISSIONER, ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (OHRC), TORONTO (October 30, 2015-October 29, 2020)

• Appointed by Lieutenant Governor General, on advice of the Premier and Attorney General of Ontario
• Exercise a broad statutory mandate under the Ontario Human Rights Code, responsible for ensuring the OHRC acts in the public interest, accountable to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario through filing of an annual report
• Provide leadership and strategic direction to a team of employees and part-time Commissioners; responsible for budget exceeding of approximately $5,000,000
• Approve, oversee and provide instructions on:
  • Applications to and interventions before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
  • Public inquiries
  • Policies related to discrimination
  • Submissions to government
• Appear before Parliamentary and Legislative Standing Committees, Police Services Boards etc.
• Meet regularly with public sector, private sector, elected, Indigenous, and community leaders
• Cultivate support through coalition-building initiatives, social media engagement, public speaking, regional fact-finding tours and visits to First Nations communities
• Provide a principled and balanced perspective through regular media engagement
• Exercise judgment, discretion, and tact to effectively address critical and emerging issues involving myriad stakeholders, highly sensitive or confidential information, conflicting priorities, multiple deliverables, and tight timelines

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRAM (IHRP), UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW (2009-2015)

• As adjunct professor, led award-winning clinic that partnered law students with non-governmental organizations to enhance legal capacity and advance the field of international human rights law
• Co-counsel on interventions before the Supreme Court of Canada and on an application to the United Nations Human Rights Committee
• Appeared before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (Geneva) on Canada's periodic review
• Published fact-finding reports
• Quoted regularly by Canadian and international media
• Sole professional staff responsible for strategic plan, budget, donor relationships

ASSISTANT DEAN, OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE DEANS, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW (2008-2009)

• Worked closely with Dean on sensitive matters relating to curriculum, human resources, and stakeholder relations
• Managed senior lawyers in public interest co-curricular programs with a total budget of over $1,500,000

ASSOCIATE, SCOTT & OLESKIW, BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS, TORONTO (2003-2008)

• Represented criminally accused persons, prisoners, complainants, and plaintiffs, before both courts and administrative tribunals
• Co-counsel on habeas corpus and Charter application, two successful "faint hope clause" jury hearings, a dangerous offender application, and for accused charged with serious offences (murder, hostage-taking, robbery with a weapon etc.)

STUDENT AT LAW, TORYS LLP, TORONTO (2001-2002)

• Completed rotations in corporate and litigation departments

Non-Legal Work Experience:

INTERN, ASSOCIATION FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN DEVELOPMENT, TORONTO (2003)

RESEARCH ASSISTANT, JEAN MONET CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL ECONOMIC LAW AND JUSTICE NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW (2003)

FELLOW, CENTRE FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, NEW YORK (2002)

SUMMER STUDENT, POLICY BRANCH, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT AND CONSUMER SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO, TORONTO (2000)

DONNER CIVIC LEADERSHIP FELLOW AND PUBLIC EDUCATION OFFICER, METROPOLITAN ACTION COMMITTEE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN, TORONTO (1999-2001)

RESEARCH ASSISTANT, PROFESSOR PATRICK FRANCOIS, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, QUEENS UNIVERSITY, KINGSTON (1998)

Other Professional Experience:

List all bar associations, legal or judicial-related committees of which you are or have been a member, and give the titles and dates of any offices which you have held in such groups.

MEMBER, EXPERT PANEL SELECTION COMMITTEE, COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE, GOVERNMENT OF CANADA (2017-PRESENT)

• Sat on a five-person committee composed of senior government officials and experts on official languages and human rights
• Determined assessment criteria, interviewed over 70 applicants for two panels (Official Language Rights and Human Rights), arrived at decisions by consensus, and recommended a list of qualified candidates to the Minister

REPRESENTATIVE, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF STATUTORY HUMAN RIGHTS AGENCIES (2015-2020)

• Representative of the Ontario Human Rights Commission
• Chaired working group on implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2015-2017)

MEMBER, LEGAL COMMITTEE, PEN INTERNATIONAL (2014-2015)

Pro Bono Activities:

See above.

Teaching and Continuing Education:

List all legal or judicial educational organizations and activities you have been involved with (e.g. teaching course at a Law Faculty, bar association, National Judicial Institute, Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, etc.)

INSTRUCTOR

Adjunct professor, International Human Rights Clinic, University of Toronto Faculty of Law (2010-2015)

Instructor, National Judicial Institute, International Judicial Training Program, Domestic Application of International Law (2010-2011)

KEYNOTE SPEAKER

"Human rights, women and law" (Conversation with Professor Sonja Lawrence at Osgoode Hall Law School, Institute for Feminist Legal Studies, 2 February 2018)

"30 years of impact" (Lecture at International Human Rights Program, University of Toronto Faculty of Law, 14 September 2017)

"Segregation in Ontario" (Lecture at Annual Staff Conference of the John Howard Society of Ontario, 8 June 2017)

"Connecting criminal law and human rights" (Lecture at Criminal Lawyers Association of Ontario, 3rd annual Women in Criminal Law conference, 4 March 2017)

"Addressing systemic discrimination" (Lecture at Law Society of Upper Canada, 5th Annual Human Rights Summit, 6 December 2016)

"Human rights, creed and intersectionality” (Lecture at AGM of the Canadian Association of Muslim Women at Law, 21 November 2016)

"Human rights in policing" (Lecture at Annual Meeting of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, 21 September 2016)

"Human rights in the workplace" (Lecture at First Reference Employment Law conference, 21 June 2016)

"Building human rights for the profession and community" (Lecture at 10th Anniversary Gala of the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, 8 June 2016)

"Being leaders in access to justice" (Lecture at Ontario Bar Association, Annual Update on Human Rights, 30 May 2016)

"Human rights and community legal clinics" (Lecture at AGM of the Association of Community Legal Clinics of Ontario, 27 May 2016)

"Connecting access to justice and human rights" (Lecture at 20th anniversary gala of Pro Bono Students Canada, 13 May 2016)

"Connecting access to justice and human rights" (Lecture at Flip your Wig gala of the Law Society of Upper Canada, 26 February 2016)

"Being a human rights champion" (Lecture at 10th anniversary gala of the South Asian Bar Association, I December 2015)

PANELIST, PRESENTER

"Systemic discrimination in the criminal justice system" (Panelist at Annual Provincial Crown’s Conference, Ministry of the Attorney General (Ontario), 24 May 2018)

"Best practices towards a diverse judiciary" (Panelist at lunch and learn series of the Ontario Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, 25 April 2018)

'Racial profiling" (Panelist at fall conference of the Crown Law Office (Ontario), 17 December 2017)

"Police investigations and questions of racialism" (Panelist at Law Society of Upper Canada, Special Lectures: The Charter at 150, 28 November 2017)

"Race and identity at Canada 150” (Panelist at 30th anniversary of the Chinese and South Asian Legal Clinic, 10 October 2017)

"Ontario's proposed street check regulation" (Panelist at Canadian Institute, 7th annual conference on the Law of Policing, 15 June 2016)

"Holding government to account" (Panelist at conference of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, 3 June 2016)

"Human rights law and practice in Ontario" (Panelist at tiered passport learning services, Legal Services Division, Ministry of the Attorney General (Ontario), 19 February 2016)

"Human rights fact-finding" (Presentation at annual conference of the Association of Canadian Clinical Legal Education, annual conference, 2015)

"Investment arbitration and human rights" (Workshop presentation at Columbia University Center on Sustainable Investment, 2014)

"Domestic application of international law" (Presentation at annual conference of the International Association of Law Librarians, 2012)

"Child abuse - concurrent criminal and protection proceedings" (Panelist at Law Society of Upper Canada, Child Protection File Best Practices, 2007)

Community and Civic Activities:

List all organizations of which you are a member and any offices held with dates.

MEMBER, CANADA COMMITTEE, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, TORONTO (2010-2020)

MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, JOURNALISTS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, TORONTO (2010-2013)

MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY OF TORONTO (2008-2010)

MEMBER AND CHAIR, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NELLIE’S WOMEN'S SHELTER, TORONTO (2003-2005)

VOLUNTEER TUTOR, PATHWAYS TO EDUCATION, REGENT PARK-TORONTO (2002-2003)

MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, METROPOLITAN ACTION COMMITTEE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN, TORONTO (2001-2002)

VOLUNTEER, SEXUAL HEALTH RESOURCE CENTRE, QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY, KINGSTON (1996-1998)

VOLUNTEER, CANADIAN RED CROSS, CALGARY (1998)

Part 11 – The Role Of The Judiciary In Canada’s Legal System

The Government of Canada seeks to appoint judges with a deep understanding of the judicial role in Canada. In order to provide a more complete basis for evaluation, candidates are asked to offer their insight into broader issues concerning the judiciary and Canada’s legal system. For each of the following questions, please provide answers of between 750 and 1000 words.

1. What would you regard as your most significant contribution to the law and the pursuit of justice in Canada?

For the past 15 years, I have played a central role in protecting the human rights of people who are incarcerated and improving correctional services. I have pursued policy and legislative changes to protect human rights, conducted research that sheds light on systemic issues, and represented prisoners before courts and tribunals. I have brought public attention to the discrimination faced by female and Indigenous prisoners, prisoners with mental health disabilities, and immigration detainees. Throughout, I have demonstrated leadership, creativity, diligence, bravery and an unrelenting focus on impact. Along the way, I have built and sustained relationships with diverse stakeholders including prisoners, unions and staff, management, government leaders, lawyers and advocacy groups.

As Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), I have quickly become a leading voice on efforts to reform solitary confinement. I have demonstrated a willingness to roll up my sleeves and meet directly with prisoners to understand their situation and amplify their concerns. I assisted with submissions to inform government reform efforts, visited provincial jails and correctional centres, obtained statistical data to prove systemic over-reliance on solitary confinement, and revealed the shocking treatment of Adam Capay who was held in solitary confinement on remand for over 4 years in the Thunder Bay jail. As a result, the Ombudsman for Ontario launched an investigation into prison record-keeping and the government appointed an Independent Reviewer for Ontario Corrections.

My efforts significantly accelerated government efforts to address the negative impacts of solitary confinement. It also resulted in the OHRC obtaining a robust Order on consent from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that requires Ontario not to place mentally disabled prisoners in segregation absent undue hardship (OHRC v. MCSCS, described above).

As Chief Commissioner, I have successfully advocated for culturally appropriate support for Indigenous prisoners, including drawing attention to conditions at northern correctional facilities (Kenora Jail, Monteith Correctional Complex).

Prior to my appointment as Chief Commissioner, while at the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law (IHRP), I conducted ground -breaking research on discrimination faced by federally-sentenced women with mental health disabilities in terms of risk assessment, access to healthcare, and use of solitary confinement. This led to a series of opinion editorials that warned that Ashley Smith's treatment was not isolated, but routine. It also formed the basis of submissions to the UN Committee against Torture on their review of Canada.

In 2015, I led student research that resulted in publication of We Have No Rights. The report drew on interviews with detainees to expose how federal and provincial law and policies result in indefinite detention of non-citizens in provincial jails. I appeared before the United Nations Human Rights Committee and in its concluding observations on Canada, the UN urged the government to end the practice of indefinitely detaining migrants. Since that time, the federal government has made a number of commitments to minimize the use of provincial jails to house immigration detainees.

From 2003-2008, I practiced criminal law and represented accused persons on remand in provincial custody, and federally-sentenced prisoners in parole hearings and "faint-hope clause" applications. I was also co-counsel on a habeas corpus and Charter application to challenge the closure of Canada's then-only minimum-security penitentiary for federally-sentenced women (Isabel McNeill House in Kingston, Ontario). I continued my commitment to prisoner's justice after leaving private practice, sitting on the Board of Directors of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Toronto from 2008-2010.

2. How has your experience provided you with insight into the variety and diversity of Canadians and their unique perspectives?

I always assume that I have a lot to learn when it comes to the lived experiences of other people. My empathetic approach combines genuine curiosity, a foundational belief in human dignity, and respect for people who share their stories with me. Applying these principles, coupled with my own lived experience, allows me to build trusting relationships and uniquely positions me to understand the variety and diversity of Canadians and their unique perspectives.

For more than 20 years, I have worked with criminally-accused persons and prisoners, survivors of sexual violence, and people with mental health disabilities and addictions. I have developed deep and trusting relationships with diverse Indigenous peoples, the Black community, and religious minorities, amongst others. As Chief Commissioner, I conceived of and launched the Ontario Human Rights Commission's (OHRC) inaugural Community Advisory Group which includes fifty leaders from across the province who provide ongoing feedback.

While in private practice at Scott & Oleskiw, I represented accused people and federally-sentenced prisoners. Many of the people I helped were in crisis and scared about their future. This included people with mental health disabilities and addictions, Indigenous and racialized people, people without immigration status and young people. Many seemingly routine matters had a deep impact on me.

I have built trusting relationships with Indigenous leaders across Ontario. This has required humility, a willingness to admit and learn from mistakes, and commitment to spending extended time in diverse communities. I was in attendance for presentation of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report and made an immediate commitment on behalf of the OHRC to take concrete action on the Calls to Action. We launched an inquiry into the over-representation of Indigenous children in child welfare and released our report in 2018.

I have visited First Nations from Mississaugas of the New Credit to Six Nations to Lac Seul to Moose Factory. I have attended circles to hear directly from Indigenous people in Thunder Bay, Kenora, Sioux Lookout and Timmins. I have worked with municipalities and civic leaders to address these issues through reconciliation-focused leadership tables and human rights organizational change initiatives. This work remains a focus for the OHRC.

I have been involved in the violence against women movement since law school when I worked part-time to educate low-income women about their legal rights. At Scott & Oleskiw, I represented numerous complainants in defence applications for production of counseling and therapy records.

I have engaged with faith communities across Ontario and launched the OHRC’s Policy on Creed-based Discrimination in 2015. In 2017, I appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage during their deliberations on racism and Islamophobia.

I have deep knowledge about the current issues facing groups protected under Ontario's Human Rights Code, including people with disabilities, people with care-giving responsibilities, immigrants and refugees, older persons, LGBT persons, amongst others.

3. Describe the appropriate role of a judge in a constitutional democracy.

A strong and stable democracy requires an impartial and competent judiciary that is representative of the community. The judiciary plays a central role in a constitutional democracy, especially for vulnerable and marginalized people. According to then-Chief Justice Lamer in Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission [1996] 3 SCR 854, Canada's parliamentary democracy is "based on the belief that those who exercise public power should be held accountable to the electorate."

In a constitutional democracy, the judiciary provides an important check and balance on the otherwise unfettered power of the legislature. In Canada, judges have the task of ensuring that elected officials do not act outside their jurisdiction under ss. 91 and 92 of the British North America Act, or violate individual or Aboriginal and treaty rights protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The judiciary can also determine electoral process issues, and the Supreme Court of Canada can provide guidance on interpretation of the Constitution through its "reference" jurisdiction. In Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick [2008] 1 SCR 190, the Court cautioned that, when reviewing the decisions of administrative boards and tribunals, judges must uphold the rule of law without unduly interfering with the discharge of administrative functions delegated by elected officials.

Judges do not have unfettered discretion or authority. They must be unbiased, diligent and competent. Judges must act consistently with established legal procedures, common law precedents, and their statutory or inherent jurisdiction. They must exercise their discretion in a manner that is predictable and consistent. They must not exceed their jurisdiction by treading into issues of social policy or expenditures. Judges are not elected officials and must be careful not to supplant the will of the people with their own ideas or opinions.

Historically disadvantaged groups and vulnerable people depend on the judiciary. Lamer CJC describes judicial review as "inherently controversial, because it confers on unelected officials the power to question decisions which are arrived at through the democratic process." In my view, the role of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy is essential. Judicial review is integral to the social contract in a diverse society. It ensures that the government does not descend into simple majority rule. Judges interpret constitutional limits on the majority's power to imprison, deport, apprehend children and seize property. Placing appropriate limits on such decision is essential to dignity, freedom and democracy. Canada's groundbreaking jurisprudence on the rights of sexual minorities, women, accused persons and Indigenous peoples, for example, has been essential to these groups' meaningful participation in public life. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights recognizes "the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" as "the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." The judiciary is essential to realizing this aspiration.

In my view, public confidence in the judiciary is essential to public confidence in the other branches of government. If people trust the judiciary, they trust that elected officials will not be allowed to exceed their jurisdiction or engage in wrongdoing.

Public confidence is amplified when the judiciary is representative of the community.

4. Who is the audience for the decisions rendered by the court(s) to which you are applying?

 There are multiple audiences for judicial decisions rendered by the Superior Court of Justice, including: the parties; complainants, witnesses, and third parties; the judiciary; the legal profession; and the public.

Reasons are essential to procedural fairness. In Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1999] 2 SCR 817, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that procedural fairness requires the opportunity to present one's case and to have decisions made using a fair, impartial, and open process. Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence highlights the underlying purpose of reasons as being to: (1) inform the parties of the disposition and related findings of fact and law, (2) permit meaningful appeal or judicial review, (3) inform the public and facilitate compliance with the law; and (4) enhance confidence in the administration of justice.

Decision must clearly decide the legal issue(s) that brought the parties before the court. Procedural fairness requires, at a minimum, that the decision set out the evidence and relevant findings of fact (whether by judge or jury), any matters upon which the judge took judicial notice, the applicable law, and the disposition. It can also be helpful to summarize the history of the proceedings, the parties’ positions and main arguments, and rulings on motions. Where the case raises novel, unsettled, ground-breaking issues, the reasons should canvas conflicting evidence and law. The reasons must clearly indicate the issues the Court has decided not to address or comments made in obiter. The decision should allow the parties to determine whether or not to seek judicial review or appeal. In cases that involve marginalized or vulnerable people, regardless of the ultimate result, reasons can demonstrate compassion and understanding that provides closure and the sense that justice was done.

Courts must be alive to the interests of affected stakeholders such as complainants and witnesses. The reasons should articulate the basis for findings of credibility or reliability. In relation to complainants in sexual violence cases, for example, findings of credibility should not rely on impermissible stereotypes. On motions for third party records, reasons should demonstrate how the judge give due regard to the privacy and equality rights of the complainant and explain how these interests were balanced against the rights of the accused. In relation to experts, it is important to give clear reasons on findings of credibility, which can impact the expert's professional reputation. Where relevant, reasons should consider submissions from interveners or other third parties.

Reasons must provide guidance to the judiciary and the legal profession. The decision must guide judges who may be asked to consider similar issues in the future. The doctrine of stare decisis requires courts to look at past cases and legal precedents to guide their decision-making. The decision must allow a reviewing or appellate court to understand the findings of fact and law so that the appropriate standard of review can be applied. In some cases, the failure to provide sufficient reasons will itself be grounds for granting judicial review or appeal.

Finally, reasons must guide the legal profession, who have an ethical obligation to provide competent and thorough legal advice based on the case law, including advice on whether or not to seek judicial review.

Reasons must provide guidance to the public, including the media. This requires reasons that are written in plain language, efficient, and available in accessible formats. Judgments should be fulsome enough that the reader does not need to consult pleadings, case law or secondary sources to understand them. On the other hand, the reasons cannot be overwhelming or require specialized knowledge. A common sense approach, grounded in the relevant facts and law is what is most often required. Finally, wherever appropriate, reasons should accurately reflect the social context in which the dispute arises and be sensitive to the concerns of historically marginalized and vulnerable people. This requires a measured yet empathetic approach that is grounded in evidence.

5. Please describe the personal qualities, professional skills and abilities, and life experience that you believe will equip you for the role of a judge.

In the face of intense external and internal pressures, I have consistently demonstrated the highest standards of ethics and professionalism.

I have shown discretion and tact in my dealings with professional peers (Officers of the Legislature, agency leadership, etc.), the community (academic, advocacy), and people and organizations with opposing positions.

I am naturally inquisitive, open-minded, empathetic and thoughtful. I understand that my own privilege means that my experience of the world is fundamentally different from that of the many people who come into contact with the justice system every day. I seek out knowledge and understanding rather than relying on convention, assumption or stereotype.

I am an extremely hard worker and I apply my best effort to everything I do. I manage my work and meet deadlines with no prompting or supervision.

I have unique institutional insights having worked in public institutions for over ten years. I am a team player that understands and meets institutional priorities. I am familiar with the isolation that comes with a senior leadership role in a complex bureaucracy. Finally, I have a great sense of humour and form deep and trusting bonds with the people I work for and with.

I am a skilled and persuasive writer. From an early age, I entered (and occasionally won) creative writing contests. In university, I studied English literature and my love for writing found an unlikely outlet in academic papers. As a lawyer, I love crafting the perfect, pithy sentence and often go back over drafts multiple times to get the language just right. In my current role, I have carved out spaces where I can communicate directly and authentically, for example, through opinion editorials.

I am a thoughtful yet decisive decision-maker and I have excellent judgment. My current role requires me to make multiple, significant decisions everyday whether to intervene in a particular case, publicly comment on a particular issue, or provide policy guidance on a contentious issue. I make the decision and I stand behind it. I can make decisions quickly and on my feet when necessary.

I am an analytical thinker. I have a knack for homing in on the tensions between opposing groups, asking questions about what isn’t there, and finding the weaknesses in legal arguments.

I am creative, especially when it comes to crafting appropriate remedies tor violation of human rights. I am prepared to advance novel legal arguments if they advance the public interest and am not shy about charting new ground where necessary and appropriate.

I adopt a pragmatic, common sense, no nonsense approach in my dealings with opposing parties, which provides a foundation for respect and trust.

I have deep cross-cultural understanding cultivated through lived experience within immigrant communities, professional experience, and travel.

I know how to take care of myself. I have taken courses on vicarious trauma and burnout and apply these to my life.

6. Given the goal of ensuring that Canadians are able to look at the justices appointed to the bench and see their faces and life experience reflected there, you may, if you choose, provide information about yourself that you feel would assist in this objective.

I am a racialized, South Asian woman. I have lived experience with newcomer, racialized and religious minority communities. I am alive to the challenges facing Canadian families, for example, in terms of mental health and disability.

My parents are Hindu immigrants from India. My father arrived in Canada in 1969 to pursue a graduate degree at the University of Calgary. My mother married my father and immigrated to Canada in 1971. My father is a professional engineer and my mother has a graduate degree in biology.

My parents were amongst the first Indian immigrants to Calgary. Both were the first people in their family to leave India and remain the only people in their extended family who live in Canada. My parents have been actively involved in the community since the 1970s, including founding the Hindu Society of Calgary and fundraising for the city's only Hindu temple. Our family's social support network is deeply rooted in Canada's South Asian diaspora.

Though I was born in Calgary, I experienced life as a religious and racialized minority. My family looked different, dressed differently, ate different food, spoke a different language, and practiced different customs and religious beliefs. As a young person, I was proud of my cultural traditions but confused by them as well.

My parents set high academic standards and it was a constant refrain that I would have to "be better" than people with a deep social network to access the same opportunities. Through the support and kindness of our parents, community and some amazing public school teachers, I graduated high school feeling that I could do anything. Remarkably, both my brother and I were able to achieve our dreams. I often look back in awe at how many kind neighbours and friends welcomed our family into their lives, even though we were probably the first South Asian people they had ever met.

And yet I have first-hand experience of racism. In primary school, I was called “Paki" or told to "go back where you came from!" Adults were more subtle, with comments like "Well, in this country, we don't...." These early incidents left a strong impression on me and a deep desire to fit into mainstream society.

Today, the discrimination I experience is more subtle. In addition to regular Islamophobic social media trolling, micro-aggressions reinforce my status as an outsider or interloper, as someone who should be "thankful" for the opportunities I have been granted.

These experiences stand in stark contrast to the wonderful people that mentored me throughout my career. I pay it forward by mentoring young lawyers and taking every opportunity I can to engage with youth. I want to be the role model that I never had growing up.

I am alive to the challenges facing modern families. As a mother, I play a hands-on role in my children's lives, while balancing a busy professional life. I know that my parents and my in-laws will need my help as they get older. In short, I have lived experience with which many diverse Canadians can identify.