GENERATED AUTOMATICALLY - UNVERIFIED TRANSCRIPTION OF IAN BINNIE AND AVI CHARNEY

Transcript 

Speaker 1 

So welcome and like I said. 

Speaker 1 

Thank you very. 

Speaker 1 

Much for being, it's an honor to speak with you and have. 

Speaker 1 

You as my guest. 

Speaker 1 

You know you you've been a Supreme Court judge and I was thinking what kind of introduction? 

Speaker 1 

Beyond that? 

Speaker 1 

What kind of accolades accolades can I give you besides Supreme Court judge and you know, I think in my mind at least everything else pales to being a Supreme Court judge. 

Speaker 1 

So I guess I would ask you in Rome and outside of being a Supreme Court judge what what stands out as as accolades in your mind. 

Speaker 1 

Sorry to may be an interesting way to start an interview to ask you yourself that let's. 

Speaker 1 

Let's start there. 

Speaker 1 

Some big highlights in in your career. 

Speaker 3 

Well, I suppose. 

Speaker 3 

Confessionale with kayaking is going on Steam court thing. 

Speaker 3 

And highlights. 

Speaker 3 

Either in government or their social capital minister for Canada. 

Speaker 3 

A period or the private practice where they have some significant cases appeals that I argued. 

Speaker 3 

Many of them appointed the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Speaker 3 

So I suppose the professionally it is all about related to the law or to public functions such as the bureaucracy or doing this international organizations. 

Speaker 3 

I was the chair of the Justice Committee in the room for about five years, so that's all of these signals are part of the composite. 

Speaker 3 

I suppose I am somewhat moved by. 

Speaker 1 

Really incredible career you've had and I'll start with even your early years private practice. 

Speaker 1 

You know, I was. 

Speaker 1 

I was thinking lawyers are. 

Speaker 1 

A group of. 

Speaker 1 

Overachievers and you know I'm I'm in general practice and. 

Speaker 1 

And in a way I consider myself a bit of an overachiever, but looking up to you, you know you've achieved so much more that most lawyers could only dream of appearing before the Supreme Court, even once, and you appeared even as a lawyer. 

Speaker 1 

I believe over 50 times. 

Speaker 1 

So how how does one you know Excel? 

Speaker 1 

In private practice and well, how did. 

Speaker 1 

You excel in private practice. 

Speaker 1 

How did that journey come about? 

Speaker 3 

Well, I think it's very important to have mentors. 

Speaker 3 

I think the law is not something that's the big issue, is not something you can pick up through. 

Speaker 3 

Books and reading. 

Speaker 3 

I think young lawyers and law students should spend time in the courts dispatching trials, watching appeals much. 

Speaker 3 

If employers work. 

Speaker 3 

And I think when we become lawyers, so I'm speaking really admission. 

Speaker 3 

It's very important to get experience on your feet quickly. 

Speaker 3 

I think there's a huge scope for pro bono work. 

Speaker 3 

I think if you're with a law firm that doesn't probably work during the war. 

Speaker 3 

Because it's a good investment regardless of industry leaders and their skills. 

Speaker 3 

They're honed in real life situations. 

Speaker 3 

I think you have to get yourself known either by taking on cases that have a certain profile or by doing academic writing. 

Speaker 3 

Will appearing on panels or attending conferences and networking. 

Speaker 3 

I don't think the. 

Speaker 3 

Professional success comes to those who sit around waiting for it. 

Speaker 3 

Don't you have to go out and get it? 

Speaker 3 

But having said that, a lot of people go out and get it or succeed, and I think there's a lot of luck associated with it, I think. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, that's one way we might pick up the case or two, which I was, uh. 

Speaker 3 

Public apartments, which has some public profile. 

Speaker 3 

And then, well, one piece leads to another word of mouth is really what gets your practice going and I think. 

Speaker 3 

Sometimes sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. 

Speaker 3 

I have colleagues from law school and the profession. 

Speaker 3 

I thought they were tremendously able. 

Speaker 3 

One reason why the career didn't pan out particularly. 

Speaker 3 

There are others who I wouldn't have thought. 

Speaker 3 

Much of the success who proved great success. 

Speaker 3 

So I don't know into. 

Speaker 3 

Which category I followed but I. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, I, I think you do what you can, but at the end of the day, you know it's probably beyond. 

Speaker 3 

Your control is to know how you progress in the profession. 

Speaker 1 

So I've heard you speak in the past about your Bert McKinnon as a mentor to you and how you know you discussed the first thing you said was the the importance of mentorship. 

Speaker 1 

So can you comment on you know him as a mentor? 

Speaker 1 

The importance of mentorship and how do you think? 

Speaker 1 

Younger lawyers today, or if you if you have a comment of it dealing with mentorship, perhaps in the age of zoom. 

Speaker 3 

Well, I think it's very difficult to read. 

Speaker 3 

You zoom the basic membership essentially depends on informal casual contacts and being out working with somebody else. 

Speaker 3 

See, I've seen how they confront those situations. 

Speaker 3 

When I began at the bar, so my article, the 1965. 

Speaker 3 

The whole. 

Speaker 3 

By admission course thing and articles was. 

Speaker 3 

A given but. 

Speaker 3 

More or less, everybody had some kind of mentorship. 

Speaker 3 

Lawyers regarded it as a professional obligation to take on article students, and I didn't expect to make money on them. 

Speaker 3 

I think all that has changed the other person is much more business. 

Speaker 3 

I think lawyers say well if I'm not going to make money out of these people, why should I bother? 

Speaker 3 

They simply take away time from. 

Speaker 3 

Work would be profitable. 

Speaker 3 

And my relation with Bert MacKinnon was a very important personally and professionally I. 

Speaker 3 

I went and looked up to him as a mother. 

Speaker 3 

Very excellent labor. 

Speaker 3 

There's a man with great integrity. 

Speaker 3 

A man who saw the profession as a as a calling. 

Speaker 3 

I think he really. 

Speaker 3 

So the the important, the social apartments, a good functioning legal system. 

Speaker 3 

I I saw that he took off. 

Speaker 3 

He took on cases from all over the system either. 

Speaker 3 

Cases were very important to the clients, but may have appeared trivial to the legal profession in other cases and highly important. 

Speaker 3 

The first case I appeared with him on that was a student in the Supreme Court was Aboriginal case called Virginia and George, which of course he took pro bono. 

Speaker 3 

So he he had a very wide ranging practice, a very wide ranging interest. 

Speaker 3 

He had talked constitutional law and that was good for awhile as a part time lecturer. 

Speaker 3 

He's been in the Fleet Air Arm during world and so. 

Speaker 3 

Public service was something that he passed on to us. 

Speaker 3 

And just in the way he conducted himself in court was an inspiration. 

Speaker 3 

So I've tried to work through my practice with. 

Speaker 3 

In my. 

Speaker 3 

Article students, Young lawyers. 

Speaker 3 

Working with them, they can take what they won't leave what they want. 

Speaker 3 

They don't have to. 

Speaker 3 

The the senior lawyer in every respect, but at least they get exposed to the full range of how you think and why you do things the way we do. 

Speaker 3 

And I think it's a great pity that the articling program has been cut back. 

Speaker 3 

But the Law Society doesn't treat taking on articling students as a professional obligation. 

Speaker 3 

And I think the profession is going to suffer. 

Speaker 3 

And particularly, we're going to talk about zoom. 

Speaker 3 

You know, if if all a young lawyer gets is what appears on the computer display screen. 

Speaker 3 

And then they're simply not going to get that kind of training that is required. 

Speaker 1 

Yeah, hard to replace that in person connection. 

Speaker 1 

I, I agree. 

Speaker 1 

But so much so much has been done on on zoom, it's incredible. 

Speaker 1 

It's a new new way to communicate, and that's what we're doing now. 

Speaker 1 

And I mean, you talk about the mentorship and giving back. 

Speaker 1 

I feel that's exactly what you're doing now, so again, I appreciate your giving your time because a lot of these listeners, my listeners are young lawyers and law students so appreciate appreciate your time on this on this discussion. 

Speaker 1 

First of all, but going back to you know the giving back to the community or you worked in public service and I don't know if you'd consider representing governments also somewhat of a a pro bono or sort of for the good cause. 

Speaker 1 

Talking to Someone Like You gives me an opportunity to discuss international law and public international law, so I don't know if you want to comment on those international cases that you've been involved in and we we can start there. 

Speaker 3 

Yes, I think the opportunity to do international work is. 

Speaker 3 

Important and highly interesting, but again, it's something you have to go after. 

Speaker 3 

It doesn't just how long your basket last year with a a large firm that has international clients, in which case you would get it. 

Speaker 3 

Might get a piece of it. 

Speaker 3 

But I got involved early on an organization called the International Commission of Jurists, which has a Canadian. 

Speaker 3 

Section based in not at all. 

Speaker 3 

The main organization is based in Geneva. 

Speaker 3 

They have conferences. 

Speaker 3 

They have meetings that have a great interest in different issues that arise. 

Speaker 3 

I think I joined it when I was in my late 20s, so I'm I'm still a member. 

Speaker 3 

There there are international sections and we used to be with the Canadian of our association. 

Speaker 3 

There's an organization called the Philip Church. 

Speaker 3 

Institute for the Jewish was a Canadian diplomat to us. 

Speaker 3 

So they were very involved in setting up the International Criminal Court. 

Speaker 3 

So there are like Canada has a very distinguished career in international human rights. 

Speaker 3 

John Humphrey. 

Speaker 3 

It's like a Canadian diplomat that the United Nations is largely credited with drafting the UN Declaration of Human Rights. 

Speaker 3 

I think outside the roadside World, Canada is regarded as a neutral. 

Speaker 3 

It's got no military or territorial ambitions. 

Speaker 3 

Seems to. 

Speaker 3 

And have a. 

Speaker 3 

High measure of integrity and produces very good lawyers. 

Speaker 3 

So I've had quite a lot of exposure to international litigation. 

Speaker 3 

I was part of the Canadian legal team and the Gulf of Maine dispute in the mid 80s. 

Speaker 3 

And again in the case against transgender soupir leaking one other boundary dispute 1991. 

Speaker 3 

But since I've left the bench lot of my times with international investment disputes as arbitrating after the World Bank. 

Speaker 3 

And you know there are a lot of Canadian lawyers involved in that work because they've taken the trouble to get involved in that work. 

Speaker 3 

They've gone to conferences, and some of them have written articles, gotten to know the players in the field. 

Speaker 3 

And my experience, particularly over the last 10 years, doing those arbitrations. 

Speaker 3 

Yes, the Canadian lawyers are as good as any in the world and better than. 

Speaker 3 

Most, I think most of these high profile. 

Speaker 3 

In international arbitrations, which you generally run by British American law firms, if you French friends or other firms, but the principle US in America and the British. 

Speaker 3 

But they they they tend to be very inefficient production moving millions on file, they tend to be long winded. 

Speaker 3 

They tend to. 

Speaker 3 

Lack focus. 

Speaker 3 

I think many trials in the group will be conducted much more efficiently and better by. 

Speaker 3 

Comparison by Canadian lawyers by comparison with these others. 

Speaker 3 

And I think you know if we have a problem, it's because we don't go after the work. 

Speaker 3 

And certainly some years ago I went to the French bar. 

Speaker 3 

Now, last year Latin in France, gathering 4000 or so French lawyers seemed like the annual CBA. 

Speaker 3 

There were handful of his daily from Quebec, but did we before fire from Quebec? 

Speaker 3 

Now there's a huge. 

Speaker 3 

You know commercial interchange with France and Quebec. 

Speaker 3 

Why weren't more Canadian lawyers there? 

Speaker 3 

Why don't they go to meetings in London? 

Speaker 3 

There are constant meetings and international bodies. 

Speaker 3 

The London Court of International Arbitration is just an arbitral institute. 

Speaker 3 

There's a thing called Global Arbitration Review that puts out constant programs on international expression. 

Speaker 3 

There's organization called Jewish in the United States that puts together all kinds of meetings, conferences, and so on. 

Speaker 3 

So the opportunities are there, but they have to be. 

Speaker 3 

They're not going to come. 

Speaker 3 

Sit on your desk at their own accord. 

Speaker 1 

The way the. 

Speaker 1 

Way you describe all these commercial international arbitration centers. 

Speaker 1 

It's it's so refreshing because it sounds like they actually work, and that's that's a nice thing. 

Speaker 1 

Whereas the international, I guess. 

Speaker 1 

Court, the ICC and the ICJ. 

Speaker 1 

And I know you had some experience at the International Court of Justice. 

Speaker 1 

As far as I see there, there you know and and what do I know at the end of the day? 

Speaker 1 

But from my point of view, they're a disappointment. And I mean 11 headline kind of summed it up by saying that. Don't worry, Afghanistan Afghanistan is going to be safe. They remember to the Rome. 

Speaker 1 

Statute there the. 

Speaker 1 

In there. 

Speaker 1 

So I mean it's a bit tongue in cheek saying that, but the the commercial centers, like you say, work, but what's your take on the international? 

Speaker 1 

Which states are involved? 

Speaker 1 

Public international law? 

Speaker 1 

It just doesn't work as well. 

Speaker 1 

Or do you have a an opinion about that? 

Speaker 1 

And I I know you're coming from a neutral Canadian point of view so. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, well I I think that it's. 

Speaker 3 

So you know, effective in the area that it can be effective, and it's not effective in areas there. 

Speaker 3 

It has no business. 

Speaker 3 

It's not the international court is not the Security Council and they deal with disputes and referred to them where the parties agree so they they can't involve themselves in cases unless the parties agree that they should determine the shoot. 

Speaker 3 

In many areas, for example, and when I was in The Hague. 

Speaker 3 

Before the International Court of Justice in the North main dispute. 

Speaker 3 

We were, our case, was interrupted by a case brought by Nicaragua against the United States. 

Speaker 3 

And my reason with what Nicaragua said was American interference in in Nicaragua and mining the harbor and so. 

Speaker 3 

And it it was dealt with by the court. 

Speaker 3 

In terms of the legal aspects, the court couldn't deal with the political aspects. 

Speaker 3 

All these boundary disputes that the court is constantly dealing with. 

Speaker 3 

There is a. 

Speaker 3 

There's no way they could become other than either needed national court or arbitration, which is equally common or militarily. 

Speaker 3 

Governments who have a dispute would rather go to the court, because if they're going to give up a claim, they'd rather have it taken away from them by the court than to abandon a claim to something the public thinks it belongs to. 

Speaker 3 

That that country. 

Speaker 3 

The courts deal with a huge range of diplomatic issues, but the Criminal Court is an entirely different. 

Speaker 3 

Playing there. 

Speaker 3 

When you try to put somebody in jail then we've got countries like the United States machining to agree to the jurisdiction. 

Speaker 3 

It becomes very, very difficult, but on the other hand, the the International Tribunal for the. 

Speaker 3 

Atrocities arising out of Yugoslavia. 

Speaker 3 

Those affected was very effective and very successful. 

Speaker 3 

And I was in The Hague at some of those hearings. 

Speaker 3 

And although slow and lots of complaints can be made as indeed were made about the Nuremberg hearing. 

Speaker 3 

But international institutions do what they can and they they they can't do more than the the governments of the world are prepared to let them. 

Speaker 3 

So what they do is they proceed incrementally. 

Speaker 3 

Attempting to establish a foothold and expanding their foothold. 

Speaker 3 

And pushing their jurisdiction. 

Speaker 3 

I I I don't agree with you, I think. 

Speaker 3 

Properly understood, they they're they. 

Speaker 3 

They're as effective as they possibly can be. 

Speaker 1 

I like that positive way of looking at it. 

Speaker 1 

Thank thank you for that perspective. 

Speaker 1 

It's it's funny with in. 

Speaker 1 

In the past recent months the New York Gov. 

Speaker 1 

Uh, quit. 

Speaker 1 

He resigned for some allegations and in his defence it was very interesting, he said in his his mind. 

Speaker 1 

He never crossed the line, but that their line the line has moved and he wasn't aware of that. 

Speaker 1 

So you know, clearly he crossed the line, at least according to this report. 

Speaker 1 

But has there been a point in your career, maybe as a Supreme Court judge where you where the line? 

Speaker 1 

Surprised you. 

Speaker 1 

The societal line of something surprised you. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, yes, I think. 

Speaker 3 

Second moved. 

Speaker 3 

The long way in 55 years over. 

Speaker 3 

At the bar. 

Speaker 1 

Right? 

Speaker 3 

Things that were taken for granted in the 1960s are no longer accepted. The whole diversity. 

Speaker 3 

Concerning which is high employments, particularly with younger lawyers. 

Speaker 3 

It was not seen as significant through the 60s seventies. 

Speaker 3 

Began to be important in the movies. 

Speaker 3 

When the Charter came in and people became more conscious of rights. 

Speaker 3 

People were more apt to consider themselves victims of discrimination. 

Speaker 3 

There was an increasing awareness that. 

Speaker 3 

The Aboriginal peoples have been very badly treated. 

Speaker 3 

So that by the end of the 1980s, the contrast between how I was received in the corporate ladder acting for an Aboriginal group. 

Speaker 3 

I was 180 degrees from what I experienced in the 1960s on that Regina George case, so all the little moves and. 

Speaker 3 

Uh, I think that you're aware that the the line is changing, but you're not necessarily aware of the intensity with which. 

Speaker 3 

So the later generations come to see things which. 

Speaker 3 

You took for granted, for example, the whole thing was Sir John Leonardo. 

Speaker 3 

I haven't, I understand. 

Speaker 3 

Obviously we were concerned about the residential schools. 

Speaker 3 

But it seems to be a lack of perspective to go after surgery McDonald. 

Speaker 3 

Egerton, Ryerson, and so on. 

Speaker 3 

By taking one aspect of their career. 

Speaker 3 

And and blowing it into their whole career and canceling on that on that account. 

Speaker 1 

Yeah, I agree, certain things could just unfortunately run. 

Speaker 1 

Run a career and unnecessarily. 

Speaker 1 

11 big issue these days COVID-19. I'm wondering how it's affected your life as a you know how's your working life? 

Speaker 1 

Your professional life, your personal life hasn't been different. 

Speaker 1 

Then I mean the follow up to that. 

Speaker 1 

And this is a big honor of me to ask your Honor. 

Speaker 1 

The judge something like this, a constitutional question these days. 

Speaker 1 

There's the the vaccine debate and the question becomes how much can personal rights be infringed upon? 

Speaker 1 

So just as an extreme example, I was talking to a colleague in Malaysia back in July and he said the government shut everything down until until December 30. 

Speaker 1 

First, the end of the year. 

Speaker 1 

That seems like an extreme measure. 

Speaker 1 

There's different measures like employers forcing a lap being allowed to force their employees to get a vaccine. 

Speaker 1 

Getting vaccines being, you know, a requirement to do certain things into certain places. 

Speaker 1 

There's a movement I I, you know, whatever you may feel about them is one way or the other. 

Speaker 1 

But from a personal rights point of view, is you know where? 

Speaker 1 

Where is that line drawn? 

Speaker 1 

As there's a whole movement saying don't force me to do things, and it's an infringement on my rights so I could foresee a case like this may be coming before the Supreme Court, so maybe you can talk us through the deliberation process and maybe which way a court would go on something like this. 

Speaker 3 

Well, under the COVID-19 who crossed the huge difference. 

Speaker 3 

Oh yeah, everything having to be done more remotely. 

Speaker 3 

Yes, and the work is altered. 

Speaker 3 

Eventually, and will continue to affect people. 

Speaker 3 

I I agree that the bunch of the trial offerings 

Speaker 3 

My friend Leslie Slack is going to require vaccination. 

Speaker 3 

I I don't have any problem with that, I don't think it's a civil rights issue. 

Speaker 3 

I think it's equivalent to the aviation instruction. 

Speaker 3 

You know. 

Speaker 3 

You don't need to undergo surveillance, but if you choose not to build their car. 

Speaker 3 

If you're not prepared to get vaccinated. 

Speaker 3 

Don't come into the office. 

Speaker 3 

I I think it's it's not much different than the seatbelts people say. 

Speaker 3 

Well, I I should have the freedom not to wear a seat belt. 

Speaker 3 

That's my business, but it's not your business because. 

Speaker 3 

If you get into the crash and get badly injured. 

Speaker 3 

The state picks up the cost of caring for you because you're too stupid to take precautions on your own behalf. 

Speaker 3 

Now there have been proposals, so the wild proposal saying, well, alright, you don't need to get vaccinated, but don't expect to get medical treatment if you get COVID-19 and you haven't been vaccinated. 

Speaker 3 

You know or don't expect the government to pay for it. 

Speaker 3 

It'll come out of your own pocket. 

Speaker 3 

I think it's a very selfish act. 

Speaker 3 

Businesses refusal of vaccines because it increases the vulnerability of the society. 

Speaker 3 

To increase the exposure, increased mutations and so on, even though people vaccinated can be carriers of it and so on. 

Speaker 3 

So it's not. 

Speaker 3 

A simple thing but. 

Speaker 3 

Seems to be vaccines, vaccination certificates, wearing masks. 

Speaker 3 

And you know you have certain freedoms, but they're limited by what is demonstrably necessary and appropriate in a democratic society. 

Speaker 3 

I'd be very surprised if the courts held that these things are not demonstrably necessary, and in any event, private organisations, restaurants, nightclubs and so on. 

Speaker 3 

They are not bound by the charger, they can run their business as they see fit. 

Speaker 3 

Personally, I would feel better going to a restaurant where the people have been vaccinated and not dealing with the people I'm sitting next to. 

Speaker 3 

They had no vaccinations and have been exposed to COVID-19 in their workplace. 

Speaker 1 

Fair enough, I want to zoom in here on your Supreme Court years. 

Speaker 1 

We don't have that much time left, so if we can go there and start with. 

Speaker 1 

I read this. I don't know 500 page book or so and it was very interesting 'cause it gives the. 

Speaker 1 

And I insight into a bit of the relationships of the justices, so maybe you can. 

Speaker 1 

You were there for under 10 /, 10 years, 13 years and talk about the relationships, the importance of relationships, and maybe how you can be productive with relationships. 

Speaker 1 

Or despite them and. 

Speaker 1 

How it works a little bit. 

Speaker 1 

Maybe your experience. 

Speaker 3 

Well, I think it varies from judge to judge, so I think. 

Speaker 3 

The personal relations among the judges. 

Speaker 3 

Are very important. 

Speaker 3 

I think you can't have a situation where the court applying judges where some judgment versions are not talking to others as you had on the provincial appeal courts or trial courts and everybody. 

Speaker 3 

Simply has to get along as part of the job description. 

Speaker 3 

That said, some sometimes get. 

Speaker 3 

Along better than one another the others. 

Speaker 2 

Right? 

Speaker 3 

You know she had a very strong personality and some judges reacted against some judges acted very strongly in favor of it. 

Speaker 2 

Right? 

Speaker 3 

I I think. 

Speaker 3 

You never know, and other measures are taken to preserve relationships to prevent any judge from feeding on the outside. 

Speaker 3 

From preventing. 

Speaker 3 

The people that you know. 

Speaker 3 

Group of five judges has already heard what they want, decided the case before it's actually been argued in court. 

Speaker 3 

That's one of the reasons why almost everything is done in writing within the court. 

Speaker 3 

So if I have something to say about a particular case. 

Speaker 3 

So clearly today has circulated a draft judgment. 

Speaker 3 

Everybody gets to know my view at the same time. 

Speaker 3 

I I don't go up and down the corridors, you know, seeking support for against whatever my position is. 

Speaker 3 

When I got to the court, there was a understanding that you did not discuss cases before Oregon. 

Speaker 3 

And again, that was to prevent. 

Speaker 3 

Cabal's fully within the Group of judges too. 

Speaker 3 

Scared the outcome will prejudge the outcome of the force. 

Speaker 3 

Now that you know was a very carefully. 

Speaker 3 

We thought about measure. 

Speaker 3 

And to maintain good relations among the judges. 

Speaker 3 

So it's it's critical that the judges get along with each other. 

Speaker 3 

By Lord I think they like each other. 

Speaker 3 

And respect each other. 

Speaker 3 

But without that you know respect the code could be functional. 

Speaker 1 

Right, yeah, absolutely and. 

Speaker 1 

Your your yours. 

Speaker 1 

There too, I mean what? 

Speaker 1 

What major cases stand out is significant and meaningful for you. 

Speaker 3 

Well, some of the cases are or stand out because of the subject matter with the Quebec secession reference. 

Speaker 3 

Some of the National Security certificate cases. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah Charlie on health care. 

Speaker 3 

Bernstein, Raffi on the death penalty. 

Speaker 3 

The same sex marriage cases. 

Speaker 3 

You know, by definition, most of the stuff that gets to the Supreme Court is important. 

Speaker 3 

It has to be public importance or it's not acceptable to lead us in granted a. 

Speaker 3 

Lot of the criminal cases. 

Speaker 3 

There were great interest. 

Speaker 3 

Police powers 

Speaker 3 

The whole business of gun control, whether somebody picked up a. 

Speaker 3 

If their traffic offense, it turns out they have a gun and they get charged with possession of a gun. 

Speaker 3 

Well, drugs are sparse pied, so somebody driving, you know, through a red light suddenly is on a major drug trafficking charge. 

Speaker 3 

You saw last year that Indian chief in Alberta was truck apparently didn't have a renewal certificate and he kind of got physically beaten up by the Mounties. 

Speaker 3 

Now some minor issue. 

Speaker 3 

Well, you certainly have a sense in all of these issues that these are significant struggling to the parties, but to the broader society and that they. 

Speaker 3 

Derive a great sense of privilege in being part of delivering an opinion, delivering the judgments there on load issues. 

Speaker 3 

I also we're gonna thought the personal side of the Supreme Court is very rewarding. 

Speaker 3 

I like the people. 

Speaker 3 

There are lots of interesting functions we have. 

Speaker 3 

Exchanges with other courts in other countries. 

Speaker 3 

And that itself gave kind of global perspective. 

Speaker 3 

That was very interesting. 

Speaker 1 

That any one international court or judge stand out as they you know they swayed the court in one way or another. 

Speaker 3 

I don't think they they swayed the court to tell him, but I think that the. 

Speaker 3 

The the exchanges will all take two contrasts. 

Speaker 3 

One was visibly had to the. 

Speaker 3 

The top court and they said the Constitutional court in the in Russia. 

Speaker 3 

Which is the most somewhat questionable legal system? 

Speaker 3 

And it was pretty well acknowledged, you know, by the judges that there was interference by the government, right? 

Speaker 3 

At one of our sessions, the head of the Constitutional Court probably stated that before our meeting, he had a discussion that morning with President people. 

Speaker 3 

Well, you know that struck us differently than the way. 

Speaker 3 

He intended it. 

Speaker 3 

Right? 

Speaker 3 

On the other end, we had a very good series of meetings with the German Constitutional Court. 

Speaker 3 

They have a very developed human rights or system going. 

Speaker 3 

Interesting and apposite the jurisprudence. 

Speaker 3 

We have very interesting meetings with those rare Spring Court of Israel. 

Speaker 3 

Where we got exposed to this debate between whether you emphasize Israel is a democratic and Jewish state. 

Speaker 3 

Rising Jewish and Democratic state, to which prevails. 

Speaker 3 

So all of these I don't think provided particular instruction for how we learned about our work in Canada, but I certainly enlarged our vision as to how judges operate with different issues in different jurisdictions. 

Speaker 1 

That's really fascinating. 

Speaker 1 

Looking at it from the public point of view, is that even lawyers who read cases? 

Speaker 1 

Is there any insight you can give us into reading a case and? 

Speaker 1 

What I mean by that? 

Speaker 1 

That is, first of all, generally speaking, but specifically, there's an interesting law in in Jewish law that says if there's a unanimous judgment, you shouldn't believe it because it means the one. 

Speaker 1 

Who didn't get? 

Speaker 1 

Any votes didn't have good representation, so is there anything? 

Speaker 1 

Into read into into the amount of judges on either side, you know a unanimous judgment one way or the other. 

Speaker 1 

Anything we can glean from someone who's who sat on the highest court just into reading into judgments generally? 

Speaker 3 

Well, I I. 

Speaker 3 

I mean, I think there are different messages being sent by the court. 

Speaker 3 

For example, in the Quebec secession case. 

Speaker 3 

The clerk was very careful they issued the reasons by the court, not in the name of an individual judge. 

Speaker 3 

Gladly being with Rickert gives it more authority invested, very valuable to. 

Speaker 3 

Because if it's written by Joe Jackson, critics for sale, not everybody knows. 

Speaker 3 

Joe Jackson is a left wing, not the right wing nut. 

Speaker 3 

Or, you know, in thrall to the business world or whatever. 

Speaker 3 

So there's that. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, yeah, then it is important to get at least five judges. 

Speaker 3 

On a case, because there are the judgment. 

Speaker 3 

Because at that point, like it or not, that's the law. 

Speaker 3 

After you get 5 then you can have concurring judgments into sense. 

Speaker 3 

Which I think are useful because they. 

Speaker 3 

Bring out into the open. 

Speaker 3 

The debate which is taking place so on the court. 

Speaker 3 

But I I think that the court fails if it doesn't. 

Speaker 3 

Produce at least a majority of judges on a lot of set of reasons. 

Speaker 3 

Concurring judgments. 

Speaker 3 

Are rarely, I think of great importance, so they tend to be a bit of a gloss on what the the main judgment has said, but it undermines the credibility of the main or judgment to some extent. 

Speaker 3 

Uh dissent? 

Speaker 3 

If it's a serious dissent, based on a serious point, which obviously should be, I think it's valuable for debate. 

Speaker 3 

Involving the the legal profession of some of these issues. 

Speaker 3 

For example, the whole question of whether you can recover compensation for purely economic loss. 

Speaker 3 

There are series of cases beginning in the mid 90s. 

Speaker 3 

It went back and forth over the sole series of judgments, majority concurring, dissenting. 

Speaker 3 

Then slowly a position evolved within the Supreme Court and eventually the longest, no less settled. 

Speaker 3 

Well, I think it's very valuable that the lawyers can see that progression and better understand why the law is the way it is then if it was all done in the black box and the court simply said well here, here's the law. 

Speaker 3 

Apply it. 

Speaker 1 

I read once that you your first career choice before law was psychiatry, so wondering how much of psychiatry do you see in the practice of law in arbitration and mediation in particular? 

Speaker 3 

Well, I think there's a lot of the psychiatry in the sense of having to. 

Speaker 3 

Understand people and explain and look them up too. 

Speaker 3 

The criminal case is a lawyer who presents a successful speech in favor of the accused has got to understand the accused and the position of the accused was in different extenuating circumstances. 

Speaker 3 

In addition to the legal points to bring out some kind of emotional. 

Speaker 3 

Basis on which to quit. 

Speaker 3 

And I think understanding why businessmen operate the way they do, understanding how judges. 

Speaker 3 

Will act the way they do on their council. 

Speaker 3 

I think lawyers are constantly resorting to a kind of amateur psychology. 

Speaker 3 

What's going on in the head of your opponent and your judge your client, the other side, whatever. 

Speaker 1 

Right? 

Speaker 3 

Make it that it loves a lot to psychiatry, has got a lot to do theater. 

Speaker 3 

It's got a lot to do with history. 

Speaker 3 

I think that is one of the main attractions. 

Speaker 1 

Yes, so before we let you go, are there any wise words you can just share with the younger generation of lawyers among us or those looking to get into law? 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, yeah, I think it's important for your lawyers to. 

Speaker 3 

Give some serious thought as to why they went to law school, but. 

Speaker 3 

But really, they wanted to be able to say to themselves that their career is over. 

Speaker 3 

And whether they accomplished what they set out to accomplish. 

Speaker 3 

I think there's a. 

Speaker 3 

A real danger as a young lawyer. 

Speaker 3 

You know, getting into the firm getting quite pleased with yourself. 

Speaker 3 

You are buying a house with a huge mortgage, cars, marriage, children. 

Speaker 3 

And you locked yourself into a career path, but you made love to her. 

Speaker 3 

They love lawyers who are doing work which they would do. 

Speaker 3 

They get out, or they could. 

Speaker 3 

They're not enjoying it, but they do it because it brings in income. 

Speaker 3 

So I tell you, know, law clerks, students, everybody was interested, but. 

Speaker 3 

They they they they should really be vigilant to determine whether their career is progressing in the direction where they want not to sit back and say. 

Speaker 3 

Life will dictate its own agenda and I have to go. 

Speaker 3 

Along with it. 

Speaker 3 

I think On the contrary, you can make your breaks as we discussed earlier, you can go out and make make a practice where none would otherwise have existed. 

Speaker 3 

And and it's a law firm that you're raising isn't constrained by that. 

Speaker 3 

They don't want you to do it. 

Speaker 3 

I want you to stick at the bread and butter work when you're in the long yard laughter and we should. 

Speaker 3 

We should leave. 

Speaker 3 

You shouldn't be afraid from jumping from job to job. 

Speaker 3 

You know, if you're good. 

Speaker 3 

The firm will be very anxious to routine. 

Speaker 3 

Young lawyers, I think, underestimate their bargaining power. 

Speaker 3 

They are the not only the lifeblood that they firm going forward. 

Speaker 3 

But the more able the junior lawyers have all affected by the senior lawyers. 

Speaker 3 

So as I, as I've seen your wanted, I found you know that lawyer was really helpful with a bite, hard working and so on. 

Speaker 3 

Why I considered it a huge advantage and you know, would mentor to the extent the membership was accepted? 

Speaker 3 

And seek help to the extent helpless offer. 

Speaker 3 

So I I think you captain with your own fate. 

Speaker 3 

I think you can get knocked off course by events, but the important thing is to know who you're trying to go and why you're trying to get there. 

Speaker 3 

And to keep track of time, because in no time at all it'll be 55 years since you were called to the bar. 

Speaker 1 

That that's really incredible. I mean, again, that's such a long career and they say you retired from the Supreme Court back in 2011. 

Speaker 1 

But you've barely retired. 

Speaker 1 

You're still working, and you're still. 

Speaker 1 

It's still speaking to to us to myself. 

Speaker 1 

So what's your view on retirement and what's the key to longevity? 

Speaker 3 

Living judges, retired, judges are in a different position from. 

Speaker 3 

Retired lawyers I think you know. 

Speaker 3 

Speaking with the litigation people, there's a huge amount of stress involved with ignition. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, you got their clients barking at you all the time. 

Speaker 3 

They got difficult issues. 

Speaker 3 

You've got difficult opponents difficult. 

Speaker 3 

Judges, difficult courts. 

Speaker 3 

So I think after 3035 years the litigation lawyers are the sick of it and they're quite happy to throw in the sponge and go off golfing or travel or what have you. 

Speaker 3 

I think if you go to the bench. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, you you have a transition. 

Speaker 3 

Now when you get, you know very interesting work. 

Speaker 3 

You're not under the same stress. 

Speaker 3 

You have much more control over your life. 

Speaker 3 

Over your work life balance. 

Speaker 3 

So I think when you retire from the bench, you're probably still interested in the subject of it. 

Speaker 3 

And it's easier to transition into the post retirement practice of the arbitration or whatever, because you you don't have the same burnout factor as a. 

Speaker 3 

Hard working medication lawyer does up to the point where. 

Speaker 3 

No, I say workers enough. 

Speaker 1 

Right, well, you should continue for many, many years to continue working and teaching and growing and sharing your wisdom with the rest of us. 

Speaker 1 

I've certainly enjoyed it and I'm sure everybody else will as well. 

Speaker 1 

So again, thank you so much and I'll leave you the last word before we let you go. 

Speaker 3 

Well I only to say that I don't know how wise the words are. 

Speaker 3 

I can put on the table my personal experience. 

Speaker 3 

Others can make up their own lines. 

Speaker 3 

I I should just leave. 

Speaker 3 

And talking about career paths. 

Speaker 3 

Well, you said uh Jessup, moot a few years ago. 

Speaker 3 

And the bigger speaker was the managing partner of the White. 

Speaker 3 

The case. 

Speaker 3 

Of course, one of the largest law firms in the world based in New York. 

Speaker 3 

He's a guy from Ottawa. 

Speaker 3 

And he delivered the message to the students that then he'd been called to the bar. 

Speaker 3 

Our joint Waitman case had a chance to go to Moscow. 

Speaker 3 

Everybody told me it was a career killer. 

Speaker 3 

It's a lot of post of the firm. 

Speaker 3 

He was there that he was in the Far East and kicked around. 

Speaker 3 

The firm then was in different parts of the white in case that everybody kept telling him that this was not the correct career path, but he was getting the reputation as a dilettante who couldn't make up his mind what he wanted to do, where he wanted to live. 

Speaker 3 

So on and so forth. 

Speaker 3 

Wait up to the day he was elected managing partner of the firm. 

Speaker 3 

So his message was, you know, following your dream, do what what you want to do. 

Speaker 3 

If you want to do it, then you like to be good at it you. 

Speaker 3 

Like to do it with enthusiasm. 

Speaker 3 

So I thought that was a very good message from. 

Speaker 3 

Well, somebody who's the problem maybe and global. 

Speaker 3 

Being her community. 

Speaker 3 

Good advice that I would echo. 

Speaker 1 

I love it. 

Speaker 1 

I love that advice and I take it to heart and I try to live that way as well. 

Speaker 1 

So I second that and we should continue. 

Speaker 1 

Living that way, you know for. 

Speaker 1 

Many, many years to come and enjoy every day. 

Speaker 3 

OK, well thank you very much. 

Speaker 3 

Good luck with your shoes. 

Speaker 2 

Thank you. 

Audio file 

Ian Binnie Full Audio.mp3 

 

Transcript 

Speaker 1 

So welcome and like I said. 

Speaker 1 

Thank you very. 

Speaker 1 

Much for being, it's an honor to speak with you and have. 

Speaker 1 

You as my guest. 

Speaker 1 

You know you you've been a Supreme Court judge and I was thinking what kind of introduction? 

Speaker 1 

Beyond that? 

Speaker 1 

What kind of accolades accolades can I give you besides Supreme Court judge and you know, I think in my mind at least everything else pales to being a Supreme Court judge. 

Speaker 1 

So I guess I would ask you in Rome and outside of being a Supreme Court judge what what stands out as as accolades in your mind. 

Speaker 1 

Sorry to may be an interesting way to start an interview to ask you yourself that let's. 

Speaker 1 

Let's start there. 

Speaker 1 

Some big highlights in in your career. 

Speaker 3 

Well, I suppose. 

Speaker 3 

Confessionale with kayaking is going on Steam court thing. 

Speaker 3 

And highlights. 

Speaker 3 

Either in government or their social capital minister for Canada. 

Speaker 3 

A period or the private practice where they have some significant cases appeals that I argued. 

Speaker 3 

Many of them appointed the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Speaker 3 

So I suppose the professionally it is all about related to the law or to public functions such as the bureaucracy or doing this international organizations. 

Speaker 3 

I was the chair of the Justice Committee in the room for about five years, so that's all of these signals are part of the composite. 

Speaker 3 

I suppose I am somewhat moved by. 

Speaker 1 

Really incredible career you've had and I'll start with even your early years private practice. 

Speaker 1 

You know, I was. 

Speaker 1 

I was thinking lawyers are. 

Speaker 1 

A group of. 

Speaker 1 

Overachievers and you know I'm I'm in general practice and. 

Speaker 1 

And in a way I consider myself a bit of an overachiever, but looking up to you, you know you've achieved so much more that most lawyers could only dream of appearing before the Supreme Court, even once, and you appeared even as a lawyer. 

Speaker 1 

I believe over 50 times. 

Speaker 1 

So how how does one you know Excel? 

Speaker 1 

In private practice and well, how did. 

Speaker 1 

You excel in private practice. 

Speaker 1 

How did that journey come about? 

Speaker 3 

Well, I think it's very important to have mentors. 

Speaker 3 

I think the law is not something that's the big issue, is not something you can pick up through. 

Speaker 3 

Books and reading. 

Speaker 3 

I think young lawyers and law students should spend time in the courts dispatching trials, watching appeals much. 

Speaker 3 

If employers work. 

Speaker 3 

And I think when we become lawyers, so I'm speaking really admission. 

Speaker 3 

It's very important to get experience on your feet quickly. 

Speaker 3 

I think there's a huge scope for pro bono work. 

Speaker 3 

I think if you're with a law firm that doesn't probably work during the war. 

Speaker 3 

Because it's a good investment regardless of industry leaders and their skills. 

Speaker 3 

They're honed in real life situations. 

Speaker 3 

I think you have to get yourself known either by taking on cases that have a certain profile or by doing academic writing. 

Speaker 3 

Will appearing on panels or attending conferences and networking. 

Speaker 3 

I don't think the. 

Speaker 3 

Professional success comes to those who sit around waiting for it. 

Speaker 3 

Don't you have to go out and get it? 

Speaker 3 

But having said that, a lot of people go out and get it or succeed, and I think there's a lot of luck associated with it, I think. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, that's one way we might pick up the case or two, which I was, uh. 

Speaker 3 

Public apartments, which has some public profile. 

Speaker 3 

And then, well, one piece leads to another word of mouth is really what gets your practice going and I think. 

Speaker 3 

Sometimes sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. 

Speaker 3 

I have colleagues from law school and the profession. 

Speaker 3 

I thought they were tremendously able. 

Speaker 3 

One reason why the career didn't pan out particularly. 

Speaker 3 

There are others who I wouldn't have thought. 

Speaker 3 

Much of the success who proved great success. 

Speaker 3 

So I don't know into. 

Speaker 3 

Which category I followed but I. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, I, I think you do what you can, but at the end of the day, you know it's probably beyond. 

Speaker 3 

Your control is to know how you progress in the profession. 

Speaker 1 

So I've heard you speak in the past about your Bert McKinnon as a mentor to you and how you know you discussed the first thing you said was the the importance of mentorship. 

Speaker 1 

So can you comment on you know him as a mentor? 

Speaker 1 

The importance of mentorship and how do you think? 

Speaker 1 

Younger lawyers today, or if you if you have a comment of it dealing with mentorship, perhaps in the age of zoom. 

Speaker 3 

Well, I think it's very difficult to read. 

Speaker 3 

You zoom the basic membership essentially depends on informal casual contacts and being out working with somebody else. 

Speaker 3 

See, I've seen how they confront those situations. 

Speaker 3 

When I began at the bar, so my article, the 1965. 

Speaker 3 

The whole. 

Speaker 3 

By admission course thing and articles was. 

Speaker 3 

A given but. 

Speaker 3 

More or less, everybody had some kind of mentorship. 

Speaker 3 

Lawyers regarded it as a professional obligation to take on article students, and I didn't expect to make money on them. 

Speaker 3 

I think all that has changed the other person is much more business. 

Speaker 3 

I think lawyers say well if I'm not going to make money out of these people, why should I bother? 

Speaker 3 

They simply take away time from. 

Speaker 3 

Work would be profitable. 

Speaker 3 

And my relation with Bert MacKinnon was a very important personally and professionally I. 

Speaker 3 

I went and looked up to him as a mother. 

Speaker 3 

Very excellent labor. 

Speaker 3 

There's a man with great integrity. 

Speaker 3 

A man who saw the profession as a as a calling. 

Speaker 3 

I think he really. 

Speaker 3 

So the the important, the social apartments, a good functioning legal system. 

Speaker 3 

I I saw that he took off. 

Speaker 3 

He took on cases from all over the system either. 

Speaker 3 

Cases were very important to the clients, but may have appeared trivial to the legal profession in other cases and highly important. 

Speaker 3 

The first case I appeared with him on that was a student in the Supreme Court was Aboriginal case called Virginia and George, which of course he took pro bono. 

Speaker 3 

So he he had a very wide ranging practice, a very wide ranging interest. 

Speaker 3 

He had talked constitutional law and that was good for awhile as a part time lecturer. 

Speaker 3 

He's been in the Fleet Air Arm during world and so. 

Speaker 3 

Public service was something that he passed on to us. 

Speaker 3 

And just in the way he conducted himself in court was an inspiration. 

Speaker 3 

So I've tried to work through my practice with. 

Speaker 3 

In my. 

Speaker 3 

Article students, Young lawyers. 

Speaker 3 

Working with them, they can take what they won't leave what they want. 

Speaker 3 

They don't have to. 

Speaker 3 

The the senior lawyer in every respect, but at least they get exposed to the full range of how you think and why you do things the way we do. 

Speaker 3 

And I think it's a great pity that the articling program has been cut back. 

Speaker 3 

But the Law Society doesn't treat taking on articling students as a professional obligation. 

Speaker 3 

And I think the profession is going to suffer. 

Speaker 3 

And particularly, we're going to talk about zoom. 

Speaker 3 

You know, if if all a young lawyer gets is what appears on the computer display screen. 

Speaker 3 

And then they're simply not going to get that kind of training that is required. 

Speaker 1 

Yeah, hard to replace that in person connection. 

Speaker 1 

I, I agree. 

Speaker 1 

But so much so much has been done on on zoom, it's incredible. 

Speaker 1 

It's a new new way to communicate, and that's what we're doing now. 

Speaker 1 

And I mean, you talk about the mentorship and giving back. 

Speaker 1 

I feel that's exactly what you're doing now, so again, I appreciate your giving your time because a lot of these listeners, my listeners are young lawyers and law students so appreciate appreciate your time on this on this discussion. 

Speaker 1 

First of all, but going back to you know the giving back to the community or you worked in public service and I don't know if you'd consider representing governments also somewhat of a a pro bono or sort of for the good cause. 

Speaker 1 

Talking to Someone Like You gives me an opportunity to discuss international law and public international law, so I don't know if you want to comment on those international cases that you've been involved in and we we can start there. 

Speaker 3 

Yes, I think the opportunity to do international work is. 

Speaker 3 

Important and highly interesting, but again, it's something you have to go after. 

Speaker 3 

It doesn't just how long your basket last year with a a large firm that has international clients, in which case you would get it. 

Speaker 3 

Might get a piece of it. 

Speaker 3 

But I got involved early on an organization called the International Commission of Jurists, which has a Canadian. 

Speaker 3 

Section based in not at all. 

Speaker 3 

The main organization is based in Geneva. 

Speaker 3 

They have conferences. 

Speaker 3 

They have meetings that have a great interest in different issues that arise. 

Speaker 3 

I think I joined it when I was in my late 20s, so I'm I'm still a member. 

Speaker 3 

There there are international sections and we used to be with the Canadian of our association. 

Speaker 3 

There's an organization called the Philip Church. 

Speaker 3 

Institute for the Jewish was a Canadian diplomat to us. 

Speaker 3 

So they were very involved in setting up the International Criminal Court. 

Speaker 3 

So there are like Canada has a very distinguished career in international human rights. 

Speaker 3 

John Humphrey. 

Speaker 3 

It's like a Canadian diplomat that the United Nations is largely credited with drafting the UN Declaration of Human Rights. 

Speaker 3 

I think outside the roadside World, Canada is regarded as a neutral. 

Speaker 3 

It's got no military or territorial ambitions. 

Speaker 3 

Seems to. 

Speaker 3 

And have a. 

Speaker 3 

High measure of integrity and produces very good lawyers. 

Speaker 3 

So I've had quite a lot of exposure to international litigation. 

Speaker 3 

I was part of the Canadian legal team and the Gulf of Maine dispute in the mid 80s. 

Speaker 3 

And again in the case against transgender soupir leaking one other boundary dispute 1991. 

Speaker 3 

But since I've left the bench lot of my times with international investment disputes as arbitrating after the World Bank. 

Speaker 3 

And you know there are a lot of Canadian lawyers involved in that work because they've taken the trouble to get involved in that work. 

Speaker 3 

They've gone to conferences, and some of them have written articles, gotten to know the players in the field. 

Speaker 3 

And my experience, particularly over the last 10 years, doing those arbitrations. 

Speaker 3 

Yes, the Canadian lawyers are as good as any in the world and better than. 

Speaker 3 

Most, I think most of these high profile. 

Speaker 3 

In international arbitrations, which you generally run by British American law firms, if you French friends or other firms, but the principle US in America and the British. 

Speaker 3 

But they they they tend to be very inefficient production moving millions on file, they tend to be long winded. 

Speaker 3 

They tend to. 

Speaker 3 

Lack focus. 

Speaker 3 

I think many trials in the group will be conducted much more efficiently and better by. 

Speaker 3 

Comparison by Canadian lawyers by comparison with these others. 

Speaker 3 

And I think you know if we have a problem, it's because we don't go after the work. 

Speaker 3 

And certainly some years ago I went to the French bar. 

Speaker 3 

Now, last year Latin in France, gathering 4000 or so French lawyers seemed like the annual CBA. 

Speaker 3 

There were handful of his daily from Quebec, but did we before fire from Quebec? 

Speaker 3 

Now there's a huge. 

Speaker 3 

You know commercial interchange with France and Quebec. 

Speaker 3 

Why weren't more Canadian lawyers there? 

Speaker 3 

Why don't they go to meetings in London? 

Speaker 3 

There are constant meetings and international bodies. 

Speaker 3 

The London Court of International Arbitration is just an arbitral institute. 

Speaker 3 

There's a thing called Global Arbitration Review that puts out constant programs on international expression. 

Speaker 3 

There's organization called Jewish in the United States that puts together all kinds of meetings, conferences, and so on. 

Speaker 3 

So the opportunities are there, but they have to be. 

Speaker 3 

They're not going to come. 

Speaker 3 

Sit on your desk at their own accord. 

Speaker 1 

The way the. 

Speaker 1 

Way you describe all these commercial international arbitration centers. 

Speaker 1 

It's it's so refreshing because it sounds like they actually work, and that's that's a nice thing. 

Speaker 1 

Whereas the international, I guess. 

Speaker 1 

Court, the ICC and the ICJ. 

Speaker 1 

And I know you had some experience at the International Court of Justice. 

Speaker 1 

As far as I see there, there you know and and what do I know at the end of the day? 

Speaker 1 

But from my point of view, they're a disappointment. And I mean 11 headline kind of summed it up by saying that. Don't worry, Afghanistan Afghanistan is going to be safe. They remember to the Rome. 

Speaker 1 

Statute there the. 

Speaker 1 

In there. 

Speaker 1 

So I mean it's a bit tongue in cheek saying that, but the the commercial centers, like you say, work, but what's your take on the international? 

Speaker 1 

Which states are involved? 

Speaker 1 

Public international law? 

Speaker 1 

It just doesn't work as well. 

Speaker 1 

Or do you have a an opinion about that? 

Speaker 1 

And I I know you're coming from a neutral Canadian point of view so. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, well I I think that it's. 

Speaker 3 

So you know, effective in the area that it can be effective, and it's not effective in areas there. 

Speaker 3 

It has no business. 

Speaker 3 

It's not the international court is not the Security Council and they deal with disputes and referred to them where the parties agree so they they can't involve themselves in cases unless the parties agree that they should determine the shoot. 

Speaker 3 

In many areas, for example, and when I was in The Hague. 

Speaker 3 

Before the International Court of Justice in the North main dispute. 

Speaker 3 

We were, our case, was interrupted by a case brought by Nicaragua against the United States. 

Speaker 3 

And my reason with what Nicaragua said was American interference in in Nicaragua and mining the harbor and so. 

Speaker 3 

And it it was dealt with by the court. 

Speaker 3 

In terms of the legal aspects, the court couldn't deal with the political aspects. 

Speaker 3 

All these boundary disputes that the court is constantly dealing with. 

Speaker 3 

There is a. 

Speaker 3 

There's no way they could become other than either needed national court or arbitration, which is equally common or militarily. 

Speaker 3 

Governments who have a dispute would rather go to the court, because if they're going to give up a claim, they'd rather have it taken away from them by the court than to abandon a claim to something the public thinks it belongs to. 

Speaker 3 

That that country. 

Speaker 3 

The courts deal with a huge range of diplomatic issues, but the Criminal Court is an entirely different. 

Speaker 3 

Playing there. 

Speaker 3 

When you try to put somebody in jail then we've got countries like the United States machining to agree to the jurisdiction. 

Speaker 3 

It becomes very, very difficult, but on the other hand, the the International Tribunal for the. 

Speaker 3 

Atrocities arising out of Yugoslavia. 

Speaker 3 

Those affected was very effective and very successful. 

Speaker 3 

And I was in The Hague at some of those hearings. 

Speaker 3 

And although slow and lots of complaints can be made as indeed were made about the Nuremberg hearing. 

Speaker 3 

But international institutions do what they can and they they they can't do more than the the governments of the world are prepared to let them. 

Speaker 3 

So what they do is they proceed incrementally. 

Speaker 3 

Attempting to establish a foothold and expanding their foothold. 

Speaker 3 

And pushing their jurisdiction. 

Speaker 3 

I I I don't agree with you, I think. 

Speaker 3 

Properly understood, they they're they. 

Speaker 3 

They're as effective as they possibly can be. 

Speaker 1 

I like that positive way of looking at it. 

Speaker 1 

Thank thank you for that perspective. 

Speaker 1 

It's it's funny with in. 

Speaker 1 

In the past recent months the New York Gov. 

Speaker 1 

Uh, quit. 

Speaker 1 

He resigned for some allegations and in his defence it was very interesting, he said in his his mind. 

Speaker 1 

He never crossed the line, but that their line the line has moved and he wasn't aware of that. 

Speaker 1 

So you know, clearly he crossed the line, at least according to this report. 

Speaker 1 

But has there been a point in your career, maybe as a Supreme Court judge where you where the line? 

Speaker 1 

Surprised you. 

Speaker 1 

The societal line of something surprised you. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, yes, I think. 

Speaker 3 

Second moved. 

Speaker 3 

The long way in 55 years over. 

Speaker 3 

At the bar. 

Speaker 1 

Right? 

Speaker 3 

Things that were taken for granted in the 1960s are no longer accepted. The whole diversity. 

Speaker 3 

Concerning which is high employments, particularly with younger lawyers. 

Speaker 3 

It was not seen as significant through the 60s seventies. 

Speaker 3 

Began to be important in the movies. 

Speaker 3 

When the Charter came in and people became more conscious of rights. 

Speaker 3 

People were more apt to consider themselves victims of discrimination. 

Speaker 3 

There was an increasing awareness that. 

Speaker 3 

The Aboriginal peoples have been very badly treated. 

Speaker 3 

So that by the end of the 1980s, the contrast between how I was received in the corporate ladder acting for an Aboriginal group. 

Speaker 3 

I was 180 degrees from what I experienced in the 1960s on that Regina George case, so all the little moves and. 

Speaker 3 

Uh, I think that you're aware that the the line is changing, but you're not necessarily aware of the intensity with which. 

Speaker 3 

So the later generations come to see things which. 

Speaker 3 

You took for granted, for example, the whole thing was Sir John Leonardo. 

Speaker 3 

I haven't, I understand. 

Speaker 3 

Obviously we were concerned about the residential schools. 

Speaker 3 

But it seems to be a lack of perspective to go after surgery McDonald. 

Speaker 3 

Egerton, Ryerson, and so on. 

Speaker 3 

By taking one aspect of their career. 

Speaker 3 

And and blowing it into their whole career and canceling on that on that account. 

Speaker 1 

Yeah, I agree, certain things could just unfortunately run. 

Speaker 1 

Run a career and unnecessarily. 

Speaker 1 

11 big issue these days COVID-19. I'm wondering how it's affected your life as a you know how's your working life? 

Speaker 1 

Your professional life, your personal life hasn't been different. 

Speaker 1 

Then I mean the follow up to that. 

Speaker 1 

And this is a big honor of me to ask your Honor. 

Speaker 1 

The judge something like this, a constitutional question these days. 

Speaker 1 

There's the the vaccine debate and the question becomes how much can personal rights be infringed upon? 

Speaker 1 

So just as an extreme example, I was talking to a colleague in Malaysia back in July and he said the government shut everything down until until December 30. 

Speaker 1 

First, the end of the year. 

Speaker 1 

That seems like an extreme measure. 

Speaker 1 

There's different measures like employers forcing a lap being allowed to force their employees to get a vaccine. 

Speaker 1 

Getting vaccines being, you know, a requirement to do certain things into certain places. 

Speaker 1 

There's a movement I I, you know, whatever you may feel about them is one way or the other. 

Speaker 1 

But from a personal rights point of view, is you know where? 

Speaker 1 

Where is that line drawn? 

Speaker 1 

As there's a whole movement saying don't force me to do things, and it's an infringement on my rights so I could foresee a case like this may be coming before the Supreme Court, so maybe you can talk us through the deliberation process and maybe which way a court would go on something like this. 

Speaker 3 

Well, under the COVID-19 who crossed the huge difference. 

Speaker 3 

Oh yeah, everything having to be done more remotely. 

Speaker 3 

Yes, and the work is altered. 

Speaker 3 

Eventually, and will continue to affect people. 

Speaker 3 

I I agree that the bunch of the trial offerings 

Speaker 3 

My friend Leslie Slack is going to require vaccination. 

Speaker 3 

I I don't have any problem with that, I don't think it's a civil rights issue. 

Speaker 3 

I think it's equivalent to the aviation instruction. 

Speaker 3 

You know. 

Speaker 3 

You don't need to undergo surveillance, but if you choose not to build their car. 

Speaker 3 

If you're not prepared to get vaccinated. 

Speaker 3 

Don't come into the office. 

Speaker 3 

I I think it's it's not much different than the seatbelts people say. 

Speaker 3 

Well, I I should have the freedom not to wear a seat belt. 

Speaker 3 

That's my business, but it's not your business because. 

Speaker 3 

If you get into the crash and get badly injured. 

Speaker 3 

The state picks up the cost of caring for you because you're too stupid to take precautions on your own behalf. 

Speaker 3 

Now there have been proposals, so the wild proposal saying, well, alright, you don't need to get vaccinated, but don't expect to get medical treatment if you get COVID-19 and you haven't been vaccinated. 

Speaker 3 

You know or don't expect the government to pay for it. 

Speaker 3 

It'll come out of your own pocket. 

Speaker 3 

I think it's a very selfish act. 

Speaker 3 

Businesses refusal of vaccines because it increases the vulnerability of the society. 

Speaker 3 

To increase the exposure, increased mutations and so on, even though people vaccinated can be carriers of it and so on. 

Speaker 3 

So it's not. 

Speaker 3 

A simple thing but. 

Speaker 3 

Seems to be vaccines, vaccination certificates, wearing masks. 

Speaker 3 

And you know you have certain freedoms, but they're limited by what is demonstrably necessary and appropriate in a democratic society. 

Speaker 3 

I'd be very surprised if the courts held that these things are not demonstrably necessary, and in any event, private organisations, restaurants, nightclubs and so on. 

Speaker 3 

They are not bound by the charger, they can run their business as they see fit. 

Speaker 3 

Personally, I would feel better going to a restaurant where the people have been vaccinated and not dealing with the people I'm sitting next to. 

Speaker 3 

They had no vaccinations and have been exposed to COVID-19 in their workplace. 

Speaker 1 

Fair enough, I want to zoom in here on your Supreme Court years. 

Speaker 1 

We don't have that much time left, so if we can go there and start with. 

Speaker 1 

I read this. I don't know 500 page book or so and it was very interesting 'cause it gives the. 

Speaker 1 

And I insight into a bit of the relationships of the justices, so maybe you can. 

Speaker 1 

You were there for under 10 /, 10 years, 13 years and talk about the relationships, the importance of relationships, and maybe how you can be productive with relationships. 

Speaker 1 

Or despite them and. 

Speaker 1 

How it works a little bit. 

Speaker 1 

Maybe your experience. 

Speaker 3 

Well, I think it varies from judge to judge, so I think. 

Speaker 3 

The personal relations among the judges. 

Speaker 3 

Are very important. 

Speaker 3 

I think you can't have a situation where the court applying judges where some judgment versions are not talking to others as you had on the provincial appeal courts or trial courts and everybody. 

Speaker 3 

Simply has to get along as part of the job description. 

Speaker 3 

That said, some sometimes get. 

Speaker 3 

Along better than one another the others. 

Speaker 2 

Right? 

Speaker 3 

You know she had a very strong personality and some judges reacted against some judges acted very strongly in favor of it. 

Speaker 2 

Right? 

Speaker 3 

I I think. 

Speaker 3 

You never know, and other measures are taken to preserve relationships to prevent any judge from feeding on the outside. 

Speaker 3 

From preventing. 

Speaker 3 

The people that you know. 

Speaker 3 

Group of five judges has already heard what they want, decided the case before it's actually been argued in court. 

Speaker 3 

That's one of the reasons why almost everything is done in writing within the court. 

Speaker 3 

So if I have something to say about a particular case. 

Speaker 3 

So clearly today has circulated a draft judgment. 

Speaker 3 

Everybody gets to know my view at the same time. 

Speaker 3 

I I don't go up and down the corridors, you know, seeking support for against whatever my position is. 

Speaker 3 

When I got to the court, there was a understanding that you did not discuss cases before Oregon. 

Speaker 3 

And again, that was to prevent. 

Speaker 3 

Cabal's fully within the Group of judges too. 

Speaker 3 

Scared the outcome will prejudge the outcome of the force. 

Speaker 3 

Now that you know was a very carefully. 

Speaker 3 

We thought about measure. 

Speaker 3 

And to maintain good relations among the judges. 

Speaker 3 

So it's it's critical that the judges get along with each other. 

Speaker 3 

By Lord I think they like each other. 

Speaker 3 

And respect each other. 

Speaker 3 

But without that you know respect the code could be functional. 

Speaker 1 

Right, yeah, absolutely and. 

Speaker 1 

Your your yours. 

Speaker 1 

There too, I mean what? 

Speaker 1 

What major cases stand out is significant and meaningful for you. 

Speaker 3 

Well, some of the cases are or stand out because of the subject matter with the Quebec secession reference. 

Speaker 3 

Some of the National Security certificate cases. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah Charlie on health care. 

Speaker 3 

Bernstein, Raffi on the death penalty. 

Speaker 3 

The same sex marriage cases. 

Speaker 3 

You know, by definition, most of the stuff that gets to the Supreme Court is important. 

Speaker 3 

It has to be public importance or it's not acceptable to lead us in granted a. 

Speaker 3 

Lot of the criminal cases. 

Speaker 3 

There were great interest. 

Speaker 3 

Police powers 

Speaker 3 

The whole business of gun control, whether somebody picked up a. 

Speaker 3 

If their traffic offense, it turns out they have a gun and they get charged with possession of a gun. 

Speaker 3 

Well, drugs are sparse pied, so somebody driving, you know, through a red light suddenly is on a major drug trafficking charge. 

Speaker 3 

You saw last year that Indian chief in Alberta was truck apparently didn't have a renewal certificate and he kind of got physically beaten up by the Mounties. 

Speaker 3 

Now some minor issue. 

Speaker 3 

Well, you certainly have a sense in all of these issues that these are significant struggling to the parties, but to the broader society and that they. 

Speaker 3 

Derive a great sense of privilege in being part of delivering an opinion, delivering the judgments there on load issues. 

Speaker 3 

I also we're gonna thought the personal side of the Supreme Court is very rewarding. 

Speaker 3 

I like the people. 

Speaker 3 

There are lots of interesting functions we have. 

Speaker 3 

Exchanges with other courts in other countries. 

Speaker 3 

And that itself gave kind of global perspective. 

Speaker 3 

That was very interesting. 

Speaker 1 

That any one international court or judge stand out as they you know they swayed the court in one way or another. 

Speaker 3 

I don't think they they swayed the court to tell him, but I think that the. 

Speaker 3 

The the exchanges will all take two contrasts. 

Speaker 3 

One was visibly had to the. 

Speaker 3 

The top court and they said the Constitutional court in the in Russia. 

Speaker 3 

Which is the most somewhat questionable legal system? 

Speaker 3 

And it was pretty well acknowledged, you know, by the judges that there was interference by the government, right? 

Speaker 3 

At one of our sessions, the head of the Constitutional Court probably stated that before our meeting, he had a discussion that morning with President people. 

Speaker 3 

Well, you know that struck us differently than the way. 

Speaker 3 

He intended it. 

Speaker 3 

Right? 

Speaker 3 

On the other end, we had a very good series of meetings with the German Constitutional Court. 

Speaker 3 

They have a very developed human rights or system going. 

Speaker 3 

Interesting and apposite the jurisprudence. 

Speaker 3 

We have very interesting meetings with those rare Spring Court of Israel. 

Speaker 3 

Where we got exposed to this debate between whether you emphasize Israel is a democratic and Jewish state. 

Speaker 3 

Rising Jewish and Democratic state, to which prevails. 

Speaker 3 

So all of these I don't think provided particular instruction for how we learned about our work in Canada, but I certainly enlarged our vision as to how judges operate with different issues in different jurisdictions. 

Speaker 1 

That's really fascinating. 

Speaker 1 

Looking at it from the public point of view, is that even lawyers who read cases? 

Speaker 1 

Is there any insight you can give us into reading a case and? 

Speaker 1 

What I mean by that? 

Speaker 1 

That is, first of all, generally speaking, but specifically, there's an interesting law in in Jewish law that says if there's a unanimous judgment, you shouldn't believe it because it means the one. 

Speaker 1 

Who didn't get? 

Speaker 1 

Any votes didn't have good representation, so is there anything? 

Speaker 1 

Into read into into the amount of judges on either side, you know a unanimous judgment one way or the other. 

Speaker 1 

Anything we can glean from someone who's who sat on the highest court just into reading into judgments generally? 

Speaker 3 

Well, I I. 

Speaker 3 

I mean, I think there are different messages being sent by the court. 

Speaker 3 

For example, in the Quebec secession case. 

Speaker 3 

The clerk was very careful they issued the reasons by the court, not in the name of an individual judge. 

Speaker 3 

Gladly being with Rickert gives it more authority invested, very valuable to. 

Speaker 3 

Because if it's written by Joe Jackson, critics for sale, not everybody knows. 

Speaker 3 

Joe Jackson is a left wing, not the right wing nut. 

Speaker 3 

Or, you know, in thrall to the business world or whatever. 

Speaker 3 

So there's that. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, yeah, then it is important to get at least five judges. 

Speaker 3 

On a case, because there are the judgment. 

Speaker 3 

Because at that point, like it or not, that's the law. 

Speaker 3 

After you get 5 then you can have concurring judgments into sense. 

Speaker 3 

Which I think are useful because they. 

Speaker 3 

Bring out into the open. 

Speaker 3 

The debate which is taking place so on the court. 

Speaker 3 

But I I think that the court fails if it doesn't. 

Speaker 3 

Produce at least a majority of judges on a lot of set of reasons. 

Speaker 3 

Concurring judgments. 

Speaker 3 

Are rarely, I think of great importance, so they tend to be a bit of a gloss on what the the main judgment has said, but it undermines the credibility of the main or judgment to some extent. 

Speaker 3 

Uh dissent? 

Speaker 3 

If it's a serious dissent, based on a serious point, which obviously should be, I think it's valuable for debate. 

Speaker 3 

Involving the the legal profession of some of these issues. 

Speaker 3 

For example, the whole question of whether you can recover compensation for purely economic loss. 

Speaker 3 

There are series of cases beginning in the mid 90s. 

Speaker 3 

It went back and forth over the sole series of judgments, majority concurring, dissenting. 

Speaker 3 

Then slowly a position evolved within the Supreme Court and eventually the longest, no less settled. 

Speaker 3 

Well, I think it's very valuable that the lawyers can see that progression and better understand why the law is the way it is then if it was all done in the black box and the court simply said well here, here's the law. 

Speaker 3 

Apply it. 

Speaker 1 

I read once that you your first career choice before law was psychiatry, so wondering how much of psychiatry do you see in the practice of law in arbitration and mediation in particular? 

Speaker 3 

Well, I think there's a lot of the psychiatry in the sense of having to. 

Speaker 3 

Understand people and explain and look them up too. 

Speaker 3 

The criminal case is a lawyer who presents a successful speech in favor of the accused has got to understand the accused and the position of the accused was in different extenuating circumstances. 

Speaker 3 

In addition to the legal points to bring out some kind of emotional. 

Speaker 3 

Basis on which to quit. 

Speaker 3 

And I think understanding why businessmen operate the way they do, understanding how judges. 

Speaker 3 

Will act the way they do on their council. 

Speaker 3 

I think lawyers are constantly resorting to a kind of amateur psychology. 

Speaker 3 

What's going on in the head of your opponent and your judge your client, the other side, whatever. 

Speaker 1 

Right? 

Speaker 3 

Make it that it loves a lot to psychiatry, has got a lot to do theater. 

Speaker 3 

It's got a lot to do with history. 

Speaker 3 

I think that is one of the main attractions. 

Speaker 1 

Yes, so before we let you go, are there any wise words you can just share with the younger generation of lawyers among us or those looking to get into law? 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, yeah, I think it's important for your lawyers to. 

Speaker 3 

Give some serious thought as to why they went to law school, but. 

Speaker 3 

But really, they wanted to be able to say to themselves that their career is over. 

Speaker 3 

And whether they accomplished what they set out to accomplish. 

Speaker 3 

I think there's a. 

Speaker 3 

A real danger as a young lawyer. 

Speaker 3 

You know, getting into the firm getting quite pleased with yourself. 

Speaker 3 

You are buying a house with a huge mortgage, cars, marriage, children. 

Speaker 3 

And you locked yourself into a career path, but you made love to her. 

Speaker 3 

They love lawyers who are doing work which they would do. 

Speaker 3 

They get out, or they could. 

Speaker 3 

They're not enjoying it, but they do it because it brings in income. 

Speaker 3 

So I tell you, know, law clerks, students, everybody was interested, but. 

Speaker 3 

They they they they should really be vigilant to determine whether their career is progressing in the direction where they want not to sit back and say. 

Speaker 3 

Life will dictate its own agenda and I have to go. 

Speaker 3 

Along with it. 

Speaker 3 

I think On the contrary, you can make your breaks as we discussed earlier, you can go out and make make a practice where none would otherwise have existed. 

Speaker 3 

And and it's a law firm that you're raising isn't constrained by that. 

Speaker 3 

They don't want you to do it. 

Speaker 3 

I want you to stick at the bread and butter work when you're in the long yard laughter and we should. 

Speaker 3 

We should leave. 

Speaker 3 

You shouldn't be afraid from jumping from job to job. 

Speaker 3 

You know, if you're good. 

Speaker 3 

The firm will be very anxious to routine. 

Speaker 3 

Young lawyers, I think, underestimate their bargaining power. 

Speaker 3 

They are the not only the lifeblood that they firm going forward. 

Speaker 3 

But the more able the junior lawyers have all affected by the senior lawyers. 

Speaker 3 

So as I, as I've seen your wanted, I found you know that lawyer was really helpful with a bite, hard working and so on. 

Speaker 3 

Why I considered it a huge advantage and you know, would mentor to the extent the membership was accepted? 

Speaker 3 

And seek help to the extent helpless offer. 

Speaker 3 

So I I think you captain with your own fate. 

Speaker 3 

I think you can get knocked off course by events, but the important thing is to know who you're trying to go and why you're trying to get there. 

Speaker 3 

And to keep track of time, because in no time at all it'll be 55 years since you were called to the bar. 

Speaker 1 

That that's really incredible. I mean, again, that's such a long career and they say you retired from the Supreme Court back in 2011. 

Speaker 1 

But you've barely retired. 

Speaker 1 

You're still working, and you're still. 

Speaker 1 

It's still speaking to to us to myself. 

Speaker 1 

So what's your view on retirement and what's the key to longevity? 

Speaker 3 

Living judges, retired, judges are in a different position from. 

Speaker 3 

Retired lawyers I think you know. 

Speaker 3 

Speaking with the litigation people, there's a huge amount of stress involved with ignition. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, you got their clients barking at you all the time. 

Speaker 3 

They got difficult issues. 

Speaker 3 

You've got difficult opponents difficult. 

Speaker 3 

Judges, difficult courts. 

Speaker 3 

So I think after 3035 years the litigation lawyers are the sick of it and they're quite happy to throw in the sponge and go off golfing or travel or what have you. 

Speaker 3 

I think if you go to the bench. 

Speaker 3 

Yeah, you you have a transition. 

Speaker 3 

Now when you get, you know very interesting work. 

Speaker 3 

You're not under the same stress. 

Speaker 3 

You have much more control over your life. 

Speaker 3 

Over your work life balance. 

Speaker 3 

So I think when you retire from the bench, you're probably still interested in the subject of it. 

Speaker 3 

And it's easier to transition into the post retirement practice of the arbitration or whatever, because you you don't have the same burnout factor as a. 

Speaker 3 

Hard working medication lawyer does up to the point where. 

Speaker 3 

No, I say workers enough. 

Speaker 1 

Right, well, you should continue for many, many years to continue working and teaching and growing and sharing your wisdom with the rest of us. 

Speaker 1 

I've certainly enjoyed it and I'm sure everybody else will as well. 

Speaker 1 

So again, thank you so much and I'll leave you the last word before we let you go. 

Speaker 3 

Well I only to say that I don't know how wise the words are. 

Speaker 3 

I can put on the table my personal experience. 

Speaker 3 

Others can make up their own lines. 

Speaker 3 

I I should just leave. 

Speaker 3 

And talking about career paths. 

Speaker 3 

Well, you said uh Jessup, moot a few years ago. 

Speaker 3 

And the bigger speaker was the managing partner of the White. 

Speaker 3 

The case. 

Speaker 3 

Of course, one of the largest law firms in the world based in New York. 

Speaker 3 

He's a guy from Ottawa. 

Speaker 3 

And he delivered the message to the students that then he'd been called to the bar. 

Speaker 3 

Our joint Waitman case had a chance to go to Moscow. 

Speaker 3 

Everybody told me it was a career killer. 

Speaker 3 

It's a lot of post of the firm. 

Speaker 3 

He was there that he was in the Far East and kicked around. 

Speaker 3 

The firm then was in different parts of the white in case that everybody kept telling him that this was not the correct career path, but he was getting the reputation as a dilettante who couldn't make up his mind what he wanted to do, where he wanted to live. 

Speaker 3 

So on and so forth. 

Speaker 3 

Wait up to the day he was elected managing partner of the firm. 

Speaker 3 

So his message was, you know, following your dream, do what what you want to do. 

Speaker 3 

If you want to do it, then you like to be good at it you. 

Speaker 3 

Like to do it with enthusiasm. 

Speaker 3 

So I thought that was a very good message from. 

Speaker 3 

Well, somebody who's the problem maybe and global. 

Speaker 3 

Being her community. 

Speaker 3 

Good advice that I would echo. 

Speaker 1 

I love it. 

Speaker 1 

I love that advice and I take it to heart and I try to live that way as well. 

Speaker 1 

So I second that and we should continue. 

Speaker 1 

Living that way, you know for. 

Speaker 1 

Many, many years to come and enjoy every day. 

Speaker 3 

OK, well thank you very much. 

Speaker 3 

Good luck with your shoes. 

Speaker 2 

Thank you. 

Audio file 

Ian Binnie Full Audio.mp3 

 

Transcript 

Avi Charney 

So welcome and like I said. 

Avi Charney 

Thank you very. 

Avi Charney 

Much for being, it's an honor to speak with you and have. 

Avi Charney 

You as my guest. 

Avi Charney 

You know you you've been a Supreme Court judge and I was thinking what kind of introduction? 

Avi Charney 

Beyond that? 

Avi Charney 

What kind of accolades accolades can I give you besides Supreme Court judge and you know, I think in my mind at least everything else pales to being a Supreme Court judge. 

Avi Charney 

So I guess I would ask you in Rome and outside of being a Supreme Court judge what what stands out as as accolades in your mind. 

Avi Charney 

Sorry to may be an interesting way to start an interview to ask you yourself that let's. 

Avi Charney 

Let's start there. 

Avi Charney 

Some big highlights in in your career. 

Ian Binnie 

Well, I suppose. 

Ian Binnie 

Confessionale with kayaking is going on Steam court thing. 

Ian Binnie 

And highlights. 

Ian Binnie 

Either in government or their social capital minister for Canada. 

Ian Binnie 

A period or the private practice where they have some significant cases appeals that I argued. 

Ian Binnie 

Many of them appointed the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Ian Binnie 

So I suppose the professionally it is all about related to the law or to public functions such as the bureaucracy or doing this international organizations. 

Ian Binnie 

I was the chair of the Justice Committee in the room for about five years, so that's all of these signals are part of the composite. 

Ian Binnie 

I suppose I am somewhat moved by. 

Avi Charney 

Really incredible career you've had and I'll start with even your early years private practice. 

Avi Charney 

You know, I was. 

Avi Charney 

I was thinking lawyers are. 

Avi Charney 

A group of. 

Avi Charney 

Overachievers and you know I'm I'm in general practice and. 

Avi Charney 

And in a way I consider myself a bit of an overachiever, but looking up to you, you know you've achieved so much more that most lawyers could only dream of appearing before the Supreme Court, even once, and you appeared even as a lawyer. 

Avi Charney 

I believe over 50 times. 

Avi Charney 

So how how does one you know Excel? 

Avi Charney 

In private practice and well, how did. 

Avi Charney 

You excel in private practice. 

Avi Charney 

How did that journey come about? 

Ian Binnie 

Well, I think it's very important to have mentors. 

Ian Binnie 

I think the law is not something that's the big issue, is not something you can pick up through. 

Ian Binnie 

Books and reading. 

Ian Binnie 

I think young lawyers and law students should spend time in the courts dispatching trials, watching appeals much. 

Ian Binnie 

If employers work. 

Ian Binnie 

And I think when we become lawyers, so I'm speaking really admission. 

Ian Binnie 

It's very important to get experience on your feet quickly. 

Ian Binnie 

I think there's a huge scope for pro bono work. 

Ian Binnie 

I think if you're with a law firm that doesn't probably work during the war. 

Ian Binnie 

Because it's a good investment regardless of industry leaders and their skills. 

Ian Binnie 

They're honed in real life situations. 

Ian Binnie 

I think you have to get yourself known either by taking on cases that have a certain profile or by doing academic writing. 

Ian Binnie 

Will appearing on panels or attending conferences and networking. 

Ian Binnie 

I don't think the. 

Ian Binnie 

Professional success comes to those who sit around waiting for it. 

Ian Binnie 

Don't you have to go out and get it? 

Ian Binnie 

But having said that, a lot of people go out and get it or succeed, and I think there's a lot of luck associated with it, I think. 

Ian Binnie 

Yeah, that's one way we might pick up the case or two, which I was, uh. 

Ian Binnie 

Public apartments, which has some public profile. 

Ian Binnie 

And then, well, one piece leads to another word of mouth is really what gets your practice going and I think. 

Ian Binnie 

Sometimes sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. 

Ian Binnie 

I have colleagues from law school and the profession. 

Ian Binnie 

I thought they were tremendously able. 

Ian Binnie 

One reason why the career didn't pan out particularly. 

Ian Binnie 

There are others who I wouldn't have thought. 

Ian Binnie 

Much of the success who proved great success. 

Ian Binnie 

So I don't know into. 

Ian Binnie 

Which category I followed but I. 

Ian Binnie 

Yeah, I, I think you do what you can, but at the end of the day, you know it's probably beyond. 

Ian Binnie 

Your control is to know how you progress in the profession. 

Avi Charney 

So I've heard you speak in the past about your Bert McKinnon as a mentor to you and how you know you discussed the first thing you said was the the importance of mentorship. 

Avi Charney 

So can you comment on you know him as a mentor? 

Avi Charney 

The importance of mentorship and how do you think? 

Avi Charney 

Younger lawyers today, or if you if you have a comment of it dealing with mentorship, perhaps in the age of zoom. 

Ian Binnie 

Well, I think it's very difficult to read. 

Ian Binnie 

You zoom the basic membership essentially depends on informal casual contacts and being out working with somebody else. 

Ian Binnie 

See, I've seen how they confront those situations. 

Ian Binnie 

When I began at the bar, so my article, the 1965. 

Ian Binnie 

The whole. 

Ian Binnie 

By admission course thing and articles was. 

Ian Binnie 

A given but. 

Ian Binnie 

More or less, everybody had some kind of mentorship. 

Ian Binnie 

Lawyers regarded it as a professional obligation to take on article students, and I didn't expect to make money on them. 

Ian Binnie 

I think all that has changed the other person is much more business. 

Ian Binnie 

I think lawyers say well if I'm not going to make money out of these people, why should I bother? 

Ian Binnie 

They simply take away time from. 

Ian Binnie 

Work would be profitable. 

Ian Binnie 

And my relation with Bert MacKinnon was a very important personally and professionally I. 

Ian Binnie 

I went and looked up to him as a mother. 

Ian Binnie 

Very excellent labor. 

Ian Binnie 

There's a man with great integrity. 

Ian Binnie 

A man who saw the profession as a as a calling. 

Ian Binnie 

I think he really. 

Ian Binnie 

So the the important, the social apartments, a good functioning legal system. 

Ian Binnie 

I I saw that he took off. 

Ian Binnie 

He took on cases from all over the system either. 

Ian Binnie 

Cases were very important to the clients, but may have appeared trivial to the legal profession in other cases and highly important. 

Ian Binnie 

The first case I appeared with him on that was a student in the Supreme Court was Aboriginal case called Virginia and George, which of course he took pro bono. 

Ian Binnie 

So he he had a very wide ranging practice, a very wide ranging interest. 

Ian Binnie 

He had talked constitutional law and that was good for awhile as a part time lecturer. 

Ian Binnie 

He's been in the Fleet Air Arm during world and so. 

Ian Binnie 

Public service was something that he passed on to us. 

Ian Binnie 

And just in the way he conducted himself in court was an inspiration. 

Ian Binnie 

So I've tried to work through my practice with. 

Ian Binnie 

In my. 

Ian Binnie 

Article students, Young lawyers. 

Ian Binnie 

Working with them, they can take what they won't leave what they want. 

Ian Binnie 

They don't have to. 

Ian Binnie 

The the senior lawyer in every respect, but at least they get exposed to the full range of how you think and why you do things the way we do. 

Ian Binnie 

And I think it's a great pity that the articling program has been cut back. 

Ian Binnie 

But the Law Society doesn't treat taking on articling students as a professional obligation. 

Ian Binnie 

And I think the profession is going to suffer. 

Ian Binnie 

And particularly, we're going to talk about zoom. 

Ian Binnie 

You know, if if all a young lawyer gets is what appears on the computer display screen. 

Ian Binnie 

And then they're simply not going to get that kind of training that is required. 

Avi Charney 

Yeah, hard to replace that in person connection. 

Avi Charney 

I, I agree. 

Avi Charney 

But so much so much has been done on on zoom, it's incredible. 

Avi Charney 

It's a new new way to communicate, and that's what we're doing now. 

Avi Charney 

And I mean, you talk about the mentorship and giving back. 

Avi Charney 

I feel that's exactly what you're doing now, so again, I appreciate your giving your time because a lot of these listeners, my listeners are young lawyers and law students so appreciate appreciate your time on this on this discussion. 

Avi Charney 

First of all, but going back to you know the giving back to the community or you worked in public service and I don't know if you'd consider representing governments also somewhat of a a pro bono or sort of for the good cause. 

Avi Charney 

Talking to Someone Like You gives me an opportunity to discuss international law and public international law, so I don't know if you want to comment on those international cases that you've been involved in and we we can start there. 

Ian Binnie 

Yes, I think the opportunity to do international work is. 

Ian Binnie 

Important and highly interesting, but again, it's something you have to go after. 

Ian Binnie 

It doesn't just how long your basket last year with a a large firm that has international clients, in which case you would get it. 

Ian Binnie 

Might get a piece of it. 

Ian Binnie 

But I got involved early on an organization called the International Commission of Jurists, which has a Canadian. 

Ian Binnie 

Section based in not at all. 

Ian Binnie 

The main organization is based in Geneva. 

Ian Binnie 

They have conferences. 

Ian Binnie 

They have meetings that have a great interest in different issues that arise. 

Ian Binnie 

I think I joined it when I was in my late 20s, so I'm I'm still a member. 

Ian Binnie 

There there are international sections and we used to be with the Canadian of our association. 

Ian Binnie 

There's an organization called the Philip Church. 

Ian Binnie 

Institute for the Jewish was a Canadian diplomat to us. 

Ian Binnie 

So they were very involved in setting up the International Criminal Court. 

Ian Binnie 

So there are like Canada has a very distinguished career in international human rights. 

Ian Binnie 

John Humphrey. 

Ian Binnie 

It's like a Canadian diplomat that the United Nations is largely credited with drafting the UN Declaration of Human Rights. 

Ian Binnie 

I think outside the roadside World, Canada is regarded as a neutral. 

Ian Binnie 

It's got no military or territorial ambitions. 

Ian Binnie 

Seems to. 

Ian Binnie 

And have a. 

Ian Binnie 

High measure of integrity and produces very good lawyers. 

Ian Binnie 

So I've had quite a lot of exposure to international litigation. 

Ian Binnie 

I was part of the Canadian legal team and the Gulf of Maine dispute in the mid 80s. 

Ian Binnie 

And again in the case against transgender soupir leaking one other boundary dispute 1991. 

Ian Binnie 

But since I've left the bench lot of my times with international investment disputes as arbitrating after the World Bank. 

Ian Binnie 

And you know there are a lot of Canadian lawyers involved in that work because they've taken the trouble to get involved in that work. 

Ian Binnie 

They've gone to conferences, and some of them have written articles, gotten to know the players in the field. 

Ian Binnie 

And my experience, particularly over the last 10 years, doing those arbitrations. 

Ian Binnie 

Yes, the Canadian lawyers are as good as any in the world and better than. 

Ian Binnie 

Most, I think most of these high profile. 

Ian Binnie 

In international arbitrations, which you generally run by British American law firms, if you French friends or other firms, but the principle US in America and the British. 

Ian Binnie 

But they they they tend to be very inefficient production moving millions on file, they tend to be long winded. 

Ian Binnie 

They tend to. 

Ian Binnie 

Lack focus. 

Ian Binnie 

I think many trials in the group will be conducted much more efficiently and better by. 

Ian Binnie 

Comparison by Canadian lawyers by comparison with these others. 

Ian Binnie 

And I think you know if we have a problem, it's because we don't go after the work. 

Ian Binnie 

And certainly some years ago I went to the French bar. 

Ian Binnie 

Now, last year Latin in France, gathering 4000 or so French lawyers seemed like the annual CBA. 

Ian Binnie 

There were handful of his daily from Quebec, but did we before fire from Quebec? 

Ian Binnie 

Now there's a huge. 

Ian Binnie 

You know commercial interchange with France and Quebec. 

Ian Binnie 

Why weren't more Canadian lawyers there? 

Ian Binnie 

Why don't they go to meetings in London? 

Ian Binnie 

There are constant meetings and international bodies. 

Ian Binnie 

The London Court of International Arbitration is just an arbitral institute. 

Ian Binnie 

There's a thing called Global Arbitration Review that puts out constant programs on international expression. 

Ian Binnie 

There's organization called Jewish in the United States that puts together all kinds of meetings, conferences, and so on. 

Ian Binnie 

So the opportunities are there, but they have to be. 

Ian Binnie 

They're not going to come. 

Ian Binnie 

Sit on your desk at their own accord. 

Avi Charney 

The way the. 

Avi Charney 

Way you describe all these commercial international arbitration centers. 

Avi Charney 

It's it's so refreshing because it sounds like they actually work, and that's that's a nice thing. 

Avi Charney 

Whereas the international, I guess. 

Avi Charney 

Court, the ICC and the ICJ. 

Avi Charney 

And I know you had some experience at the International Court of Justice. 

Avi Charney 

As far as I see there, there you know and and what do I know at the end of the day? 

Avi Charney 

But from my point of view, they're a disappointment. And I mean 11 headline kind of summed it up by saying that. Don't worry, Afghanistan Afghanistan is going to be safe. They remember to the Rome. 

Avi Charney 

Statute there the. 

Avi Charney 

In there. 

Avi Charney 

So I mean it's a bit tongue in cheek saying that, but the the commercial centers, like you say, work, but what's your take on the international? 

Avi Charney 

Which states are involved? 

Avi Charney 

Public international law? 

Avi Charney 

It just doesn't work as well. 

Avi Charney 

Or do you have a an opinion about that? 

Avi Charney 

And I I know you're coming from a neutral Canadian point of view so. 

Ian Binnie 

Yeah, well I I think that it's. 

Ian Binnie 

So you know, effective in the area that it can be effective, and it's not effective in areas there. 

Ian Binnie 

It has no business. 

Ian Binnie 

It's not the international court is not the Security Council and they deal with disputes and referred to them where the parties agree so they they can't involve themselves in cases unless the parties agree that they should determine the shoot. 

Ian Binnie 

In many areas, for example, and when I was in The Hague. 

Ian Binnie 

Before the International Court of Justice in the North main dispute. 

Ian Binnie 

We were, our case, was interrupted by a case brought by Nicaragua against the United States. 

Ian Binnie 

And my reason with what Nicaragua said was American interference in in Nicaragua and mining the harbor and so. 

Ian Binnie 

And it it was dealt with by the court. 

Ian Binnie 

In terms of the legal aspects, the court couldn't deal with the political aspects. 

Ian Binnie 

All these boundary disputes that the court is constantly dealing with. 

Ian Binnie 

There is a. 

Ian Binnie 

There's no way they could become other than either needed national court or arbitration, which is equally common or militarily. 

Ian Binnie 

Governments who have a dispute would rather go to the court, because if they're going to give up a claim, they'd rather have it taken away from them by the court than to abandon a claim to something the public thinks it belongs to. 

Ian Binnie 

That that country. 

Ian Binnie 

The courts deal with a huge range of diplomatic issues, but the Criminal Court is an entirely different. 

Ian Binnie 

Playing there. 

Ian Binnie 

When you try to put somebody in jail then we've got countries like the United States machining to agree to the jurisdiction. 

Ian Binnie 

It becomes very, very difficult, but on the other hand, the the International Tribunal for the. 

Ian Binnie 

Atrocities arising out of Yugoslavia. 

Ian Binnie 

Those affected was very effective and very successful. 

Ian Binnie 

And I was in The Hague at some of those hearings. 

Ian Binnie 

And although slow and lots of complaints can be made as indeed were made about the Nuremberg hearing. 

Ian Binnie 

But international institutions do what they can and they they they can't do more than the the governments of the world are prepared to let them. 

Ian Binnie 

So what they do is they proceed incrementally. 

Ian Binnie 

Attempting to establish a foothold and expanding their foothold. 

Ian Binnie 

And pushing their jurisdiction. 

Ian Binnie 

I I I don't agree with you, I think. 

Ian Binnie 

Properly understood, they they're they. 

Ian Binnie 

They're as effective as they possibly can be. 

Avi Charney 

I like that positive way of looking at it. 

Avi Charney 

Thank thank you for that perspective. 

Avi Charney 

It's it's funny with in. 

Avi Charney 

In the past recent months the New York Gov. 

Avi Charney 

Uh, quit. 

Avi Charney 

He resigned for some allegations and in his defence it was very interesting, he said in his his mind. 

Avi Charney 

He never crossed the line, but that their line the line has moved and he wasn't aware of that. 

Avi Charney 

So you know, clearly he crossed the line, at least according to this report. 

Avi Charney 

But has there been a point in your career, maybe as a Supreme Court judge where you where the line? 

Avi Charney 

Surprised you. 

Avi Charney 

The societal line of something surprised you. 

Ian Binnie 

Yeah, yes, I think. 

Ian Binnie 

Second moved. 

Ian Binnie 

The long way in 55 years over. 

Ian Binnie 

At the bar. 

Avi Charney 

Right? 

Ian Binnie 

Things that were taken for granted in the 1960s are no longer accepted. The whole diversity. 

Ian Binnie 

Concerning which is high employments, particularly with younger lawyers. 

Ian Binnie 

It was not seen as significant through the 60s seventies. 

Ian Binnie 

Began to be important in the movies. 

Ian Binnie 

When the Charter came in and people became more conscious of rights. 

Ian Binnie 

People were more apt to consider themselves victims of discrimination. 

Ian Binnie 

There was an increasing awareness that. 

Ian Binnie 

The Aboriginal peoples have been very badly treated. 

Ian Binnie 

So that by the end of the 1980s, the contrast between how I was received in the corporate ladder acting for an Aboriginal group. 

Ian Binnie 

I was 180 degrees from what I experienced in the 1960s on that Regina George case, so all the little moves and. 

Ian Binnie 

Uh, I think that you're aware that the the line is changing, but you're not necessarily aware of the intensity with which. 

Ian Binnie 

So the later generations come to see things which. 

Ian Binnie 

You took for granted, for example, the whole thing was Sir John Leonardo. 

Ian Binnie 

I haven't, I understand. 

Ian Binnie 

Obviously we were concerned about the residential schools. 

Ian Binnie 

But it seems to be a lack of perspective to go after surgery McDonald. 

Ian Binnie 

Egerton, Ryerson, and so on. 

Ian Binnie 

By taking one aspect of their career. 

Ian Binnie 

And and blowing it into their whole career and canceling on that on that account. 

Avi Charney 

Yeah, I agree, certain things could just unfortunately run. 

Avi Charney 

Run a career and unnecessarily. 

Avi Charney 

11 big issue these days COVID-19. I'm wondering how it's affected your life as a you know how's your working life? 

Avi Charney 

Your professional life, your personal life hasn't been different. 

Avi Charney 

Then I mean the follow up to that. 

Avi Charney 

And this is a big honor of me to ask your Honor. 

Avi Charney 

The judge something like this, a constitutional question these days. 

Avi Charney 

There's the the vaccine debate and the question becomes how much can personal rights be infringed upon? 

Avi Charney 

So just as an extreme example, I was talking to a colleague in Malaysia back in July and he said the government shut everything down until until December 30. 

Avi Charney 

First, the end of the year. 

Avi Charney 

That seems like an extreme measure. 

Avi Charney 

There's different measures like employers forcing a lap being allowed to force their employees to get a vaccine. 

Avi Charney 

Getting vaccines being, you know, a requirement to do certain things into certain places. 

Avi Charney 

There's a movement I I, you know, whatever you may feel about them is one way or the other. 

Avi Charney 

But from a personal rights point of view, is you know where? 

Avi Charney 

Where is that line drawn? 

Avi Charney 

As there's a whole movement saying don't force me to do things, and it's an infringement on my rights so I could foresee a case like this may be coming before the Supreme Court, so maybe you can talk us through the deliberation process and maybe which way a court would go on something like this. 

Ian Binnie 

Well, under the COVID-19 who crossed the huge difference. 

Ian Binnie 

Oh yeah, everything having to be done more remotely. 

Ian Binnie 

Yes, and the work is altered. 

Ian Binnie 

Eventually, and will continue to affect people. 

Ian Binnie 

I I agree that the bunch of the trial offerings 

Ian Binnie 

My friend Leslie Slack is going to require vaccination. 

Ian Binnie 

I I don't have any problem with that, I don't think it's a civil rights issue. 

Ian Binnie 

I think it's equivalent to the aviation instruction. 

Ian Binnie 

You know. 

Ian Binnie 

You don't need to undergo surveillance, but if you choose not to build their car. 

Ian Binnie 

If you're not prepared to get vaccinated. 

Ian Binnie 

Don't come into the office. 

Ian Binnie 

I I think it's it's not much different than the seatbelts people say. 

Ian Binnie 

Well, I I should have the freedom not to wear a seat belt. 

Ian Binnie 

That's my business, but it's not your business because. 

Ian Binnie 

If you get into the crash and get badly injured. 

Ian Binnie 

The state picks up the cost of caring for you because you're too stupid to take precautions on your own behalf. 

Ian Binnie 

Now there have been proposals, so the wild proposal saying, well, alright, you don't need to get vaccinated, but don't expect to get medical treatment if you get COVID-19 and you haven't been vaccinated. 

Ian Binnie 

You know or don't expect the government to pay for it. 

Ian Binnie 

It'll come out of your own pocket. 

Ian Binnie 

I think it's a very selfish act. 

Ian Binnie 

Businesses refusal of vaccines because it increases the vulnerability of the society. 

Ian Binnie 

To increase the exposure, increased mutations and so on, even though people vaccinated can be carriers of it and so on. 

Ian Binnie 

So it's not. 

Ian Binnie 

A simple thing but. 

Ian Binnie 

Seems to be vaccines, vaccination certificates, wearing masks. 

Ian Binnie 

And you know you have certain freedoms, but they're limited by what is demonstrably necessary and appropriate in a democratic society. 

Ian Binnie 

I'd be very surprised if the courts held that these things are not demonstrably necessary, and in any event, private organisations, restaurants, nightclubs and so on. 

Ian Binnie 

They are not bound by the charger, they can run their business as they see fit. 

Ian Binnie 

Personally, I would feel better going to a restaurant where the people have been vaccinated and not dealing with the people I'm sitting next to. 

Ian Binnie 

They had no vaccinations and have been exposed to COVID-19 in their workplace. 

Avi Charney 

Fair enough, I want to zoom in here on your Supreme Court years. 

Avi Charney 

We don't have that much time left, so if we can go there and start with. 

Avi Charney 

I read this. I don't know 500 page book or so and it was very interesting 'cause it gives the. 

Avi Charney 

And I insight into a bit of the relationships of the justices, so maybe you can. 

Avi Charney 

You were there for under 10 /, 10 years, 13 years and talk about the relationships, the importance of relationships, and maybe how you can be productive with relationships. 

Avi Charney 

Or despite them and. 

Avi Charney 

How it works a little bit. 

Avi Charney 

Maybe your experience. 

Ian Binnie 

Well, I think it varies from judge to judge, so I think. 

Ian Binnie 

The personal relations among the judges. 

Ian Binnie 

Are very important. 

Ian Binnie 

I think you can't have a situation where the court applying judges where some judgment versions are not talking to others as you had on the provincial appeal courts or trial courts and everybody. 

Ian Binnie 

Simply has to get along as part of the job description. 

Ian Binnie 

That said, some sometimes get. 

Ian Binnie 

Along better than one another the others. 

Speaker 2 

Right? 

Ian Binnie 

You know she had a very strong personality and some judges reacted against some judges acted very strongly in favor of it. 

Speaker 2 

Right? 

Ian Binnie 

I I think. 

Ian Binnie 

You never know, and other measures are taken to preserve relationships to prevent any judge from feeding on the outside. 

Ian Binnie 

From preventing. 

Ian Binnie 

The people that you know. 

Ian Binnie 

Group of five judges has already heard what they want, decided the case before it's actually been argued in court. 

Ian Binnie 

That's one of the reasons why almost everything is done in writing within the court. 

Ian Binnie 

So if I have something to say about a particular case. 

Ian Binnie 

So clearly today has circulated a draft judgment. 

Ian Binnie 

Everybody gets to know my view at the same time. 

Ian Binnie 

I I don't go up and down the corridors, you know, seeking support for against whatever my position is. 

Ian Binnie 

When I got to the court, there was a understanding that you did not discuss cases before Oregon. 

Ian Binnie 

And again, that was to prevent. 

Ian Binnie 

Cabal's fully within the Group of judges too. 

Ian Binnie 

Scared the outcome will prejudge the outcome of the force. 

Ian Binnie 

Now that you know was a very carefully. 

Ian Binnie 

We thought about measure. 

Ian Binnie 

And to maintain good relations among the judges. 

Ian Binnie 

So it's it's critical that the judges get along with each other. 

Ian Binnie 

By Lord I think they like each other. 

Ian Binnie 

And respect each other. 

Ian Binnie 

But without that you know respect the code could be functional. 

Avi Charney 

Right, yeah, absolutely and. 

Avi Charney 

Your your yours. 

Avi Charney 

There too, I mean what? 

Avi Charney 

What major cases stand out is significant and meaningful for you. 

Ian Binnie 

Well, some of the cases are or stand out because of the subject matter with the Quebec secession reference. 

Ian Binnie 

Some of the National Security certificate cases. 

Ian Binnie 

Yeah Charlie on health care. 

Ian Binnie 

Bernstein, Raffi on the death penalty. 

Ian Binnie 

The same sex marriage cases. 

Ian Binnie 

You know, by definition, most of the stuff that gets to the Supreme Court is important. 

Ian Binnie 

It has to be public importance or it's not acceptable to lead us in granted a. 

Ian Binnie 

Lot of the criminal cases. 

Ian Binnie 

There were great interest. 

Ian Binnie 

Police powers 

Ian Binnie 

The whole business of gun control, whether somebody picked up a. 

Ian Binnie 

If their traffic offense, it turns out they have a gun and they get charged with possession of a gun. 

Ian Binnie 

Well, drugs are sparse pied, so somebody driving, you know, through a red light suddenly is on a major drug trafficking charge. 

Ian Binnie 

You saw last year that Indian chief in Alberta was truck apparently didn't have a renewal certificate and he kind of got physically beaten up by the Mounties. 

Ian Binnie 

Now some minor issue. 

Ian Binnie 

Well, you certainly have a sense in all of these issues that these are significant struggling to the parties, but to the broader society and that they. 

Ian Binnie 

Derive a great sense of privilege in being part of delivering an opinion, delivering the judgments there on load issues. 

Ian Binnie 

I also we're gonna thought the personal side of the Supreme Court is very rewarding. 

Ian Binnie 

I like the people. 

Ian Binnie 

There are lots of interesting functions we have. 

Ian Binnie 

Exchanges with other courts in other countries. 

Ian Binnie 

And that itself gave kind of global perspective. 

Ian Binnie 

That was very interesting. 

Avi Charney 

That any one international court or judge stand out as they you know they swayed the court in one way or another. 

Ian Binnie 

I don't think they they swayed the court to tell him, but I think that the. 

Ian Binnie 

The the exchanges will all take two contrasts. 

Ian Binnie 

One was visibly had to the. 

Ian Binnie 

The top court and they said the Constitutional court in the in Russia. 

Ian Binnie 

Which is the most somewhat questionable legal system? 

Ian Binnie 

And it was pretty well acknowledged, you know, by the judges that there was interference by the government, right? 

Ian Binnie 

At one of our sessions, the head of the Constitutional Court probably stated that before our meeting, he had a discussion that morning with President people. 

Ian Binnie 

Well, you know that struck us differently than the way. 

Ian Binnie 

He intended it. 

Ian Binnie 

Right? 

Ian Binnie 

On the other end, we had a very good series of meetings with the German Constitutional Court. 

Ian Binnie 

They have a very developed human rights or system going. 

Ian Binnie 

Interesting and apposite the jurisprudence. 

Ian Binnie 

We have very interesting meetings with those rare Spring Court of Israel. 

Ian Binnie 

Where we got exposed to this debate between whether you emphasize Israel is a democratic and Jewish state. 

Ian Binnie 

Rising Jewish and Democratic state, to which prevails. 

Ian Binnie 

So all of these I don't think provided particular instruction for how we learned about our work in Canada, but I certainly enlarged our vision as to how judges operate with different issues in different jurisdictions. 

Avi Charney 

That's really fascinating. 

Avi Charney 

Looking at it from the public point of view, is that even lawyers who read cases? 

Avi Charney 

Is there any insight you can give us into reading a case and? 

Avi Charney 

What I mean by that? 

Avi Charney 

That is, first of all, generally speaking, but specifically, there's an interesting law in in Jewish law that says if there's a unanimous judgment, you shouldn't believe it because it means the one. 

Avi Charney 

Who didn't get? 

Avi Charney 

Any votes didn't have good representation, so is there anything? 

Avi Charney 

Into read into into the amount of judges on either side, you know a unanimous judgment one way or the other. 

Avi Charney 

Anything we can glean from someone who's who sat on the highest court just into reading into judgments generally? 

Ian Binnie 

Well, I I. 

Ian Binnie 

I mean, I think there are different messages being sent by the court. 

Ian Binnie 

For example, in the Quebec secession case. 

Ian Binnie 

The clerk was very careful they issued the reasons by the court, not in the name of an individual judge. 

Ian Binnie 

Gladly being with Rickert gives it more authority invested, very valuable to. 

Ian Binnie 

Because if it's written by Joe Jackson, critics for sale, not everybody knows. 

Ian Binnie 

Joe Jackson is a left wing, not the right wing nut. 

Ian Binnie 

Or, you know, in thrall to the business world or whatever. 

Ian Binnie 

So there's that. 

Ian Binnie 

Yeah, yeah, then it is important to get at least five judges. 

Ian Binnie 

On a case, because there are the judgment. 

Ian Binnie 

Because at that point, like it or not, that's the law. 

Ian Binnie 

After you get 5 then you can have concurring judgments into sense. 

Ian Binnie 

Which I think are useful because they. 

Ian Binnie 

Bring out into the open. 

Ian Binnie 

The debate which is taking place so on the court. 

Ian Binnie 

But I I think that the court fails if it doesn't. 

Ian Binnie 

Produce at least a majority of judges on a lot of set of reasons. 

Ian Binnie 

Concurring judgments. 

Ian Binnie 

Are rarely, I think of great importance, so they tend to be a bit of a gloss on what the the main judgment has said, but it undermines the credibility of the main or judgment to some extent. 

Ian Binnie 

Uh dissent? 

Ian Binnie 

If it's a serious dissent, based on a serious point, which obviously should be, I think it's valuable for debate. 

Ian Binnie 

Involving the the legal profession of some of these issues. 

Ian Binnie 

For example, the whole question of whether you can recover compensation for purely economic loss. 

Ian Binnie 

There are series of cases beginning in the mid 90s. 

Ian Binnie 

It went back and forth over the sole series of judgments, majority concurring, dissenting. 

Ian Binnie 

Then slowly a position evolved within the Supreme Court and eventually the longest, no less settled. 

Ian Binnie 

Well, I think it's very valuable that the lawyers can see that progression and better understand why the law is the way it is then if it was all done in the black box and the court simply said well here, here's the law. 

Ian Binnie 

Apply it. 

Avi Charney 

I read once that you your first career choice before law was psychiatry, so wondering how much of psychiatry do you see in the practice of law in arbitration and mediation in particular? 

Ian Binnie 

Well, I think there's a lot of the psychiatry in the sense of having to. 

Ian Binnie 

Understand people and explain and look them up too. 

Ian Binnie 

The criminal case is a lawyer who presents a successful speech in favor of the accused has got to understand the accused and the position of the accused was in different extenuating circumstances. 

Ian Binnie 

In addition to the legal points to bring out some kind of emotional. 

Ian Binnie 

Basis on which to quit. 

Ian Binnie 

And I think understanding why businessmen operate the way they do, understanding how judges. 

Ian Binnie 

Will act the way they do on their council. 

Ian Binnie 

I think lawyers are constantly resorting to a kind of amateur psychology. 

Ian Binnie 

What's going on in the head of your opponent and your judge your client, the other side, whatever. 

Avi Charney 

Right? 

Ian Binnie 

Make it that it loves a lot to psychiatry, has got a lot to do theater. 

Ian Binnie 

It's got a lot to do with history. 

Ian Binnie 

I think that is one of the main attractions. 

Avi Charney 

Yes, so before we let you go, are there any wise words you can just share with the younger generation of lawyers among us or those looking to get into law? 

Ian Binnie 

Yeah, yeah, I think it's important for your lawyers to. 

Ian Binnie 

Give some serious thought as to why they went to law school, but. 

Ian Binnie 

But really, they wanted to be able to say to themselves that their career is over. 

Ian Binnie 

And whether they accomplished what they set out to accomplish. 

Ian Binnie 

I think there's a. 

Ian Binnie 

A real danger as a young lawyer. 

Ian Binnie 

You know, getting into the firm getting quite pleased with yourself. 

Ian Binnie 

You are buying a house with a huge mortgage, cars, marriage, children. 

Ian Binnie 

And you locked yourself into a career path, but you made love to her. 

Ian Binnie 

They love lawyers who are doing work which they would do. 

Ian Binnie 

They get out, or they could. 

Ian Binnie 

They're not enjoying it, but they do it because it brings in income. 

Ian Binnie 

So I tell you, know, law clerks, students, everybody was interested, but. 

Ian Binnie 

They they they they should really be vigilant to determine whether their career is progressing in the direction where they want not to sit back and say. 

Ian Binnie 

Life will dictate its own agenda and I have to go. 

Ian Binnie 

Along with it. 

Ian Binnie 

I think On the contrary, you can make your breaks as we discussed earlier, you can go out and make make a practice where none would otherwise have existed. 

Ian Binnie 

And and it's a law firm that you're raising isn't constrained by that. 

Ian Binnie 

They don't want you to do it. 

Ian Binnie 

I want you to stick at the bread and butter work when you're in the long yard laughter and we should. 

Ian Binnie 

We should leave. 

Ian Binnie 

You shouldn't be afraid from jumping from job to job. 

Ian Binnie 

You know, if you're good. 

Ian Binnie 

The firm will be very anxious to routine. 

Ian Binnie 

Young lawyers, I think, underestimate their bargaining power. 

Ian Binnie 

They are the not only the lifeblood that they firm going forward. 

Ian Binnie 

But the more able the junior lawyers have all affected by the senior lawyers. 

Ian Binnie 

So as I, as I've seen your wanted, I found you know that lawyer was really helpful with a bite, hard working and so on. 

Ian Binnie 

Why I considered it a huge advantage and you know, would mentor to the extent the membership was accepted? 

Ian Binnie 

And seek help to the extent helpless offer. 

Ian Binnie 

So I I think you captain with your own fate. 

Ian Binnie 

I think you can get knocked off course by events, but the important thing is to know who you're trying to go and why you're trying to get there. 

Ian Binnie 

And to keep track of time, because in no time at all it'll be 55 years since you were called to the bar. 

Avi Charney 

That that's really incredible. I mean, again, that's such a long career and they say you retired from the Supreme Court back in 2011. 

Avi Charney 

But you've barely retired. 

Avi Charney 

You're still working, and you're still. 

Avi Charney 

It's still speaking to to us to myself. 

Avi Charney 

So what's your view on retirement and what's the key to longevity? 

Ian Binnie 

Living judges, retired, judges are in a different position from. 

Ian Binnie 

Retired lawyers I think you know. 

Ian Binnie 

Speaking with the litigation people, there's a huge amount of stress involved with ignition. 

Ian Binnie 

Yeah, you got their clients barking at you all the time. 

Ian Binnie 

They got difficult issues. 

Ian Binnie 

You've got difficult opponents difficult. 

Ian Binnie 

Judges, difficult courts. 

Ian Binnie 

So I think after 3035 years the litigation lawyers are the sick of it and they're quite happy to throw in the sponge and go off golfing or travel or what have you. 

Ian Binnie 

I think if you go to the bench. 

Ian Binnie 

Yeah, you you have a transition. 

Ian Binnie 

Now when you get, you know very interesting work. 

Ian Binnie 

You're not under the same stress. 

Ian Binnie 

You have much more control over your life. 

Ian Binnie 

Over your work life balance. 

Ian Binnie 

So I think when you retire from the bench, you're probably still interested in the subject of it. 

Ian Binnie 

And it's easier to transition into the post retirement practice of the arbitration or whatever, because you you don't have the same burnout factor as a. 

Ian Binnie 

Hard working medication lawyer does up to the point where. 

Ian Binnie 

No, I say workers enough. 

Avi Charney 

Right, well, you should continue for many, many years to continue working and teaching and growing and sharing your wisdom with the rest of us. 

Avi Charney 

I've certainly enjoyed it and I'm sure everybody else will as well. 

Avi Charney 

So again, thank you so much and I'll leave you the last word before we let you go. 

Ian Binnie 

Well I only to say that I don't know how wise the words are. 

Ian Binnie 

I can put on the table my personal experience. 

Ian Binnie 

Others can make up their own lines. 

Ian Binnie 

I I should just leave. 

Ian Binnie 

And talking about career paths. 

Ian Binnie 

Well, you said uh Jessup, moot a few years ago. 

Ian Binnie 

And the bigger speaker was the managing partner of the White. 

Ian Binnie 

The case. 

Ian Binnie 

Of course, one of the largest law firms in the world based in New York. 

Ian Binnie 

He's a guy from Ottawa. 

Ian Binnie 

And he delivered the message to the students that then he'd been called to the bar. 

Ian Binnie 

Our joint Waitman case had a chance to go to Moscow. 

Ian Binnie 

Everybody told me it was a career killer. 

Ian Binnie 

It's a lot of post of the firm. 

Ian Binnie 

He was there that he was in the Far East and kicked around. 

Ian Binnie 

The firm then was in different parts of the white in case that everybody kept telling him that this was not the correct career path, but he was getting the reputation as a dilettante who couldn't make up his mind what he wanted to do, where he wanted to live. 

Ian Binnie 

So on and so forth. 

Ian Binnie 

Wait up to the day he was elected managing partner of the firm. 

Ian Binnie 

So his message was, you know, following your dream, do what what you want to do. 

Ian Binnie 

If you want to do it, then you like to be good at it you. 

Ian Binnie 

Like to do it with enthusiasm. 

Ian Binnie 

So I thought that was a very good message from. 

Ian Binnie 

Well, somebody who's the problem maybe and global. 

Ian Binnie 

Being her community. 

Ian Binnie 

Good advice that I would echo. 

Avi Charney 

I love it. 

Avi Charney 

I love that advice and I take it to heart and I try to live that way as well. 

Avi Charney 

So I second that and we should continue. 

Avi Charney 

Living that way, you know for. 

Avi Charney 

Many, many years to come and enjoy every day. 

Ian Binnie 

OK, well thank you very much. 

Ian Binnie 

Good luck with your shoes. 

Speaker 2 

Thank you.