Demanding a future for section 28 of the Charter

Shervin Ghiami
JD Candidate 2021

In the history of constitutional litigation in Canada, no section has been as unjustly ignored as s. 28. The section reads:

“Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.”

S. 28 was added to the Charter after women lobbied for its inclusion, fearing that s. 15 would be insufficient to protect the equality rights of women. This fear was based on the Supreme Court’s white and male dominated demographic at the time, and the general attitude of legislators towards women in the field of law.

Now we have reached a junction in time where the Supreme Court has elaborated several key principles of the Charter in a string of landmark court cases. Yet s. 28 is ignored by the courts for the purpose of analysis and deeper synthesis. It is acknowledged as an “interpretational” principle, but what is it interpreting? The rights of women are recognized by s. 15. Yet early feminists sought to use s. 28 as a deeper point for the enrichment of women’s status in the law. The purpose was to make it unequivocally clear – that those borne of either sex must have equal status in the law. Given that s. 28 is immune to the notwithstanding clause of s. 33, this section wields potential in litigation going forward, should courts acknowledge the rich history and purpose behind its inclusion.

S. 28 was not included in the Charter so that it could be ignored.

Shutting Down Supervised Consumption Sites Harms Women

Nicole Paroyan
JD Candidate 2021

Now that the federal election is over, it’s time to start talking again about provincial issues.  Provincial governments in Ontario and Alberta are shutting down safe consumption sites, and they are doing so without taking into account the harmful impacts this action may have on women.

Women are disproportionately represented among those who require help injecting. Kapri Rubin, executive director of Street Health in Toronto, has stated in interviews that 60 per cent of their clients are women. Gender power relations in intimate partnerships can lead to women often being injected by their partner. These women are therefore increasingly vulnerable within the relationship and may be dependent on their partner.  Supervised consumption sites allow women the chance to escape abusive relationships and minimize their risk of violence when injecting.

The federal government has reiterated their support for safe injection sites, opioid replacement therapy and safe supply. But, the federal government is not doing enough. Current federal approaches are based on treatment, harm reduction and measures of de-stigmatization; nevertheless, the science supports more action on providing a safe supply to prevent thousands of tragic deaths.

Though there has been an expansion on the exemptions for supervised injection sites, it is now time to be bolder. Ending the opioid crisis demands decriminalization of the drugs behind the epidemic and demands that provincial governments consider the experiences of some of the population’s most vulnerable when making their decisions.

When does “no” mean “no”?

Bianca Salive
JD Candidate 2020

The scene: You are sitting at home in your pyjamas watching your favourite show. Your phone buzzes and you see a message from your friends: “Let’s go out tonight!” You know you are not leaving the house, but out of politeness, you want to avoid an abrupt “no.” So you might say you are tired, or not feeling well. Regardless of the words you use, your response is interpreted as a “no.” This is because we accept these phrases as culturally normative ways of indicating refusal in social circumstances all of the time.[1]

So, why are we not able to accept these phrases when it comes to sex?

We often hear of sexual assault cases in which the victim did not give a clearly stated verbal “no.”[2] Overwhelming evidence of both physical and verbal disagreement might be available, but because of the absence of that simple 2-letter word, the victim’s lack of consent is less likely to be believed. Interestingly, we know why women choose not to simply say “no” to ward off sexual advances. According to the literature, women refrain from saying “no” to avoid upsetting a partner, to avoid feeling like a prude, or out of fear for the reaction.[3] Furthermore, it is conversationally unusual to respond with “no” any social circumstance that is unaccompanied by a mitigating factor.[4] As humans, we prefer to give an excuse that speaks to inability, rather than just unwillingness; that is, we are far more inclined to say “sorry, I have a midterm on Monday,” than we are to say “no, I want to stay home.”

In addition to being unrealistic and ignorant of the literature, requiring an actual “no” to demonstrate refusal, that is, expecting more refusal in a sexual context than anywhere else in life, does not reflect the legal standard for consent in Canada. In R v Park, for instance, Justice Dube reminds us that only a yes means yes when it comes to consent, an absence of “no” will not constitute consent.[5]

Finally, expecting more direct refusal in a sexual context is troubling because it advances two dominant rape myths. First, this expectation implies that any other way of refusing sexual contact other than saying “no” is inadequate. In the trial decision from R v Ewanchuk, the judge suggested that women should even go so far as to assert physical force to get the message across, rather than “resort to the courts” afterwards.[6] A similar message was echoed by Justice Camp in 2014, when he asked the complainant “why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?” insinuating that a physical act of rejection is more effective than a verbal one.[7]

Second, this expectation of direct refusal suggests that sexual consent can be a result of misinterpretation. If only women were more assertive in their verbal communication, they could avoid being raped.[8] This claim is both dangerous and onerous for victims, as it shifts the burden of the assault to them. Again, this is not consistent with the legal reality, which tells us that the burden is in fact on the accused to prove that they took all reasonable steps to ascertain consent.[9]

Taken together, continuing to expect direct refusal, to demand more from women in horrible situations than we do from others in our day-to-day lives, demonstrates an ignorance of the fact that culturally speaking, we very rarely use a flat out “no” to express refusal. More damaging still, this expectation flies in the face of legal standards and perpetuates rape myths. We must accept a realistic refusal standard when it comes to sex.


[1] Celia Kitzinger & Hannah Frith, “Just say no? The use of conversation analysis in developing a feminist perspective on sexual refusal” (1999) 50:3 Discourse & Safety 293.

[2] Robyn Doolittle, “Unfounded: Why Police Dismiss 1 in 5 Sexual Assault Claims as Baseless” Globe and Mail (3 February 2017), online: <;.

[3] Hedda Hakvag, “Does Yes Mean Yes? Exploring Sexual Coercion in Normative Heterosexuality” (2010) 28:1 Can Women Studies 121.

[4] Supra note 1.

[5] [1995] 2 SCR 836, 99 CCC (3d) 1 [Park].

[6] [1999] 1 SCR 330 at 93, 169 DLR (4th) 193 [Ewanchuck].

[7] Sean Fine, “Judge in ‘knees together’ trial resigns after council recommends he be fired” (14 April 2017) Retrieved online: <;

[8] Supra note 1.

[9] Ewanchuk, supra note 6.

Mothers in Law*

Angela Livingstone
JD Candidate 2019

Being a mum has always been hard, but perhaps more so in a time when everyone can openly judge from so many angles. We are regularly judged on how we birth our children, how they sleep and eat, the clothes they wear, and how we let them play. Significantly, we are judged on our participation in their lives, which feeds into perceptions about the quality of care we provide. Sensible people tell us to ignore this judgment and some days we are successful. But ignoring is easier said than done, especially since the voice we need to ignore is sometimes our own.

Why are we discussing motherhood? Because amplifying women in law includes supporting the mothers who are practicing law. Mothers practicing law pose an interesting challenge to the profession. We demand to be taken seriously as legal professionals, but increasingly, we also insist on being given time to participate in our children’s lives, to parent in a real, hands-on way. Thus far, efforts to be attentive to both have been underwhelming.

Given the lack of substantive change, it is useful to consider the challenges mothers face even in law school, and how they manage (or don’t). By being aware of the practical realities of women who have chosen to parent in this profession, we can reveal common concerns and hopefully develop strategies for change.

The following are some of the obstacles to, and benefits of, being a “law mum.”

1) We’ve had five kinds of problems before our 8:30 class and none of them are law related.

Most of us get up at an ungodly hour to get out of the door intact. Those of us with toddlers squish in some morning playtime. Those of us with bigger kids try to be attentive to the story-telling needs of our children while packing lunches, signing permission slips, and remembering to give the kids money for bake sales. Other morning obstacles include special themed school days, temper tantrums over mittens, a sudden decision to hate eggs, and of course we have to put clothes on. We will eventually fall out of the house, drop kids at daycare and school, and attempt to finish readings on the bus ride.

Many of us have worked full time before law school, so the routine is not new. However, with work, we likely turned off around 8:00pm the night before; law school, and indeed law practice, means we’ve read late into the night so we’re running on empty at the start of the day. This spices up the morning routine, especially since children can smell exhaustion.

Sometimes we won’t get to the class because there is no predicting when a tantrum will end, or when a kid will vomit on our shoes. Sometimes we’ll get half way to school, only to get a call saying the kid has a fever. If we have partners with forgiving jobs, we may be fine. If we don’t, we’re heading back home.

And sometimes we can’t manage the 8:30 class at all. Some of us are picking all of our classes based on the kids’ schedule, meaning we miss out on classes we’d love to take. Most of us can’t attend “make-up” classes because they don’t fit the pre-determined care schedule we already have in place, and changing care schedules costs money. Which we also don’t have, because the daycare costs we pay in order to go to law school can run anywhere between $7,000 to $15,000 per kid per year, depending on the age and stage of our children.

2) We feel isolated.

The ability to network is intimately tied to doing well in both law school and the general practice of law, and the networking starts early in first year. Unfortunately, networking events occur between 5:00pm and 7:00pm, or what is known in most of our homes as “dinner time.” These are precious hours when we need to connect with our kids, make dinners, get the homework and laundry done, or drive children to piano lessons. Some of us also need to be home for bedtime, to read the stories, get some evening snuggles, and try to make the house seem stable for our kids. In the end, the demands of home mean we miss out on a lot of good lectures, socials, and impromptu beverages, which can leave us feeling isolated and worried about missed career opportunities.

3) Sometimes we fear that we made the wrong choice.

Even though we’ve often had more time to mull over the decision to go into a career in law, we are likely to question the decision as school progresses. This is because finding the balance between being a good student and being a good parent is impossible. Both require a lot of time and sadly time is finite. If we work on the weekend, we miss taking our kids to the library, or for walks in the woods. If we take the kids on an adventure, we’ve lost valuable study time. The guilt is gut wrenching and ever-present.

Particularly challenging is when our kids need more time than usual. Some of our kids are teenagers who need sudden bursts of emotional support. Some of our kids are bullied and need long conversations about the grim realities of elementary school. All of this means time.

People will say supportive things like “this is good for the kids to see” and “they’ll be so proud someday.” Which is true and kind. But in the moment, when we miss another field trip or school performance, or when our kids are mad because we have to work through another Saturday, it is hard to remember that this is for a good cause. In the end, we regularly feel like we’re succeeding at nothing, which can leave us wondering why we’re doing this in the first place.

4) We are grateful that we have built in perspective.

For all of the challenges, being a mum in law school, and indeed in law practice, has one key advantage: built in perspective. We have to turn off law mode for at least part of the day in order to parent. We can’t worry about everything at school or at work because of our daily reminder that there is more to life and the reminder needs someone to play a round of Candyland.

And maybe this is where the change should start. Having established ourselves with a family already, maybe we are in the best place to demand that law firms get some perspective. The reality of our lives as people in relationships of care is an excellent example of why firms must do more than pay lip service to work life balance, or appreciating our life experience, if they want to retain us. Because in the end, we are a valuable addition to the profession. But none of us should have to battle guilt or feel as though we are failing at everything in order to parent and practice well.

*A special thanks to all of the mums in law who helped contribute their thoughts and stories to this post. You are loved and supported.

Makeovers and Mishaps: Some thoughts on Bill C-78

Angela Livingstone
JD Candidate 2019

Almost 33 years later and yet somehow the Divorce Act of 1986 still does not contemplate the particulars of family breakdown, complicated as it is by factors such as domestic violence, an unequal distribution of power, and intersecting relationships of care. Absent legislative guidance, Canadian courts have inserted their own interpretation of how to structure the family after breakdown. The results have been inconsistent and in some cases deeply troubling.[1]

A substantial makeover is clearly overdue and it comes in the form of Bill C-78.[2] Among the recommended amendments to the Act, Bill C-78 proposes to shift the language on post-separation childcare away from “custody,” “custody order,” and “access,” replacing these terms with “decision-making responsibility,” “parenting order,” and “parenting time.”[3] The bill also proposes to provide guidance by including a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in determining the “best interests of the child” (BIOC). As well, the bill acknowledges the impact of family violence by outlining a working definition to be included in the Act, and tying this definition to the BIOC.[4]

The proposed changes are far from inconsequential; indeed, the amendments are an important step closer to addressing at least some of the concerns with the current legislation. Yet the amendments have limits, four of which I note in this post. To begin with, the transformative potential of a shift away from custody and access is likely overstated. The “highly charged” nature of “custody” and “access” is often cited as a reason to move away from these terms; however, in practice it is likely that any term that denotes a post-separation parenting arrangement of some kind will be highly charged by virtue of what the term represents.[5] Certainly, the parent who is assigned “time” rather than “responsibility” is likely to feel they have lost.

Second, while the proposed list of factors to consider in determining the BIOC is a very positive development, without guidance as to the weight of these factors, considerable discretion still rests with family court judges. “History of care” and “family violence” should be clearly prioritized. Prioritizing these two factors in particular would increase predictability in the BIOC test, but equally important, this prioritization would require the court to first reflect on the “historical arrangement of caregiving,” [6] and to consider the unique day-to-day caring realities that have shaped a child’s life. Understanding the history of care, and how it has been affected by family violence provides much needed context for the proper evaluation of other factors, such as the appropriateness of asking that a victim of domestic violence facilitate a relationship between her abuser and her child.

Third, the continued inclusion of a “maximum contact principle” serves as an obstacle to determining the actual best interests of children. It also limits the usefulness of the family violence definition by continuing to emphasize that more parenting time is best, without genuinely questioning the quality of care during that time. Certainly, maximum or equal time makes sense for healthy families, in which both parents support the children and parents are able to communicate and cooperate with each other in spite of their differences. [7] However, this is an ideal scenario, one that does not appropriately capture the lived experiences of many families at separation. The maximum contact principle also ignores the day-to-day caring realities of children prior to and during family breakdown; the principle assumes that care distribution is gender neutral, and that all parents are capable of identifying and responding to the complex physical and emotional needs of children.[8] Legislative reform that claims to be child-focused, and that claims to support evaluation on a case-by-case basis, cannot include a maximum contact principle.

Finally, the usefulness of a family violence definition is needlessly restricted by the lack of explicit acknowledgement of the gendered nature of family violence, or the intersecting factors at play with respect to said violence. However in this instance, given the limited ability of legislation to tackle systemic issues such as family violence, additional steps should be taken to properly attend to the fallout from divorce, steps that go beyond legislative reform. In particular, targeted education for legal professionals, especially decision-makers, should be required. This education must go beyond simply explaining typologies; it must explain gender-based violence, intersectionality, and the compounding effect of different relationships of power and what this means in the context of family violence. This education should also draw support from genuine consultation, should connect practice to real life, and should dispel myths and over-simplifications with respect to family breakdown. Moreover, this education should provide a deeper understanding of the relationships of care that shape the social, psychological, and legal lives of clients and their children.

In its current form, Bill C-78 is a positive step, but substantive change requires a more nuanced and holistic approach to family law than is currently contemplated.


[1] See e.g. Ulloa v Ulloa, 2016 MBQB 132 at paras 107–109 [Ulloa] wherein the Court ordered shared parenting and joint custody to “break the chains of fear and worry” in the children because of their fathers’ violent behaviour; EH v DM, 2018 PESC 38 at paras 58–61 wherein the Court ordered joint custody (albeit not shared parenting) in spite of the fathers’ violent behaviour towards the mother because it was determined that the children needed to see their father.

[2] “Bill C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act”, House of Commons Debates, 42-1, Vol 148 (22 May 2018) at 19427 (Hon Jody Wilson-Raybould) [May Debates].

[3] Bill C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, 1st Sess, 42nd Parl, 2018 cl 1(7) (third reading 6 February 2019) [Bill C-78].

[4] Ibid, cls 1(7), 12.

[5] This point is also noted by Brenda Cossman in her 2001 report for the Department of Justice. Department of Justice Canada, An Analysis of Options for Changes in the Legal Regulation of Child Custody and Access, by Brenda Cossman, Catalogue No 2001-FCY-2E (Ottawa: Family, Children and Youth Section, 2001) at 6.

[6] Susan Boyd, “Fathers’ Rights and Women’s Rights Advocacy” in Rosemary Hunter, ed, Rethinking Equality Projects in Law: Feminist Challenges (Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2008) 59 at 59.

[7] Nicholas Bala, et al, “Shared Parenting in Canada: Increasing Use but Continuing Controversy” (2017) 55:4 Fam Ct Rev 514 at 524.

[8] Boyd, supra note 6 at 68.

Professor of the Month: Vanessa Gruben

Each month, we feature a professor from the Faculty who supports and contributes to feminist legal thought.


Vanessa Gruben
Associate Professor
Interviewed by: Maja Petrovic

MP: Tell us where you started. What was your first job?

VG: My first law job?

MP: Any job!

VG: I went to law school here and I worked at the legal clinic as my first summer job. At the time they had an HIV/AIDS Division and so we provided all sorts of different types of legal advice to that community. It was great, I learned a ton! It was fantastic, a really great learning opportunity. I then took the legal aid course the following year. That was in the first summer after first year. In my second summer, I summered at BLG.

MP: What was your path to law?

VG: I have always wanted to be a lawyer but I was really interested in health issues, and the difficult legal and ethical questions around health. My undergraduate degree was actually a Bachelor of Science, in Life Sciences, which I completed at Queens. But I always knew I wanted to go to law school, so I was delighted when I got in. I have been lucky in that I have kept fairly close to my interests, and I have managed to keep on that track, while doing some other stuff of course– but this topic has always been part of my practice, from private practice to when I clerked. I have been really lucky in that sense.

MP: As a summer student at BLG, did your work focus on health law?

VG: Not really. As a summer student, I kind of worked on a little bit of everything. Although, I did do some work for the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which was interesting. The practices were less specialized than they are now, and I worked in General Litigation so my practice varied a lot.

MP: Did you know you were interested in the academic side of law then or did that happen later?

VG: It sort of evolved. When I was in law school, I always enjoyed doing legal research. I became more interested in it once I clerked, that that kind of career would be something of interest to me. But I didn’t go into law school thinking that I wanted to be an academic. It is really something that developed over time.

MP: What are you working on right now that you’re particularly excited about?

VG: There are so many things! The thing that is most exciting at the moment is my work on the regulation of Assisted Human Reproduction. We have new regulations, draft regulations, under the Assisted Human Reproduction Act that I am in the midst of putting a submission together on. They deal with the reimbursement of expenses to egg donors and surrogates, what those expenses should be, what can be reimbursed, how the process is going to work, the oversight and enforcement of the process and the framework, and so on. That is on the front burner at the moment. I also have a book, an edited collection, coming out next Monday on Surrogacy in Canada!

MP: What is the best thing about being a professor at uOttawa?

VG: Probably the students! I love to teach and love to work with law students, it is always interesting. It is great and is definitely the highlight of being a professor here at uOttawa.

MP: Did you always know you wanted to teach or did that gradually develop as well?

VG: That also gradually developed. When I was clerking I thought this might be something I might be interested in. Clerking tends to attract people who are interested in academia. I also practiced after I clerked, at McCarthys, and I taught the trial advocacy course while I was practicing. I enjoyed the teaching and the research, so that is how I figured out that teaching might be the next step for me in my career.

MP: Was Trial Ad the first course you’ve ever taught?

VG: Yes! Trial Ad was the first course I taught here at uOttawa.

MP: What about your free time? What do you like to do during your free time?

VG: In the winter, I downhill ski. We have a cottage, so I like to ski in the winter. I swim in the summer. I also really enjoy just spending time and hanging out with my kids.

MP: What else are you interested in outside of law?

VG: I play the piano, not particularly well any more, but I used to play the piano well. My family and I – we travel a ton! We just got back from Germany. We try to bring the kids to Europe about every year and a half, so we travel quite a bit. We also like to read, play games, and hang out at our cottage.

MP: If you had one piece of advice for us law students what would it be?

VG: Love what you are doing. Try to love what you do, and make sure to take care of yourself, it is important. Self-care is critical.


Professor of the Month: Heather McLeod-Kilmurray

Each month, we feature a professor from the Faculty who supports and contributes to feminist legal thought.

McLeod-Kilmurray, H

Heather McLeod-Kilmurray
Associate Professor
Interviewed by: Bianca Salive

BS: Tell us where you started? What was your first job?

HMK: My very first job ever actually happened to be law related, even before I had ever thought of law. It was updating a looseleaf business law book that I helped my dad work on. I made a lot of money doing a really boring thing. When I was 14 or 15, I was a foot messenger at a big law firm in downtown Toronto, before email and faxing. We would run between buildings and get signatures. It was good exercise and I really got to know the downtown core.

My first real law job was clerking for the Chief Justice for the Federal Court of Appeal. It was probably my favourite job ever, other than my current job.

BS: What was your path to law?

HMK: Ever since I was a little kid all I wanted to do was be a teacher and so many people tried to talk me out of it. When it came time, I applied to both teacher’s college and law school. I got into law school so I went there. I loved it right from the beginning. Even the subjects I didn’t love, I liked the idea of somebody giving me a question and finding an answer. I kind of felt like a detective. Even tax policy was interesting to me. There are so many social justice issues in so many aspects of law and I find that very fun and interesting.

I took environmental law in my JD, and then when I was clerking at the Federal Court I applied to Environment Canada. I worked there for 18 months and I loved it. Then I did my masters and PhD, which were both focused on environmental law.

BS: Did you know you were interested in the academic side of law then or did that happen later?

HMK: Being a law professor was my path to teaching. I thought it would be fantastic to be a professor because I could do all of the research work and the policy work while teaching at the same time. The year after I did my masters, I was living in England. I called the University of Sheffield and I ended up TA’ing four small groups on Friday afternoons. I looked forward to it every week. This was my first opportunity with teaching.

BS: How did that interest develop?

HMK: I always loved learning so much. I loved school. So I wanted to remain in the educational environment all the time. In teaching there is always a learning experience. You learn from trying to explain things, you realize gaps in your own knowledge, you’re always learning something new.

BS: What are you working on right now that you’re particularly excited about?

HMK: The big new thing happening over the last few years is the focus on food law. Food law has grown relatively recently and is just starting here in Canada. At uOttawa, we want to be part of this growth. My own interest in food law started because I work in environmental law, and I saw how often food law issues affected the climate. It’s talked about more often now, the circular relationships between food production and consumption, and how that affects carbon production. Climate change also makes it difficult to grow sufficient quantities of food. I noticed I was writing a lot about food law while doing environmental law.

Along with Nathalie Chalifour, I started to look at food law in relation to farming. Now I am working with Professor Chalifour and our PhD student, Angela Lee, on editing the first food law textbook in Canada. We also hosted the second annual food law conference in Ottawa last year. Angela and I also co-taught a food law course for the first time last winter. It had an environmental element and a justice element, but also covered intellectual property (trademark, copyright) and torts, for things like food fraud and class actions for bad food. Food law also involves a lot of administrative law on how regulation and enforcement of food rules and food safety happen. We also talked about cutting-edge technologies in food.

In the text, we talk about food and the particular implications for women and Indigenous peoples. We want to make sure there is gender-based analysis of food law policy to see how women are affected here and internationally. For example, Professor Bita Amani from Queens University talks about  the corporatization of breastfeeding through the promotion and sale of breast milk and alternatives, among many other feminist food issues. On Indigenous issues, there is growing awareness about issues of food sovereignty and challenges with Indigenous food security in both urban and rural areas. From the outrageous price of food in Northern communities, to access to fresh fruit and vegetables, there is great need for Canadian food policy to be aware of these social issues. It’s also about learning from Indigenous food systems and what this traditional knowledge could contribute to sustainable and just food policy in the rest of Canada.

It’s a good time to be working on these issues because the federal government is working on a national food policy, which we’ve never had. We’ve been attending consultations and trying to ensure that the current revisions to the Canada Food Guide incorporate sustainability issues. In terms of opportunities for students, we’ve met a lot of practitioners who are doing this kind of work but wouldn’t call themselves food lawyers. This is changing, and young lawyers with expertise in food law are needed, so we have a new Food Law Students Association at uOttawa, which is only one of a handful in Canada.

BS: What is the best thing about being a professor at uOttawa?

HMK: The students of course! You are always meeting new people with new ideas so it helps you stay current. It’s so rewarding to watch students learn, and to learn from them. I still learn new things form a torts course I’ve taught 13 times because of the students’ questions. I think our students in particular are very diverse and engaged.

We’re so lucky with our faculty here; our colleagues are all extremely smart and diverse and friendly. They’re very outgoing and mutually engaged. We collaborate a lot and learn from each other and it is a very positive environment. We have so many specializations in technology and international law and feminism, but all of us seem to come together around the social justice mission. Everyone seems to be united on this key theme that uOttawa is known for.

I also love the bilingualism aspect and being able to use both languages every day, as well as the dual perspective of common and civil law.

BS: One of your primary research areas is in ecofeminism – tell me more about that.

HMK: That’s a really interesting combination of feminism and ecological approaches to law. It comes from the radical feminist approach. Feminist legal analysis tries to look at underlying structures and causes of why women are discriminated against or disproportionately affected by laws and policies, and ecofeminism asks whether the same structures lead us to exploit the environment. Things like overemphasis on technology, industrialization, competition, cost benefit analysis – a lot of these structures that exploit women are the same ones that cause a lot of environmental degradation. The heart of it goes deeper than just ‘how does environmental law affect women differently’, although that is important too. We touch on it a bit in the food law course.

BS: What about your free time? Can you tell us your favourite book or movie?

HMK: One of my favourite books is kind of on the environmental theme but is easy reading. It’s called “Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing.” It’s really interesting. It takes case studies of how we put value in some things and not in others. It’s very engaging and a page-turner, even though it’s a non-fiction book.

BS: What else are you interested in outside of law?

HMK: I love hockey. I have two boys who play hockey at a competitive level. I’ve never attempted playing but I should since I spend so much time watching it!

I also love traveling and music. I’m learning to play guitar and I have always played piano. We always have music on at home and we’re always going to performances. I like folk music a lot. One of my newest discoveries is a musician from Sarnia named Donovan Woods. I love Cat Stevens, and Simon and Garfunkel. I also try to listen to Spanish music as well. And of course lots of Canadian music like Joni Mitchell, Jann Arden, Bruce Cockburn and of course our Lynda Collins. I got to see Burt Cummings recently from the Guess Who and he really sounds almost as good as he always did.

I love languages, I’m always trying to learn new languages. I studied Russian for ten years and speak a little bit of Spanish. I’m getting better. Right now I’m working on my Gaelic, as my husband is Irish.

BS: If you had one piece of advice for law students what would it be?

HMK: It’s important to make sure you get the legal education that you want. Sometimes it’s easy and there are lots of courses in the area that you love. But if it’s not, there are so many opportunities for SPIs and directed research, or to take a course in a different department. Don’t let application forms and rules stand in your way. You should follow your own path and your own dream in law. Don’t listen to talk about what jobs you should take and what courses you should take. If you do what you love you’ll be happy doing it and that’s what you’ll be good at. There’s so many areas people don’t think exist because they don’t see them. There are not just the traditional eight or ten categories to choose from.

The other thing I always tell students is that if there are ever opportunities to combine things you want to do, do it. If you want to travel and get legal experience, go abroad for that experience. Look for ways of achieving several goals at the same time.