The Honourable Steven Wilson’s Questionnaire

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

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

Questionnaire for Judicial Appointment

[...]

Part 5 – Language

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

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

• English: Yes
• French: No

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

• English: Yes
• French: No

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

• English: Yes
• French: No

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

• English: Yes
• French: No
  

Part 6 – Education

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

• University of British Columbia, 1984 to 1991 - obtained Bachelor of Commerce and LL.B. in 1991
  

Part 7 – Professional and Employment History

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

Legal Work Experience:

• Master, Supreme Court of B.C. - November 2015 to date
  Masters in British Columbia hear chambers applications in various interlocutory matters; interim family applications (custody, guardianship, parenting responsibilities and child and spousal support); and applications in proceedings commenced by way of petition such as foreclosures). Masters preside at Trial Management, Case Planning and Judicial Case Conferences and sit as registrar including in bankruptcy proceedings.
• Pushor Mitchell LLP - March 1994 to November 2015 (associate 1994-99; partner 2000-15)
  Primarily commercial litigation involving a lot of realization work, including foreclosures, insolvencies and workouts. I did a lot of real estate litigation; insurance work, defending claims against municipalities including large multiparty construction litigation files; shareholder disputes; general civil litigation. Family law was about 50% of my practice from 1994 - 2004.
• McKenzie Fujisawa - articling student, junior associate - general civil litigation

Non-Legal Work Experience:

During high school and university I held various jobs - I worked doing labouring work and sales at a swimming pool company for a number of years, and spent some summers at an oil plant doing general labouring work and running bottling/filling lines etc.

Other Professional Experience:

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

• I was a member of the Kelowna Bar Association for 22 years or so.

Pro Bono Activities:

While in private practice I would routinely meet with people who could not afford to pay a lawyer to give them advice or direction. As a general rule this would involve spending an hour or so with someone who had called into the office or had been referred to me from any of a number of sources.

In the latter years I would say the vast majority of these discussions (some were in person, others by phone) were either homeowners who could not afford to make their monthly mortgage payments and were already respondents in foreclosure proceedings or had received demand letters, or people who were either in bankruptcy or were considering bankruptcy.

I spent on average two hours per week or so on these activities. It was not a formal activity or anything that I advertised but was just something I did.

Teaching and Continuing Education:

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

I was the chair of and presented at the Okanagan Inns of Court program on the topic of Duties to the Court in January 2015.

I have presented from time to time to various subsections of the Kelowna Bar Association, but not in the past few years. In the past I have presented on foreclosures, bankruptcy and insolvency and restructuring, Personal Property Security Act enforcement, priorities amongst creditors and also family law issues.

Community and Civic Activities:

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

[...]

John Howard Society (Central and South Okanagan) - I was actively involved with the John Howard Society for a little over 18 years, all of which involvement was as a member of the board of directors. I was the president of the society for approximately 16 years.

Kelowna Community Resources Society - I was on the board of directors for Kelowna Community Resources (KCR), a nonprofit social service agency in Kelowna, from 1994 until 2002, including two terms as the president. KCR provides, primarily through the use of volunteers, a crisis line, supervised access program and other community services including as a licensed adoption agency.

Kelowna Youth Soccer Association - I was on the board of directors of Kelowna Youth Soccer Association from 1999 to 2009, and was club chair for eight years, in addition to coaching 32 youth teams over a 20 year period.

Part 11 – The Role of the Judiciary in Canada’s Legal System

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

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

In order to answer this question one would need to first determine what is considered to be a contribution, either to the law or to the pursuit of justice. I would not consider a successful outcome in a particular case to be such a contribution because as a lawyer the primary obligation is to strive for the best possible outcome for that client; it may be that an outsider might view the outcome of that case to have made a contribution to the law, but it would likely not have been the objective of the lawyer in embarking on the case.

My practice, which was largely a commercial litigation one, did not lend itself to the types of cases that one would objectively characterize as contributing to the law or the pursuit of justice. I always considered it to be my role as a lawyer to focus solely on the client’s objectives. In virtually all cases my clients were not particularly interested in establishing a precedent or in changing the law; sometimes they were concerned about not setting a precedent, but for the most part the guiding motivation was the outcome in the particular matter. Even on rare the occasion that a case had to be taken to trial or hearing in order to set or avoid a precedent, it is entirely subjective as to whether the outcome would constitute a contribution to the law other than to observe that I am confident that the cases I handled were conducted properly and in accordance with the rule of law.

When I first moved to Kelowna 23 years ago or so, I considered it important to make a contribution to the community. I made a conscious decision to try to contribute to my new local community, as opposed to the legal community, for a couple reasons, and joined the boards of some local not-for-profit organizations. First, there are lots of lawyers keen to volunteer for the various law-related groups and organizations but a shortage of people who are willing and able to help local community organizations, especially those with a business background. Second, I actually wanted to make a contribution to the community I had chosen to live in, as opposed to simply adding something to my resume, and I thought that a not-for-profit community organization would provide that opportunity.

I initially joined the boards of directors of two local organizations - Kelowna Community Resources Society (KCR) and the John Howard Society of the South and Central Okanagan (JHS).

I joined the JHS board in 1994 and became the president a couple of years later. Shortly after I became the president, every program was cancelled following a change in government, leaving us with no income and no employees, and the organization was in the position of having to start from scratch. Although the term of the president was generally supposed to be two years, in the absence of anyone else willing or able to take it on I ended up staying in the position for 15 years. By the time I left, JHS had rebuilt to the point where it had over 30 employees and offered numerous programs including probation outreach, a prostitution offender program, a restorative justice program, employment training for those who had been in conflict with the law, and most significantly, housing facilities and programs.

I would say the single biggest accomplishment of JHS during my involvement was opening Cardington House, an apartment building in Kelowna that contains 30 housing units for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, which was funded by the province of BC as part of its homelessness initiative. It was a very controversial project; the proposed tenants were the homeless, who had mental health issues or addictions issues or both, it was referred to as a ‘wet’ facility (in contrast to a ‘dry’ facility), meaning that drug use would not automatically result in eviction, and the location was in the downtown business district. There were public hearings, information sessions, petitions, and press conferences, but ultimately the project went forward and 30 people who would otherwise have had to live on the street had somewhere to live. Since it was opened, hundreds of people have lived there, receiving not only a place to live but programming designed to assist them towards the goal of independent living.

Following Cardington House, JHS built another facility known as New Gate which opened in 2012 with 49 apartments of low income supportive housing for adults who have been or are at risk of homelessness, and additionally we acquired a couple of other houses that are also used for populations who otherwise may be homeless. New Gate was a lot less controversial than Cardington House, however, due to its location, lower level of needs for the proposed tenants, and JHS’s credibility as a result of Cardington.

I wish to be clear that I do not claim credit for these facilities; the driving force was a very skilled and dynamic executive director. My approach on any of the boards I have served has always been to hire the right people and then to support them as they do their jobs. As president I was involved in the high level decisions and policies of the board, and always required that the organization was operated based upon sound financial and business principles, which I think was a key factor in JHS being the chosen as the successful partner. The executive director knew the bounds of what she could decide and what needed either my agreement or the board’s agreement. I was involved in the press conferences and public meetings regarding Cardington House, after which I lost some clients who were opposed to the project. I was also involved in negotiations both prior to construction and then more significantly afterwards when the local health authority didn’t follow through on its commitments resulting in a renegotiation of the operating agreement with the province.

I am not sure whether my involvement with JHS in its creation of between 90 and 100 housing units in Kelowna constitutes a contribution to the law and the pursuit of justice in Canada. I know that homelessness is a significant problem in Canada as it creates barriers to employment and to access to appropriate health care. In a prosperous country such as Canada we have the means to ensure that everyone has a basic standard of living that includes adequate food and shelter. Unemployment and lack of necessary medical treatment, especially for the mentally ill and those with addictions issues, will often result in criminal activity. If people are provided with a home and some assistance, whether it is medical, life skills, or employment training, they are more likely to become self-sufficient and become contributors to and participants in our society.

I would suggest that my involvement in providing housing for this high risk and marginalized segment of our population constitutes a contribution to the pursuit of justice in Canada, even though my involvement was through a volunteer position as opposed to as a lawyer.

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

I believe that my background had given me the opportunity to become acquainted with a wide variety of people such that I am confident that I can appreciate the concerns and viewpoints of Canadians. This is as a result of my personal life and to lesser extent my professional life, including as a lawyer and also in my current role as Master.

In my personal life I have been involved in a number of volunteer positions with organizations whose mandate is to help people who either need help or are unable to help themselves without assistance. In an earlier section I described my involvement with the local John Howard Society and our projects to construct new housing units for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, and I won’t repeat that here. Those projects, particularly the controversial downtown project, took many years to put together, from the initial idea stage through construction until the doors were opened.

Although the causes of homelessness, which are mental illness, addictions or both, are not my personal experiences, they are nonetheless matters about which I learned a great deal during the process. What I was able to experience firsthand through my involvement in the project was the hostility and lack of empathy towards the homeless from some members of the community displayed in their opposition to the project, which was apparent to me in the various public hearings, open houses and press conferences in which I was involved. This experience also reconfirmed to me that there are segments of our population who are simply unable to speak for themselves and that it is incumbent on others to advocate for them.

I was also involved on the board of directors of Kelowna Community Resources Society, another not-for profit organization that provided services to a wide range of people in the community who needed assistance - the clients included families in need, immigrants, seniors and many other groups. While I was involved the organization operated the crisis line, set up an adoption centre, and ran a special needs adoption program plus other programs, utilizing volunteers wherever appropriate. Again, the experiences of the users of our services were not my personal experiences, but I learned a lot about their challenges and concerns during the 8 years that I was on the board, and especially so when I was president which was for about 5 years.

The one aspect of my life that has continuously exposed me to people of different backgrounds throughout the years has been my involvement in soccer. Soccer is played world-wide and therefore the recreational game in Canada tends to attract players from various backgrounds. I play with two teams, one age restricted and the other in the open age group. I have found the social interaction with teammates to provide a unique opportunity to learn about different people with whom I would never otherwise come into contact.

In my professional capacity I have represented a variety of clients from different socio-economic backgrounds with a wide array of legal problems, which is fairly common for a practitioner in a smaller community. I would say that the family law work and personal injury work would have exposed me to the broadest spectrum of people, although the relationship between a lawyer and client is not always the most conducive to a conversation about perspectives and aspirations. Similarly, I hear a lot people’s stories in the cases that come before me in Court, especially in the Judicial Case Conferences in family law cases where there is an opportunity for the parties to speak directly as opposed to filtered through their lawyers and put into affidavits.

In summary, while I am aware that Kelowna has a reputation as not being particularly diverse, I believe I have insight about the variety and diversity of people in Canada.

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

At the most basic level, judges are independent arbiters of disputes. Judges must fairly and impartially decide disputes based upon the rule of law and the evidence and materials put before them.

Judges play an important role in ensuring that our courts have the respect of the citizens they serve. People need to have confidence that their disputes will be resolved based upon the rule of law and the merits of the case and not due to any other outside considerations or influences. Judicial independence is essential in order fulfill the mandate of the position. In order for people to respect the role of the court it is important that judges not only be independent but that they be seen by the public as independent.

From the perspective of the public the judge must be seen as independent and free of influence and prejudices, which will generally involve abstaining from publicly expressing opinions on matters that could come before the court in some form. Confidence in our court system is enhanced by the fact that our courts are open as any citizen can attend at any hearing, subject to a few principled exceptions, to see that justice is in fact being done.

The Canadian experience of a constitutional democracy differs from that found in other countries. Ours specifically provides for certain rights and freedoms that are to be enjoyed by all citizens and are designed to protect individuals from undue state interference.

The actions of duly elected officials, whether federal, provincial or in some cases municipal, represent the will of the electorate and therefore are entitled to deference and respect. However, there are times when the will of the majority as manifested in legislation or regulations impacts on the rights and freedoms of individuals or groups, whether intentionally or otherwise.

In our constitutional democracy, in a contest between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority, it is the role of a superior court judge to decide whether or not the state has violated the rights of the individual or group in a manner that cannot be justified. These decisions are undoubtedly difficult to make in that they involve the weighing of competing rights and interests; a judge has to be brave enough to make a decision that may well be unpopular.

It goes without saying that judges play a key role in the Canadian court system, which itself is an integral component of our constitutional democracy. They have a responsibility in ensuring that respect for our court system in maintained. When parties come before the court, they need to feel that they have been given the opportunity to be heard and to present their case. In cases where all parties are represented by counsel, the judge will likely satisfy this objective by making a decision and clearly and as articulately as possible providing reasons why the decision was made.

In my experience it is becoming increasingly important that judges must be able to empathize with people who come to court have in order to have a full appreciation for their objectives and their concerns given the number of self-represented parties who now appear in court, and in most cases do not have the means to hire a lawyer. Parties come to court from a wide range of backgrounds; there are immigrants from disparate places around the world; those with limited or no ability to communicate in English; people with physical or emotional challenges; people with no ability or history of being able to support themselves economically; people with very minimal levels of education; adults who have never been permitted to express themselves or have been repressed in a relationship.

While I recognize that people go to court for a variety of reasons, my personal experience with self-represented parties has been primarily in the context of family law cases. In many cases they are not able to articulate their objectives or concerns which leaves the judge in the position of trying to ascertain them based on their experience prior to adjudicating the dispute. Ensuring that there is respect for the court system will therefore often require that the judge go beyond the traditional role of listening to evidence and arguments and to take a more involved role when dealing with people who are unable to express themselves in court in order to make people feel that they were given the opportunity to be heard.

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

The audience for a decision from the BC Supreme Court will depend on the decision being made.

In all cases, the audience includes the parties to the case. The decision needs to explain to the parties the reasons why the court came to the conclusion it did. The decision needs to ensure that the evidence has been addressed, especially where certain portions or aspects of the evidence have been preferred over others. This is of particular importance to the unsuccessful party, as it needs to know that its concerns were recognized, that its arguments were heard and understood by the presider, and why those arguments were not accepted. It is generally less important to explain to the successful party why it was successful; firstly, that party will generally be satisfied with the process because of the outcome, and second, the successful party's arguments will generally be reflected by the court's decision when addressing the unsuccessful party's arguments.

In many of the cases before the BC Supreme Court, the judge is making findings of fact and applying established legal principles to those facts. If the case is largely factual, or the hearing is an interlocutory application, the audience may not be much broader than the parties, recognizing that the decision needs to be fully explained as there is always a possibility of appeal even if leave might be required. Other decisions, however, may be of interest to a broader spectrum of readers.

If the decision addresses a new point of law and therefore may have some precedential value, the decision need to be prepared with the real possibility of an appeal in mind and therefore the audience includes the BC Court of Appeal.

Decisions that address new points of law may also be important to others who have an interest in the subject matter of the dispute. A decision in a criminal law based on the application of the Charter may be significant to prosecutors, defence lawyers, and the police, in addition to victim’s organizations and advocacy groups. A decision on the duty to consult in an aboriginal law case will be of interest not only to other aboriginal groups and governments, but also to businesses who may affected by a change in law even if not by the decision itself.

The audience for decisions in civil cases that may establish new precedent will vary depending on the case. A decision regarding consumer protection legislation or a product liability decision may have broader implications than those that are more fact dependent, such as a decision interpreting the bankruptcy legislation.

Public law cases and administrative law cases that deal with government authority and the exercise of discretion by government or its delegates are also varied in their nature and therefore in their audience. A recent decision regarding the funding of French immersion schools in BC and an earlier decision that the BC government’s legislation that purported to override the negotiated agreement between the BC Teachers Union and the provincial government, which decision made by the BC Supreme Court was largely reinstated by the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2016, are examples of cases that generated some public interest. However, a recent case that held addressed whether BC Government’s Pension Fund manager was required to charge GST on its services was of limited public interest even though the amounts in issue were very large. A court decision about education is clearly of greater interest to the public than one about taxation.

Whether or not a particular decision is of interest to members of the public will often depend on whether the media thought it sufficiently interesting so as to warrant a report. Criminal cases are widely reported, and certain public law and civil cases may be of interest; the media is therefore sometimes a part of the audience for a decision of the BC Supreme Court.

Other cases involve a decision that determines a practice point or an interpretation of a procedural rule. While there are an increasing number of self-represented litigants appearing in the courts these days, the primary audience for those types of decisions will be members of the legal profession.

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

I believe I have the personal attributes and professional abilities to be effective as a judge, and I am confident I would enjoy the work and do a good job.

Prior to being appointed as BC Supreme Court Master in November 2015, I practiced civil litigation for almost 23 years, 21 years of which were with Pushor Mitchell LLP in Kelowna. Although my practice in later years had a commercial litigation focus (including a lot of foreclosures, bankruptcy and insolvency, and general civil litigation), I also have a lot of experience in the past with family law, which was at least half of my practice for the first 10 years that I practiced in Kelowna.

Since my appointment as Master, family law has occupied the majority of my time. These cases often involve self-represented parties who look to the presider for help because they are unable to express their concerns and expectations in court.

I have found the family law work, especially the Judicial Case Conferences (“JCC’s”) which are mandated under the Family Law Act, to be particularly rewarding as they afford for some creativity. The JCC’s provide a unique opportunity to assist parties to find common ground and to resolve their issues without litigation, which can be counterproductive for parties who share children and therefore have to try to co-parent despite their personal differences, and is very expensive. I have found that I have been able assist the parties in coming to the realization that they should find ways to come to an acceptable outcome so that they can move on with their lives notwithstanding past differences. Even in some contested applications, I have tried to find opportunities to have the parties resolve issues rather than having them decided by the court and I have found on occasion that putting a temporary regime in place and requiring parties to come back in two or three months’ time can have the desired effect of encouraging better conduct between parties.

I feel that I have a good sense of the obligations and expectations of a judge, especially given my experience as a Master given that Masters are considered to be members of the judiciary.

The practice of law in Kelowna provides excellent background for what I believe would be the challenges that would face a judge. In my experience, the litigation lawyer in Kelowna will generally have a lot more files but with less money in issue than colleagues in the larger centres. The fact that there is less money in issue does not necessarily mean that there are fewer legal issues in a case, and it is much more important to determine the strengths and weaknesses of a case very quickly. The importance of finding alternative solutions to resolve disputes given the cost of traditional litigation is much more apparent when dealing with many of the files that come across the desk of a lawyer in a smaller centre. I believe I have a practical and pragmatic approach, and considered common sense to be a critical component to success in my work as a lawyer and hopefully in my new role as Master.

I am confident in saying that prior to my appointment I had one of the larger and more successful civil litigation practices in the interior of British Columbia. I believe I was well respected by clients and other lawyers, and was often contacted by colleagues at other firms with respect to both substantive and strategic matters. I was my former firm's primary contact for all Lawyers’ Insurance Fund and Law Society matters for the 12 years or so before my appointment, and I spent a lot of time dealing with other lawyers, especially junior lawyers, with regard to training, strategic and ethical issues.

I am familiar with many different areas of practice and through the years have represented a very diverse array of clients, from single parents on legal aid to large multinational businesses.

I have always been a hard worker, and I follow through on commitments. I believe I am patient and courteous in court, and I do not get frustrated or irritated with those appearing before me, regardless of the situation. I consider myself to be a thoughtful, reasonable and fair-minded person, although the opinions of others will undoubtedly be more informative and objective than my self-assessment.