Page 20 - ACTL_Sum23

After a couple of hours of this process, which is akin to speed dating with a bipartisan group of MPs and Senators, you are handed a gift bag, pointed towards the Court, and sent on your merry way. Our press coverage of Supreme Court appointments is also not as perceptive as yours in the United States. For exam- ple, when last year the Prime Minister appointed our newest colleague, Justice Michelle O’Bonsawin, as the first in- digenous justice of the Court, the press noted that this was the second historic appointment in as many years, after my appointment to the court the previous year as the “first black woman.” 19 ON HEARING PROCEDURES Our Courts share some aspects of hearing procedure. On both Courts the Jus- tices enter the courtroom and sit in order of seniority. The U.S. Supreme Court conveniently has three doors to the courtroom. The Chief Justice and two most senior Justices enter through the center door, three Justices enter through the left, and three enter through the right. In Canada, all the Justices enter through a single central door and alternate by crossing to the left and to the right in order of seniority. Because we sit in pan- els of five, seven or nine, both the order and the direction of entry can vary, depending upon who is sitting on the case. As a result, the Justices sometimes crash into each other. After one such crash collision, former Justice Gérard La Forest explained to counsel apologetically, “you know, this is much harder than it looks.” Today, parties have thirty minutes each for oral argument before SCOTUS and one hour each before our Court, but this was not always so. Hearings before the U.S. Supreme Court used to last several days. Apparently, to avoid wasting time, Justice William O. Douglas would multitask by writing opinions or articles during oral argument. At least once, a hearing had to be adjourned to permit counsel to sober up. And when arguments were particularly long and inconse- quential, the Justices would retire to have lunch behind a curtain behind the Bench while counsel continued to make submissions amid the clatter of china. With COVID, both Courts adapted their hearing procedures. The U.S. Su- preme Court opted to conduct remote hearings by telephone. As is well-known, during one hearing in 2020, a toilet flush could be heard during oral argument. I greatly appreciate that this hasn’t happened in our Court, especially since we conduct our hearings by Zoom. JOURNAL