Herman Wong (0:01 - 1:00) Welcome to Law Syrup, the show where we talk with special guests about hot topics in Canadian law. This podcast is a co-production with the Ontario Justice Education Network, also known as OJEN. I'm Herman Wong, let's tap in. Before we begin, please note that this show is not intended to be legal advice or be a replacement for a legal representative. On today's episode, we're taking a look at the criminal law system in Canada from a judge's perspective. That judge is Justice Mabel Lai, and she currently presides in the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton, Ontario.In our conversation, you'll hear about some criminal law basics, the differences between real-life trials versus movies and TV, and how her female Asian identity has shaped her path as a criminal lawyer and judge. Here's how our conversation went. Hi, everyone. Please give a warm welcome to Justice Mabel Lai from the Brampton Court. How are you? [Justice Mabel Lai] (1:00 - 1:04) I am well, thank you, and it's a pleasure to be here. Thank you for having me. [Herman Wong] (1:04 - 1:10) Yes, I mean, we met actually at a Drag Dim Sum event, which is very, very cool. [Justice Mabel Lai] (1:10 - 1:15) It was amazing. I immediately followed a full-blown father on Instagram. [Herman Wong] (1:16 - 1:21) I love their account so much. He was fantastic, wasn't he? Yeah. Was that your first time at like Drag Dim Sum? [Justice Mabel Lai] (1:22 - 1:37) At that particular one, yeah. I went to one in Ottawa maybe 10 years ago. They have one in Ottawa? They did, yeah. I don't know if they still do. You know how, I don't know if it's on Summersetter, but it's one where there's two competing Dim Sum places and they're across the street from each other. [Herman Wong] (1:37 - 1:39) Right. One of them's like Yangzee. [Justice Mabel Lai] (1:39 - 1:42) Yeah. One of them, you gotta go up a flight of stairs. It's a gray building. [Herman Wong] (1:42 - 1:47) Right. That was like literally right across the street. Oh, okay. That's cool. I didn't know they had that there. [Justice Mabel Lai] (1:47 - 1:51) Yeah. It was my first time. First time I did it in downtown. [Herman Wong] (1:51 - 2:28) Right. But it was a great event. It was nice to meet you because you're at the same table and I heard that you were a judge and then I also heard that you were doing criminal law and I was like, oh my gosh, you'd be perfect for this episode because I was looking for someone and I was like, oh my gosh, I hope she'd like to join. So we're so happy that you're here with us today. And today we're just going to go over some criminal law basics, but also really what you do as a judge. And I know that before you worked as an assistant crown attorney and as defense counsel. So you just hit everything. So we're going to have some good times going through your career so far. But before we do that, tell us a little bit about yourself. Did you always have a passion for criminal law growing up? [Justice Mabel Lai] (2:29 - 4:01) No, is the short answer. My journey was not particularly well planned. So I always feel it's a bit unhelpful. I feel bad for being unhelpful when people say, well, how did you get here? It was sort of a meandering path. If I wanted to be a vet, then I realized I wasn't very good at biology. Then I wanted to be a high school math teacher. And my parents who, you know, in the vein that might be familiar to some people, we're like a fairly typical or stereotypical Hong Kong immigrant family. So my parents were like, you should get a professional degree. And so I did my undergrad in engineering. And then I wasn't really that good an engineer. And in my fourth year, someone suggested that I write the LSATs because I could be a patent lawyer. And I hadn't really thought about that before. And I know that's as good an idea as any, I guess. I didn't have any better views of what I wanted to do with my future. So I wrote the LSAT. My plan was to be an intellectual property lawyer. And then in first year, I took first year criminal law. And I thought, well, this is cool. And I'd watched shows like Law & Order growing up, right? But I never really considered it as anything other than entertainment. This was the first time that I had actually thought, well, maybe this is something that I want to do. But it's not like I knew any criminal lawyers. So it was kind of a thing I parked in the back of my head. And then in second year, when I took criminal procedure, I thought, okay, well, this is I'm actually going to give this a shot. So the first time I applied for a criminal law job was for my second year summer. [Herman Wong] (4:01 - 4:03) Okay, fantastic. And are you the first lawyer in your family? [Justice Mabel Lai] (4:04 - 4:25) I'm the first. Well, no, my uncle is a lawyer in Hong Kong. That's a whole other story. So my parents are both the first in their families to go to university. They both went to Hong Kong University. My dad's younger brother went to Hong Kong University after my dad and he became a lawyer in Hong Kong. [Herman Wong] (4:25 - 4:26) That's fantastic. [Justice Mabel Lai] (4:26 - 4:32) So I'd have no other like Canadian lawyers, As far as I know, no other lawyers, but my uncle's a lawyer in Hong Kong. [Herman Wong] (4:32 - 5:17) Yeah, I feel you because we have a similar background. So of course, I'm also from Hong Kong as well. Well, I was born in Canada, but my entire family is from Hong Kong. Some of them are from Shanghai. But like you, I didn't have any lawyers in my life growing up. And actually, before I was kind of like you, I was like, maybe I should go into medicine. When I was in like, grade six, I was like, you know, doctors are cool. And then I hit grades nine and 10. And I did biology and physics. And I was like, this is not for me. But eventually, you know, the path took me so it was a very unpredictable path, like you said before, and I was like, you know, I like reading and writing. So maybe I'll give like journalism a shot. So I did journalism as an undergrad. And then later on, I went to law school, and I felt like that was a really good fit. So it's good to know and to hear from another person from a similar background that you also had a similar experience. [Justice Mabel Lai] (5:18 - 5:52) It is strange when you're graduating from high school, and everybody seems to expect that you know what you want to do with the remainder of your life, even though that's like a good 75-80 years to go, right? But it just felt like so much pressure at the time. And then in retrospect, like, you know, it's okay to wander a bit, but it felt like so much pressure in that every decision you made was going to determine your path and all these doors would close. And if there's anything, I think from the two of our paths, like everything will be fine, just make the best decision you can for yourself at the time and reevaluate as you go, right? [Herman Wong] (5:52 - 6:20) Yeah, I talked with students, and they're like, I don't know what I'm gonna do with my life. And I'm like, don't worry, like you have like, so many years ahead of you to figure this out. Even like right now, I'm like, I just kind of figured out what I want to do in my life as like a litigator. So I'm like, you have tons of time to figure it out. But anyways, let's go back to the job that you do right now. Of course, you're a sitting judge in Brampton, what are the types of cases that you hear in court? Are they mostly criminal? Or do you also do a couple of other things as well? [Justice Mabel Lai] (6:20 - 7:09) So I preside in the Ontario Court of Justice. So I'm a provincial court judge, and the provincial court sits both family and criminal, but depending on what jurisdiction you're in, some people, we call them two-hatters, will preside over both family and criminal matters. I'm a purely criminal judge. So, for example, our LAJ family, our local administrative judge family, Michelle Cheung, she sits 100% family, but I sit 100% criminal. What that means in practice is we preside over cases that are alleged offences under the Criminal Code, under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and also some regulatory offences. So some Securities Act offences will come to my court, and appeals from some Provincial Offences Act matters. So Consumer Protection Act, some Ministry of Labour Prosecutions. [Herman Wong] (7:09 - 7:16) Right. So you mentioned the Ontario Court of Justice, there's also the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. What are the differences between the two? [Justice Mabel Lai] (7:17 - 8:05) There's a long and a short answer to this, but I guess Superior Court matters, they also have civil judges. So a lot of the civil matters will go to the Superior Court. It's not true across the country. For example, the BC Provincial Court hears civil matters. Our Ontario Court of Justice, we don't, unless you count family as civil, and it's not quite the same thing, at least if I'm broadly constructing it. The Provincial Court, so the Ontario Court of Justice, does not hear jury trials. If it's a jury trial, it happens in the Superior Court. Some offences, like murder, the trial can only be in the Superior Court. So there are some offences where the accused person can elect whether to have the trial in Provincial Court or the trial in Superior Court. So there are some differences in terms of what the trial looks like and which matters are heard in which level of court. [Herman Wong] (8:06 - 8:17) So in a typical criminal case in Canada, there are usually two sides. I was wondering if you could take us through what those sides are, because you've been part of both. And can you take us through what they actually do? [Justice Mabel Lai] (8:17 - 10:05) By the time a criminal charge is laid and you're in a criminal courtroom, the two parties are the Crown and the Defence. So the job of the Crown or the prosecution is to evaluate whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, which is about how much evidence there is, right? And also whether it's in the public interest to prosecute because sometimes the evidence might be there to get you to the reasonable prospect of conviction standard. But for other reasons, it might not be in the public interest to continue. So there's two pieces to that assessment. If in their view, there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to continue, then their job is to fairly lead the evidence before the court that they say gets the judge beyond a reasonable doubt as to the accused person's guilt. So the Crown bears the burden of proof. The defence does not have to prove anything in terms of whether the offence was committed. And that burden is to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which is higher than 50-50. It's not absolute certainty. It's impossible for anyone to be absolutely certain of anything, but it is closer to absolute certainty than it is to 50-50. The job of defence counsel is to represent the interests of the accused person. So their client, that's where their duty of loyalty lies. That's where their duty of confidentiality lies. And their job is to hold the Crown to their burden of proof, to test the evidence, to try to raise a reasonable doubt as to the client's guilt. So that's sort of the high-level structure. There's more nuances than that, but I think that's the sort of starting point. [Herman Wong] (10:06 - 10:21) And thank you for explaining that, because you used to work as an assistant Crown attorney and as defence counsel. And you mentioned earlier that in your second-year law summer, you worked for the Crown as well. So can you take us through what the working situation was like for both, and how are they kind of different? [Justice Mabel Lai] (10:22 - 13:44) Yeah, I worked as a summer student in the Crown Law Office Criminal, which is largely an appellate office, so mostly appeals. They do some trials, and those trials are where the accused person is a police officer or a justice system participant, where it wouldn't be feasible or proper for the local office to prosecute it. It would be uncomfortable, for example, for a Brampton Crown to prosecute a Brampton police officer, given the closeness of the working relationship in that same jurisdiction. But because of that, the appellate side of things is a lot of reading, a lot of writing, a lot of research, and a lot of work leading up to the actual appeal hearing. And that's true both as student and as counsel. So I was a summer student there and as a 2L, then I clerked at the Court of Appeal. Then I went and joined the Brampton Crown Attorney's Office or the Peel Crown Attorney's Office as an assistant Crown attorney. At that point, I'm running trials, not appeals anymore. That's very everyday, you're on your feet. I was in provincial court most days, and you are dealing with a heavy list and a lot of on-your-feet decision-making, right? Is this trial going or is this other trial going? Which witnesses are here? Which ones aren't? Then you actually, after all of that, tender the evidence, make your submissions to the judge about whether you've met your burden of proof, and the next day, pretty much the same thing. A lot of interpersonal relationships between the defense counsel and the people and the police officers and the court staff and the judges. So it's a very people-centric practice, whereas on the appellate side, sometimes it was a bit more, I don't know what the term is, but there were days where I was just surrounded by books and not by people. So it very much is an individual thing about what you'd like to do. As defense counsel, I was not a defense lawyer for very long. I was a defense lawyer for about half a year. I had left the Brampton Crown's office to join the defense, and I was two years out at the time. And I think if I had joined the defense bar as a more senior lawyer, my experience would have been very different. And this is very individual to me and who I was as a second-year lawyer. I did not have the business skills or the sort of client interaction skills. I don't know how much of this is real versus in my head, but I found being young and female and racialized a very interesting thing to negotiate when I was dealing with clients who were older and white and male. I was not the sort of person I think that they were inherently inclined to take advice from. It's the same with police officers, though. You walk into the room and you're the Crown, and you're trying to give them advice about whether something is or is not constitutional, and there are older white people who are not used to taking advice from somebody like you. Those dynamics were not something I was very used to negotiating either as an assistant Crown or as defense counsel when I was more junior. As I got my bearings and I got more confident in who I was and in how I expressed myself around the five to seven-year mark, that dynamic became easier for me, but it was quite difficult for me as a defense counsel starting out just negotiating the sort of person-to-person interaction side of things. [Herman Wong] (13:44 - 13:51) Did you have any mentors that helped you build up that confidence or help you navigate your role as a racialized female criminal lawyer? [Justice Mabel Lai] (13:53 - 15:50) Yeah, I think I was lucky that way. I found people who, even though they were not by enlarged racialized, some of them were women, and some of them were not, I had people who didn't question what my experience of something was. It's not particularly helpful when you come back from an interaction and you're trying to entangle it for yourself and you seek out advice and you say, this happened to me and here's how I'm feeling about it. And they're like, but did that happen, though, or are you are you just reading too much into it? I had people who took it at face value that my experience of what happened, that's the premise of the conversation. All right, let's talk about what you did well, what you could change for next time, what to do next time. So I have people like Bob Hubbard, who was a 35 year call by the time I met him, and he's a Yorkshireman. And we had not that many shared personal experiences, but sometimes you just click with somebody. And Bob had a habit of collecting young lawyers in the office and sort of bringing them up and giving them a lot of responsibility. And he would be critical when it was warranted, but always supportive. And so people like that, Frank Adario, who I worked with as a defence lawyer, was very similar. If you mapped our life trajectories, there's not a lot of parallels there, but he got it, like he got the anxiety, he got why it was a problem. It's like, let's talk about what you do the next time. You know, like there's people I found like that growing up in the profession. So I was very lucky that way. Susan Nagosho, who's now on the Ontario Court of Justice with somebody like that, Associate Chief Justice Fairburn, who I hero worshipped when I was a summer student because she was just so wonderful. A lot of really great role models in those early years. So eventually helped me find my footing. [Herman Wong] (15:51 - 16:06) That's fantastic. And I believe that you are another role model now for young people, you know, who look like us, who are planning to go into criminal law. I think that you're, you know, really inspiring to people who see someone like you on the bench and they're like, oh, my gosh, like I could be Justice Lai one day. [Justice Mabel Lai] (16:06 - 16:10) They can do better. But thanks for the sentiment. [Herman Wong] (16:11 - 16:31) So let's talk about trials in general, because, you know, as you mentioned, so much of what we see on TV and in movies are criminal trials. You know, you mentioned law and order, for instance. But now that you've actually worked in criminal law for a while and you're now a judge, how different would you say criminal trials are in real life compared to what they are on TV and movies? [Justice Mabel Lai] (16:32 - 16:40) So I think it depends which TV and movies you watch. But I think most people are exposed to the US TV legal drama. [Herman Wong] (16:41 - 16:41) Right. [Justice Mabel Lai] (16:42 - 17:19) And I actually like to explain it this way to self-represented litigants as well as, you know, it's a lot less dramatic in an Ontario trial. Right. People are not by and large leaping up and yelling objection. If you want to object, you stand up, right, or otherwise get my attention and I will stop what's going on and I will turn to you and be like, yes, do you have a concern or what is your objection? I would say that the temperature tends to be lower on your day to day matter than what you see on screen. [Herman Wong] (17:20 - 17:20) Right. [Justice Mabel Lai] (17:20 - 18:02) In terms of how the lawyers interact with each other, it's a fairly collegial bar, the criminal bar. I think people respect each other and that everybody's got a job to do. Even if you don't see eye to eye, then that's why you go into court. You've got a neutral arbiter, make your pitch. The evidence is what it is. Of course, emotions run high and inevitably the temperatures rise sometimes. But I've never seen it cross into some of the dramatics that you see on US TV. So I think people come in expecting it to be a very confrontational experience. But I think there is a difference between being adversarial and being confrontational. And I think that maybe is the main difference, right? People are adversaries, but they are not confronting each other. [Herman Wong] (18:02 - 18:05) And what was it like the first time you ever did a trial? [Justice Mabel Lai] (18:06 - 19:50) Oh, it was terrifying. It was absolutely terrifying. So because I had summered at the Crown Law Office criminal and doing mostly assisting appeals, then I was at the Court of Appeal. I mostly watched appeals. Then they put me in provincial court and said, here's an impaired driving trial by yourself. Run it. I don't think I've ever been more terrified in my life. At some point, I don't know about you, but I had this deep fear of making mistakes. Right. Oh, I have an intense need to be perfect, which is completely unattainable for everyone. Like, never mind me. But so that threshold of just getting up on my feet and be like, it is what it is. Right. It's going to happen. We're here. So short of me leaving the courtroom and running away and never coming back, we're just going to have to do this. And it gets better the more you do it. And you will make mistakes. I used to keep a running list, which was so unhealthy. And then I decided this is just not helping anybody. But just acknowledging you're going to make mistakes and there's going to be things you wish you did and said differently. And it's not about dwelling on that. It's about doing better the next time that helped. But the first six months were terrifying. I actually one of my colleagues now, Justice Blacklock, I don't think it was my first trial, but it was one of my first trials. And the first thing I said to him was, good honour your morning. And I wanted the floor to open up and just like swallow me whole. He doesn't remember this, but it's funny to me because 14 years later, I'm now joining his bench as his new colleague. And I say, you know, Jim, first thing I ever said to you as a baby crown was this. He didn't remember, but he did think it was funny. [Herman Wong] (19:51 - 20:12) That's amazing. It's amazing that you get to meet people early on in your career and now your colleagues with them. So, you know, very surreal. I imagine that it's super intimidating when you first became a judge to be like, hey, guys, like I'm a new judge. How's it going? But how has that changed your perspective of the criminal law system ever since you became Justice Lai? [Justice Mabel Lai] (20:12 - 22:11) Yeah, it's. I mean, I got a little bit of exposure to the judicial process, of course, as a lawyer, but also when I was an articling student, when I was at the Court of Appeal. So I'd seen a little bit of how behind the scenes people were really working to reach what they thought was a fair result. Right. And articulated in a way that's accessible to the parties. I saw that process, but it's very different when you're actually the one doing it. So when I was a law student, I thought. Judges were not real people, this is a very weird way to say it, but you read in law school, you see these names, right? They're names written on a decision in a textbook and you don't correlate those names to actual people. And so when I first started articling at the Court of Appeals, I have read your name on decisions and now you are a physical human being standing in front of me. And this is a very strange gap for my brain to, you know, figure out. But it's a little bit like that joining the bench. You're in the same courtroom. You're just looking in the opposite direction. I'm the same person I was before I got the call appointing me. In some ways, everything changes and also nothing's changed. And I think that's the piece of it is trying to remember you now have a different role and you have a different responsibility. But ultimately you are the same person you were before. And presumably there was something in who that person was that made people think you would do a good job with this new responsibility and not lose sight of that. And so I think it's changed my perspective in the sense of now I actually have to do the reasoning piece of it and the articulating piece of it rather than the advocacy piece of it. And that is an interesting shift in paradigm. But in other ways, the law is the law. The courtroom is the courtroom. You're just in a different chair. [Herman Wong] (22:12 - 22:27) And I know criminal law can be a very human and complicated experience for many. As a lawyer or even a judge, how do you kind of balance your emotions with remaining neutral and providing reasoning that is supported by the facts? [Justice Mabel Lai] (22:28 - 24:04) Yeah, it's you're completely right. It's actually one of the things that drew me to the criminal law. It's never boring because humans are inherently interesting. And every day you're listening to somebody's story and you're only seeing a small piece of who that person is and what happened to bring them before you. The emotions piece of it, I think you just have to acknowledge what you're feeling. And I think the difficulty is when you try to pretend like you aren't feeling anything or you're not reacting to what's happening, because then you are writing off the possibility that that's impacting how you're acting or what your decision is. We're all going to feel things. That's just the way we work. I think it just adds an additional importance to interrogating why you're doing something. So you can feel I don't know about you, but I can feel tells when I'm starting to feel anxious or when I'm starting to react emotionally. Things I talk faster. I can feel like I get a little bit warmer, you know what I mean? And it's a real conscious act of acknowledging that that's happening and slowing yourself down, taking that beat. And I want to say X. Why do I want to say X? Because I actually think that's going to help us get where we need to go. Or is it because of some other thing? And once you can explain why you're doing something, I tend to think that that beat helps take some of the connection between emotion and result off the table. But I mean, it's a human process. It's going to be imperfect. I think everybody just tries their best. I don't know that I have a better answer than that. [Herman Wong] (24:04 - 24:10) Right. And jumping off from that, has there ever been a day in court that was especially hard for you in your career? [Justice Mabel Lai] (24:12 - 25:54) Yeah, I mean, it's hard to single out just one. There are days where you see things that are upsetting. It's just the nature of the criminal law is you're seeing people on one of the worst days of their lives talking about one of the worst days of their lives. And it doesn't matter whether it's the witness or the accused. That tends to be true across the board for everybody. And that will impact you when you're surrounded by people who are at a high level of emotion that necessarily impacts your emotional state as well. You see there's vulnerable people on both sides of the courtroom. We I mean, there's a whole other conversation for a different time. There are people who are unhoused, people with severe mental health issues that really are not best accommodated through a criminal law process. But because of those other lack of supports, they find themselves interacting with the criminal law. We have a drug treatment court. Those stories are both heartbreaking and inspirational depending on the day and the time. And just watch people try their best to work through a difficult situation and see people at various stages along their road to recovery. And again, that has brought them into contact with the criminal justice system. But it is indicative of something other than, quote unquote, criminality. Right. Everyone's got a story for how they end up where they are. So those stories can hurt. And sometimes you will look at yourself and think, am I helping or hurting what's going on here? And so those days can be hard. [Herman Wong] (25:54 - 26:07) But on the flip side, you know, in the year and a half since you became a judge, what have been some of the highlights that you've seen so far? Days where you were like, wow, I'm so happy to be in the position that I'm in. And I'm so glad that I'm in at this stage of my career. [Justice Mabel Lai] (26:08 - 28:18) Yeah, the, It seems so contrite, but my colleagues are really great. Right. And I really loved the office I was at before I was appointed, which was the Crown Law Office criminal. I went back when I was a fourth year call and that was where I finished my legal career. I spent 10 years at the Crown Law Office criminal. My colleagues there were wonderful. We had a group chat with the airing of complaints and the seeking of emergency assistance on our WhatsApp chat. And I was worried I'd lose that all when I joined the bench because your relationships necessarily do change.mBut oh, my God, my colleagues, especially at the Brampton Court, have been just so wonderful. So there are days where I come in and I don't know what to do and I'm looking for advice and it's the lunch table. And all of a sudden I've got people who I litigated before as a baby crown, people who I knew from practice, people I never knew at all jumping in with advice and suggestions. And like those days feel really great. Right. Like, OK, I'm part of a community and everybody is now ignoring their lunch and trying to help me solve this problem. Practically, those days are really nice. And I also find it so wonderful when I see especially younger lawyers and especially younger racialized lawyers just doing such a good job in court. Right. There are some days where you've got someone up there and you're like, whether I'm with you or not, you just did so well. And it's really impressive. It just really elevates the tone of court. And especially in a jurisdiction like Brampton, where we have, I think, a younger and increasingly diverse bar, it's a really nice thing to see the quality of advocacy. And I think it bodes well for the strength of the criminal bar in the future. And that's on both sides. So there are days when I come back like, that was just a good day of argument. You know, this is so wonderful and it's such a pleasure to watch. So I've had a lot of days like that. It was just, yeah, there are days where I will, if I get a chance, when I've made my decision, I will tell you afterwards you did a good job. But, you know, right now, I'll keep my thoughts to myself. But that was great. [Herman Wong] (28:19 - 28:46) And you mentioned being a female Asian-Canadian judge. At my firm that I work with, we just hosted a talk for Asian Heritage Month with Justice Omatsu, who was the first female Canadian-Asian judge. And she was an incredible inspiration to hear from. I was wondering, like, when you reflect on your identity, and I know this is a really big question, but when you reflect on your career path so far, too, how does it feel to be in the position that you're in today and what that might mean for other people? [Justice Mabel Lai] (28:47 - 31:06) It feels strange in that sometimes I kind of feel like I'm on secondment and then at some point I will go back to being a lawyer. And it just it still feels very surreal is the short version of it. I think that. So Justice Omatsu is a great example, I knew who she was, like I sort of admired from a distance, I had never met her. The first time I met her was maybe two years before I got appointed at a FACL event, a Federation of Asian-Canadian Lawyers event. I had met Maven Wong, Justice Maven Wong, again, through a FACL event. I'd known who she was a long time before that. I had just never met her. And I'm not really a networking sort, so it was quite anxiety provoking, even just the thought of going up to her and saying, hi, I really look up to you. Seems like a weird way to start a conversation. I never would have done that. She would have been lovely, I'm sure. I just couldn't get over the thought of doing it. But I think the visibility is important, and I hope that the fact that I am now on the bench, particularly in an ethnoculturally diverse place like Brampton, that helps. I actually was sitting in Newmarket, a York region is my home region. When we first immigrated, we moved to Scarborough. And then when I was 10, we moved to Richmond Hill. So Newmarket is in where I consider my quote unquote home region. And being an East Asian judge on that bench and looking at the docket and seeing East Asian names is a very interesting feeling. Similar to what I have in Brampton, you look through and you see that there is an increasing sort of reflection of the bench and the community that the bench serves. But Justice Shin Doi, so Julia Shin Doi, who was one of the founding members of FACL with Justice Omatsu, was appointed to the Superior Court fairly recently. And she organized a dim sum for East Asian female judges. And we were I think we were 11 or 12. So it was really nice to look around the table. Me and Caroline Kim, who's the LAJ family in Halton, were appointed around the same time. And Caroline and I are there looking around. And you see, you know, we're filling a table at dim sum now. So that's fun. [Herman Wong] (31:06 - 31:08) And those tables are big. Those tables are big in dim sum. [Justice Mabel Lai] (31:08 - 31:26) They are. So I think this is a very long winded and unwieldy way of saying that I think visibility is important. And I hope I contribute to that. I think it only enhances the repute of the administration of justice for people to look up and be like that. The complement of this bench matches the demographics of the community. [Herman Wong] (31:27 - 31:34) So just some final questions for you. What do you think are some of the biggest misconceptions of criminal law, you know, even just here in Ontario? [Justice Mabel Lai] (31:36 - 33:10) That's a big question, too. I think that there can be very black and white views of the criminal justice system. And that's informed by people's experiences. People feel how they feel. Like they've seen one piece of the criminal justice system. That's going to be their experience of it. And that's going to colour their view of it. Right. So there's people who will say the prosecution is only out for blood and they don't care. And this is just the vast machinery of the state wanting to crush the common man. And on the other hand, you have people saying, well, this is just a revolving door. The criminal justice system does nothing to protect the public. And, you know, sentencing is too lenient. I think with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I am hard pressed to think of an example where an extreme is the correct position. I think things are more complicated than that. Never mind. This is a human process. Humans are complicated. The answer is never going to be black and white. And so I think that's the piece of it that I'd urge people to hold in their hearts when they're looking at the criminal justice system is just remember on either side of it, it's a lot more complicated than it looks on the face of it. It's a large institution. Institutions are slow to change. It's a human process. Human justice is going to be imperfect because humans are imperfect. I genuinely believe everyone is trying their best to get a just outcome for everybody. And there is room for improvement. There always is. But, you know, just remember, I think that the extremes are generally not productive and I don't think really reflective of what's really happening. [Herman Wong] (33:11 - 33:33) And as a final question, you know, whenever I do a workshop, I used to do workshops for Ojen as a justice education fellow. And a lot of people really enjoy the one on criminal law. And so many young people are super interested in becoming a criminal lawyer. What would you say to young people who are interested in learning more and what resources can they seek out to kind of filter out and see whether or not this could be a potential career for them? [Justice Mabel Lai] (33:34 - 35:13) Yeah. So, I mean, OJEN is a great resource, like the website and also the individual events that they run. The Ministry of the Attorney General website actually has some pretty good plain language accessible resources as well about how the process generally works. I would also and this piece, I think, is very dependent on people's personalities. I say this knowing I never would have done it as a high school student, but people are happy to talk. I mean, lawyers in general, but also people who are in the criminal law are usually happy to talk about their experiences, their journeys, why they find their career rewarding. There are very many different ways to practice criminal law, both on the Crown side and the defence side. People sometimes are more passionate in a particular area than others. Some people want to serve particular populations rather than others. So I wouldn't hesitate to reach out to people, go to court. It's an open courthouse. If you have the time, just go see what's going on. And usually if you find somebody on a break and they don't look like they're panicking, trying to get something prepped for court five minutes away, or even if you email somebody and say, I'm a student. And if you've got a couple of minutes to chat with me over the phone, I've got some questions about how you ended up where you did. I've gotten calls like that and I'm always happy to chat. And I think that's true of pretty much anybody in the profession. So I wouldn't be shy, even though knowing that in high school, I never would have done it. I would have rather died. But I do think that I know what I'm saying is that that's cool. If you're not comfortable, then only work within your comfort level. But people are receptive to talking. Sometimes I think those firsthand accounts are the most genuine way to get a sense of what practicing would actually be like. [Herman Wong] (35:13 - 35:25) Right. And Justice Lai, thank you so much for joining us here today. We had a lovely chat. And yeah, thank you so much for chatting about your career, what life is like as a criminal lawyer, and just for being so open with your answers. We really appreciate it. [Justice Mabel Lai] (35:25 - 35:26) No worries. Thanks for having me. [Herman Wong] (35:27 - 35:28) All right. Thank you so much. Take care. [Justice Mabel Lai] (35:29 - 35:29) Bye. Herman Wong] (35:30 - 35:51) Thank you for tuning in to this episode of Law Syrup. On the next episode, I will be joined by Amelia Barad-Burns from OJEN as she chats with Pam Hrick from the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). Law Syrup is produced by me, Herman Wong, and the Ontario Justice Education Network. For more information, check out www.ojen.ca and our show notes. See you next time.