Lexpert magazine features articles and columns on developments in legal practice management, deals and lawsuits of interest in Canada, the law and business issues of interest to legal professionals and businesses that purchase legal services.
Issue link: https://digital.carswellmedia.com/i/1541334
18 www.lexpert.ca InHouse Profile passage of time doesn't lessen the gravity of these crimes," she says. From government litigator to human rights advocate Marinos' journey from government liti- gator at the Department of Justice to inde- pendent advocate at RWCHR has been transformative. At DOJ, she was expected to defend legislation and government deci- sions, regardless of her personal views. "You have to be measured; your own personal opinions about whatever position you're advocating for are out of the equation," she says. Now, she applies the same rigour to the facts and law, but she can be openly critical of legislation and push for change. Her work is also more selective and creative. "At DOJ, files landed on my desk whether I wanted them or not. At RWCHR, I choose which cases to pursue, giving me a lot more independence and legal creativity," she says. She also describes the freedom to shape arguments and strateg y without the layers of review and oversight that defined her government work. Her role now extends well beyond the courtroom. Marinos moderates public discussions, such as a recent panel at Massey College with survivors of genocide, and sees this broader advocacy as a vital part of her mandate. "is job is giving me an opportu- nity to not just be in the courtroom but have a more public-interest impact," she says. Case selection is methodical. Every week, Marinos reviews new Supreme Court of Canada leaves and looks for cases that align with the RWCHR's mission – advancing women's rights, defending religious minori- ties, and protecting the most vulnerable. She and the RWCHR CEO decide together which cases to pursue. e guiding principle is clear: focus on those most at risk. Ongoing advocacy and new frontiers Since Sheppard, Marinos has continued to push for a trauma-informed, child-centred approach in cases involving sexual violence. She is currently intervening in two other land- mark cases before the SCC. In the Quebec secularism case, Marinos will be among the many interveners addressing the intersection of religious freedom and state neutrality. And in R. v. A.M., she recently obtained leave to intervene in a case that will determine whether the Criminal Code's "twin myths" screening mechanism (s. 276) applies to trafficking and sexual services offences. Frequent Supreme Court interventions have forced Marinos to become ruthlessly organized. She emphasizes the importance of coordination among interveners to avoid duplication and maximize impact. In large cases like Ahluwalia, which exam- ined whether a new tort of family violence should be recognized, she collaborates with other counsel; in others, like Sheppard, she carries the responsibility alone. Legal integrity, she insists, is non-negotiable. "No matter what position you take, it has to have a solid evidentiary and legal foundation," she says. For her, public interest and media attention flow from the strength of the legal argument, not the other way around. Marinos also sees the role of interveners at the Supreme Court as increasingly vital. "Everybody's bringing a unique perspective. Even if the court doesn't necessarily address what the intervener is arguing, there are cases where they do address it, and it seems like it is bringing something that the parties aren't bringing," she says. Her advocacy extends to judicial educa- tion and public engagement. Where she once avoided media attention, she now seeks it out, wanting cases like Sheppard to spark public debate. "It's a totally different shi in my mind about how I'm dealing with cases, and it's another form of advocacy," she says. Looking ahead, Marinos remains focused on advancing women's rights, defending minorities, and protecting the vulnerable. e Sheppard decision, she believes, is a significant step in shining the light of the law on the darkness of sexual violence – a mission she is determined to continue. "I just love this role. I love the creativity and independence. It's such a different thing than when I was at DOJ… you're really trying to carve out a niche that will be helpful to the court." KEY CASES R. v. Sheppard: The Supreme Court restored a six-year sentence for a teacher who sexually abused a student in the 1990s, affirming that contemporary sentencing principles apply to historical sexual offences R. v. A.M.: The Supreme Court will decide whether the Criminal Code's "twin myths" evidence screening applies to trafficking and sexual services offences, with implications for how courts assess coercion and exploitation Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia: The case considers whether Canadian law should recognize a new tort of family violence, with a focus on the international human rights context for women Quebec secularism case: A landmark appeal addressing the balance between religious freedom and state neutrality under Quebec's secularism law