NEWSLETTER: May 2026

Editors – Allen Mendelsohn, Larry Markowitz and Stephanie Perlis

President’s Message

Alyssa Yufe, President

(cliquez ici pour lire le mot de la présidente en français)

Dear Colleagues, Honourable Judges, Members and Friends of the Society,

It has been quite the year! To close out our season, the Lord Reading Law Society is thrilled to host a historic Cross-Cultural Gala on June 3rd, 2026, organized in collaboration with the Armenian Bar Association (Quebec Chapter), the Association of Italian-Canadian Jurists of Quebec, the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers (Quebec Chapter), and the Hellenic Jurists Association of Quebec.

On behalf of the Society, we are delighted to welcome our colleagues from across Montreal’s legal communities for an evening celebrating excellence in the legal profession, while fostering new relationships, and strengthening community leadership. We have an incredible lineup of judges as guest speakers. To find out more and register, please click here.

I would also like to personally thank all of our sponsors, whose generous support has made this special evening possible. They are prominently featured on our registration page linked above. The Society’s special thanks go to our Platinum Lead Sponsors Goldwater Droit and Spiegel Ryan.

*****

As my term as President comes to an end, I have been reflecting on what has been a deeply meaningful, challenging, and ultimately inspiring year for our Society.

Over the last few years, the Society, like so many Jewish institutions across Canada, has navigated an extraordinarily difficult period marked by rising antisemitism and antizionism. The most recent RCMP reporting and other data show that Jews are the targets of over 70% of hate motivated crimes based on religion in Canada, despite constituting less than 1% of the population. As such, it has become more important than ever for The Lord Reading Law Society to remain not only resilient, but also principled, relevant, and strong.

At the outset of my presidency, I established four principal goals for the year:

1. To deliver exceptional and substantive programming worthy of the Society’s longstanding reputation for legal excellence;
2. To engage in honest institutional reflection by examining where we could strengthen ourselves internally before expanding outward;
3. To support students on campus and ensure they feel connected, supported and proud of who they are; and
4. To place the Society on the strongest and most sustainable financial footing possible for future generations.

I am proud to say that together, we made meaningful progress on all four fronts.

This year’s programming reflected the very best traditions of the Society: intellectual rigour, thoughtful dialogue, human rights engagement, and meaningful community connection.

We opened our season in October with the Alan B. Gold Advocacy Lecture featuring retired Supreme Court Justice Marshall Rothstein, whose reflections on judicial life, humility, and public service in his talk In Camera, Out Loud: Recollections from a Retired Supreme Court Judge, set the tone for the year.

Our Human Rights Lecture featuring Mark Sandler reminded us of the Society’s enduring responsibility to confront hatred and defend democratic values through principled advocacy and education.

As the calendar turned to 2026, at our Annual Student Dinner, Montréal Bâtonnière and youth protection specialist Valérie Assouline inspired students and practitioners alike with a deeply human and compassionate reflection on youth protection law and the responsibilities of legal practice.

Also in January, the Society carried on the tradition of our young bar members and students gathering at a local pub to watch the Montreal Canadiens at our annual Hockey Night. While the Habs lost that game against Buffalo, a wonderful time was had by all (and the Habs would get revenge in the Playoffs!).

In February, we were honoured to host an extraordinary panel entitled Inside the Federal Courts: Perspectives from Trial, Appeal and Practice. The panel, featuring The Honourable Justice Peter Pamel of the Federal Court of Appeal, The Honourable Justice Alan Diner of the Federal Court, and Me Daniel Grodinsky, offered rare insight into the work of the Federal Courts and the administration of justice.

In addition to our formal dinner lectures, we expanded our programming in new and meaningful ways. In collaboration with StandWithUs Canada, we hosted international lawyer Natasha Hausdorff for a lunch-and-learn and evening lecture on international law and contemporary global issues. We also collaborated on a memorable Kabbalat Shabbat Dinner, featuring peace activist Rowan Osman, whose message of dialogue and coexistence fostered thoughtful and respectful discussion at a time when such conversations are often difficult. We also held a fundraiser, celebrating hip hop and advocacy.

This spring, in collaboration with the Association of English-Speaking Lawyers of Quebec, we were pleased to host a mediation-focused members-only CLE program featuring retired Court of Québec judge Suzanne Handman, at the offices of Borden Ladner Gervais and moderated by Past President Robin Schiller, further reinforcing the Society’s commitment to continuing legal education and practical professional development.

****

Of course, our grandest and most exciting collaboration will take place next week at our inaugural Cross-Cultural Gala. I anticipate that the evening will become a defining tradition for the Society.

Behind the scenes, we also undertook difficult but necessary internal work. We asked ourselves the hard questions and emerged stronger and more focused.

Thanks in large part to the extraordinary efforts of Neil Hazan, the generosity of our Board and the support of donors and friends from both the legal and broader communities, the Society’s financial position was significantly strengthened. Their collective commitment will ensure not only the success of this season, but also the continued vitality of the Society for years to come.

No President accomplishes anything alone. I am profoundly grateful to our Executive, Board members, Past Presidents, volunteers, sponsors, donors, and members whose dedication, wisdom, and support made this year possible. The Lord Reading Law Society remains entirely volunteer-driven, and its continued success is a testament to the remarkable people who care deeply about its mission and future.

It has been one of the greatest honours of my professional life to serve as President of this venerable institution, founded in 1948 during a period when Jewish lawyers in Quebec faced exclusion and discrimination, and which continues today as an important voice for legal excellence, human rights, education, and community.

May the Society continue to go from strength to strength.

Sincerely,

Alyssa Yufe, President 2025-26
The Lord Reading Law Society
president@lordreading.org

Casper Bloom, Society President, 1936-2026

Allen Mendelsohn

The Society deeply mourns the loss of Me. Casper Bloom, Q.C. Ad.E., who passed away on March 16. Casper served with distinction as President of the Society for the 1997-1998 season. Casper was a renowned Montreal lawyer whose career spanned decades in labour, public, and administrative law. He became a respected leader in the legal profession, serving as Bâtonnier of the Barreau de Montréal and holding numerous leadership roles within the Canadian and Quebec Bar Associations.

Casper was one of only three individuals to ever receive the English-Speaking Section of the Bar of Montreal’s Lifetime Achievement Award, which was featured in our April 2016 newsletter. Even with his distinguished career, and his stature as a giant in the protection of linguistic and minority rights, Casper always had time to talk to and support young lawyers, including this Co-editor of the the Society’s newsletter, who remembers him and the advice he gave him with great fondness.

The Society expresses its deepest condolences to the Bloom family, and all of Casper’s friends and colleagues.

Reflections on Practice Before the Federal Courts

Stephanie Perlis

On February 11, the Lord Reading Law Society welcomed an esteemed panel to provide firsthand insights from the Federal Courts. We were thrilled to welcome the Honourable Peter Pamel of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Honourable Alan Diner of the Federal Court, and Maître Daniel Grodinsky of Langlois, for a discussion entitled Inside the Federal Courts: Perspectives from Trial, Appeal and Practice.

As the Federal Court system is often outside the everyday practice of many lawyers, including litigators, this panel discussion on Federal Courts offered a timely opportunity to demystify a key pillar of Canada’s legal system.

A Specialized Jurisdiction with Expanding Reach

The Federal Court’s jurisdiction is both precise and expansive. Both the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal continue to serve as critical fora for adjudicating matters that fall outside provincial competence. These include maritime law, intellectual property, immigration and refugee claims, administrative law disputes, and national security issues.

As Justice Diner noted, the Federal Courts do not possess inherent jurisdiction in the way that provincial superior courts do. Everything depends on statute, and that fact alone shapes how counsel must approach their cases. The ITO-Int’l Terminal Operators v. Miida Electronics, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752 case was cited as the landmark decision that created the 3-part test to determine a matter’s jurisdiction between the federal and provincial courts. Beyond a technicality, jurisdiction affects how files are framed at the outset, and how arguments are constructed. As was noted during the panel, jurisdiction is rarely an afterthought in Federal Court litigation. It is often the first, and sometimes, the determinative issue.

Interestingly, not all cases heard before the Federal Court of Appeal come straight from the Federal Court. As Justice Pamel pointed out, only about half of the Federal Court of Appeal cases come from the Federal Court, with the balance coming from the Tax Court along with judicial and statutory review.

Institutional Pressures and Caseload Realities

Perhaps the most well-known area of law that is handled by the Federal Court system is immigration law. Justice Diner shed light on the Federal Court’s workload in immigration and refugee matters, and the scale of the backlog of claims. Backlogs at the administrative level, including before the Immigration and Refugee Board, have reached levels that would have seemed implausible not long ago. Those pressures inevitably find their way to the Federal Court through judicial review applications.

The consequence is not only a question of numbers. It is a question of pace, and of stakes. For the people behind these files, they have life-altering consequences. The system continues to function, but not without strain.

Case Management and Judicial Review as Defining Features of the Federal System

One of the observations that resonated most strongly from the discussion concerned the Federal Court’s approach to case management. Compared to other courts, the panel lauded the Federal Court system’s often a greater degree of judicial engagement with the progression of a file. In many cases, this results in more focused proceedings and, at times, greater efficiency.

As a consequence of this speed and efficiency, the parties must come to court prepared. Strategy cannot remain overly flexible for too long. Files tend to move quickly and lawyers must be ready to meet that pace.

The panel also flagged for counsel, that since the Federal Court is often handling judicial review, the evidentiary record becomes fundamental to a case’s success. On judicial review, there is little opportunity to supplement what has already been put forward. The case, in a real sense, is often won or lost before it ever reaches the courtroom.

Concurrent Jurisdiction and Strategic Forum Selection

 The existence of concurrent jurisdiction in certain areas continues to raise strategic considerations. Lawyers must assess not only the legal merits of a claim, but also the comparative advantages of available forums.

This includes evaluating differences in procedural rules, evidentiary standards, case management practices, and appellate pathways. In disputes with overlapping federal and provincial dimensions—such as those involving intellectual property or regulatory enforcement—the choice of forum can materially affect both process and outcome.

 It was in this context that Justice Diner brought up what he called “the best kept secret” in the Federal Court – the Pilot project on procedural bijuralism. Under this pilot program, lawyers in Federal Court would be able to use Quebec’s Code of Civil Procedure, with the necessary adaptations.

Technology, AI, and Professional Responsibility

Courts are increasingly attentive to issues such as accuracy, disclosure, and accountability in AI-assisted submissions. Lawyers must ensure that any reliance on such tools complies with their duties of competence and candour. In particular, the potential for error or misrepresentation raises the spectre of serious consequences, including findings of contempt in extreme cases. Similar concerns also emerge for self-representing litigants. As courts themselves adapt to technological change, the standards governing acceptable advocacy will continue to develop.

For further evidence of the Federal Court’s efforts to stay up to date on technology, and the use of AI in particular, be sure to watch Justice Alan Diner’s video “Compliance with the Notice on the Use of Artificial Intelligence” from the Federal Court’s official YouTube channel.

A Closing Reflection

From jurisdictional complexity and institutional pressures to technological disruption and procedural reform, the federal litigation environment is becoming increasingly dynamic.

For practitioners, success in this space requires not only substantive expertise, but also strategic awareness of forum selection, procedural discipline, and emerging ethical obligations. As the Federal Court continues to adapt to modern demands, its role as a central pillar of Canada’s administrative and public law framework is likely to grow in both visibility and importance.

As summed up by Maitre Daniel Grodinsky, as lawyers in Montréal, we have the privilege of working in a bijural and bilingual environment. We should be sure to take full advantage of this gift through our practice.

A full set of photos from the evening can be found on our Facebook page

Mediation in Practice – Insights from a Retired Judge and Mediator

Stephanie Perlis

At a recent members-only CLE event hosted jointly by The Lord Reading Law Society and the Association of English-Speaking Lawyers of Quebec, Suzanne Handman, retired judge of the Court of Québec and experienced mediator, shared a series of practical reflections on mediation drawn from years on the bench and in private practice, as interviewed by Society Past President and former Batonnière of the Barreau de Montréeal Me Robin Schiller.

What emerged was a simple but useful reminder: mediation is less predictable than it looks on paper, and small decisions – by counsel, by the mediator, and by the parties – can have a significant impact on the outcome.

Different Mediators, Different Approaches

Not all mediators approach the process the same way. While some remain strictly facilitative, others—particularly with significant experience—may take a more active role in shaping discussions. Suzanne Handman noted that her own approach evolved over her career, as she became more interventionist over time.

In practice, that can mean raising risks, testing assumptions, or questioning whether a party’s expectations align with how a case might unfold at trial. These interventions typically happen in private caucus and are often framed carefully rather than definitively.

For practitioners, the takeaway is straightforward: the mediator’s style can meaningfully influence both the tone and trajectory of the session.

Preparation Is Where the Work Happens

A consistent theme throughout the discussion was the importance of preparation.

From a practical standpoint:

• the right representatives need to attend – those who understand the file and have authority to settle;
• clients should arrive with a clear (but flexible) sense of their settlement range;
• expectations should be grounded in both strengths and risks.

One useful reminder: mediation advocacy differs from trial advocacy. It requires balancing confidence with realism, and positioning a file in a way that invites movement rather than entrenchment.

Looking Beyond the Claim

Although many mediations begin with a monetary demand, resolution often turns on other considerations.

In practice, parties may be more focused on:

• practical outcomes (e.g., having work redone rather than compensation);
• explanations or acknowledgment of conduct;
• preserving confidentiality and avoiding public proceedings.

These interests are not always obvious at the outset. Identifying them early can help shift discussions toward solutions that are more likely to be accepted.

Managing Momentum

Mediation is, at its core, a negotiation – and momentum matters.

Several practical points emerged:

• starting with less contentious issues can build confidence in the process;
• initial offers should be credible and signal a willingness to engage;
• some back-and-forth is necessary—settling too quickly can lead to dissatisfaction on one side or both.

Equally, the way parties respond to proposals matters. Framing responses as questions (rather than outright rejection) can keep discussions constructive and avoid unnecessary escalation.

Virtual vs. In-Person

While in-person mediations can facilitate a different level of interaction, virtual sessions have become a central part of the practice.

They offer flexibility, reduce logistical barriers, and are often more convenient for clients. In many cases, they function just as effectively, provided that the process is managed carefully.

Closing the Loop

When a settlement is reached, it is essential to capture it immediately.

Reducing key terms to writing (ideally finalizing or substantially documenting the agreement before the session ends) helps avoid misunderstandings or post-mediation disputes.

Takeaway

For litigators, mediation requires a shift in mindset. It is not about “winning” in the traditional sense, but about helping clients arrive at a practical and acceptable resolution.

That often means:

• approaching the process with flexibility;
• managing expectations carefully;
• and remaining attentive to how the negotiation is unfolding in real time.

When done well, mediation offers something litigation often cannot: a timely resolution that reflects not only the law, but the interests and realities of the parties involved.

Society Humour

News from the Mishpocha

Condolences

• To the family of Society past member Judah Wolofsky