An Interview with Tammy Law

Tammy Law is a prominent family law litigator based in Toronto and the founding lawyer at Tammy Law Professional Corporation. She has appeared at all levels of court in Ontario as well as the Supreme Court of Canada. Law is actively involved in the legal profession, having founded the Toronto Chapter of the Ontario Association of Child Protection Lawyers.

A Journey of Discovery: Law School and Clerking

Law's journey to law school was far from straightforward. Growing up, Law did not know what she wanted to do. “As a Chinese person in the 90s, your parents always wanted you to do something like medicine, science, or engineering. I knew I did not want to do any of that.”

After completing her undergraduate degree at McMaster University, Law set her sights on a PhD in sociology or religious studies. However, her parents quickly shut that idea down. "My parents freaked out and said that I needed to do a professional program," Law recalls. “Then I went to law school. Really as simple as that.”

In law school at the University of Toronto, Law felt disillusioned with the school’s emphasis on getting a Bay Street job. "I did not really like UofT Law," she admits. Law students did not understand that there were other ways of practicing law that were just as legitimate and fulfilling. Nevertheless, like many of her classmates, Law went through the OCI process and landed a summer job at a Bay Street firm.

Law’s opportunity to clerk at the Ontario Court of Appeal served as a turning point. “I think if I had just gone on to article, I would probably be on Bay Street doing something related to contracts or tax.” Clerking provided Law with an inside view of how litigation is done at the appellate level. “I did not think I would like litigation because I am not really a confrontational person. I thought being in litigation meant you had to be confrontational, which is not really true.”

Survival: Law’s Early Years as a Family Law Litigator

At the end of her clerkship, Law went to China to study Mandarin for a year. Upon returning, her desire to work directly with people led her to choose between criminal and family law, and she eventually settled on the latter. Her decision was influenced by a paper she wrote in law school on how critical race theory could inform child welfare law. Law remarks ironically, “I do not even really remember why I chose that topic.”

The firm Law joined believed in giving young lawyers a chance to learn by immersing them in the practice from day one. “You could either swim or sink, and that would be up to you. It was very traumatic to be honest.” For the entirety of her first two years, Law felt overwhelmed. Within her first week, Law was at the Court of Appeal and helped to write an affidavit for intervention at the Supreme Court. “I cannot say I did well in that situation, but I survived it.”

“I think the only key takeaway from this entire conversation is that if you survive the first few years, you have probably developed thick enough skin such that you can probably survive. I really think that is the key, just surviving,” advises Law. Part of that is learning what to concern oneself with as a lawyer. Is it worth getting angry about everything? Is it worth getting upset about losing?

One memory from Law’s early years is an argument she made at the Ontario Court of Appeal. The senior lawyer she was appearing with told her to prepare to argue the third issue. When they got to the Court of Appeal, things were not going well. The justices gave the senior lawyer trouble on the very first issue. Suddenly, the senior lawyer said to the court, “…and my colleague Ms. Law is going to argue points two and three.” “I was like you told me I was only going to do three, so I only prepared for three,” recalls Law with a laugh. “Really the only thing you can do in that circumstance is to get up and do it. So I did it.”

Making a Difference: Law’s Accomplishments

Law’s early experiences as a family law litigator have turned her into a leader in the field, with expertise in appeals. A particularly notable case was The Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev, where she represented one of the respondents at the Supreme Court of Canada. The children of the respondents were born in Germany, but returned with their mother to Canada after the father gave his time-limited consent. Suspecting the mother would not return the children to Germany, the father brought an action under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”) for an order that the children be returned to Germany.

As part of a team of lawyers, Law persuaded the Supreme Court to adopt the “hybrid” test in the determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention. A hybrid approach treats the circumstances of the child and intentions of the parents as factors to be considered in a just result which fulfills the objectives of the Hague Convention. Previously, only parental intention was considered.

In addition to her litigation practice, Law helped to break the story in the Toronto Star about the problematic use of hair-testing conducted by Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory, which was based out of the Hospital for Sick Children. For more than two decades, the Motherisk lab performed flawed drug and alcohol testing on thousands of vulnerable families, influencing decisions in child protection cases that separated children from their parents and siblings.

In 2014, Ontario appointed retired Court of Appeal justice Susan Lang to investigate the procedures and protocols at the Motherisk lab. Law wrote the Family Law Association’s submissions to Lang’s inquiry. The inquiry found that hair testing at the Motherisk lab was totally inadequate and unreliable. There was no question that parents lost children and children lost their parents.

Inside the World of Child Welfare Litigation

Child welfare law may be one of the most challenging areas of legal practice, but it is also one of the most rewarding. “Child protection really is the poor sister of all litigation in my view,” says Law. Compared to criminal defence, the bar is much smaller and lawyers are fighting the state with fewer resources. The intellectual challenges of litigating child welfare cases are significant and should not be underestimated.

One of the biggest hurdles to practicing child welfare law is the lack of training and resources available to lawyers. Child welfare is rarely taught in law school, leaving many lawyers unprepared for the unique challenges of this area of practice. Additionally, legal aid rates are often too low to make this area financially viable for many lawyers, further discouraging them from pursuing it as a career. “The legal aid rates are a huge access to justice problem in this province, and it is not getting any better,” says Law. In Ontario, private lawyers charge an hourly rate between $200 to $1000, while the hourly rate for legal rate is capped at $136.43.

But it's not just a lack of resources that makes practicing child welfare law difficult. There is also a bias against child welfare lawyers within the legal profession. Law recalls hearing a lawyer say at a conference that part of the reason for miscarriages of justice is that child welfare lawyers are people who could not get jobs on Bay Street. “There are lots of people that are very smart and very good at their jobs who are practicing at this bar. They chose not to go to Bay Street. It is outrageous that in the legal profession there is this belief that there is some hierarchy that only the best go to Bay Street,” say Law.

Working in the area of child welfare is also emotionally taxing as clients tend to be very vulnerable and may not like their lawyer very much. There is a constant feeling that the work is not making a difference because the issues that are involved, such as poverty, racism, and drug use, are so huge. These issues impact clients directly, but as a lawyer, there is very little ability to change them.

Despite the challenges, Law believes that the work is worthwhile. “There are some cases where you really make a difference. Those are the cases that you remember.” Law remarks, “If you have no hope that you will make any difference ever, you cannot survive. That feeling when you get a kid back for your client, it is a feeling that you will not forget. Those kinds of things will carry you through.”

Breaking Barriers: The Challenges of Being a Female Asian Litigator

As an Asian female litigator, Law is breaking new ground. However, doing so has come with its own set of challenges. One of Law’s most vivid memories is when she appeared in court for a set date as a student caseworker at Downtown Legal Services. “When you are a student, you actually dress better than when you are a lawyer. You are in your suit because you don’t want to look like an ass,” jokes Law. Despite being formally dressed, someone approached Law to ask if she was the interpreter, indicating that she should not be sitting in the counsel section.

Such experiences are continuously repeated. As young lawyer, Law had judges asking if she was called to the bar since Asians tend to look younger. “It might not seem very racist, but it is an indirect putdown. People are constantly making assumptions about you as a person of colour,” says Law. As recently as three years ago, at 311 Jarvis where Law frequently practices, a clerk asked her if she was the court reporter. “It absolutely will happen to you, and you will feel terrible, because they did not ask a white person that.” Nowadays, Law is not afraid to call people out, in doing so, paving the way for the next generation of lawyers.

Law has also navigated the challenges of balancing work and family life. “I think the work life balance is one of the major problems about litigation. You are always expected to be available. Even when you are not available, you are expected to respond to emails immediately at 9:30 the next morning. You literally do not have time to also be at home with your kids or your family.” When a deadline is missed, the court, other lawyers, and your client will not cut you any slack.

Law’s advice for young lawyers is to learn to set personal boundaries. “This morning, something happened with my daughter, and she needs her mother there to talk about it. I have to either choose to stay at work past five or go home right away to deal with this issue. You just have to prioritize and say I have to go home.” Law believes that the traditional way of doing law where you are working all the time does not make for better lawyers. “I actually think you are a better lawyer if you have boundaries. You are able to say I tried my best, but I can only control what I can control, and I have other priorities.”