In this third episode of The Appellate Wanderer, I talk to Andrew Bernstein, a partner at Torys who practices appeal and clerked for former Chief Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada. We had a lovely talk about how Canadian appellate practice differs and is similar to that of its cousin in the United States.

We speak about Andrew's "origin story" to law school from his "mistake" of starting a commerce undergraduate program. Then we moved to Canadian legal education (6:30); Andrew's LLM at the University of California, Berkeley (7:42); the extraordinary fact that the Supreme Court of Canada is functionally bilingual! (9:50); we discuss the hierarchy and structure of the Canadian courts (12:35); moved to appealing to the Canadian Supreme Court by leave (15:40); we talk about how you can possibly have a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on Quebec law (18:10); we talk about how the Court can sit in panels of 5, 7, and 9 (19:25); then we move to Andrew's recent oral argument in the Canadian Supreme Court and his preparation process and his "spiel" (22:44); we talk about the mooting process for Canada (27:55); we talk about the written work product in the Supreme Court and factums (29:55); we talk about what happens in conference in the Canadian Supreme Court, including a possible conference in advance (31:55); we talk about how the law clerks do their work (35:30); "Horse trading happens on the second floor" (38:10); what comments look like from other justice (39:15); bench memos (40:55); how law clerks are not involved in leave applications (42:30); how Supreme Court of Canada justice are appointed and how judicial politics differs from the US (44:02); in what ways the Canadian Supreme Court does look to SCOTUS (50:10); and then what Canada does really well as an appellate legal system (53:10).

As always, please send me suggestions for new guests, and rate and review the show!