With the articling term nearing its end, I have many new experiences to reflect on. I have had the opportunity to attend multiple examinations for discovery, to speak in court, to attend a day of Small Claims Court trial, attend mediations, and settlement conferences. While these forms of advocacy are typically covered in the articling term at McCague, I was also able to participate in a coroner’s inquest. I had not heard of an inquest before receiving the assignment, so learning about the process was an entirely new experience.
A coroner’s inquest is run much like a trial, with examinations and cross-examinations of witnesses, and closing statements being delivered by the parties.
There is no finding of guilt or fault at the end; the jury makes a finding as to how the death was caused and makes recommendations that will hopefully prevent similar deaths from occurring in the future. There is also a collaborative nature to the inquest, as the parties work together to ensure that all of the evidence is presented to the jury so that they can make productive recommendations for future improvement. The goal of the inquest is unique among other forms of advocacy, and it changed the way I viewed the evidence and my approach to the examinations. While the subject matter and evidence could be difficult to engage with, given the nature of the inquest, the goal of the inquest in making an improvement in the system was a useful anchor to manage how I felt about the evidence itself.
My main task was to review all of the evidence that we received from the coroner’s office and to sort the facts based on how they affected our client’s position. It really challenged me to think about all of the different ways that the evidence could be perceived, and often it was not a simple “good” or “bad” answer, but one that could be viewed in multiple ways. I worked on finding a way to concisely communicate the various ways that the evidence could be viewed, while also trying to make a decision as to what the most likely or overarching message of the evidence was.
In addition to reviewing all of the evidence, I was also able to attend the inquest and take notes on the witnesses’ evidence. This allowed me to witness many different lawyers and their styles of cross-examination. Overall, it was a learning experience that I never expected to have about a form of advocacy that isn’t as common as our typical mediations, discoveries, and settlement conferences. The skills that I learned in reviewing the evidence and engaging with our client and the other parties will translate to the other forms of advocacy that I will engage in at the firm, and I look forward to applying them in the future.