The 2024 Top 25 lawyer transforms bold ideas into courtroom influence and results
Alyssa Tomkins didn’t set out to become one of the country’s most prominent public law litigators. With an engineering background and an early interest in pharmaceutical litigation, her trajectory could have followed a vastly different path. But constitutional law grabbed her from the start. “That tension between the individual and the state – I really became very interested in it,” she says. And while public law has always been “in the background” of her practice, the turning point came with pro bono work.
“From my experience, the best way is to take on pro bono work and get out there and show people what you can do,” she says. Those early unpaid cases created a network, opened doors for speaking engagements, and eventually led to referrals for high-profile, paying work. Despite that success, Tomkins keeps at least one or two constitutional files going pro bono. “I think it’s very much a part of our calling and an important thing to be doing,” she says.
Now a partner at Gowling WLG, Tomkins splits her time between constitutional litigation and commercial disputes, describing her practice as “relatively generalist.” From breach of contract and shareholder disputes to complex torts and defamation, she keeps a broad docket – but remains rooted in the mechanics of advocacy. “I view myself as an expert in advocacy,” she says. Her expertise is mastering the “rules of evidence, how to draft a factum, argue a case, [the] rules of procedure.”
That focus on litigation is how she found herself at the centre of one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in public law in recent memory: Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz. The case redefined the approach to delay in administrative proceedings, explicitly rejecting the application of the criminal law framework in the administrative context.
“I got involved after the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision,” she says, noting how the court’s application of Jordan – a criminal law precedent – immediately caught her attention. Shortly after, public law scholar Paul Daly reached out. “He said, ‘I've been approached on this leave application,’ and I was like, ‘Oh my god, I think it’s that case.’” It was. She joined Daly’s legal team to work on the file.
The leave to appeal was, in Tomkins’ words, “probably the easiest leave application I’ve ever done.” The Supreme Court hadn’t addressed administrative delay in 20 years, and the inconsistency across appellate courts made it ripe for clarification. But convincing all stakeholders wasn’t easy. “Some of the other provincial law societies had a lot of concern,” she says. “They were worried – what if we take it to the Supreme Court, and then the precedent gets applied across the country?”
Eventually, support coalesced. “We got the result they wanted,” she says. “No criminal law in the administrative context, and a doubling down on the prior test.” Tomkins argued the case less than three months after giving birth. “I knew it was a really important opportunity.” She shares the story with younger women as a caution against waiting for the “perfect” moment to start a family. “It ended up being the absolute worst time for me… but if you want to do it, just do it.”
She has worked on several other high-profile public law cases. As lead counsel for the speaker of the House of Commons, she intervened in two major cases relating to parliamentary privilege – Alford v. Canada and Power v. Canada. The latter, which was argued at the Supreme Court and is currently under reserve, raises the question of whether Charter damages are available when legislation is struck down.
She says this work for the speaker was a fast-moving, high-stakes mandate. She currently has multiple mandates for the speaker and now handles five active files.
The theme that ties her work together is a deep concern with constitutional law's evolving architecture and the courts' role. This concern takes shape in files like the judicial review challenge she brings for the Eskasoni First Nation, arguing that a federal electoral boundaries commission failed to account for Indigenous rights and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was the first case to receive funding from the Court Challenges Program under s. 3 of the Charter, dealing with democratic rights.
She is also co-lead counsel for the City of Ottawa in the Public Order Emergency Commission, which reviewed the first federal invocation of emergency powers in Canadian history. “That was absolutely fascinating,” she says. “To find out after the fact what was going on behind the scenes… it dealt with the site most affected by all of this – Ottawa.” The commission led her deeper into emergency law and has spurred further litigation. “There’s a new case in Yukon,” she says, where she’s challenging emergency powers legislation. “Again, what you have, there is a wholesale delegation of power from the legislature to the executive.”
She draws a hard line regarding public law and its role in democracy. “As lawyers, it is our duty to challenge government overreach,” she says. “Even if we don’t win the case.” She sees these challenges as vital moments of institutional reflection. “How did this actually go down, and is this an appropriate use of extreme powers?” She warns about growing attacks on judges and law firms – especially in the US – who take on these cases. “Once you lose trust in the judiciary, it’s a very dangerous place to be.”
She emphasizes that Canadian mechanisms like the Court Challenges Program – which funds litigation against unconstitutional laws – signal a belief that these debates belong in courtrooms “with evidence, proper argument, and some sort of framework for the debate.”
When asked about advocacy, Tomkins clearly distinguishes between the oral and written forms. “The written argument is the most important,” she says. “But oral advocacy is really about assisting the court.” In her view, lawyers too often stick to scripts in oral arguments instead of responding to what judges actually want. “You have to understand how the argument fits together,” she says. “What are the points you absolutely cannot give on, and what are the ones you can?” She says her background in engineering gives her a unique edge. “My cases are all like flow charts,” she says.
As for career development, Tomkins doesn’t believe in rigid planning. “I think you can have that in terms of a general area,” she says. “But you have to be flexible and open to opportunities.” Her career unfolded from a mix of calculated choices and chance connections, often originating in panel discussions, conferences, and collaborative cases. “The files sort of build on themselves,” she says. “You run into other people in the space, and then they think of you.”
Her advice for young lawyers hoping to work in public law is as practical as it is strategic: “Take on pro bono work. Show people what you can do. Get yourself in the room.”
Alyssa Tomkins was one of Canadian Lawyer’s 2024 Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers. Nominations are now open for the 2025 awards.
