Ontario Superior Court's Fred Myers: breaking the mental health stigma

Justice Fred Myers is a judge on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Over his ten years on the bench, he has sat in every division of the court in the Toronto Region. He served as a co-team lead of the civil team during the pandemic and is currently hearing cases on the Divisional Court.

Recently, Justice Myers posted his thoughts on LinkedIn about mental health, sharing personal details and praising the authors of a recent book that includes stories about how lawyers have dealt with mental illness in Canada. He was also selected as one of the Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers in Canada in 2024. 

For our CL Talk podcast, he spoke to us about his personal mental health journey, the importance of breaking the stigma in the legal profession, and the biggest challenges facing the courts.

Listen to our full podcast episode here:

This episode can also be found on our CL Talk podcast homepage, which includes links to follow CL Talk on all the major podcast providers.

Below is a summary of the conversation, edited for length and clarity:

What prompted you to write that post on LinkedIn that got quite a bit of attention from lawyers across Canada?

Due to personal experience, my wife and I have faced the stigma and shame surrounding mental illness. We had significant issues with our son, and had we not been open about our struggles, we wouldn't have found the help we needed. Reading about successful lawyers sharing their challenges in the book “The Right Not to Remain Silent: The Truth About Mental Health in The Legal Profession” resonated deeply with me. It mirrored our family's experience, and I wanted to support it. Reading others' stories, I realized that our challenges are shared by many, and there's value in understanding that. I fully support efforts to combat the stigma surrounding mental illness.

Tell me a bit more about your own experience with mental health.

When our son was 14, he began exhibiting dysfunctional behaviours related to mental illness. Like many teenagers, he turned to weed to self-medicate, as adults might with alcohol. Despite being a Big Law firm partner and having a family deeply involved in medicine, we couldn't find the help we needed. We saw a psychologist who misdiagnosed our son with ADD, leading to a prescription that worsened his anxiety and triggered violent behaviour. This escalated to the point where we had to call the police for our safety and his. When we sought help at Sunnybrook, a psychiatrist berated us, and we were effectively cut off from further assistance. We were left without options – CAMH had a six-month wait, and we weren't eligible for specific programs due to our location.

Desperate, I contacted a colleague who had worked with the NHL, hoping he could suggest resources. He connected us with a psychologist in LA, who referred us to a partner in Toronto. This led us to an education consultant in the US, a profession that doesn't exist in Canada, who helped us find the right program for our son. The program required our whole family to engage in therapy, as changing one part of a family dynamic affects the entire system. Through this process, I also discovered and treated my anxiety, which significantly improved my well-being.

Inspired by our experience, my wife and other parents created the Family Navigation Project at Sunnybrook, designed to help families navigate the complex mental health system. This project has already made a difference, assisting families to find the programs they need, even within the same hospital. The stigma and shame surrounding mental illness prevent many from seeking help, but talking openly about it is crucial. Just as no one is ashamed of taking insulin for diabetes, we shouldn't be ashamed of treating mental health issues. Openness about mental health has been vital for my family's well-being, and we must continue to break down these barriers.

When did you decide to overcome the stigma around mental health in the profession and talk openly about your mental health struggles?

I was much more open about seeking help for my son than myself. I didn’t go to my managing partner to discuss my struggles, though, in hindsight, I could have. What I realized when I became a judge was that I missed the daily interactions I used to have with young lawyers. As I advanced in my legal career, my office was always full of students and junior lawyers bringing me work, and we’d discuss it – I'm an oral learner, so I valued these conversations. Mentoring was a significant part of my day-to-day life, and I missed it after transitioning to the bench.

To fill that gap, I got involved in mentoring events like those run by the CBA and OBA. It was during these events that I began to speak more openly about mental health. I noticed that what some might dismiss as complaints about not wanting to work hard were, in fact, signs of unrecognized suffering. So, I shared my experiences to show that mental health challenges don't necessarily have to harm your career. The same voice that caused me anxiety and made me worry about the future also pushed me to work hard and succeed. Learning to manage those challenges with tools like cognitive behavioural therapy can help you positively channel your anxieties.

I’ve seen many successful lawyers who’ve gone through significant mental health challenges, some even taking years off to recover, yet they managed to return to their careers. The book I referred to is full of positive outcomes, though I’m sure not every story ends that way. But the key message is that these challenges can be managed. Instead of avoiding difficult situations, you can learn to handle them healthily. For example, some judges work best under pressure and complete decisions just before deadlines. I prefer to avoid the anxiety of having a decision pending, so I complete them quickly.

Passing on the message to young lawyers that they don’t have to leave the profession because of mental health issues is crucial. You can be a successful practising lawyer and manage your mental health effectively. It’s important to share this because law is a great profession, and it’s possible to thrive in it while caring for your mental well-being.

How would you advise a lawyer to consider sharing more or seeking help? Is there a risk to their reputation, or is that a misperception?

I don't believe that acknowledging mental health challenges poses a risk to one's professional reputation or the quality of work. If someone is dealing with anxiety or depression and working on it, the fact that others might know shouldn’t impact their ability to advocate effectively or represent clients well. It might influence how they manage their day-to-day practice, but it doesn't mean they're less competent. The genuine concern is the outdated thinking within some firms that improving a partner's mental health could somehow be detrimental. In reality, though, supporting a partner’s mental health can improve productivity and overall success, benefiting the firm.

Yes, there's still a risk in how a firm might react, particularly if it's small and leadership holds onto old views. But if you're in an environment that doesn't support your mental well-being, it's likely not the right place for you. There's no downside to being open about being human. The image of the “tough” litigator who never shows vulnerability is outdated and ineffective, especially today.

In cases involving self-represented parties with mental health challenges, particularly in civil matters, being helpful and cooperative can lead to quicker and less costly resolutions. Instead of waiting for someone unfamiliar with the system to make mistakes or request adjournments, lawyers can take proactive steps to move the case along, like offering their client for cross-examination. The idea that a lawyer must never show vulnerability is no longer useful if it ever was. Empathy and cooperation often achieve better outcomes for everyone involved in today's legal environment.

Moving from mental health, what are the biggest challenges in the judicial system?

One of the most pressing issues I see in the legal profession today is the lack of mentorship. Several factors have contributed to this, including the increasing focus on individual production and billable hours, reducing the time available for mentoring. However, the most significant impact has been the rise of remote work. While I support remote hearings and acknowledge their place – most of my hearings are remote – remote work is detrimental to young lawyers who are still learning. You can't learn everything you need to know by sitting at home. Being in the office allows you to overhear conversations between colleagues, staff, and clients, which is invaluable to your development.

When I started my career, I often sought advice from the lawyer in the office next door after receiving an assignment. That kind of informal, immediate mentorship is crucial for learning the practical aspects of the profession. Unfortunately, the ease of starting a law practice with just a computer has also contributed to this problem. Many young lawyers are beginning their careers at home without the needed guidance. While they may have access to suitable materials and are undoubtedly intelligent, they lack the mentorship vital for developing professional judgment – something that can't be learned from a book or a computer.

In the past, young lawyers would sit through multiple court motions, learning what works and what doesn’t, just by observing. With the advent of online hearings, this opportunity is often lost. Hearings are now scheduled so precisely that there’s little chance to observe other cases, and many young lawyers miss out on these valuable learning experiences. I would strongly encourage young lawyers to watch as many proceedings as they can, both online and in person, to make up for the mentorship they’re missing.

Additionally, there’s a significant issue with the lack of resources in our legal system. Despite being a country with public healthcare and other excellent resources, the legal system competes with different areas for funding and support. While we may have enough judges now, we’re still massively under-resourced. For example, in the United States, every federal court judge has support staff, while here, I share an assistant with four other judges and a researcher with nine others. This lack of resources hampers our ability to implement necessary reforms. None of the changes we discuss will be effective without adequate support, and that’s my biggest concern.

Are there things, such as technological innovation, that are making you optimistic about how court delays are being addressed?

Technological reform in the legal field still has a long way to go. I'm currently on an AI committee, and while we don't have anything workable yet, there is potential for significant improvements, particularly in document review, which could become quicker and cheaper – a considerable benefit given the costliness of litigation. However, the current system remains problematic because it’s back-end loaded. Lawyers often plead as broadly as possible to open areas for discovery, ask every conceivable question during discovery to provide the trial litigator with a complete set of facts, and then develop a theory of the case only at the very end.

We know that 98 percent of cases are settled, which is an indictment of the system rather than being a success. The high settlement rate is primarily because getting cases to trial is tricky. For instance, we schedule about 10 long trials and 25 short trials each week but typically only have two to four judges available. This has conditioned the bar to expect settlements, and as a result, there's little incentive to invest in cases early on, such as by hiring experts upfront if they’re likely to settle anyway.

While the rules have recently changed to encourage earlier hiring of experts, I see hope in a potential shift in approach. The rules introduced in 1984 aimed to achieve justice on the merits by reducing procedural hurdles. However, this has led to a culture of repeated adjournments and cost awards, ultimately overwhelming the system and delaying justice.

What needs to happen is a shift from back-end to front-end loading. Imagine if, instead of broad pleadings and extensive discovery over several years, a judge met with the parties early on to narrow the pleadings to what the client is truly upset about. Together, they would decide on targeted discovery and aim for a trial within a year on those specific issues. This approach would focus on resolving the core disputes quickly rather than allowing cases to drag on for years before a theory of the case is even developed.

The economic implications for law firms, which may be used to longer, more expensive cases, are uncertain. However, there's growing interest in moving towards quicker, more focused resolutions, which could change the dynamics of the profession. This approach aligns with the increasing use of case conferences in civil matters to resolve critical issues early, thereby avoiding unnecessary motions that don't affect the case's outcome. The goal is to move faster and more efficiently, sacrificing the pursuit of "perfect" justice to resolve disputes more practically and economically.