Miranda Desa's Linkedin Analytics

There's something really special about getting to argue a challenging case in front of a well briefed Judge. Where they push you to answer challenging questions and call your client's positions into question. It's a moment where every word holds weight, every pause is calculated. The intensity of the courtroom, the weight of the words spoken, the battle of wits - that's where we thrive as litigators. When the judge's piercing gaze meets yours, and you defend your client's corner with unwavering determination. It's about crafting a compelling argument, about standing firm in the face of challenges and putting your client's best foot forward. This is the essence of what we do, the pinnacle of our profession – and I wouldn't have it any other way. #fearlesslitigation #litigationlawyer

One thing I’ve always appreciated about this profession? No two days look the same. Some days are spent reviewing complex documents. Others are filled with client calls, strategic planning, or courtroom advocacy. It’s challenging, yes—but also energizing. Being a lawyer keeps you thinking, adjusting, evolving. It’s a career that pushes you to stay sharp and engaged, while constantly learning something new. The variety is part of what makes the work meaningful. And that sense of momentum—of always moving forward—is a big reason why I still enjoy it. #LifeInLaw #GrowthThroughWork #FearlessLitigation

I genuinely believe that pushing more cases to (oral) summary judgment motions would be a powerful tool in clearing up court time and achieving the working group's objectives for the Civil Rules Review. But, for this to work, judges need to be empowered and encouraged to rule on summary judgment motions. Summary judgment motions have been largely stripped of their utility with judges finding that so many cases are inappropriate for summary judgment (ie: under the framework post Butera...) How do we fix this? How do we bolster summary judgment motions to maximize their utility? How do we encourage judges to decide more issues on summary judgment? Do we empower them to decide issues like quanta of general damages? Or allowing partial summary judgment motions again? Where do you think summary judgment motions could add more value and how would you change the Rules to allow them to do so?

In litigation, resilience isn’t just a virtue; it’s a necessity. Every seasoned litigator knows that the path to resolution isn't always linear. It can be fraught with challenges that test our mettle, our strategy, and our patience. From my experience in the courtroom and at the negotiation table, I’ve observed firsthand how crucial resilience is. It's not merely about bouncing back from setbacks; it's about using those very setbacks as a springboard for strategy refinement and innovation. A lost motion or a surprising witness testimony can often feel like a blow, but they also provide valuable insights into the opposition’s thinking and present opportunities to strengthen your case. The key takeaway? Resilience in litigation involves more than enduring—it's about adaptively overcoming obstacles, remaining focused on your client’s objectives, and persistently seeking out innovative solutions even under pressure. Going beyond the tactical aspects of resilience, it's the unwavering grit and determination that empowers us to face every challenge head-on. It's the fuel that keeps the engine of perseverance running. The relentless drive to see the case through to its favourable resolution, irrespective of the bumps in the road. That is what true resilience looks like in litigation. It is not just surviving, it is thriving amidst adversity. It is the indomitable spirit which propels us to learn from each experience, to innovate, adapt, and ultimately emerge victorious. So, to all my fellow litigators out there – keep on pushing, keep on striving. Resilience isn't just necessary; it's what defines us. #litigationlawyer #fearlesslitigation

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about how we can speed up access to justice in Ontario for my Civil Rules Reform submissions. Different courts in Ontario have very different approaches to motions. One of the most interesting local practices I've seen is motions in Simcoe, Ontario. The moving party delivers motion materials and sets a return date for the motion. Rather than the return date being an appearance, its a date for the responding party to deliver responding materials by. If responding materials are not received by that date, the motion is deemed unopposed. If responding materials are received, then a hearing date is fixed for the motion. Simcoe has effectively placed the burden on responding parties to oppose the motion - rather than assuming the motion is opposed unless proven otherwise. It's a small tweak, and to me it makes a lot of sense. I don't have a lot of Simcoe matters but the last time I asked about motion dates, they had very little back log. What do you think? Could you see this helping to free up court time in Ontario? So many of the short motions that go forward, wind up being unopposed at the last minute, if they could be heard in writing instead, things would move a lot faster. Have you seen any other interesting local practice directions that seem to be speeding things up?

I have been spending a lot of time thinking about the Civil Rules Review, and trying to come up with says to improve access to justice in Ontario. If we move forward with witness statements, what if the parties were allowed to opt to cross-examine the witnesses? Instead of discoveries being mandatory, cross-examinations could be optional. The party wanting to cross-examined would have to cover the cost of the reporter and ordering the transcript for both sides. The Rules for cross-examination ought to encourage the parties to exercise more restraint. It could be set up so that the transcript could be relied on by both parties at trial, meaning that asking questions becomes a lot more dangerous as you could be building up the other side's case. The scope of cross-examination is also narrower than discovery, and it doesn't allow the same broad requests for documents. What do you think? Would that help solve some of the issues caused by removing discoveries or would it open up even more new issues?