Fast Facts on Nick Bala, LSM

Professor Nick Bala, Law’77, whose outstanding contributions to family law have had a significant impact on the Canadian justice system, has been awarded the University’s highest research-related honour. The designation of William R. Lederman Distinguished University Professor, named for the first Dean of Queen’s Law, will be officially bestowed on him at the 2019 Fall Convocation. 

Professor Bala shares his views about being designated a Distinguished University Professor, his 40-year career as a teacher and scholar at Queen’s Law, and the evolution of his approaches to the study of law and the justice system, including his focus on interdisciplinary research and law reform. 

Distinguished University Professor

It’s a great honour to be receive the designation of William R. Lederman Distinguished University Professor. It is really nice recognition of my contributions to research and law reform over four decades as a professor here, and reflects not only on myself, but also on the Faculty as a whole, as it has become such a strong research centre.” This type of designation was only introduced this year, and can only awarded to a full-time faculty member. I am sure that this would have been awarded to my colleague, Don Stuart, but he is now an Emeritus Professor, though still a full-time scholar and part-time teacher. 

This is an especially nice designation since I was taught Constitutional Law by William Lederman in my second year, and went to law school with one of his sons Peter, also a Law’77 graduate. Dean Lederman was one of the founders of the law school, and one Canada’s first great constitutional scholars. It was a real privilege to be taught by him. When I later joined him as a young colleague I felt a bit intimidated, but he was an extremely down-to-earth person, and notably told each of us on our first day as faculty members – “just call me Bill.”   

Starting at Queen’s Law in 1974

I came to Queen’s Law as a first-year student in 1974. I really enjoyed my time as a student, learned a lot, and made a lot of friends, but when I graduated in 1977, I wanted to be a practising lawyer. I still remember leaving my last day and thinking: “I’m outta here.”  

I did not realize that I would soon be back, and that I would never really leave again. After graduating I was articling in Ottawa at a firm that did quite a lot of family law, but also some criminal law. They sent me – as the student – down to interview a client who couldn’t leave Kingston as he was in the penitentiary. While I was here, I stopped at the law school and met Bernie Adell, who had taught me in first year and by then was Dean.

He said, “I just had someone who’s been teaching Family Law quit. Would you consider coming here and teaching for a year?” I thought I would give a try and I loved it right from the start: the teaching, the research, the public service.

After a year on a teaching contract at Queen’s, I went to Harvard for a graduate degree in law, hoping to pursue a career a law professor. I didn’t start my legal studies at Queen’s with academia in mind, although it’s ironic because when law students don't understand something, they go to a classmate and ask questions. Looking back on it, a lot of my Queen’s (and Harvard) classmates would come to me when they had questions – despite the fact we had wonderful professors – and I ended up learning a lot by teaching my classmates.

Even when I graduated from Queen’s in 1977, I has no intention of being a law professor, but I have always felt extremely fortunate that I found a career that I love doing and that I do well. But it wasn’t part of a big plan. As I tell my students, it is easier to see the path back than the path ahead

Research and teaching interests

Family law is the subject of almost all of my research and much of my teaching. I also teach Contract Law to first-year students, which I also really enjoy and, there’s some relationship between Contracts and Family Law, as there is a contract-like basis to many familial relationships.

Some of my research interests have remained fairly consistent over the decades. The first thing I ever published was about Smith v. Zeiger, a case about a woman seeking support for a child “born out of wedlock” going to court without a lawyer, and the judge becoming involved in the case in trying to help her. The appeal court thought that the judge was assisting her, went too far and “descended into the arena,” ordering a new trial. Today we would call this an issue of access to justice for self-represented litigants. It’s something that I’m still both writing about and trying to have a practical impact upon through law reform and systemic change. One way I do this is by teaching law students, judges and lawyers about these issues. 

One of the things I’m working on right now to improve access to justice is a project regarding limited scope family legal services. This project has short-term funding to provide infrastructure, education and the undertaking of research about how to encourage people who can’t afford a lawyer for the whole of their case, or who don’t want full representation, to at least meet with a lawyer for a couple of hours to gain some knowledgeable, advice, and perhaps some assistance for document drafting or for some discrete part of their case. Doing this requires awareness – for clients, lawyers, and judges – and training lawyers to offer this. Family cases involve individuals who are dealing with everything that they own, and all their future livelihood, and their children. Many people cannot afford full representation but can afford and would really benefit from a few hours with a lawyer.

Evolving laws, evolving views

Reflecting enormous social change, family law has changed a great deal, and my views on many issues have also evolved. I was initially supportive of what was called a civil registry model for same-sex relationships, but by 1990 I was persuaded, principally by my students at the time, to support same-sex marriage. By the time that litigation started getting to the appeal courts in the 1990s, I was writing and being an expert witness supporting same-sex marriage. That’s a nice example of a sort of interactive process learning from the students. Some of them were very passionate and have been very articulate advocates for the rights of same-sex partners. While I have been cited quite a few times by the Supreme Court, there really should also be recognition of my students – they too did a lot of the work getting me ready to do writing quoted by the Court!

Something that we're doing now, where our students are again, I think appropriately pushing us, is our work with the Akwesasne community. I’m starting to work with students, including some who are Indigenous, about assisting that community in gaining control over child welfare matters. 

I was involved with some Indigenous groups and the Ontario government back in the 1980s and I have written over many years about problems facing Indigenous children in adoption, child protection and youth justice situations and child protection situations over decades now.

This law school has always tried to be supportive of Indigenous students – even when I was a student – but the numbers of Indigenous students has increased dramatically in recent years. The work the school is doing to recruit and educate Indigenous students has been very important.

But now we have a specific project that students, and staff like Ann Deer (our Indigenous Recruitment and Support Coordinator), are really pushing, to help First Nations again greater control over child welfare services, and more broadly to deal with issues related to the future of their children and their communities.

Energy and passion, four decades later

I really enjoy my students. I probably spend more time than some of my colleagues just talking to students – not just about their courses, but what they are going do with their lives. I continue to get energized by my students. I enjoyed teaching, and I love teaching Contracts to first-year students. I appreciate their enthusiasm, their freshness, their eagerness to learn, and their ways of looking at things. 

I think, for me, the combination of teaching and research has been really good. There’s been a real synergy there so, although there’s a conflict in terms of time, I don’t find it a conflict in terms of interests. On the contrary, I find teaching and research to be symbiotic.

One of the interesting things about family law is that everybody is affected by it. If I get into a taxi and tell the driver I teach family law, I immediately get asked for advice or told how the family justice system should be reformed. If I am talking about divorce in class, at least a third of the students have parents who have been divorced, or their parents are going through a divorce right now, or the student themselves have been divorced or separated. Family law is a subject that is very much alive. That makes it interesting, and it makes it challenging because one has to discuss issues in a sensitive way. I have had classes where people are very emotional, and I think that’s understandable. 

Bringing justice around the world

I write for a range of audiences – primarily for lawyers, judges, mental health professionals and legislators in Canada, but I also have done research and professional education for international audiences.  

Many issues, like parental alienation and a child resisting contact with a parent in the context of a high conflict separation, raise very similar legal and social concerns in other highly developed countries like Australia, New Zealand and the United States, and I have been invited to address judges and other professional and academic audiences in those countries.

For other issues, Canadians may have an important contribution to make for countries that are just developing their justice systems. For example, as part of a Global Affairs Canada program, in February of 2019 I taught Ukrainian judges about how we in Canada now approach family violence issues. It’s not as though we have always addressed family violence issues in an effective way, but we’ve learned a lot and changed a lot over the last 40 years. Now, Ukraine recognizes that they have to change how they’re doing things. These judges will take back what they learned and change their justice system over time in a way that is suitable to their social, economic, constitutional, and political circumstances, but affords greater protections to women and children.

I have also visited Jamaica and Trinidad to teach judges. When Canadian tourists think of Jamaica, perhaps it is about Montego Bay – the affluent, secure tourist area. But I traveled to Kingston, Jamaica; they have huge challenges in their justice system. We can assist judges and lawyers there help their criminal courts to work more effectively with children who are victims and witnesses in court. 

One of the things Canada is exporting around the world is justice – or, more broadly, helping change the ways that people in those countries think about relationships with each other, and how the law can help structure those relationships. Canada is a diverse country that has a well- developed approach to the rule of law, and we are more experienced than some other countries in addressing some issues, so it is useful for others to learn what we are doing, though there is of course much that we learn from other countries as well.

For fun

I love being out of doors. I enjoy jogging by the lake. My family has a place where we go in Québec where we can walk in the woods and swim in the summer, and cross-country ski in the winter. I like to feel close to nature.

I have four adult children, one of whom is a graduate of this law school. Queen’s Law Reports ran an article a few years ago when my son graduated – “Two generations of Balas.” Writing about family law and family situations has certainly probably helped me be a parent, but being a parent has also given me a lot more appreciation of family law at the ground level.