Associate
Emanuela graduated with a JD from the University of Victoria. During her final semester of law school she worked at the Law Centre in downtown Victoria, where she provided pro bono legal services to clients in criminal law, civil law, family law, and human rights matters. She was recognized with the YLaw Best Lawyering Award for her advocacy and client representation.
In law school her written work was recognized with the David Roberts Prize in Legal Writing, the Ronald F. MacIsaac Paper Prize, and the Professor Maneesha Deckha Award in Animals, Culture & the Law.
After law school Emanuela clerked at the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Edmonton. There she worked closely with the judges of Alberta’s superior trial court on their cases – conducting legal research, assisting with the drafting of judgments, and providing support in a range of court proceedings across diverse areas of law. She thereby gained unrivalled insight into the administration of justice from behind the bench. Emanuela subsequently completed her articles at Acheson.
Before becoming a lawyer, Emanuela was an archaeologist. She holds a PhD in Archaeology from Brown University (in Providence, Rhode Island, USA). While at Brown, she conducted research, co-directed fieldwork, and engaged in community outreach and cultural heritage preservation at the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Petra (in Jordan), and on the island of Montserrat (in the Caribbean). She participated as a diver in the underwater survey of a Roman harbour on the island of Menorca (Spain), and worked as a field archaeologist on ancient sites in Romania and Greece.
Representative Work
In Reaume v. Rossetto, Emanuela and Raj Sahota argued on behalf of a plaintiff who was in her early twenties when she suffered numerous physical injuries in a motor vehicle accident. In addition to these injuries the plaintiff also suffered psychological injuries, largely due to her fear that her unborn fetus may have been seriously injured in the collision. At the time of trial, the plaintiff, now a mother of four, was suffering from chronic pain as well as unresolved psychological conditions as a result of the collision, which significantly impaired her ability to work and diminished her enjoyment of life. At trial the defendants argued that the plaintiff should only be awarded minimal damages, while Raj and Emanuela maintained that the plaintiff should receive substantial compensation for her losses. Justice Mayer agreed with Emanuela and Raj and awarded the plaintiff $1,021,953 in total damages.
In Henderson v. Gettle, 2021 BCSC 841, Emanuela and her associate Raj Sahota argued that the plaintiff, a police officer who suffered significant injuries in a Tod Inlet boat collision, was entitled to substantial compensation for pain and suffering, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of earning capacity, pension loss, and cost of future care. They supported this claim with complex evidence from eight experts, including five doctors. Steeves J. relied upon this evidence and subsequently awarded the plaintiff $2,090,334.
In Philip v. Canada (Attorney General), Patrick, Raj Sahota, and Emanuela Bocancea appeared before the Federal Court of Canada seeking certification of a class action against the Government of Canada on behalf of federally incarcerated persons. The claim alleges that the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) unlawfully intercepted private communications, including those between incarcerated persons and legal counsel. Justice Fothergill certified the claim as a class action in November 2024 for breaches of section 8 Charter rights and corrections privacy laws. As with all class actions advanced by Acheson Law, this action seeks not only to obtain compensation for class members, but also to ensure meaningful reform within the CSC so that the constitutional rights of incarcerated persons are upheld.
In the costs hearing for Reaume v. Rossetto, Emanuela appeared again on behalf of the plaintiff, advocating that she was entitled to a double costs award in addition to the damages awarded at trial. Double costs are a punitive measure where parties unreasonably refuse an offer to settle before trial. Despite expert evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff was permanently partially disabled as a result of the motor vehicle accident, the defendants rejected the plaintiff’s offer to settle for $362,968 plus costs and disbursements. Emanuela and Raj Sahota had represented the plaintiff at trial, where Justice Mayer ultimately awarded her $1,021,953 in damages— nearly triple the amount of her pre-trial offer to settle. Justice Mayer found that the defendants had unreasonably refused the offer to settle and awarded the plaintiff double costs.
Have you been injured through no fault of your own?