Court refused to speak to her for the first three months after her appointment before passing her a note saying he considered her to have passed her probationary period. L'Heureux-Dubé is typically remembered as one of the most prolific dissenters of the Court. Her judicial view was atypical for her time and often clashed with the majority of the Court. Her writing style and her tendency to use social science research in her reasons made for opinions that were often notable for their sheer length. Among her more controversial decisions include her reasons in Moge v Moge, where she took a major departure from the practised standard of judicial notice by allowing for a broad range of social studies data to be given judicial notice as a legislative fact. Another famous dissent was in Canada (AG) v Mossop, where she alone acknowledged that the meaning of "family" is not fixed and should be read purposively to adapt to the changing times and it should include same-sex couples. In a style reminiscent of Lord Denning MR, in the case of Willick v Willick, she quoted a dictum she made in an earlier judgment, with which she "most heartily" agreed. In the 1994 case Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, L'Heureux-Dubé disagreed with the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Lamer that there was no hierarchy of rights in Canada because Charter rights – freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial in this case – had to be balanced against each other. L'Heureux-Dubé dissented, saying that in addition to CBC lacking a valid right to appeal to the Supreme Court, when freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial cannot be simultaneously fully respected, the latter should temporarily prevail. In 1998, L'Heureux-Dubé was named president of the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists. In 1999, her concurring decision in R v Ewanchuk became the focus of a very public debate with Justice McClung of Alberta Court of Appeal. Justice McClung had written the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, upholding the acquittal of an accused person in a sexual assault case. The Supreme Court overturned the acquittal and directed a re-trial. In her concurring opinion, written on behalf of herself and Justice Gonthier, Justice L'Heureux-Dubé described his ruling as showing outdated and stereotypical thinking about sexual assault. In response, Justice McClung wrote a letter to the National Post