Skip to content

LSUC benchers reject exemption for statement of principles

|Written By Alex Robinson
LSUC benchers reject exemption for statement of principles
Joe Groia’s motion to provide an exemption of the statement of principles was defeated at Convocation.

The Law Society of Upper Canada’s statement of principles requirement will not become optional.

LSUC benchers turned down a motion Friday afternoon that would have given conscientious objectors an exemption from the requirement. The obligation requires all lawyers and paralegals to adopt and abide by a statement of principles that acknowledges their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion.

Bencher Joe Groia introduced the motion after backlash from legal scholars and lawyers who argued the requirement was unconstitutional and compelled speech.

“What is clear to me is that a great many men and women of conscience and faith are still troubled by this mandatory requirement,” Groia said to a packed room at the Law Society of Upper Canada in downtown Toronto on Friday.

“I believe that should be enough for us to stop and ask ourselves why do we stubbornly refuse to fix the mess we’ve created?”

Opponents have also argued that there is no evidence that the mandatory statement will advance the goals of diversity and equality.

Groia claimed his motion would advance the goals of diversity and equality “much further” than the statement of principles ever could and said his motion enjoys the support of “many more than just old white men.”

 Those who support the statement of principles, however, say the requirement is an important part of a larger initiative to battle systemic racism in the profession. Bencher Raj Anand said the requirement is simply an acknowledgement of obligations lawyers already have.

 “Diversity and inclusion is not a zero-sum game,” said Anand, who was the co-chairman of the law society’s Challenges Faced by Racialized Licensees Working Group.

“The human rights of some are the human rights of all. Inclusion benefits all of us.”

Diversity seeking groups such as the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers mobilized their members to attend the meeting, where there was standing room only.

Other organizations such as the Ontario Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers Association, and the Roundtable of Diversity Associations had also expressed their opposition of Groia’s motion in the lead up to the meeting.

In a vote Groia's motion was defeated 38 -16.

The statement of principles requirement was part of 13 recommendations that were passed a year ago to battle the barriers faced by racialized licensees. The recommendations came out of a report that drew from four years of research and consultations.

Under the new obligation this year, lawyers are required to write or adopt a template statement, but will not have to submit it to the law society. The regulator has said there will be no penalty for non-compliance this year, but has not ruled out a possible penalty in the future.

When the recommendations were originally debated last year, bencher Sidney Troister proposed a motion to separate the recommendations so that the statement of principles would be voted on separately.

Troister’s motion failed, the entire package was approved, and the issue did not become a topic of public debate again until the law society started to implement the requirement this fall.

Following some uproar in newspaper editorials and pledges by some lawyers they would not comply with the requirement, the law society recently released a guide to the statement of principles to clarify the obligation.

This said that the statement of principles is about conduct and that it “need not include any statement of thoughts, belief or opinion.”

The requirement is still facing a court challenge by Lakehead University law professor Ryan Alford, in what some benchers feel will become an expensive and drawn out legal fight that will likely end up at the Supreme Court of Canada.

  • Equal rights for all. special rights fpr none?

    Geza Matrai
    Does this means that Ontario Lawyers will be expected to recognize of “equal rights for all, special rights for none” (like for the Indigenous or for the “people of colour”)?
  • Only to you but not for me

    Kumar Sriskanda
    The new obligation requires all lawyers and paralegals to adopt and abide by a statement of principles that acknowledges their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion. The question remains is that will the Law Society of Ontario, its staff and members strictly adopt and abide by this statement of principles that acknowledges their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion. The simple answer is NO!
  • Statement of principles

    Philip Brent
    The LSUC can require this but basically it is meaningless. Lawyers will prepare it from the template, sign it, throw it in a drawer and forget about it. In the end it is about freedom of thought and action. Personally, race, colour, religion has never, ever coloured my practice. That is my standard, that is my life. I learned this from my parents, not the LSUC and this statement requirement will not make one iota of difference in our society. It is a complete waste of time and energy by all concerred.
  • Equality for TWU Law School?

    Don
    Diversity, equality and inclusion: So why does LSUC fight so hard against the proposed Trinity Western University Law School?
  • Equality for TWU Law School?

    Tommaso
    @Don...Exactly! The LSUC "statement of principles" is no more than cover for the establishment to impose its own way of thinking on licensees. Elsewise how can it justify refusing TWU law graduates recognition? This hypocrisy stinks to high heaven!
  • who's who?

    Joseph
    Please publish the names of the benches and how each voted. Thank you.
  • What does "promoting equality, diversity and inclusion" mean?

    Christopher Black
    It'd be nice if they would define what promoting 'equality, diversity and inclusion' means. Will not do this statement until they answer my reasonable questions.
  • Good.

    Rachel
    Good.

SPECIAL REPORTS



Save

SUBSCRIBE TO LEGAL FEEDS

BY EMAIL

AWARDS

  • clawbies 2015
    clawbies 2014
  • clawbies 2013
    clawbies 2012
  • clawbies 2011
    clawbies 2010