LAW SOCIETIES SHOULD NOT BE POLICING LAWYERS

Access to justice is not on the agenda of law societies in Canada. Philip Slayton book entitled LAWYERS GONE BAD – Money, Sex and Madness in Canada’s Legal profession, chapter 16 “The Search for Justice at page 235.

The first sentence of Chapter 16 ask the following question: “How much justice can the average Canadian afford?” His answer was not only brief but consisted of a four-letters word: “None”

Philip Slaton is not your average Canadian. First and foremost he is a Rhode Scholar who studied law at Oxford University. He also taught law not only at McGill University but and was dean of law at the University of Ontario before he became a law partner of a major Canadian law firm on Bay Street in Toronto, (the equivalent of Wall Street in the United States)

 Then, at page 238, speaking of law societies, Rhode Scholar Slayton stated:

"Law Societies are run by lawyers, according to the world view and temperament of lawyers. It is no surprise that they have the same agenda and attitude as their members. Law Societies are by nature conservative and protective of the status quo. They nourish their own and are the voice of the establishment. A law society member who is different risk severe criticism and marginalization.”

The province of Ontario Liberal government failed Ontarians by enacting Access to Justice Act, 2006, Schedule C Amendments to the Law Society Act and Related Amendments to Other Act, S.O 2006, c. 21. Received Royal Assent October 19, 2006. The Act is found at:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=284

It is shameful that here in Canada not only or governments but the legal community, the Canadian law societies; the Canadian Bar Association and its provincial arms of its Association cannot ensure that Cap 29 of Magna Carta, 1297 which form part of the Canadian Constitution pursuant to the opening paragraph of the Constitution Act, 1867.

See: O’Holloran JA, Rex v. Hess (No.2), 4 D.L.R. 199. At pp 208-9:

“I conclude that the purported powers in s. 1025A to deny an acquitted person bail, to obstruct and delay his application thereof, and to detain him in custody for an offence of which the Court has acquitted him and when there is no offence charged against him are all contrary to the written constitution of the United Kingdom as reflected in Magna Carta (1215), … (reaffirmed Cap 29, Magna Carta, (1297). I conclude further that the opening paragraph of the preamble to the B.N.A. Act, 1867, (now Constitution Act 1867, which provided for a ‘Constitution similar in principle t that of the United Kingdom’, thereby adopted the same constitutional, and hence s. 1025A is contrary to the Canadian Constitution, and beyond the competence of Parliament or any provincial Legislature to enact so long as our Constitution remains in its present form of a constitutional democracy. (Brackets are the bloggers).

 Cap 29 of Magna Carta reads:

 “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Rights.”

Therefore, it becomes apparent that the average Canadian are denied access to justice and the Attorney General of Ontario, the Secretary General of the Law Society of Upper Canada acting in collusion with the leadership of the Paralegal Society of Ontario did nothing to protect the average Ontarians Cap 29 Magha Carta’s rights to access justice.

In his book, Slayton at page 238, made reference to Sir David Clementi’s 2004 Report to the effect that the current British system of regulating the legal profession and Sir Clementi’s proposal for a radical new system. Among Sir Clementi’s recommendation was that the legal profession be overseen by a new legal by a new legal profession legal services board with a lay majority chaired by a non-lawyer and accountable to Parliament.

Sir Clementi’s recommendations were approved by the British Parliament when it enacted the Legal Services Act, 2007. Chapter 29.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/29/pdfs/ukpga_20070029_en.pdf

Schedule 15, Office for Legal Complaints under the Legal Services Act, 2007 makes is clear that the British Parliament implemented Sir Clementi’s recommendations referred above. Sections 2(1) and (2) reads as follows:

“2(1) In appointing members of the OLC, the Board must ensure that the majority of the members of the OLC are lay person

 “2(2) The chairman must be a lay person”

The Office of the Legal complaint reports to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor and unlike the Province of Ontario the OLC is not under the influence of the Attorney General. Section 13(1) of Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter L.8. http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90l08

ATTORNEY GENERAL GUARDIAN OF THE PUBLIC INTERESST

"13. (1) The Attorney General for Ontario shall serve as the guardian of the public interest in all matters within the scope of this Act or having to do in any way with the practice of law in Ontario or the provision of legal services in Ontario, and for this purpose he or she may at any time require the production of any document or thing pertaining to the affairs of the Society."  R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (1); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (1); 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 13.

We will demonstrate in subsequent blogs that the Attorney General in Canada cannot be trusted as guardian of the public interest. It is time for the public to take similar action which led Ontario to take the control of the police policing themselves. It will become clear that law societies in Canada cannot police themselves as was the case with the police which led to the Report on Police Complaints System in Ontario.

On April 22, 2005, the Honourable Patrick J. Lesage, Q.C. presented his Report to the Attorney General. Copy of the Report: 

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/.../LeSage/en-fullreport.pdf

The Honourable Mr. Lesage first recommendation:

“An independent civilian body should be created to administer the public complaints system in Ontario. The body should not be related to OCCOPS. A civilian who has not been a police officer should lead this new organization. Civilian administrators should be responsible for the administration of the complaints system for each region of the Province. The new body should produce an annual public report for the Government and should also hold an annual public meeting.” 

If the Police could not police itself nor should lawyers be policing themselves. It is high time in Canada to follow the British Parliament lead and to provincial offices across Canada that the legal profession be overseen by a new legal by a new legal profession legal services board with a lay majority chaired by a non-lawyer and accountable to Parliament.