The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario
Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/50555
PAGE 2 NEWS February 9/16, 2009 • Law Times vealing fi ndings that suggest many continue to face barriers within the legal industry. "The majority of the respondents in LSUC releases first-ever report on aboriginal lawyers T BY ROBERT TODD Law Times he Law Society of Upper Canada has released its fi rst-ever report on the province's aboriginal lawyers, re- the survey indicated that they faced chal- lenges during law school, during the bar admissions course, and post-call," Susan Hare, a member of the law society's eq- uity and aboriginal issues committee, told January Convocation. "Respondents also identifi ed lawyers, other lawyers, friends, and family as their key sources of support. Slightly more count- ed aboriginal people among their friends than non-aboriginal," said Hare. "A clear majority identifi ed non-aboriginal lawyers as mentors, as opposed to aboriginal law- yers, perhaps because of the numbers." The report is the end product of the law society's Aboriginal Bar Consultation project, which began in 2004. The project included a mail-out survey and individual consultation with aboriginal lawyers. A working group of the law society's equity and aboriginal issues committee created the survey. The survey was mailed to 225 mem- bers of the aboriginal bar in May 2006. By August of that year, 68 respondents had fi nished the survey, with 33 agreeing to take part in future consultations. A preliminary report by The Strategic Counsel was submitted on Aug. 27, 2006. Based on that report, the law society's aboriginal initiatives counsel, Marisha Ro- man, and the Aboriginal Working Group created consultation questions in June 2007. From August 2007 to March 2008, 29 consultations were conducted. The survey revealed an unprecedented set of demographic data on Ontario's aboriginal lawyers. Of the 68 respondents, most (62 per cent) identifi ed themselves as status Indians, with 22 per cent self-identifi ed as Métis. The majority of respondents (54 per cent) said they faced barriers during law school, the bar admissions courts/licens- ing, and post-call. Their specifi c areas of resistance at law school included "discrimi- nation and lack of awareness of aborigi- nal issues and the aboriginal community among other students, faculty, and staff," a lack of aboriginal content in course work, struggles fi nding summer and articling jobs, and "diffi culty reconciling their ab- original cultural background with the en- vironment of law school." Those who had a good experience at law school said they garnered support from fellow aboriginal students and lawyers. During the bar admission course/licens- ing process, 24 per cent said being aborigi- nal was a negative factor, while 10 per cent considered it a positive factor. The most common reason for those who viewed it as a drawback was "their perception that their aboriginal status related in some way to their feelings of isolation and exclusion during the program," said the report. Enforcing Human Rights in Ontario Turning to respondents' post-call experience, the report stated that 34 per cent "indicated that their aboriginal sta- tus was a positive factor and they tied it directly to their feelings of connection to other aboriginal lawyers and their mem- bership within a small group (aboriginal lawyers) within the legal community." However, of the 26 per cent who reported that their aboriginal status was a negative factor to their post-call experience, most pointed to "the racism and discrimination that they faced in their work experiences," stated the report. The University of Toronto Faculty of Law attracted the highest number of ab- original law students, according to the study, with 26 per cent of the respondents. Osgoode Hall Law School, at 21 per cent, fi nished second, and the University of Ot- tawa, at 12 per cent, placed third. In terms of paying for their legal educa- tion, the most common source of fi nanc- ing for respondents was band funding, at 62 per cent. Summer job income placed second at 54 per cent, and part-time em- ployment during school fi nished third at 43 per cent. The highest percentage of re- spondents reported that they accumulated no debt during law school, 16 per cent took on between $7,501 and $15,000 in debt, and 13 per cent fi nished with be- tween $15,001 and $25,000. The most common practice areas for respondents were criminal law (34 per cent), employment/labour law (27 per cent), and administrative law (27 per cent). However, 42 per cent identifi ed their practice specialty as "other." When it comes to earnings, 26 per cent pegged their anticipated income for 2006 at more than $100,000 but less than $199,999. Most (38 per cent) expected to make between $50,000 and $99,999. The report included the following "proposals for action": • The law society's continued support and development of mentoring and network- ing programs for aboriginal lawyers and law students; • the creation of a CLE course in aborigi- nal law; • the creation of a certifi ed specialist pro- gram in aboriginal law; and • expansion of the members' annual report practice categories to include aboriginal law. That would help the law society identify possible mentors, attendees to aboriginal law continuing legal educa- tion seminars, and possible candidates for the certifi ed specialist designation in aboriginal law. Kimberly Murray, a member of the Aboriginal Working Group and executive director of Aboriginal Legal Services of To- ronto, says she is "completely supportive" of the report's recommendations. But she says the report should have taken a fi rmer stance toward issues of discrimination. "It's almost like they're highlighting the good things that people reported, and are just kind of downplaying the bad things," she says. "So I was a little disappointed there's no recommendations at the end on LT The fundamentals you need to quickly navigate the new human rights system. No counsel 'should waste court's time' Continued from page 1 Kim Bernhardt, B.A. (Hons.) LL.B. LL.M. Specializing in equality rights Brian Burkett, Heenan Blaikie The was recently amended to significantly change how human rights are protected, promoted and enforced in Ontario. Enforcing Human Rights in Ontario is the first book to outline how the new human rights system works, written by lawyers renowned for their experience in the area. Written in a practical, how-to format, it provides: • the history of the reform • the wide-ranging changes from the old to the new system – including the changed roles of the Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Tribunal and the new Human Rights Legal Service Centre • the new role of the courts in enforcing human rights • the interaction between the Human Rights Tribunal and other administrative tribunals with concurrent jurisdictions • practical information and principled analysis to help those representing complainants, respondents, intervenors and the Commission Practical tools in the appendices include: • Tribunal • flow chart covering the procedure for applying to the Human Rights Tribunal • a list of Commission policies and guidelines • information on legal supports … and more. ORDER your copy today Hardbound • Approx. 320 pp. • March 2009 • Approx. $84 • P/C 0301010000 • ISBN 978-0-88804-485-3 and the Human Rights hand, if you put a document in front of us where you use the magic words, or even if you refer to rule 24.9, that'll help." But Harold Niman, a family practitioner with Niman Zem- ans Gelgoot LLP, tells Law Times in an interview that sidetracking a client's case to consider a law- yer's conduct should be avoided. He adds that doing so could risk "lawyer chill." He says that, apart from a few rare exceptions, most lawyers act responsibly for clients. "The clients are there to have their case heard, and it shouldn't be sidetracked in any real respect by having the lawyer's compe- tence or abilities questioned dur- ing the course of an argument of a case," he says. Niman points to a better way For a 30-day, no-risk evaluation call: 1.800.263.2037 Canada Law Book is a Division of The Cartwright Group Ltd. Prices subject to change without notice, to applicable taxes and shipping & handling. LT0209 of dealing with unprepared coun- sel through costs awards. Some judges, he says, after determin- ing that a lawyer is responsible for a delay, will add a postscript to their decision ordering a copy of the reasons sent to the client, who can then take the lawyer's poor conduct into consideration when settling their account. "That to me is a better way of dealing with that kind of issue, so that ultimately it becomes an issue between the client and the lawyer," he says. Gerald Sadvari, a family law practitioner at McCarthy Té- trault LLP, backs the idea of a more aggressive use of the rule. Only once over his 30-year ca- reer has he sought costs against an opposing counsel, and the motion wasn't granted, he says. "It's not the way we've played the game traditionally, but where it's one in 100,000 cases, perhaps it should be one in 10,000 cases." "No counsel should waste the court's time," he says. "It costs everybody too much money. It doesn't serve the interests of their clients or justice." Judges are loath to use Rule 24.9, says Sadvari, as they're probably unaware of all of the facts behind a delay. But there are cases where the blame is squarely on a lawyer's shoulders, he suggests. "Sometimes it's so blindingly obvious that they had the time and just couldn't be bothered, that something should be done about it," says Sadvari. LT WHICH DIRECTION IS BEST FOR YOU? RainMaker Group 110 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto, Ontario M5C 1T4 Untitled-7 1 Tel: 416-863-9543 Fax: 416-863-9757 www.rainmakergroup.ca www.lawtimesnews.com 5/29/08 1:05:49 PM advancement of human rights in this province." book is a strong testament to the authors' "Practitioners will welcome this much- "This is a comprehensive, thoughtful and invaluable guide to the new human rights system, which should be on the bookshelves of all those, particularly employers, who could potentially be responding to a human rights complaint." Mary Cornish, Fay Faraday and Jo- Anne Pickel needed and comprehensive guide to the human rights system in Ontario. expertise and long- standing commitment to ensuring the protection and This H H uman Rights Code uman Rights Code Rules of Procedure