Law Times

September 12, 2016

The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario

Issue link: http://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/725067

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 1 of 15

Page 2 September 12, 2016 • Law timeS www.lawtimesnews.com NEWS A spokeswoman for the law society said the committee's re- view will tackle the Pathways Pi- lot Project, which includes both the LPP and other changes to articling. Convocation is expected to vote in November on the com- mittee's recommendations. Michael Lerner, a bencher who voted against approving the LPP in 2012, says he was con- cerned over unpaid placements in the program. He also questioned whether an online part of the LPP course would provide candidates with training that would be as good as what they would get from ar- ticling. "Nothing has changed my mind about the program. I was skeptical in the beginning and remain so," he says. When asked what the review would have to show for him to change his mind, Lerner said, "I think bearing in mind the need to accommodate new licensees and at the same time regulating in the public interest, I'm going to have to be satisfied that the current program is doing that." Austin says she would also like to see an analysis in the re- view of any differences in the ability of LPP candidates com- pared to articling students. "I would want to see in-depth analysis about the competencies that candidates are developing in those two streams and how they compare to each other," she says. LPP proponents and admin- istrators have hailed the pro- gram as a success, saying the program is just as good if not better than the training received through articling. Ryerson University's LPP pro- gram has seen 440 candidates go through the first two years of the program. In the first year, 75 per cent of the candidates who were called to the bar were employed full time in law six months after completing the LPP. As of May, 44 per cent of the second year of candidates were either hired or extended. Chris Bentley, the executive director of Ryerson's LPP, says the program has provided high- quality skills-based training that ensures lawyers called to the bar have the skills necessary. "At the end of the day, a call to the bar means that the lawyer can do anything from murder to merger," he says. "[And] that the law society is certifying it's safe to leave them with members of the public and we've designed the highest quality skills train- ing that's standardized, super- vised and accessed to make sure that candidates for the bar are well prepared." Bentley says tackling the per- ception some employers may have that LPP candidates are of a lower tier has been an ongoing battle. "The only thing second tier is the perception by some members of the profession about a program they know little of and candidates they know less of," he says. LT Continued from page 1 'Nothing has changed my mind about the program' gime across the country, given the different areas of jurisdic- tion that an issue like genetic privacy touches upon. So far, 10 of the 13 provinces and territo- ries have written letters of sup- port for the bill. "This is not about regulat- ing the insurance industry — it's about regulating, prohibiting and penalizing discriminatory behaviour no matter who does it, whether it's an insurer, an em- ployer, an adoption agency, any- body," says Cowan. "If you use this information, that is an offence." Liberal MP Rob Oliphant, the sponsor of the bill in the House of Commons, notes the various jurisdictions of issues that genetic discrimination touches on, whether it's custody and family law issues, insurance or employment. "The overall line that we've used comes from Peter Hogg's book on constitutional law," says Oliphant. Hogg referenced the author- ity to enact legislation to forbid discriminatory practices gener- ally falls under the provincial powers of property and civil rights per s. 92(13) of the Consti- tution, but he noted that "there is little doubt that the federal Par- liament could if it chose exercise its criminal law power (s. 91(27)) to outlaw discriminatory prac- tices generally." "In that shared jurisdiction, both on health and on discrimi- nation, the federal Parliament can act and it would be welcome by the provinces," says Oliphant. "This still demands legislation from the provinces. It doesn't cover all bases, so it serves as a good model to get us into the conversation and move the nee- dle, and researchers and clini- cians are asking for it." The confusion over division of powers is one reason why the bill has taken as long as it has. One of the concerns of the Con- servative senators who attempt- ed to gut the previous bill in 2015 was over jurisdictional concerns. The bill's effect on privacy legislation is one of the reasons why it is supported by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and it would put Canada into the league of countries such as the UK and the United States. "It's necessary for two rea- sons," says Chantal Bernier, former interim federal privacy commissioner and now counsel with Dentons LLP in Ottawa. "The first one is that there is evidently an appetite for this type of information, and sec- ondly, because that appetite does not conform with privacy prin- ciples. Science currently does not support the claim that genet- ic information is indeed predic- tive of risk. Why this is material in law is that privacy law only allows collection of personal in- formation in the measure that it is necessary. If genetic infor- mation is not predictive of risk, there can be no justification of necessity in requiring informa- tion." Bernier praised the bill's con- crete application of privacy law to genetic information. LT Continued from page 1 Bill affects privacy legislation REGISTER ONLINE www.lexpert.ca/cpdcentre For more information, please contact Lexpert® at 1-877-298-5868 or e-mail: lexpert.questions@thomsonreuters.com EXECUTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FULLY ACCREDITED IN-CLASS PROGRAMS & LIVE WEBINARS 4th Annual Conducting Effective Workplace Investigations Unearthing the Truth: Dig Deeper with Workplace Investigations Sarah Graves Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Toronto & Webinar November 8 Drafting and Negiotiating Effective Cloud Computing Agreements Get Ahead in the Cloud Lisa R. Lifshitz Partner, Torkin Manes LLP Toronto & Webinar November 9 2nd Annual Managing Regulatory Risks Winning Strategies for a Game of Risk Joan Young Partner, Co-Chair, B.B., Administrative and Public Law, McMillan LLP Toronto & Webinar November 9 2nd Annual Duties and Risks for Directors The Board Game: A World of Infinite Risks Aaron Emes & Stephanie Stimpson Partners of Torys LLP Toronto & Webinar November 15 8th Annual Dealing with the Lease: A State of the Art Update Innovation + Ideas in Leasing Stephen J. Messinger Senior Partner, Minden Gross LLP Toronto & Webinar November 16 5th Annual Anti-Bribery and Corruption Compliance Navigating Muddy Waters John Boscariol Partner, McCarthy Tétrault LLP Vancouver & Webinar November 28 8th Annual Aboriginal Law An Update on Aboriginal Law Thomas Isaac Partner, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Toronto & Webinar November 30 9th Annual Advertising and Marketing Law Managing Legal Risk in a Technology Driven World Brenda Pritchard Partner, Gowling WLG Toronto & Webinar December 1 8th Annual Information Privacy and Data Protection Viewing and Being Viewed- Minimize Digital Risk David Young Principal, David Young Law & Bill Hearn Partner, Fogler, Rubinoff LLP Toronto & Webinar December 1 9th Annual Corporate Governance 2016: What You Need To Know Are You Prepared for Changes in Corporate Governance? Walied Soliman & Orestes Pasparakis Partners of Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP Toronto & Webinar December 8 Untitled-2 1 2016-09-06 9:32 AM

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Law Times - September 12, 2016