Law Times

www.lawtimesnews.com LAW TIMES 6 COVERING ONTARIO'S LEGAL SCENE | FEBRUARY 4, 2019 T his issue contains different stories involving issues fac- ing young lawyers and their representation at bodies such as the Law Society of Ontario. The issue is top of mind in the lead- up to the upcoming bencher election, which will take place in April. "It's so difficult for new law- yers to get on their feet, so that idea of being able to contribute to the legal profession, sup- porting its self-regulation, is a really difficult one to imagine because of other pressures," says Signa Daum Shanks, who is running for a seat. A Law Students' Society of Ontario survey indicates that nearly 83 per cent of law students had at least one parent who had a post-secondary credential. The survey troublingly in- dicates that first-generation law students in their third year of law school have an average of $32,066 more debt than stu- dents whose parents have post- secondary education. These generational divides are evident elsewhere, such as an unusual discipline case that has emerged. In the recent matter of Law Society of Ontario v. Forte, 2019, I felt the stirrings of sym- pathy for the lawyer involved, Marco Giuseppe Forte, who got into trouble with the regulator for his student's inappropriate social media postings. "[The] [l]awyer's failure to ad- equately supervise his student's use of social media in relation to his practice led ultimately to a situation where he became asso- ciated with uncivil and inf lam- matory communications made by her about other lawyers, po- lice, judges, and court staff," said the decision. The sole practitioner — who the decision says "was not a regular user of social media and in particular Twitter" and who was supervising Nadia Guo as his first articling student — will now have to attend Law Society of Ontario education programs and pay $3,500 in costs. The case is troubling on a number of levels to me. I am sure other lawyers will find it trou- bling, particularly if they're con- templating bringing an articling student on board. (A worthy calling in a time where an articling crisis persists.) Young lawyers need guid- ance, mentorship and support — and a system that incorporates their voices and factors it into policy-making decisions. LT ©2019 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written permission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or currency of the contents of this publication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 | ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. LT.editor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $205.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $199 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $5.00. Circu- lation inquiries, postal returns and address chang- es should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact: Keith Fulford - (416) 649-9585 | Fax: (416) 649-7870 keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com SALES AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Sales Manager: Paul Burton - (416) 649-9928 paul.burton@tr.com Consultant, Strategy and Business Development: Ivan Ivanovitch - (416) 887-4300 ivan.ivanovitch@tr.com Business Development Consultant: Kimberlee Pascoe - (416) 996-1739 kimberlee.pascoe@tr.com Account Executive: Steffanie Munroe - (416) 315-5879 steffanie.munroe@tr.com Law Times Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Managing Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jennifer Brown Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gabrielle Giroday Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anita Balakrishnan Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Cancilla CaseLaw Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laura Crawford Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phyllis Barone Production Co-ordinator . . . . . . . . . Jacqueline D'Souza Electronic Production Specialist . . . . . . . Derek Welford Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd., One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON M1T 3V4 | Tel: 416- 298-5141 | Fax: 416-649-7870 | lawtimesnews.com LT.editor@thomsonreuters.com | @lawtimes BY IAN HARVEY T he great thing about omnibus pack- ages like Bill 66 is that there's some- thing in there for everyone to be an- gry about. There are 12 schedules to Restoring Ontario's Competitiveness Act, 2018, and they all individually impact different sec- tors and laws. Schedule 9 brings three changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act and Em- ployment Standards Act. It's the former amendments that are triggering alarms among trade unions. It deletes s. 126 (1) and by default des- ignates municipalities and their agencies such as the Toronto Community Hous- ing Corporation and Exhibition Place, school boards, community colleges and universities and a public body under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 as non-construction sector employees. It's an important designation because, under the OLRA, if an entity has employ- ees who are members of a construction trade union, they can only contract with construction companies that are also bound by a collective agreement with a trade union. For the most part, it impacts the city of Hamilton, Toronto and Toron- to District School Board. The old rule blocked non-union com- panies from bidding on any in- frastructure projects and some argue this closed-shop status drove costs — ultimately borne by the taxpayers — higher. On the other side, trade unions claim they pay their members a living wage and provide good benefits. "This is nothing short of a full-scale attack on workers' rights in this province," said John Cartwright, president of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council, in a letter to all MPPs. "In Toronto, it will decimate bargaining rights of nearly all of the union trades. The Supreme Court has overturned similar anti-union legislation because it recognizes the Charter protects basic labour rights which are fundamen- tal to a just society." Cartwright's letter to MPPs aside, the trades and their various councils have been somewhat subdued in their reaction, says Ernie A. Schirru, partner at Koskie Minsky LLP, because they are circling behind the scenes and planning a united front and plotting legal action once Bill 66 gets royal assent and passes into law. "It's a strange area in terms of what a construction employer is," says Schirru. "But what this legislation means is that these are all deemed non-construction employees, so all these trade unions, the carpenters, paint- ers, plumbers, electricians, sheet metal workers, who all have bargaining rights within the City of Toronto, those bar- gaining rights will be effective- ly terminated and collective agreements will be void." Schirru has met with clients and expects to bring a legal challenge, noting there have been several Supreme Court of Canada decisions in the last few years. "The pendulum has swung and the court is recognizing freedom of associa- tion and the right to unionize," he says. In the interim, there's the sticky ques- tion of what happens next. "We don't know," he says. "Who do those bargaining rights go to? We don't know what the city's position is going to be." On the other side of the divide, how- ever, non-union contractors are ecstatic, because it opens the bidding process on public tenders to everyone. "The government has listened and re- sponded to groups like ours," says Mike Gallardo, executive director of the Merit OpenShop Contractors Association of Ontario, one of three major non-union contractor associations. The non-union groups have been lob- bying for years on this issue and have made their breakthrough, starting with reducing the apprenticeship ratio to 1:1, which was announced last fall, and the dismantling of the Ontario College of Trades. He says an open bid system would al- low for competitive bidding, something that will ultimately benefit taxpayers. "As it stands, some public tenders aren't seeing a lot of bids," he says. While labour costs are a major part of pricing, they're not the only factor. "This will al- low non-union contractors to bid and the market will set the price." Nor will this be a race to the bottom for wages, benefits and safety, he says, noting that all contractors want to maintain a skilled and fully employed workforce. First, however, there's little doubt of yet another court battle for the Ford gov- ernment to deal with. Soon, we'll need a digital scoreboard to track all the ongoing and pending litigation. LT Ian Harvey has been a journalist for more than 41 years, writing about a diverse range of issues including legal and political affairs. His email address is ianharvey@rogers.com. Critics still getting their kicks at Bill 66 COMMENT Queen's Park Ian Harvey Editorial Obiter Gabrielle Giroday Generational change

• Cover