Ontario has voted 'no' to accrediting Trinity University Law P

Canada_First · July 12, 2015

When we mind our own business and look the other way, it spells nothing but trouble. Do you think minding our own business really helps out society?

The left is just a bunch of do gooders who cannot mind their own business. They want everyone to live by thier rules and think the way they do or else be publicly shamed. The left is thought police.

WestCoastRunner · July 12, 2015

The left is just a bunch of do gooders who cannot mind their own business. They want everyone to live by thier rules and think the way they do or else be publicly shamed. The left is thought police.

Alrighty. Hard to argue with you.

Edited July 12, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

Canada_First · July 12, 2015

Alrighty. Hard to argue with you.

It's what the left does. Dont like Gays you're Homophobic. Dont like Muslims you're Islamophobic. Dont like immigration you're racist. Dont agree to give FN everything you're also a racist. Say you're a conservative they call you a knuckle dragging trogledyte or how ever it's spelled or they call you a Christian like that's a dirty word. It's all about public shaming with the left.

They force you to think their way or they call you these names and publicly shame you. Yes, it's hard to argue because you cant as it's true what I'm saying.

WestCoastRunner · July 12, 2015

It's what the left does. Dont like Gays you're Homophobic. Dont like Muslims you're Islamophobic. Dont like immigration you're racist. Dont agree to give FN everything you're also a racist. Say you're a conservative they call you a knuckle dragging trogledyte or how ever it's spelled or they call you a Christian like that's a dirty word. It's all about public shaming with the left.

They force you to think their way or they call you these names and publicly shame you. Yes, it's hard to argue because you cant as it's true what I'm saying

It's not about gays. It's not about muslims. It's not about immigrants. It's not about FN. It's not about Conservatives. hu

It's about human rights especially when we have to argue with folks like this.

Edited July 12, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

Peter F · July 12, 2015

You're not planning on going to the school. So why not stop the whining and try minding your own business? This has absolutely nothing to do with you.

But it had something to do with the Law Society of Upper Canada. Recap: They were asked by TWU to accredit their law course.

If TWU minded their own business they would simply have a law course and to hell with accreditation - but noooo, they gotta start imposing thier

values on the Law Society of Upper Canada by going to court to have the Law Society's decision overturned.

Wilber · July 12, 2015

A marriage isn't valid unless it's consummated. So yeah, having sex has something to do with marriage.

Ah, no.

Wilber · July 12, 2015

This is the crucial point that some people aren't understanding. The Law Society of Ontario can't possibly grant accreditation to an institute that violates the Ontario Human Rights codes. It would undermine their legal authority.

So the Ontario Human Rights Code can violate the Charter? Next stop SCC. Be interesting to see what they make of all this.

cybercoma · July 12, 2015

So the Ontario Human Rights Code can violate the Charter? Next stop SCC. Be interesting to see what they make of all this.

How does it violate the Charter? The law school's code of conduct violates the Charter by discriminating against gay and lesbian students. That's the entire point.

Michael Hardner · July 12, 2015

Ah, no.

Ironically I think that's a religious rule

cybercoma · July 12, 2015

Ironically I think that's a religious rule

Yes, that was the joke.

Wilber · July 12, 2015

How does it violate the Charter? The law school's code of conduct violates the Charter by discriminating against gay and lesbian students. That's the entire point.

Then why did both the SCC and Nova Scotia supreme court find in favour of TWU in cases involving the BC Teachers Federation and Nova Scotia Law society? Just because Ontario decides to call a piece of legislation a human rights code doesn't mean parts of it don't violate the Charter. Someone is violating it and it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out not to be TWU once this is all settled.

cybercoma · July 12, 2015

Then why did both the SCC and Nova Scotia supreme court find in favour of TWU in cases involving the BC Teachers Federation and Nova Scotia Law society? Just because Ontario decides to call a piece of legislation a human rights code doesn't mean parts of it don't violate the Charter. Someone is violating it and it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out not to be TWU once this is all settled.

Obviously because we're dealing with competing sections of the Charter.

TimG · July 12, 2015

Obviously because we're dealing with competing sections of the Charter.

And the SCC laid out how to balance the competing rights in TWU vs. BCTF. I have not heard one person present a reasonable argument for changing the balancing rules laid out in that decision.

Peter F · July 13, 2015

And the SCC laid out how to balance the competing rights in TWU vs. BCTF. I have not heard one person present a reasonable argument for changing the balancing rules laid out in that decision.

The courts decision spells out why the situation with TWU vs. BCTF is different from TWU vs LSUC.

see http://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/files/judgments/2015ONSC4250.pdf para 59+ page 18.

as para 60 states:

[60] We do not accept that central contention by the applicants. The issue raised before the Supreme Court of Canada in BCCT involved different facts, a different statutory regime, and a fundamentally different question.

Peter F · July 13, 2015

One must also remember what the court was asked by TWU to do - overturn a decision by a board that was legislated the power to make such decisions.

The courts in reviewing such decisions don't decide wether such boards/committee's/tribunals were right or wrong in the decision made but only the reasonableness of the decision. The court decided that given the situation involved it was reasonable for the LSUC to come to the decision it did.

TimG · July 13, 2015

The courts decision spells out why the situation with TWU vs. BCTF is different from TWU vs LSUC.

What a self serving and contradictory legal argument!

On one hand it argues that the demand for law school spaces is large enough that gay people will lose out on their dream of being a lawyer if they feel excluded from TWU but by ruling against TWU the judges simply ensure that a much larger number of gay and straight law students will lose out because the number of spaces will be that much smaller.

On top of this irony, the judges hypocritically argue that the law society is not infringing on freedom of religion rights because other provinces may choose to accredit TWU grads which is the exact opposite of the position it took on the question of student choice of law schools despite the fact that students have more choice when it comes to law schools than TWU has with law societies that have the power to deny accreditation.

Edited July 13, 2015 by TimG

Wilber · July 13, 2015

One must also remember what the court was asked by TWU to do - overturn a decision by a board that was legislated the power to make such decisions.

The courts in reviewing such decisions don't decide wether such boards/committee's/tribunals were right or wrong in the decision made but only the reasonableness of the decision. The court decided that given the situation involved it was reasonable for the LSUC to come to the decision it did.

So, because the LSUC has the power to decide who practices law in Ontario, the court has given the LSUC permission to deny a person the right to practice on the grounds that it disagrees with that graduate's or their school's religious views, regardless of their academic qualifications.

This is the definition of professionalism in Ontario?

The_Squid · July 13, 2015

So, because the LSUC has the power to decide who practices law in Ontario, the court has given the LSUC permission to deny a person the right to practice on the grounds that it disagrees with that graduate's or their school's religious views, regardless of their academic qualifications.

This is the definition of professionalism in Ontario?

No. The school has to live up to certain standards. It's no more complicated than that.

Wilber · July 13, 2015

No. The school has to live up to certain standards. It's no more complicated than that.

What standards? The LSUC is no more qualified to make moral judgments than you, me or Moe the cab driver. If they are the ones we trust with accreditation, they owe it to society to objectively evaluate schools on their ability to teach law and produce graduates who can practice law competently. That is their job and they should stick to it.

While I have a problem with TWU's stance regarding gays, I have a much bigger problem with so called professional organizations we trust to evaluate professional standards, who throw their professional obligations in the ditch in order to practice social activism. I think those who want this kind of behaviour from professional organizations entrusted with enforcing professional standards, need to really rethink what they are asking for.

Do you want professions evaluated on political correctness or how well they can do their friggin job and how will you ever know the difference if this becomes the norm?

Argus · July 13, 2015

No. The school has to live up to certain standards. It's no more complicated than that.

You're not talking about standards of education, clearly, but whether the school in question produces people who share your political and social views.

The_Squid · July 13, 2015

It's not a social viewpoint... it's a legal viewpoint based on the Constitution.

Wilber · July 14, 2015

It's not a social viewpoint... it's a legal viewpoint based on the Constitution.

Only in that it says the LSUC has the right to discriminate against TWU and its students. Get that, the society Ontarians rely on to certify their lawyers is allowed to discriminate for non professional reasons. Several supreme courts including the SCC have already ruled that what TWU is doing is not unconstitutional, so in reality it is a social viewpoint.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Wilber

Argus · July 14, 2015

It's not a social viewpoint... it's a legal viewpoint based on the Constitution.

Nonsense. The constitution does not apply to a private college, so they are doing nothing wrong. The law society's disapproval is based on their social views, the determination to denounce anti-gay views. It's not like they question that the graduates will be properly trained in law.

The_Squid · July 14, 2015

Nonsense. The constitution does not apply to a private college, so they are doing nothing wrong. The law society's disapproval is based on their social views, the determination to denounce anti-gay views. It's not like they question that the graduates will be properly trained in law.

Once again you have totally missed the entire point of the decision.

The court acknowledged this and then said that the Law Society is the one bound by the Constitution and followed the necessary steps and made a reasonable decision (paraphrasing).

Argus · July 14, 2015

Once again you have totally missed the entire point of the decision.

The court acknowledged this and then said that the Law Society is the one bound by the Constitution and followed the necessary steps and made a reasonable decision (paraphrasing).

And also said (paraphrasing) well, maybe the supreme court will change their minds now if we give them a case, because it's not like these things are based on law, really, and since society's attitude towards gays has changed, maybe the SC will change their interpretation in line with that.

The law society is acting for the crown in determining whether someone qualifies as a lawyer. That means they have to abide by the constitution, and any legitimate reading of the SC's last decision on this subject regarding TWU teachers and the teacher federations says you can't impose on their religious freedom by banning their grads because you don't like their religious beliefs.

And that's what this really boils down to. You don't like their religious beliefs so you don't believe they ought to be able to practice law, or, probably, even live.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Argus