The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50818
regional wrap-up Convocation that the different pream- bles in the proposed oaths aimed to "recognize that there are differences — historically, there would be differences — between lawyers and paralegals." Bencher Judith Potter urged Convocation to adopt a different oath for lawyers, saying she has spoken to lawyers who are "appalled" by the pros- pect of members of their profession swearing the same oath as paralegals. "To be a lawyer is to be a member of a profession requiring graduation from a professional school at a university," she said. "In my view, paralegals are a voca- tion, not a profession, and therefore should not be swearing the identical oath sworn by lawyers." The paralegal standing committee issued a report stating, "the committee regarded the different first sentences as an unnecessary distinction given the important role of paralegals in provid- ing legal services to Ontarians and thus enhancing access to justice." The com- mittee proposed a preamble more in line with the barristers and solicitors oath, reading, "I accept the honour and privilege, duty and responsibility of pro- viding legal services as a paralegal in the province of Ontario." After an hour of debate among benchers, that proposal passed by a vote of 37-5. A sentence reading, "I shall seek to improve the administra- tion of justice," was added to both oaths following a motion from Bencher Tom Heintzman. Controversy over the oath dates back to the Law Society of Upper Canada's May 2008 annual general meeting, when members passed a non-binding motion for benchers' consideration. It called for a change to the oath, with amendments to the law society's bylaws to replace the term "licensee" with "lawyers" or "barristers and solicitors." It also asked that lawyers in good standing be called "members" by the LSUC. Wording in the oath was changed in April 2007, when the law society passed an omnibus motion amending its bylaws in response to the beginning of paralegal regulation, which commenced May 1, 2007. The LSUC said the term "licensee" was inserted throughout the Law Society Act at that time — at the provincial gov- ernment's behest through the Access to Justice Act — as a generic term referring to both lawyers and paralegals. The law society also said it contin- ued to use the term "members" when referring to lawyers and paralegals for corporate, rather than regulatory, pur- poses. — RT THE PRAIRIES Koff man causes a ruckus (in a good way) expecting to win any popularity con- tests with Premier Gary Doer. The just-graduated law student A from the University of Manitoba set off a firestorm of contro- versy in February after her argument to justice of the peace Norman Sundstrom convinced him to throw out nine photo-radar tick- ets that were snapped in construction zones where no workers were present. The Crown immediate- ly appealed the ruling but dropped it in May, simul- taneously killing 857 ticket cases still pending in the court process. Attorney General Dave Chomiak fter causing a potentially $15-mil- lion headache for the Manitoba government, Jodi Koffman isn't initially said motorists who had been given a ticket in the same circum- stances, but paid it, would not be eli- gible for a refund. The resulting outcry forced him to reconsider his actions. A final decision on the matter is expected shortly. Refunding the approximately 60,000 tickets would cost the province and the City of Winnipeg between $10 and $15 million. Koffman says she never dreamed tak- ing on this case on behalf of a legal aid client would cause such a ruckus. "I think the reason it's so big is because most people have a vested interest in it. It has spoken to a lot of people because they've person- ally had a [photo radar] ticket or know somebody who has had one," she says. "I definitely think I'm off the NDP's Christmas card list." Koffman, now articling in Legal Aid Manitoba's criminal division, says the whole process didn't amount to a bap- tism by fire as she didn't do anything at the trial that she hadn't done before, but it did teach her to explore cases fully and how to handle the media. "You've got to be careful what you say to the media. You never want to offend anybody or have your words come out the wrong way," she says. "But this isn't a typical situation. Most of my cases won't be that high profile." — GEOFF KIRBYSON gmkirbyson@shaw.ca www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com JULY 2009 13