Oct.

19,2016

PolicySecretariat
TheLawSocietyofUpperCanada
OsgoodeHall,130QueenStreetWest
Toronto,ON,M5H2N6
Re:PathwaysPilotProjectEvaluationandEnhancementstoLicensingreport
DearSir/Madame:
ThisletterisintendedtobrieflyweighinonthepilotprojectknownastheLawPractice
Program(LPP).
MuchofwhatIwouldcommentonhasalreadybeenidentifiedbyothers.TheSept.22,
2016 Report by Professional Development & Competence Committee provides an insufficient
analysisoftheLPPtoproperlyweighandconsiderthemeritsofwhethertheprogramshouldbe
continued.
For example, the use of intake interviews on the perception of the program is not a
qualitativelyvalidmeansofassessingthecontentsoftheprogram.Inotherwords,nothinginthe
programitselfcanbeobjectivelycriticizedbytheCommitteeintheReport.Allobjectivemeasures
oftrainingappeartosuggestthattheLPPprogramisqualitativelyequivalent,ifnotsuperior,to
thetraditionalarticlingprocessinensuringthatlicensingcandidatesreceivethepracticalskills
andtrainingthatarenecessaryforpractice.Itisthefocusontheskillsandtrainingthatareinthe
publicinterest,andwhatthelicensingprocessisintendedtoaddress.
Additionally,thedisproportionatefocusoftheReportandsurroundingdiscussionsonthe
passagerateofLPPcandidateswiththelicensingexamismisplaced.Itshouldnotbeasurprise
thatcandidateswhoconductedtheirlawschooleducationoutsideofthejurisdiction(i.e.NCA
candidates)willtypicallyfareworseonlicensingexamsthanthosewhodidnot.Thefactthat
there is a disproportionate number of NCA candidates in the LPP is itself incidental, and not
determinativeoftheprogramitself.
WhatIwouldliketofocusoninsteadstemsdirectlyfrommyroleasaninvitedmoderator
bythelawsocietyforthedebateonthearticlingcrisisonNov.2122,2012.Asaresultofthis
informalrole,Iwaslikelymoreattunedtothenuanceandthedetailsofsomeofthediscussions
around this program that most members of the bar. In particular, my focus will be on the
amendmenttothemotionmadebyBencherJulianFalconer,whichaccomplished2things:
1. The length of the LPP program was shortened from 5 years under 1.a. of the
motionto3years
2. Thecostoftheprogramwastoborneinpartbytheprofession

The current review of the LPP is therefore being conducted in 2016, as opposed to 2018, as
originallyenvisioned.InanewandinnovativeprogramwhichappearstobeevaluatedintheSept.
22,2016reportprimarilybyperspectiveofincomingparticipants,thisabbreviatedlengthoftime
isinsufficienttoeithercollectappropriatedataortotransformanyoftheseperceptions,ifthese
perceptionswereavalidmetricforevaluationtobeginwith.
The original motion required under 1.b.,i, for data to be collected for the purposes of
evaluation. Not only is this data not properly collected in the Report, the analysis by the
consultantissimilarlyflawedformanyofthesamereasons.ThemotiontoabbreviatetheLLP
program from 5 to 3 years therefore has the effect of ensuring that the program cannot be
successful.
ThesecondcomponentoftheFalconeramendmentwasthatthecostsshouldbeshared
by the profession. Although on a plain meaning, and on a contextual understanding of the
amendmentasitwasintroducedinthedebate,wouldsuggestthatthecostwouldbedefrayed
acrossalllicenseesintheprovince,thisisnotinfacthowthelawsocietydecidedtoimplement
it.Instead,thisturnedintoacostallocationacrossallthelicensees,LPPcandidatesorotherwise,
fortheapplicableyear.
The origin of this cost implementation came from the original suggestions from the
PathwaysProject,andisnotaproperinterpretationoftheamendmentasitwaspresented.The
effectofthisistoaccentuateandconcentratethecostsoftheLPPonthosewhocanleastafford
it,andthosewhodonothaveavoteforthebenchersinthelawsociety.Thatitselfisasignificant
causeforconcernwhenconsideringthebroadercontext.
ThePathwaysProjectemergedoutofanincreasinglyacuteneedtoreviewthefairness
oftheroutetolicensingintheprovince.Thiswasnotanewconcern,andtherearelawsociety
materialsdatingbacktoatleast2007indicatingthattherewerediscussionsaroundtheissue.
The problem was that despite congratulatory assurances that the profession would solve this
problemourselvesbycreatingadditionalarticlingpositions,nothingwastrulydonetosolvethe
problem. In other words, the legal community failed, despite repeated attempts, to solve a
problemthatwasfacingthemforseveralyears.TheLPPisthefirstinstancewheresomething
substantivehasactuallybeenexecutedtoaddresstheissue.
Inthiscontext,itiscompletelyinappropriatetoremovetheLPPprogramentirely,asis
currently contemplated, without a viable alternative in place. To do so would return the legal
communityinOntariotoapositionwewereinadecadeago,withnoforeseeablealternativesin
thefuture.Administrativelythisappearstobeabizarremannertoaddressapressingproblem,
anditselfisanineffectiveandinefficientuseofresources.

Wemustalsorememberthatthemajorityofthosewhodonotreceivearticlingpositions
comefromhistoricallymarginalizedpopulationsinOntario.RemovingtheLPPentirelywithout
an alternative at this time would effectively be to disproportionately and adversely impact
racializedmembers,women,andthoseoflowersocioeconomicstatus.Suchactionscannotbe
seenasconscionable,andraisefundamentalquestionsabouttheroleandfunctionofthelaw
societyasawhole.
ThereviewoftheLPPisincomplete.Despiteongoingcontroversyaroundarticlingandits
alternatives, the legal community in Ontario is not in a position to provide any determinative
conclusion,eitheraboutthefutureofarticlingortheLPPasawhole.Theonlyviablesolutionin
these circumstances is to provide a timelimited extension on the LPP, and introduce better
metrics to evaluate its participants from a skills and training perspective following their
completion. In order for this information to have any statistical validity, a similar form of
evaluationwouldneedtobeconductedforthosewhoareparticipatinginthetraditionalarticling
program.
Thankyouforreviewingthesecomments,andIhopethatanydecisionsregardingtheLPP
be made carefully, cautiously, and with full consideration of the candidates who will be left
withoutanyrecourseifthisprogramisterminatedprematurely.
Sincerely,

OmarHaRedeye
AAS,BHA(Hons.),PGCert,JD,LLM
CNMT,RT(N)(ARRT)