Aspiring lawyer can amend Charter claim against LSO after fourth failed licensing exam: OCA

[myth000]

https://www.lawtimesnews.com/practice-areas/human-rights/aspiring-lawyer-can-amend-charter-claim-against-lso-after-fourth-failed-licensing-exam-oca/373798

Something to think about as you study for the barrister exam....

Edited May 14, 2023 by myth000

[CleanHands]

A lawyer I had as opposing counsel who was called to the bar in Ontario and passed the licensing exams there is one of the dumbest motherfuckers I've ever met in my 30-some years of life by miles. Incapable of comprehending anything and so breathtakingly stupid that he was too stupid to have any idea how stupid he was, so he wasted an infuriating amount of the court's (not to mention my) valuable time on absolute, appalling, astounding nonsense. It offends me so much that he's a licensed lawyer and 95% of people making minimum wage in demeaning retail and fast food jobs are exponentially more intelligent and talented than him and deserve to be far above him in any just and fair society.

Nobody who can't pass it should ever be allowed within 200 meters of a courthouse or law office. I lack the imagination to conceive of how dumb someone would have to be to not be able to pass an exam that that dude could.

Edited May 14, 2023 by CleanHands

[myth000]

15 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

A lawyer I had as opposing counsel who was called to the bar in Ontario and passed the licensing exams there is one of the dumbest motherfuckers I've ever met in my 30-some years of life by miles. Incapable of comprehending anything and so breathtakingly stupid that he was too stupid to have any idea how stupid he was, so he wasted an infuriating amount of the court's (not to mention my) valuable time on absolute, appalling, astounding nonsense. It offends me so much that he's a licensed lawyer and 95% of people making minimum wage in demeaning retail and fast food jobs are exponentially more intelligent and talented than him and deserve to be far above him in any just and fair society.

Nobody who can't pass it should ever be allowed within 200 meters of a courthouse or law office. I lack the imagination to conceive of how dumb someone would have to be to not be able to pass an exam that that dude could.

Maybe he passed because he wasn't of Persian/Russian/Uzbek Jewish background like the appellant, the exam is biased against this background according to the appellant...

On a serious note, the appellant is self-representing himself in the case.  He failed the Barrister exam but is capable of drafting a pleading and representing himself.   Maybe it's his way of proving that the Barrister exam does not reflect the ability to be a barrister.

[BlockedQuebecois]

3 hours ago, myth000 said:

On a serious note, the appellant is self-representing himself in the case.  He failed the Barrister exam but is capable of drafting a pleading and representing himself.   Maybe it's his way of proving that the Barrister exam does not reflect the ability to be a barrister.

He can't draft a pleading. That's why he needed leave to amend after having drafted a pleading that was described by the Court of Appeal as being "bald" and "not contain[ing] sufficient material facts to support all the elements of a cause of action under s. 15 of the Charter or under the Code." 

[SNAILS]

I have  for a long time been fascinated by the evolution of what is considered a proper progressive view. When I first heard about this case, I did not immediately rule out that this applicant's position would gain some support from a very vocal community of advocates that fight against racism and bigotry in all forms. I also could not immediately rule out as outrageous or unfounded the claim that the bar exam could be biased against people of Persian/Russian/Uzbek Jewish background.

It is also interesting that the Ontario Court of Appeal is, for the time being, willing to move ahead with this matter.

Does anyone here think his claim has any merit? Does anyone think political views (and Charter jurisprudence) will evolve over time to be more accepting of this kind of alleged substantive discrimination?

[Diplock]

1 hour ago, SNAILS said:

I have  for a long time been fascinated by the evolution of what is considered a proper progressive view. When I first heard about this case, I did not immediately rule out that this applicant's position would gain some support from a very vocal community of advocates that fight against racism and bigotry in all forms. I also could not immediately rule out as outrageous or unfounded the claim that the bar exam could be biased against people of Persian/Russian/Uzbek Jewish background.

It is also interesting that the Ontario Court of Appeal is, for the time being, willing to move ahead with this matter.

Does anyone here think his claim has any merit? Does anyone think political views (and Charter jurisprudence) will evolve over time to be more accepting of this kind of alleged substantive discrimination?

A test can be biased. It can be biased against people of a specific background. A similar argument was made against the American SAT, that it was slanted towards students coming from a certain cultural framework (of privilege, obviously) and against students who didn't share that background. I broadly agree that argument was true in that case, as do many, and it resulted in substantial changes to the test.

So...I don't actually know what you're asking here, but you seem to be conflating thinking this particular case is stupid (it probably is) and thinking the framework of the basic idea is stupid (it probably isn't) and then asking who's on board with you. What kind of answer do you expect? There is accepted merit to claims of "this kind of alleged substantive discrimination." Just probably not here.

Look. I appreciate you aren't trying to make a legal argument, but there's a slippage in your approach, here and elsewhere, that keeps coming up. And it comes up in law also. The police lie, cheat, and steal. They actually do. In any number of situations, both proven and unproven, the police lie, cheat, and steal. So is an argument alleging that the police have lied, cheated, and stolen potentially the kind of argument that should be made and that people can get on board with? Of course it is. Should the Court allow for it? Of course it should, and does. Does that mean that every argument founded on the allegation that the police lie, cheat, and steal has merit and should be taken seriously? Fuck no. It only means the framework to make the argument exists for good reason.

Yes, this kind of argument can have merit. Tests can be biased. But I'm a long way off believing this particular test is biased in the way this particular claimant wants to argue.

[GGrievous]

29 minutes ago, Diplock said:

So...I don't actually know what you're asking here

he's trying to say we're all a bunch of hypocrites because we'll act like we care about racism but then shit on this persons claim and not help every refugee.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Barry

[myth000]

5 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

He can't draft a pleading. That's why he needed leave to amend after having drafted a pleading that was described by the Court of Appeal as being "bald" and "not contain[ing] sufficient material facts to support all the elements of a cause of action under s. 15 of the Charter or under the Code." 

"As the appellant ABLY clarified in his submissions on appeal...it seems to me that if the requested information and documentation was unavailable to the appellant before he started his claim, it would be premature to find at this stage that the appellant’s pleading is fatally defective and cannot be cured by amendment because of a lack of particulars which may be in the LSO’s power to provide through the discovery process."

[BlockedQuebecois]

What an embarrassingly misleading use of ellipses. 

Anyways, I’m not going to seriously entertain the suggestion that someone who is capable of drafting a pleading that is defective enough to be struck but not so defective as to be fatally flawed and thus struck without leave to amend is a person that “can draft a pleading”

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by BlockedQuebecois

[Hegdis]

I find more and more that the advice I would give people, legally and otherwise, is “you should seriously consider just letting this go”.

[Yogurt Baron]

"I couldn't pass the bar due to a cognitive disability, now give me a law license" seems like...an interesting marketing technique. I'm not sure clients will be beating down this person's door.

[myth000]

7 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

What an embarrassingly misleading use of ellipses. 

Anyways, I’m not going to seriously entertain the suggestion that someone who is capable of drafting a pleading that is defective enough to be struck but not so defective as to be fatally flawed and thus struck without leave to amend is a person that “can draft a pleading”

 

"it seems to me that if the requested information and documentation was unavailable to the appellant before he started his claim, it would be premature to find at this stage that the appellant’s pleading is fatally defective and cannot be cured by amendment because of a lack of particulars which may be in the LSO’s power to provide through the discovery process". Does this passage suggest that the judge thinks the appellant "can draft a pleading"?

ChatGPT: Yes, the passage does suggest that the judge thinks the appellant is capable of drafting a pleading, but that the current pleading may be incomplete or lacking in certain details due to the unavailability of requested information and documentation. The judge's statement that the pleading may not be "fatally defective" and can be "cured by amendment" implies that the appellant has the ability to improve the pleading by providing more information and details, either through the discovery process or through amending the pleading. Therefore, the judge appears to believe that the appellant is capable of drafting a pleading, but that the current version may need additional information to be sufficient.

 

[CleanHands]

43 minutes ago, myth000 said:

ChatGPT

Jesus, I really hope this doesn't become a widespread substitute for critical thinking.

[myth000]

3 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Jesus, I really hope this doesn't become a widespread substitute for critical thinking.

Blocked fails at basic reading comprehension and emotional self-control, ChatGPT surpasses him. 

[Generic]

3 hours ago, Yogurt Baron said:

"I couldn't pass the bar due to a cognitive disability, now give me a law license" seems like...an interesting marketing technique. I'm not sure clients will be beating down this person's door.

I tried multiple times, but I couldn't make the Toronto Raptors due to being 5'1. Now give me that professional contract!