Sentences with phrase «equality and diversity law»

Not exact matches

For instance, Chinese firms have to be aware of roles of trade unions and labour laws that differ from those in China; be respectful to the diversity and equality that are the reality of Canadian culture and society; and be environment friendly that reflects Canadians value.

Equality We want a society which is based on equality and respect for diversity with robust equality laws against irrelevant discrimination, not least in the context of the «religion or belief» and «sexual orientation» equality strands.

This bundle includes reference cards on culture / ethnicity and on religion / belief, Frequently Asked Questions about ethnicity equality in education and about raising the achievement of all pupils, and reference cards on: the law on equality in education; and learning about equality, diversity and human rights.

This bundle focuses on disability equality in education and includes a reference card on disability (including learning difficulties), Frequently Asked Questions about disability equality in education and about raising the achievement of all pupils, and reference cards on: achievement; the law on equality in education; and learning about equality, diversity and human rights.

My sense from reading some of the criticism directed at the Law Society is that the critics are uncomfortable with the Law Society imposing moral values on its licensees: because the value and parameters of inclusion, equality and diversity are contested and unclear, the Law Society ought not to require its members to acknowledge a duty to promote them.

Far more useful would be requiring law firms, organizations, corporations and law schools to have that positive obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion.

Is it the duty of the individual lawyer to promote equality, diversity and inclusion or is it the duty of the law society or regulating body to do so?

The Law Society has an obligation to promote human rights in the legal profession and licensees are already bound by human rights equality, diversity and inclusion principles under their respective professional rules of conduct and the Code.»

Reading between the lines of the Challenges report, I * think * that the purported obligation to «promote equality, diversity and inclusion» was really intended to be a catch all summary of our existing obligations to — in essence — comply with Ontario's human rights laws in accordance with section 2.1 or 6.3 and 6.3.1 of the Rules.

«The law society decided to commit to enhancing or promoting diversity and equality in the profession as a way of promoting the interests of the public.

The new obligation requires every lawyer and paralegal in Ontario to adopt and abide by a statement of principles «acknowledging their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion» and has faced some backlash since the law society started implementing it in September.

As part of its commitment to promote equality and diversity in the legal profession, and to ensure that the Ontario community is served by a representative profession, the Law Society of Upper Canada conducts research and collects data on the composition of the profession.

From an employment law perspective this case is relatively cut and dry — in so much as the employer was left with very little choice as to how to deal with such a flagrant and public breach of its diversity and equality policy by one of its employees.

The Law Society asks us to promote vague terms live «diversity», «equality» and «inclusion» but refuses to define them.

When a first year student's opportunity to learn about equality is reduced to a one - time course, it is not too surprising that values like diversity and equality do not necessarily get transferred from law schools into legal practice.

There has been significant controversy in Ontario over the new Law Society requirement that every licensee «adopt and to abide by a statement of principles acknowledging their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in their behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public».

Therefore, it is reasonable to anticipate that the future efforts of the Law Society, when it gives more definition and interpretation to the values of equality, diversity, and inclusion it has in mind, will give rise to conflicts with the personal values of individual lawyers and interference with the thoughts, beliefs, and opinions of lawyers.

The promotion of equality, diversity, and inclusion is nothing less than requiring all Ontario lawyers to subscribe to a set of personal values which our Regulator (Law Society) wants advanced in our profession.

The (now removed from their website) supplementary materials on the Statement of Principles indicate that lawyers must «demonstrate a personal valuing of equality, diversity, and inclusion,» which makes it apparent that the Law Society intends to regulate thought as much as action.

The Law Society has attempted to characterize equality, diversity, and inclusion in its Statement of Principles as simply a set of behavioural «standards or criteria.»

Committed to the principles of equality and fairness, she is raising the bar within the business world and the legal profession through consistent and vocal advocacy for increased diversity in America's boardrooms and improved opportunities for women in law.

Recommendation 3 (1) of the Law Society of Ontario requires all Ontario lawyers to create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles (SOP) that acknowledges the lawyer's obligation to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion generally, and in the lawyer's behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients, and the public.

In effect, SOP imposes a mandatory obligation on individual lawyers to personally value equality, diversity, and inclusion, the definitions and interpretations of which will be in the exclusive domain of the Law Society of Ontario.

The American Bar Foundation is the world's leading research institute for the empirical study of law: we have an established track record of research on legal diversity, equality of opportunity, and equal justice.

Jackson Lees Group Ltd and Jackson Lees Law LLP are committed to the avoidance of discrimination and to the promotion of equality and diversity.

I would make the observation that had the statement of principles and the roll - out of the purported obligation to «promote equality, diversity and inclusion» been properly handled by the law society of upper Canada, many of the «contemptuous» criticisms of the proposal would not have arisen.

As Alice Woolley pointed out in her op - ed column published in the National Post, explanatory materials published by the Law Society said that the requirement was for a «personal valuing» of equality, diversity and inclusion.

There are also going to easy questions, like, for example, whether a regulator acting under a public interest mandate should have an accurate name that the public understands or provide its imprimatur to — as one national newspaper has put it — a «gay - free» law school or, indeed, to take the highest profile example of late, require its members to act in ways that promote equality, diversity and inclusion.2 I don't say that these questions are easy because everyone will agree on them — clearly people have not and do not.

Perhaps if you (and the criticism would apply equally to Omar, since he and I have had this debate here before, as well as numerous other benchers and law society bureaucrats) actually addressed the substantive concerns — perhaps actually cited a source for the purported obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally — rather than dismissing the critics of this proposal for being inadequately woke, you might win over critics like me (and many of the people I've spoken with).

I do think, however, that the basic calculus on each is straightforward: for the name change, accuracy and accessibility to the public trump lawyer fondness of tradition 3 and, as for TWU and the Statement of Principles, the rule of law demands no less than a full - throated defence and pursuit of equality, diversity and inclusion.

On September 13, 2017 Ontario's Law Society with no name sent a now infamous e-mail to its licensees stating: You will need to create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges your obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in your behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public.

Marian is a partner in the employment team, advising commercial clients on a range of employment law issues, including general day - to - day advisory work, disciplinary and grievance issues, redundancy and restructuring programmes, diversity and equality matters, senior executive contracts and severance arrangements and team moves.

Earlier this fall, Ontario's legal regulator, the Law Society of Upper Canada, notified its members — everyone permitted to practise law in Ontario — that they would be required «to create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges your obligation to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion generally.&raqLaw Society of Upper Canada, notified its members — everyone permitted to practise law in Ontario — that they would be required «to create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges your obligation to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion generally.&raqlaw in Ontario — that they would be required «to create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges your obligation to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion generally.»

We agree that equality, diversity and inclusion are worthy aspirations, but we disagree wholeheartedly with the law society's approach to achieving them.

Recommendation 3 — The Adoption of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Principles and Practices The Law Society will: 1) require every licensee to adopt and to abide by a statement of principles acknowledging their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in their behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public; [emphasDiversity and Inclusion Principles and Practices The Law Society will: 1) require every licensee to adopt and to abide by a statement of principles acknowledging their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in their behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public; [emphasdiversity and inclusion generally, and in their behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public; [emphasis added]

This says that the Law Society will: «require every licensee to adopt and to abide by a statement of principles acknowledging their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in their behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public».

The language of «principles» as opposed to «policy» or «practice» clearly suggests belief rather than conduct, and the upcoming educational (CPD) requirements, on equality, diversity and «inclusion» (the latter being a term that is undefined in the case law but which has variously been defined by the Working Group (in the report) as «making a better space for everyone» and (on the definitions website) with reference to RBC's corporate policy — which we can celebrate as the first time that a corporation's principles have been incorporated by reference into legal requirements!

For there to be a greater Charter violation here with the Statement of Principles, the promotion of equality, diversity, and inclusion would have to be even more completely removed to the purposes and function of the law society, which is a challenging argument to make.

As the Law Society has indicated, in the documentation accompanying the recommendation as well as the legal opinion that accompanied the report to Convocation, the duty to promote equality, diversity and inclusiveness — not only in our legal practices, but also in our public lives — is implicit in the existing rules and obligations governing licensees, and not a new obligation.

There is always another option for those who disagree so vehemently with an obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion, and that is they can choose not to be associated with the law society.

Notwithstanding the significant rhetorical committments and complementary actions by Canadian law societies on issues of equality, diversity and inclusion, it is clear that there is still considerable work to be done.

The Law Society believes that requiring licensees to make a clear commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion will encourage lawyers and paralegals to consider their individual roles in creating lasting change.

Many equality and diversity officers enter the profession following a career in teaching, law, social work, housing, welfare rights, HR, health or youth / community work.

She has designed and delivered a range of training programmes including communication, employment law, equality and diversity, conflict and mediation.

Our effective participation in decision making that effects us has been confirmed as essential to ensuring non-discriminatory treatment and equality before the law, and recognises the cultural distinctiveness and diversity of Indigenous peoples.

Preventing discrimination and protecting diversity are integrally linked through the concept of equality as it is properly understood at international law.

Under all our laws equality will embrace the full force and potential of diversity.