However, this post isn't intended to be an exegesis on the professional responsibility rules and whether this standard is appropriate or whether Ogden was just expressing
a hyperbolic opinion or stating that the judge was grifting from the estate.
He is obnoxious and loud and
hyperbolic and he's gained our attention by offering enough unsolicited
opinions that people eventually started asking for them.
Moreover, this could also be an appropriate test case for the Supreme Court to clarify that the principles set out in National Bank of Canada v. RCIU (the case cited by the
hyperbolic Bruce Pardy) do not apply to lawyers, either in their personal or professional capacities, and that Lavigne and Green together stand for the principle that not only is there no right «not to associate» in Canadian law, there is also no right «not to speak» when it comes to lawyers, contrary to the misapprehension of those who are shocked and amazed that the Law Society can require them to adopt a «Statement of Principles» that will, as the supporting legal
opinion points out, make their «generic human rights obligations» more «personal... tangible... and readily accessible.»