Sentences with phrase «obligation to promote»

The occasional slip by a parent in the affirmative obligation to promote the relationship between the child and the other parent is far different than a campaign of disparagement and designed interference with that relationship.

States have the primary obligation to promote, secure the fulfillment of, respect, ensure respect of and protect human rights recognized in international as well as national law, including ensuring that transnational corporations and other business enterprises respect human rights.

Powers of investigation are linked to the obligation to promote and protect the public interest and not licensure.

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.

Now, if you want to change the rules of professional conduct to impose an express obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion.

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».

Where the Statement of Principles goes beyond the Code is in the obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion, generally.

The Working Group Report did not identify an obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, rather it provides:

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; [emphasis added]

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.»

Not content with statements of principle in support of diversity — or even ethics rules, such as the hotly - contested - and - likely - unconstitutional ABA Model Rule 8.4 (g)-- Canada's largest legal regulator has adopted a rule requiring that each of its members «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.»

Can one take a position against immigration, or is that inconsistent with my positive obligation to promote diversity and inclusion?

Unfortunately, the problem with the guide, is that it does not address the principle concern raised by opponents of this regime, namely that lawyers don't ACTUALLY have an obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally.

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.

Somewhat less helpfully, those provisions do not impose (or purport to impose or have ever been interpreted as imposing) any obligation to promote equality, diversity or inclusion generally.

Perversely, in Ontario, lawyers now have a much broader obligation to promote equality than the governments of Ontario or Canada.

(which, tellingly, says nothing about the existence of an obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally).

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).

If you want members to acknowledge an obligation to promote «equality, diversity and inclusion generally», amend the Rules to expressly impose such an obligation, provide a detailed and express commentary describing the ambit of that obligation and its limits — the way that real regulators regulate (heck, the way the LSUC handles ALL the other professional obligations it imposes on its members).

I've objected to the statement of principle on the basis that there is no legal authority for the existence of an obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally (and, despite repeated requests, have not received any particularly compelling authority to the contrary from the LSUC) and that if the LSUC wants to impose such an obligation they should amend the Rules to do so.

These concerns were addressed by the release of a Guide which clarified that the statement «need not include any statement of thought, belief or opinion» and that «reference to the obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally refers to existing legal and professional obligations».

But is doing so consistent with the obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion?

Indeed, this is the most frustrating part of this process — had the LSUC actually complied with the recommendation of the committee and amended the Rules to impose an obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, it could have also drafted an authoritative commentary to that rule — as it does with section 6.3.1.

Re: «These concerns were addressed by the release of a Guide which clarified that the statement «need not include any statement of thought, belief or opinion» and that «reference to the obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally refers to existing legal and professional obligations».»

David's short comment asks what «generally» means in the phrase «reference to the obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally refers to existing legal and professional obligations».

When you file your Annual Report (due by March 31, 2018), you are asked to declare «that I abide by a Statement of Principles that acknowledges my obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, in my behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public.»

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.

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».

Under the new proposals, all licensees must create and abide by an individual statement of principles that acknowledges their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally and in their behaviour toward colleagues, employees, clients and the public.

It requires lawyers and paralegals to adopt and abide by a statement of principles that acknowledges their «obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion.»

The obligation requires all lawyers and paralegals to adopt and abide by a statement of principles that acknowledges their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion.

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.

The LSUC is not asking members to acknowledge their existing obligations — which, again, would be uncontroversial — they are asking them to acknowledge a purported obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally.

I'm not going to bother to respond to the balance of your post — none of it identifies any alternative source of an authority to promote equality (indeed, much of it appears to deal with provisions of Ontario's labour law which (a) don't impose an obligation to promote equality generally, and (b) aren't relevant to large numbers of licensees).

The obligation to promote the administration of justice for an in - house lawyer is markedly different than a litigator in private practice.

Even in - house counsel, providing advice to the HR department about an organization's internal legal obligations, would be incompetent if they did not convey the employer's obligation to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion as described above.

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.»

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

I can't say, though, that I find it particularly compelling in showing that licensees in fact have an existing obligation to promote equality, diversity etc. that they can therefore be required to acknowledge (I'm noting in particular the analysis at page 23 - 24).

Moreover, there is nothing in the commentary to the Rules which suggests the existence of such a general obligation, and if such an obligation existed, it would render nugatory the lesser language in section 6.3.1 of the Rules, since, as they argue, the obligation to promote equality goes beyond simply not engaging in discrimination.

I'm not being asked to acknowledge my duty to accommodate under the Code within my workplace», I'm being asked to acknowledge my purported obligation to promote «equality, diversity and inclusion generally».

From this, we know that there is an obligation to promote equality in the context of human rights, that obligation can create hardship, and that there are limits to the obligation.

What seems to sticking in some Ontario lawyers» craw is the recommendation that every lawyer and paralegal will be required to adopt and to abide by a statement of principles acknowledging their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally and in their behavior towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public.

Since then, through its public education, direct advocacy, and law reform initiatives, CAMWL has endeavoured to help shape a legal profession that is responsive to our collective obligation to promote substantive justice and equality.

I used to think that the answer was obviously that increased productivity should be encouraged because of the moral and policy obligation to promote access to justice.

1) As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have an articular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom.

Since we have no problem acknowledging an ethical obligation to avoid trampling the specifiable rights of others, we may easily extend this principle to the conditions underlying those rights to say that we have an ethical obligation to promote and preserve the unspecified conditions that ground specifiable rights.

If a member is not participating in the shared obligation to promote, that member's book (s) will be removed from the collective and all collective benefits, including book webpage, with no refund for remaining term of paid membership.

If the collective learns that a member is not participating in the shared obligation to promote each other, that member's book (s) will be removed from the collective and all collective benefits, including book webpage, with no refund for remaining term of paid membership.

Of course, you're under no obligation to promote other author's books.