Section 2 of the CHRA provides that the purpose of the CHRA is to «extend the laws in Canada to give effect... to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and
obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.»
They were so hostile toward
their obligations as members of society, that we ended up with a lot of what would otherwise be unnecessary regulations just to keep them in line.
Not exact matches
Given this, it is nothing less than our
obligation,
as fully participating
members of civil
society, to continue alerting Canadians to these cuts and their impacts, all too often hidden from view through omnibus budget bills and government «feel good» misinformation.
Christians
as members of the Body
of Christ and also simultaneously being
members of society, with
obligations in both.
I will remember that I remain a
member of society, with special
obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound
of mind and body
as well
as the infirm.
Our
obligations as legal professionals are governed, in part, by the Rules
of Professional Conduct that govern each
of our professionals
as members of the Law
Society of Upper Canada.
As members of the Law
Society of Upper Canada we have a professional
obligation to keep confidential all information we receive within the context
of our professional relationship with you.
In addition, our
obligations as legal professionals are governed, in part, by the Rules
of Professional Conduct that govern each
of our professionals
as members of the Law
Society of Upper Canada.
How can I,
as a
member of the Law
Society, in good conscience recignize such an
obligation.
As public positions like these, which are viewed by various groups in society as discriminatory or hateful, are potentially not only contrary to the Statement of Principles that lawyers will be required to adopt, but also a breach of their existing obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Law Society should immediately take steps to investigate and, if necessary, publicly censure the lawyers cited above for their failure to advance the administration of justice by joining other MPs of good will in voting to condemn the hateful acts of certain members of the publi
As public positions like these, which are viewed by various groups in
society as discriminatory or hateful, are potentially not only contrary to the Statement of Principles that lawyers will be required to adopt, but also a breach of their existing obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Law Society should immediately take steps to investigate and, if necessary, publicly censure the lawyers cited above for their failure to advance the administration of justice by joining other MPs of good will in voting to condemn the hateful acts of certain members of the
society as discriminatory or hateful, are potentially not only contrary to the Statement of Principles that lawyers will be required to adopt, but also a breach of their existing obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Law Society should immediately take steps to investigate and, if necessary, publicly censure the lawyers cited above for their failure to advance the administration of justice by joining other MPs of good will in voting to condemn the hateful acts of certain members of the publi
as discriminatory or hateful, are potentially not only contrary to the Statement
of Principles that lawyers will be required to adopt, but also a breach
of their existing
obligations under the Rules
of Professional Conduct, the Law
Society should immediately take steps to investigate and, if necessary, publicly censure the lawyers cited above for their failure to advance the administration of justice by joining other MPs of good will in voting to condemn the hateful acts of certain members of the
Society should immediately take steps to investigate and, if necessary, publicly censure the lawyers cited above for their failure to advance the administration
of justice by joining other MPs
of good will in voting to condemn the hateful acts
of certain
members of the public.