Persons who are ineligible to be members of a board

(13) A judge, a justice of the peace, a police officer and a person who practises criminal law as a defence counsel may not be a member of a board. 1997, c. 8, s. 19 (3).

I too find this quite disturbing. Oddly, enough I am currently working on a Pro-Bono case that involved Employment Law with respect to discrimination on hiring procedures by various charity organizations.

Now having a very rudimentary understanding of Employment Law, and not having taken the courses (yet!!!), I would be curious to know if this is actually discrimination against a potential candidate who happens to be a criminal defence lawyer’s.

The OHRC does not indicate that current or past position is a discriminable ground. However, the OHRC does list a number of exceptions under s. 24, however it would not apply because, again, current or past job is not listed.

To further complicate the pot, many times those hired to prosecute federal drug charges under the CDSA only do so part-time. The remainder of the time they can work as defence council. So in essence, this stipulation may be excluding even more people. People that are trusted enough to prosecute offenders.

I too find this distressing. It not only places those lawyers who prosecute above those who defend, but it also suggests that not all lawyers are the same. Are all lawyers not officers of the court? Are they not equally responsible for the rights and privileges that come with being called to the bar? It appears not, because these positions suggest that criminal defence lawyers are either not of the same calibre or are not as trust worthy as crown attorneys because of the nature of their position.

Canada is an adversarial system. A system that needs lawyers to defend, and it is wrong to suggest, by exclusion, that these lawyers are not up to the jobs simply because they sit on the left side of the court.