RSS FeedDiscrimination at the University of Ottawa?
Khalid Aba-Alkhail, Manal AlSaigh, and Waleed Alghaithy, three physicians from Saudi Arabia, have filed a lawsuit against the University of Ottawa for over $150 million dollars. The doctors were enrolled in postgraduate medical education programs at the university, where they claimed the experienced discrimination and harassment resulting in the termination of their enrollment.
UofO Student Appeal Centre director Mireille Gervais appears to support the plaintiffs,
I’ve seen some of the evidence that supports the claim, and I am continuously in shock to see how far the university’s misbehaviour and egregious behaviour in this case has gone. There’s documented evidence to support the fact that there really was a conspiracy toward these students.
The university however released a statement yesterday denying the allegations. The CBC reports that the university spokesperson stated,
…the university “denies all allegations of wrongdoing made in the suit. The claims are entirely false, and the university will be vigorously defending itself against this suit, and defending the quality and the integrity of its medical education programs.”
The statement goes on to say that the faculty of medicine “has been welcoming foreign medical students for more than 30 years, and boasts one of the largest numbers of foreign residents and fellows in Canada, the majority of whom have successfully achieved the required academic standards for graduation.”
“We take pride in our diversity and high standards, and believe that they contribute to our excellence,” the university said.
The plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, which is over 120 pages long and was filed on November 24, 2011, is below.
ABA-ALKHAIL Et Al vs University of Ottawa Et Al
Update
A reader contacted us to provide the following materials. Although the veracity of the emails cannot be vouched for directly, the related motion is confirmed as an actual reported decision:
Neuroleaks Decision + materials
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford Lacked Legal Authority to Cancel Transit City
Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish released a legal opinion today concluding that Toronto Mayor Rob Ford did not have legal authority to cancel Transit City. The opinion concludes that the mayor does not have independent power to bind the city, and only exercises power delegated by council or specific legislative responsibility.
Also see Pulat Yunusov’s previous post, What can the mayor of Toronto really do?
The Executive Summary of today’s opinion follows:
Throughout the period 2007 to 2010, the Toronto Transit Commission (the “TIC”) and the Toronto City Council (“City Council” or “Council”) received reports, considered, and voted on aspects of what was commonly known as Transit City. They designated four priority projects. They voted funding allocations for these projects. City Council declared Transit City its first priority with respect to transit.
On December 1, 2010, newly elected Mayor Ford, without the approval of City Council, purported to cancel Transit City. He directed that work on Transit City be stopped, and that resources be allocated to other projects as he directed. The TIC followed this direction. On or about March 31, 2011, again without the approval of City Council, Mayor Ford purported to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “Mayor’s MOU”) on behalf of the City of Toronto with the Province of Ontario and Metrolinx, the province’s transportation agency. Under the Mayor’s MOU, Mayor Ford purported to confirm the intent of the City of Toronto to end Transit City, make alternative transit plans, and reimburse Metrolinx for non recoverable sunk costs associated with the direction of City Council to implement Transit City. There are two major issues with respect to Mayor Ford’s conduct with respect to Transit City. First, he did not follow the proper procedure for obtaining City Council’s authorization to rescind Transit City and develop and approve an alternate plan. Second, he purported to enter into the Mayor’s MOU on behalf of the City of Toronto without City Council’s approval, and, more importantly, appears to have acted on the Mayor’s MOU without first obtaining the authorizations the document itself requires to be operational.
As we further discuss below, Mayor Ford did not have the authority, without the approval and direction of City Council, to:
1. Cancel Transit City;
2. Direct the TIC Chief General Manager to redirect resources away from
Transit City initiatives;
3. Direct the TIC to develop a new transit plan; and
4. Sign the Mayor’s MOU purporting to establish the intent of the City of Toronto to end Transit City and make alternative transportation plans, when Council’s intent to date as established by Council resolutions is to support Transit City.City Council, of which Mayor Ford is a part, has the authority to do those things. It has not done so. The Mayor has not taken these initiatives for approval to City Council. Under the City a/Toronto Act, the power of the City resides in City Council. The Mayor of Toronto has very little independent authority beyond his role as head of City Council. Unless specific power is delegated to him, the Mayor does not have the authority to speak for the City independently.
Below, we discuss the history of Transit City, with particular focus on the steps taken by City Council to approve and implement the program. We then discuss the municipal legal framework with respect to the authority of the Mayor of the City of Toronto. We conclude by examining the steps taken by Mayor Ford since December 1, 2010 to determine whether he had the authority to do the acts he has purported to do.
Should Representative Plaintiffs Receive More?
A. INTRODUCTION
Under the Ontario Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (“CPA”) [1], the Representative Plaintiff (“RP”) is a member of the class that in most instances commits to a bigger responsibility than all other class members. Under section 5(e) of the CPA:
(e) there is a representative plaintiff or defendant who,
(i) would fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class,
(ii) has produced a plan for the proceeding that sets out a workable method of advancing the proceeding on behalf of the class and of notifying class members of the proceeding, and
(iii) does not have, on the common issues for the class, an interest in conflict with the interests of other class members. 1992, c. 6, s. 5 (1).
The CPA is clear in that the RP not merely put his/her name to proceedings.[2] Ideally, the undertaking is one of giving instructions to counsel and making decisions that affect the rights and potential success for the whole of the class.[3] In many situations the RP is the driving force in identifying the claim, choosing counsel, advancing the claim and in bringing the proceeding to result.[4] In Ontario courts show reluctance in awarding more compensation to the RP and where there is quantum meruit[5] basis for this higher compensation, portions of disbursements are usually awarded.[6] At the far end of the deleterious effects weighing against more compensation for RPs is the potential for corruption similar to what lead to the conviction of top Securities Class Actions counsel in United States (US).[7]
Breach of They Neighbour’s Wife
Advocates Don’t Dance Alone
Here’s a great ad from the Advocates Society:
These Days the Slaves Fight Back
The Seven Sister law firm Davies LLP ran the above ad in several issues of Obiter Dicta, Osgoode Hall’s law student magazine, the last one running on January 9, 2012. The law firm is known for working its law students and associates exceptionally hard, earning it the informal nickname, “Slavies.”
As you can imagine, outrage ensued. Especially worth reading is Osgoode Hall’s Kisha Munroe, who stated in a letter to Obiter Dicta on January 16, 2012,
That Davies saw fit to run an ad invoking the shameful, genocidal, dehumanizing practice of forced, unpaid, lifelong labour and suffering that was essential to the power the Western world now enjoys is despicable.
What is even more offensive is that the legacy of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, is still alive and well with regard to disparities in access to employment, education, wealth and justice that the descendants of slaves still suffer. It is beyond distasteful for them to jokingly compare the rarified privilege (however rigorous) of working at a Bay Street lawfirm with this history.
To their credit, Davies LLP did print an apology in the paper,
…
The intent of the advertisement was instead to try to suggest that the nickname students have used for our firm for many, many years should not dissuade students from considering applying to us for summer or articling positions. We were aiming for some selfdeprecating humour. It did not occur to our team that we would be seen as making light of slavery, rather than simply poking fun at ourselves. Obviously it should have.
We thank those who brought this to our attention and accept their criticism. We sincerely apologize to those who were offended. We will not run the advertisement again.
Frances Mahil
Director, Student Affairs
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
No public apology is available yet on the Davies website. Yes, this is an issue that concerns and has offended a much broader audience than just Osgoode Hall.
The fact that this occurred in the first place does highlight the insensitivity and insularity that exists in Canada’s “top” law firms. I can already hear the voices of many lawyers I know dismissively saying that those offended are “too sensitive.” In fact Andrew Emery, another 2L at Osgoode, wrote in to the paper,
There is nothing offensive about playing on the perception that Davies students work like slaves. It is as offensive as just saying the word “slave”. Just saying a word doesn’t make it offen sive. The joke is so mild even my Grandma could laugh at it and she thinks women shouldn’t show their elbows on television.
The lack of sensitivity by major law firms, especially at the decision making level, should actually be used to hold them accountable. Apparently Davies LLP was not concerned enough about dissuading minority students from applying to summer or articling positions. And rather than realizing that the strenuous hours and unrealistic work assignments that have fostered the negative reputation should be an incentive to change the firm culture and create better internal supports, the firm still thinks it’s reasonable to flaunt this reputation as a “learning experience” akin to “slavery.”
Davies does have a “diversity page” on their site which states,
The creativity and different perspectives that are brought to our practice by lawyers from diverse backgrounds and communities have helped to define who we are as a firm today, and we believe that they will continue to be key factors that enable us to endure as market leaders in our chosen areas of practice.
Their NALP profile states under “diversity,”
Our goal is to recruit, hire, retain and promote exceptional students and lawyers who share Davies’ commitment to excellence…
It continues,
Our goal is to hire exceptional students who share our commitment to excellence. We are committed to our student program as the primary source of new lawyers and hire back students anticipating they will become partners of the firm very early in their career. This early partnership structure is unique among law firms and we have a very high ratio of partners to associates. As a result, very early in their careers our talented young lawyers learn to act like owners, rather than employees, and to view the firm’s relationships with its clients from that perspective.
Unlike many American law firms, Canadian ones are highly resistant to releasing statistics about their associate and partner diversity. Of course you don’t need much time to flip through a website to get an idea of what kind of diversity they have. And as well all should know, the real issue of law firms diversity has a lot more to do with retention than it does recruitment. Nobody announces it on their departure, but the insensitivities of law firm culture is one of the primary reasons why minority lawyers don’t feel fully accepted, can’t be completely productive, and ultimately choose to find more comfortable work environments.
But aside from dissuading law students and even lateral hires, there could be other implications for insensitivity by law firms. Some clients in the American legal context have historically demanded proof that a legal team will have sufficient diversity. In-house counsel of minority backgrounds may opt to choose another large law firm to do their legal work instead.
In other words, there are financial consequences to these poor decisions. And although the managing partner may not be able to identify on a budget why some clients are choosing alternative service providers or explain recruitment issues, it is worth noting: in today’s world, the “slaves” actually fight back.
How law students can boost their job prospects with a good online profile
Recently Alexandra Kozlov wrote a great article for Canadian Lawyer 4Students on how law students can boost their job prospects with a good online profile.
You can read the article on the Canadian Lawyer 4Students site or on my blog: Simon Says.
