Meet the StopSOP Slate!

    These 22 lawyers and one paralegal are running on a platform to eliminate the compelled Statement of Principles. They represent regions across the province. You may vote for candidates outside of your own region. Please consider voting for all of them (plus any non-slate candidates endorsed by StopSOP) and ONLY them to ensure that we achieve our goal of electing a Convocation that adheres to its statutory mandate, and gets out of the business of controlling the thoughts and speech of its members. 

    For ease of voting, download the alphabetical list here, or print directly from this webpage.

     

    Litigation Paralegal

    Family law, Small Claims Appeals, POA & Criminal & Immigration are all priority issues. Other issues include longer placements, practice specializations, LSO transparency & Fees and especially the Statement of Principles (SoP).

    The SoP is fundamentally different than other issues. It’s more than checking a box on the Annual Report. It speaks to who we are and what we represent. Compelled speech is an anathema to everything we stand for as members of the legal profession.

    The irony of trying to force someone to have principles should itself be enough to give pause. But really, this discussion should begin and end with ‘It’s not what you think that’s important, it’s what you do’. Do we really have to go any further than that?   

    But despite what they claim, the LSO really is advocating compelled speech and thought. What is a statement other than speech? What are your principles other than your thoughts?

    Besides, compelling a written SoP does nothing for the goals of reducing discrimination.  There’s no correlation. If there is a cogent argument it should be easy to make. If not, then what’s the point? So try to convince me but don’t try to force me.

    Why was this done in a such a clandestine way?  By slipping this in as part of a package of ‘progressive’ reform, the proponents clearly didn’t want an open vote.  Legislators do that when they can’t defend the merits of their proposals.

    It’s disingenuous to enforce compliance by calling it an ‘Administrative Suspension’. If someone is suspended the LSO at least should be forthright about why.  And this is put forward as a matter of principle?

    If there is any special obligation as a member of the legal profession, it is to speak against such abuse of power.  If we, as advocates for individual rights and freedom of speech don’t speak against this kind of perniciousness, then who will?

    We are being told ‘Say UNCLE or you’re suspended’. We deserve more respect than that.

     


     

    Paralegal 25 years in operation as sole practitioner (since 1992)

    Licensed in 2007 under the grandfathering provisions of the Access to Justice Act

    Classical arts education – Hon.B.A. Law/Political Science, Public Admin, & LL.B.

    I opened a street-side legal clinic with other legal professionals in 1995. Before regulation in 2007, I franchised paralegal offices eventually having eight offices in Southwestern Ontario.  

    In 2004, I began law school at University of London, England graduating in 2010. I currently provide legal services along the 401 – 403 corridor in southern Ontario.