Good Governance candidates took all 40 of the seats. In the last election, in 2019, the FullStop slate had won 22 of the 40 seats.
Equity, Inclusion, Diversity Principles
The FullStop slate first formed to oppose an LSO requirement that all lawyers officially commit to equity, inclusion, and diversity principles. The LSO required this statement of principles (SOP) as a condition of licensing starting in December 2016. The FullStop slate called itself StopSOP at the time.“The Statement of Principles was unconscionable,” Ottawa lawyer Stéphane Sérafin, a FullStop candidate, told The Epoch Times via email in March. “It significantly overstepped the mandate of the Law Society by requiring lawyers to affirm a certain set of beliefs instead of simply requiring external compliance with the law.”
Sérafin said he’s concerned about Good Governance candidates having “the power to discipline members for failing to comply with woke ideology.”
Reactions to Election Results
The Good Governance Coalition’s statement following its win on May 1 said, “We formed the Coalition to give paralegals and lawyers a clear choice to elect Benchers who reflect our professions’ values, professionalism, and the professions themselves. We welcome their choice of diversity over division and look forward to serving the public interest.”Atrisha Lewis, who received the third highest number of votes, told The Epoch Times via email on May 1, “The professions have rejected a vision for the Law Society that is anti-equity.”
Bruce Pardy, a law professor at Queen’s University and part of the FullStop team, says “The law society has lost its way.” He said in an email to The Epoch times that it’s unfortunate lawyers have rejected the FullStop’s platform of combatting “woke overreach” among other problems.
But, he said, “Our candidates and supporters should be proud of their courage and vision. It is not always easy to stand against the status quo, the fashionable view, or the condemnation of the establishment.”
Toronto lawyer Alexander Boissonneau-Lehner, who is a member of the electorate, not a candidate, said he is concerned the trend of party politics may become a permanent feature of the bencher elections. He said via email that there are lawyers part of both groups that he admires and, “In my opinion, the public interest is best served by having Benchers with diverse and even divergent perspectives on how to best regulate the profession.”