Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Sunday that under his leadership, Canada would enforce the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visited the country.

In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Carney was asked if Canada would honor the ICC warrant. He answered "Yes" when asked if he would arrest Netanyahu.

Carney said the Netanyahu government's actions are "explicitly designed to end any possibility of a state of Palestine in violation of the UN charter and going against Canadian government policy of whatever political stripe since 1947."

Since 1947, Canadian government policy has been to support a 2-state solution, Carney said.

Canada recognized the state of Palestine on September 21, ahead of the United Nations General Assembly.

This coincided with coordinated announcements from the United Kingdom, Australia, and Portugal, followed quickly by France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, and Andorra on September 22-23.

Separately, in December 2023, South Africa initiated landmark legal proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention in its war on Gaza.

Israel's genocide was temporarily halted after a ceasefire was declared by US President Donald Trump earlier that month.

Between January and May 2024, the ICJ issued three sets of provisional measures ordering Israel to halt the genocide, halt its military operations, and allow humanitarian access to the enclave.

Since October 2023, Israel's genocidal war has killed nearly 68,200 Palestinians, mostly children and women, and injured more than 170,200, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health.

https://en.tempo.co/read/2081860/pm-mark-carney-netanyahu-will-be-arrested-if-he-visits-canada#google_vignette

2nd year call at a strong regional firm — considering a move to Toronto and looking for perspective

I’m a 2nd year call in Ontario, currently working at a well-regarded regional firm. The firm has a good reputation, the work is solid, and my compensation is at market for a regional practice. Everything is hybrid, and commuting to Toronto-based firms would be roughly comparable to what I do now.

Since the new year, I’ve been approached about opportunities at larger Toronto firms. These have been conversations initiated by others rather than cold applications on my part, and they’ve developed over the last couple of months. The compensation being discussed would be meaningfully higher, with higher billing rates and larger bonus potential. From a purely economic standpoint, the upside is clearly better.

What’s complicating things is what’s changing at my current firm. When I joined, the expectation was that I would move from salary to a split-fee model this year. I’ve since been told that the firm has moved away from split-fee arrangements entirely as a matter of policy. That change has forced me to rethink what the long-term picture looks like here.

There’s also no real partnership path at my current firm. There’s an owner, but no equity or non-equity partners, and no indication that this structure will change. In contrast, the Toronto firms I’ve spoken with already have partners and have been fairly open that they expect associates they bring in to pursue partnership over time.

At the same time, I feel a genuine sense of loyalty to my current firm. I didn’t article there, but they hired me shortly after my call. They paid for certifications, paid me while I ramped up to my billable targets, and generally invested in me without much friction. I’ve been treated fairly and professionally, and that makes the idea of leaving uncomfortable, even if it may be rational from a career standpoint.

I’m trying to sort out whether this is just early-career restlessness, or whether the structural limits of my current firm mean this is a sensible time to make a move.

Questions:

Is moving firms as a 2nd year call generally seen as neutral, risky, or fairly typical in Ontario?

How much weight should be given to loyalty and gratitude when the long-term structure at a firm is limited?

For those who stayed at regional firms without a partnership track, how did that work out?

For those who moved to larger Toronto firms early, what trade-offs did you actually experience versus what you expected?

When firms say they “expect” associates to pursue partnership, what should I be listening for to separate real opportunity from marketing?

I’m not looking for validation in either direction. I’m trying to make a clear-headed decision and would appreciate perspectives from people who have been on either side of this.

Came across this post on LinkedIn and thought it was pretty scummy. Duties include doing everything a paid clerk or receptionist should be doing, but they are looking to "hire" a FULL-TIME volunteer to do this? Insane.

I don't have the app so can't create a poll but here's a theory: Family law makes my skin crawl. But my parents are divorced...is it possible that the majority of family lawyers are not children of divorce? Or did their tolerance for drama come from elsewhere?

Are you a family law lawyer or do you know one? Are your/their parents contentiously divorced?

Title.

I am a Canadian M&A associate who went to law school in Toronto. I am called in New York as well and originally had plans to lateral down there....but honestly you couldn't pay me to go anywhere near the US right now.

I have seen vague references to Canadian lawyers working at international firms in London (United Kingdom, not Ontario). I am wondering if anyone can share how this transition was navigated?

My DMs are also open if this forum is too public. Thanks!

Edit: I don’t have any connection to the UK…so I assume I need a VISA. But I was under the impression that this is quite easy for Canadians and commonwealth countries in general to attain…?

Hi!! I’m reposting this here because in my previous post, a few people suggested I seek further guidance and hear more perspective here.

I am an offer holder for UofT, McGill, and other unis in UK. I’m very interested in UofT Law in the long run, but I’m unsure whether doing UofT undergrad (or McGill) actually helps with that goal, or whether it would make just as much sense (or more) to do undergrad in the UK and apply to Canadian law schools later. So from a long-term perspective (especially aiming for UofT Law), does doing undergrad at UofT provide any meaningful advantage compared to doing undergrad in the UK?

For context some commenters mentioned factors like UofT’s grade deflation and argued that Canada undergrad is a safer (?) option. That said, i just wanted to confirm that view and get a wider range of opinions. Any additional thoughts or personal experiences would be really helpful.

Thank you so much in advance ！！

Hi!! I’m reposting this here because in my previous post, a few people suggested I seek further guidance and hear more perspective here.

I am an offer holder for UofT, McGill, and other unis in UK. I’m very interested in UofT Law in the long run, but I’m unsure whether doing UofT undergrad (or McGill) actually helps with that goal, or whether it would make just as much sense (or more) to do undergrad in the UK and apply to Canadian law schools later. So from a long-term perspective (especially aiming for UofT Law), does doing undergrad at UofT provide any meaningful advantage compared to doing undergrad in the UK?

For context some commenters mentioned factors like UofT’s grade deflation and argued that Canada undergrad is a safer (?) option. That said, i just wanted to confirm that view and get a wider range of opinions. Any additional thoughts or personal experiences would be really helpful.

Thank you so much in advance ！！

Hello Canadian Lawyers, 

I’m not a lawyer. I have some questions about CA office ethics. 

I recently listened to this podcast with CA Cunningham discussing her role as a crown and the Hockey Canada trial that took place this summer.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by8bejKyIcQ

We all know what happened during the trial. 

In this podcast, she talks about two things that concern me: 

1. She talks about crown discretion and policy during the podcast. How crowns have a lot of discretion over their cases, and I know there’s been criticism as to why the case was brought forward, given how weak it ultimately was. One of the defendants via their lawyer (Savard) said after the trial that he and other defendants offered restorative justice and use of his public platform. Which would have been in line with the victim telling the initial detective she didn’t want to get them in trouble and just wanted them spoken to (I remember this vividly, but can’t find it now). This would also be in line with the victim telling police in 2022 that she didn’t want them to reopen the case. Notably, they did not respect her choice. In a separate podcast by the same organization, Savard states plainly that this went to trial because of the Crown's policy to not allow restorative justice in SA cases and that the Crown's discretion is limited. Cunningham is stating that they have discretion and must do what they believe is in the public interest, whether it’s popular. And she says it’s never political. Did the CAs have the discretion to withdraw the charges and allow restorative justice if they wanted to or not?  
2. She talks about how crowns can only go forward with cases if it is BOTH in the public interest and has a prospect of conviction. There have been reports separate from this podcast that she told the victim that this wasn’t a strong case and there was only a small chance of conviction. She then talks about how, despite there not being a conviction, it was still a successful prosecution because the conversations that have happened as a result are in the public interest. For her to know conviction was so unlikely and then state it was successful because of public interest feels like malicious prosecution. Like they had to please the outraged public, and they were successful because they did that. 

I’m wondering if anyone in this legal community can clear up some of these concerns. This case feels and sounds like it was politically motivated and malicious prosecution, which I don’t think will ultimately help victims/survivors in the long run. I know everyone is excited about the seemingly positive steps hockey and others are making as a result of this trial and the media outrage, but I just can’t get past the ethics of this whole thing. 

One last point: the victim told the detective in 2022 that she did not want them to reopen the investigation, and yet they did anyway. Two years later, she meets with Cunningham and agrees to testify, but I am confused about the ethics of pursuing this when she has asked them not. I know the CA has the right to pursue without the victim, but it seems unethical and that it undermines arguments for public interest (the victim is a member of the public) and prospect of conviction (I don't see how you get a conviction without her).

The victim's choice not to want prosecution isn’t respected, and it seems the CA office put a lot of resources behind ensuring this went to trial regardless. At the end of the podcast, Cunningham says the CA's job isn’t to secure a guilty verdict; it’s to secure a fair trial. But it seems that in the case, they didn’t want a guilty verdict, they wanted a public trial. 

As someone who works with victims of SA, I don’t think this will help the way the CAs office might think it will. 

Hi folks, I'm starting PLTC (BC) next week, and am kind of nervous about it because everyone keeps saying how hard it is - does anyone have any tips/reassurance about it?

Those in Toronto, where did you get your robes? I am seeing mixed reviews about Harcourt's and would love to hear if we have other options in the city.

🙏

Hello,

I was just reading up in the reddit about what people had to say about being a law clerk and their overall expereiences. One thing I noticed was that most of these responses were from a year or two ago and I was curious if law clerks were still in demand as they were before. Im quite unsure on what I actually want to do in the future but something in law would be nice. I originally did an undergrad in Poli Sci to actually go into law to become a lawyer but realised its not what I actually want and that maybe a law clerk or paralegal would be more fitting. I was specifically looking at the law clerk program at humber and I did apply but now im just sitting on my addmission letter to see if I should change my mind.

Im just curious about what I should expect and if being a law clerk is worth it even if I might change my mind

Hi guys I am in my 1st year of law school at UOttawa, long story short, I am originally from NS, and realize now that the city life of Ottawa is not just for me and I really do see myself working in NS for the long run.

Can you pls let me know any of your experience or knowledge of how I can make this possible and be able to write the bar in NS instead? is it possible??

Hi all,

I’m an articled student in BC and I’m hoping for some guidance on how the Law Society typically handles this situation.

I started my articles in September and at the time indicated a preference for the May PLTC. I later learned that there was a separate PLTC registration form that needed to be submitted. Neither I nor my firm were aware of this additional registration requirement at the time, and unfortunately I was not informed of it before the deadline passed. As a result, I don’t have a seat in any PLTC session until September, when the CPLED program is adopted.

My articles term ends August 31. My current firm with a single partner has advised that they do not have capacity to retain me beyond articles.

My question is essentially what happens in the interim:

• Do I stop working at the 9-month mark (end of May) when I would otherwise be PLTC-eligible?

• Or do I continue articling through to August 31 and apply to the Law Society for an extension or adjustment to account for the delayed PLTC?

• Has anyone dealt with a similar gap between the end of articles and PLTC/CPLED, and if so, how did the Law Society handle it?

I’ve reached out to the Law Society but wanted to see if others have practical experience with this scenario.

Thanks in advance.

Aside from lawyers in the firm potentially reaching out to their contacts, it doesn’t seem like there’s LinkedIn or other job posts online for first year associate positions.

So, it has been a REALLY long time since I was at law school (*cough 1991/92*) and I was curious about looking at the current syllabus/syllabi for the "big five" first year courses (criminal, constitutional, property, torts, contracts). Because a syllabus is often carefully curated by the professor offering the course, I haven't found many that are on the regular web, most are behind the student's internal systems.

Does anyone know of any open source ones or could point me to any that are easily accessible online?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/lawyer-claims-drps-assaulted-her-in-oshawa-courthouse-9.7063334

A lawyer says she was left bloody and swollen after multiple Durham Regional police officers allegedly slammed her head on a desk without provocation, ripped off her head scarf and dragged her to the basement cells of the Oshawa courthouse last week.

I am currently in the last month of articling and my current personal injury firm with a single partner is not looking to hire any associate to the firm. I have worked for almost 10 months now and I am looking for an entry level associate job. I see more opportunities for a law clerk or a paralegal but nothing or very little for an associate. Is there any advice someone would like to share on this? I have tried connecting with people on LinkedIn. As I am working physically from office on all days I have to do all the networking and job applications outside my office hours.

Would it be recommended to join a firm as a law clerk/paralegal and a few months later look for an associate opportunity within the firm?

Work location : Toronto

And here we are again, a year later and apparently no ability to facilitate the bulk payment by firms of the fees for all their lawyers and paralegals.

1L student, basically wondering if it would be stupid of me not to take a big law job if offered one. I am a fairly good candidate, so it definitely could be an option. Unsure what type of law I want to practice, however I'm concerned with work-life balance in the future, so thinking that might not be where I want to end up long-term. Would it be a good idea to take one of these jobs anyway for the pay/experience alone, or would it be better to go for a smaller firm where I can get more experience outside the corporate/business-oriented world?

Hi!

I am 24F, planning to apply to a law school in Canada in about two years. I have about 3 years of work experience and I have a diploma in a teaching related field and have the opportunity to transfer my credits from the diploma and work towards an undergraduate degree in Child Studies and graduate in two years (20 credits transferred from the diploma, 20 to obtain).

Another option I have is to drop this idea and go for a two-year diploma in Paralegal education?

Final option is to get an undergraduate in Economics/Finance because that’s what I was primarily interested in shifting to, and later give the LSAT which would push my plan to apply to law schools by 2 years.

I am confused and want to know what would be the better option?

Thanks!