Legal Changes & proposals: 1)Lawyers divided over proposal to replace Ontario bar exam with skills-based course; 2) Prisoners can appear before judge to challenge security classification: Supreme Court; 3)Ontario should allow restorative justice in cases involving sexual offences: report; 4)Ontario plans to require bail cash up front as part of new justice bill
1)Lawyers divided over proposal to replace Ontario bar exam with skills-based course
Courtesy Barrie360.com and Canadian Press
By Paola Loriggio, November 21, 2025
A proposal to replace the Ontario bar exam with a mandatory skills-based course is stirring debate in the province’s legal ranks over the best way to ensure new lawyers are competent to practise.
Some in the profession argue that while the current exam isn’t perfect, it represents an objective, black-and-white assessment of the applicants’ understanding of the law – a crucial gatekeeper in protecting vulnerable members of the public who seek legal services.
Others argue the multiple-choice, open-book exam doesn’t test legal knowledge or skills, but rather the ability to compile and effectively use a table of contents, and focusing on practical skills and ethics would be a better gauge of who’s qualified to be a lawyer.
Spurring the discussion is a proposal by the professional development and competence committee of the Law Society of Ontario, the body that regulates and licenses the province’s lawyers and paralegals.
In a report dated late September, the committee says the current exam model was brought in nearly two decades ago and the legal landscape has evolved since then, while questions have emerged about the effectiveness of multiple-choice tests in evaluating the skills lawyers need.
Rather than spending significant resources to revamp the exam, which consists of two tests on separate days, the committee is proposing to switch to a mandatory online course with ongoing evaluations and a final assessment to determine whether people meet entry-level requirements to work as lawyers.
This change would also help address some of the challenges faced by internationally trained lawyers, who had a higher fail rate on the 2023 bar exam and receive a disproportionate amount of complaints and disciplinary measures, the committee says in the report.
Several other provinces, including Alberta and Saskatchewan, have already moved to a similar model, and British Columbia announced plans to do the same last month, with its last set of exams scheduled for next year.
The goal is to have an entry-level assessment that’s “more responsive” to the issues lawyers face in their work, whether that’s communication or managing their clients and practice, said Atrisha Lewis, the committee chair.
“The intention is still to test for substantive law, it’s just (that) the method of testing might be different,” Lewis said in an interview this week. “I’m not sure a multiple-choice exam is the best way to test whether or not someone has substantive knowledge of an area of law.”
Allan Ritchie, who oversees a business law practice in Toronto, raised concerns about the proposal on LinkedIn, writing that abandoning “objective testing” amounts to lowering the standards to become a lawyer.
Rather than prioritizing competence and public protection, he said in a recent interview, it seems the law society is focusing on the experience of the candidates and the struggle some face in passing the exam.
Evaluating softer skills such as interviewing or negotiation is important but it’s not a substitute for testing candidates’ understanding of Canadian and Ontario law, which is the purpose of the bar exam, said Ritchie, who is also licensed to practise in New York State.
There must be a “robust examination that produces binary right and wrong answers” to certify a base knowledge of the law, particularly since new and junior lawyers typically serve the most vulnerable members of society, he said.
“The risk when lawyers don’t have the minimum competence … can be quite severe,” he said.
“They can result in somebody losing their freedom, in the case of a criminal case. They can result in somebody losing custody of a child, in a family law case. They can result in somebody losing a business in the context of a corporate dispute.”
Mirilyn Sharp, a class-action and commercial litigator in Toronto, said many of the skills the proposed course aims to address can be dealt with during articling, a supervised placement that can fill the practical component of licensing.
While support for international graduates should be considered, a “complete overhaul” of the exam is a “disproportionate and unnecessary response,” she said in an email.
Gabriel Latner, a litigator who focuses on appeals, applications and dispositive motions, said the current exam doesn’t accomplish what it sets out to do – measure understanding of the law.
Anyone who has time to prepare and put together an index could pass without going to law school or articling, he said.
The exam doesn’t even test reading comprehension, but rather reading speed, which penalizes people who aren’t as strong in English regardless of their legal chops, said Latner, who studied in the United Kingdom and passed the Ontario and New York bar exams.
“I also think lot of the lawyers – not all of them, but a lot of the lawyers who are opposed to this, never wrote the bar exam in its modern incarnation and don’t understand how absolutely ridiculous it is. It’s a silly, silly test,” he said in an interview this week.
Latner said he doesn’t want to minimize others’ objections, noting there have been issues with major changes being pushed through. The committee also didn’t provide enough information on its proposal to properly assess it, he said.
Alison Craig, a criminal defence lawyer in Toronto, said she never considered the bar exam to be a good gauge of who’s qualified to be a lawyer, adding the only “remotely relevant” skill it tests is the ability to work under pressure.
Craig had a good index prepared to help find the answers during the test, and since she already knew she wanted to go into criminal law, she didn’t care much about other areas, she said in an interview this week.
“I’m successful enough now that I can say this out loud: most of them, I took the cellophane off the (reference) materials on the subway on the way to the exam,” she said.
The defence lawyer said she would prefer to see more focus on research, memo writing and other practical skills, as well as ethics, as part of the licensing process.
Lawyers and other stakeholders can weigh in on the proposal, which is up for consultation until Jan. 31. After that, the law society’s board of directors will make a decision, said Lewis, the committee chair.
2) Prisoners can appear before judge to challenge security classification: Supreme Court
Courtesy Barrie360.com and Canadian Press
By Jim Bronskill, Nov. 21, 2025.
The Supreme Court of Canada says a federal prisoner can challenge a refusal to reclassify them to a lower-security facility through the time-honoured writ of habeas corpus — a hearing before a judge to determine if a detention is lawful.
In a 6-3 ruling Friday, the top court said continuing a more restrictive form of confinement, instead of placing an inmate in a lower security facility, results in a deprivation of their remaining freedom.
The court said broad and effective access to habeas corpus is critical for those who suffer unlawful and continued deprivation of their liberty and seek to challenge the legality of their confinement.
The decision came in the jointly heard cases of two men who argued they were unfairly denied access to habeas corpus when contesting classification decisions while being held at medium-security prisons.
Frank Dorsey, a Black Canadian, had been designated a dangerous offender and received an indeterminate sentence, while Ghassan Salah, a Jordanian citizen, was serving concurrent life sentences.
Under federal law, a minimum-security classification is given to inmates who are unlikely to escape and pose little risk to public safety, while requiring a low degree of supervision.
A medium-security classification is reserved for inmates who present a low-to-moderate probability of escape and a moderate risk to public safety, while needing a moderate degree of supervision.
These definitions inform both initial placement and any future reclassification, the Supreme Court noted.
In most cases, a final decision on classification is made by the prison warden. There are additional steps when the prisoner is a dangerous offender.
Inmates may grieve reclassification decisions, and grievance decisions can be judicially reviewed by the Federal Court.
In 2019, Dorsey and Salah each applied for a transfer to a minimum-security institution.
In both cases, an administrative decision-maker turned down their reclassification and they continued to be held in medium-security facilities.
Both inmates filed applications for habeas corpus, seeking orders that they either be transferred to minimum-security institutions or that their detention in medium-security facilities be justified.
The Ontario Superior Court ruled that habeas corpus was not available to them, a decision upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Writing for a majority of the court, Justice Mary Moreau said habeas corpus review, which can be traced to 17th-century England, is an essential safeguard against unlawful detention and a cornerstone for the protection of prisoners’ rights.
“Despite its antiquity, habeas corpus remains the strongest tool for prisoners in ensuring that a deprivation of their residual liberty is not unlawful,” she said.
Habeas corpus must be available and accessible to those individuals whose liberty has been most restricted living within penitentiary walls, Moreau wrote.
“These individuals, already facing significant deprivations of their liberty, should have access to the expedient and effective relief long offered by habeas corpus where the deprivation of liberty becomes unlawful,” she said.
“In my view, the decision to continue a particular, more restrictive form of confinement instead of placing an inmate in a lower security facility results in a deprivation of liberty.”
The effect of being continually held in a higher security facility is substantially the same as an inmate being involuntarily transferred to a higher security facility, she added. “Both inmates face greater restrictions on their daily lives and both are deprived of their liberty relative to the facility in which they potentially ought to be placed.”
Security classification and placement affects an inmate’s access to correctional programs, rehabilitative opportunities, private family visits, work opportunities and temporary absences, as well as the eventual timing of their release, Moreau said.
For inmates serving life or indeterminate sentences, such as Dorsey and Salah, transfer to a minimum-security facility is often the prerequisite to a conditional release, she added.
As several interveners pointed out, marginalized Black and Indigenous inmates are more likely to be overclassified, meaning they are more likely to be assessed at a higher security level than their non-marginalized peers, Moreau wrote.
In turn, impeding access to habeas corpus will disproportionately affect these marginalized groups’ ability to move to lower security levels and, ultimately, to rehabilitate and reintegrate, she said.
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, an intervener in the case, called the decision “a significant victory for prisoners’ rights.”
At the time the Supreme Court appeal was heard, both men were reclassified and transferred to minimum-security facilities following review at the statutorily required date.
As a result, the court made no further order concerning their cases.
The three dissenting judges said while habeas corpus must remain available and accessible when its use is warranted, its scope is not unlimited.
“Habeas corpus is not, and should not become, an unrestricted remedy used to challenge every feature in the correctional system otherwise left to the administrative state,” Malcolm Rowe and Suzanne Côté wrote on behalf of the minority.
3)Ontario should allow restorative justice in cases involving sexual offences: report
Courtesy Barrie360.com and Canadian Press
By Paola Loriggio, November 27, 2025
A new report is calling on the Ontario government to revisit a policy that prohibits the use of restorative justice as an alternative to criminal prosecution in cases involving sexual offences.
The report was issued today by the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, or LEAF, and the nonprofit Community Justice Initiatives.
It says the Crown policy deprives those who have experienced sexual harm from choosing the form of justice that best fits their needs.
Restorative justice is an approach that allows those harmed and those who take responsibility for said harm to reach a resolution together, typically with the help of a facilitator.
Rosel Kim, a senior staff lawyer for LEAF, says a moratorium on restorative justice for sexual offences was put in place in the 1990s, in part due to concerns it would be traumatic for those harmed.
The policy’s existence means there is no incentive to invest in this type of program, Kim says.
“It has created this lack of access and … we’re saying it’s time to amend the policy that’s preventing that,” Kim said in an interview this week.
She said attitudes toward restorative justice also have changed over time.
The groups carried out a study over a year to gauge whether support for restorative justice had increased among those working in the gender-based violence sector, including front-line workers, nonprofit groups, lawyers and therapists.
The study involved a mix of interviews, surveys, focus groups and a community gathering, the report says.
Among survey participants, 86 per cent strongly or somewhat support expanding restorative justice options for gender-based violence, and 89 per cent strongly or somewhat agree that all complainants should have such options made available to them.
The report says some participants stressed people should not be pressured into choosing a restorative approach, and Kim says the process should be initiated by the person harmed.
Aside from changing or eliminating the policy, the report recommends expanding education on restorative justice to inform the public and the gender-based violence sector about non-criminal legal and community-based options to address sexual harm, as well as specialized training for lawyers and judges.
The report also calls for provincewide consultations to determine jurisdictional authority and oversight, and how restorative justice processes should be formally credentialled.
The province should fund and launch at least four pilot sites dedicated to restorative justice for sexual harm so prosecutors can refer cases to them, the report says. The pilot programs should be community-led and “shaped by survivor input,” it says.
The report further urges the government to support Indigenous sovereignty in justice processes and invest in the revitalization of Indigenous legal orders, including community-based approaches to address sexual violence.
“We are sort of continuing to see resources flow into these kinds of adversarial systems that have been retraumatizing survivors,” Kim said. “We’re really hoping to see more investment in processes that can provide healing and prevention and also accountability.”
4) Ontario plans to require bail cash up front as part of new justice bill
Courtesy Barrie360.com and Canadian Press
By Allison Jones, November 24, 2025
Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government is set to table legislation that would require people accused of a crime and granted bail to provide a cash security deposit up front, rather than paying later if they break their bail conditions.
Attorney General Doug Downey said he believes that measure and others announced Monday would improve bail compliance.
“I’ve heard directly from victims of crime, families, police officers and community leaders who are calling for a bail system that is real, consequential and protects the public,” he said at a press conference.
“We need a stronger bail system that puts the safety of innocent people first and prevents dangerous offenders from cycling in and out of custody.”
Ontario and other provinces had been pushing the federal government to enact bail reform. Downey said legislation introduced recently by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government is a good first start, but there is more to do.
Currently, if people are ordered released on bail with a promise to pay, the accused person and their surety only have to forfeit the money if the accused breaches their release conditions and the court orders payment.
Under the proposed new system, payment would be made when the accused person is released from custody and it would be returned at the conclusion of their case.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association said the proposal would create two tiers of justice based on wealth.
“Innocent, but can’t afford to pay to be released? You are stuck in jail for years until you can clear your name in court, even if you would have complied with all your bail conditions,” Shakir Rahim, director of the CCLA’s criminal justice program, wrote in a statement.
“This proposal appears to apply to everyone, including first-time offenders with no criminal record.”
Downey said the proposal would not skew the system against low-income Ontarians.
“The adjudicative process, the judges and the (justices of the peace), it’s not changing how they operate at all or what the measures are,” he said.
“It’s once they say that a surety who has stepped up pledges to something, that the pledge will mean something.”
Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said the proposal would disproportionately affect low-income Ontarians and lead to more people in jail.
“We already have overcrowded prisons,” he said. “Eighty per cent of the people in Ontario jails are just awaiting (trial) and now they’re going to make it worse. Where are they going to put people?”
Solicitor General Michael Kerzner said the province is aiming to open 1,000 new jail beds.
Downey and Kerzner, who is set to table a justice bill Tuesday including this proposal, also announced a number of other non-legislative measures aimed at strengthening the bail system, including better digital tools to track repeat offenders and expanding bail prosecution teams.
The two ministers held a press conference alongside Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw, who said that while rates of most types of crime are falling, there is a rising number of young people involved in gun crimes, so “now is not the time to slow down.”
4) Ontario to table Andrew’s Law in effort to tackle dangerous driving
Courtesy Barrie360.com and Canadian Press
By Canadian Press Staff, Nov. 25, 2025
Ontario is set to table legislation today to strengthen dangerous driving laws in honour of a man who was killed by an alleged dangerous driver in the summer.
Andrew’s Law would enact lifetime driving bans for those convicted of dangerous driving causing death.
The new law would also allow police to immediately suspend a driver’s licence for 90 days if they have reason to believe someone is driving dangerously, and impose increased fines.
Ontario is set to table legislation today to strengthen dangerous driving laws in honour of a man who was killed by an alleged dangerous driver in the summer.
Andrew’s Law would enact lifetime driving bans for those convicted of dangerous driving causing death.
The new law would also allow police to immediately suspend a driver’s licence for 90 days if they have reason to believe someone is driving dangerously, and impose increased fines.
The law is named after Andrew Cristillo, a 35-year-old father of three who was killed on Aug. 3 after being hit by a driver charged with dangerous driving and stunt driving.
Jordan Cristillo launched a petition in his brother’s honour in an effort to save other families from going through the same pain they endured.
The 18-year-old man charged in that crash had also been charged after a car hit an Ontario Provincial Police vehicle Premier Doug Ford was travelling in on Highway 401 in January.
Ford met with Cristillo’s family in the summer and pledged to bring forward legislation in response to the family’s petition.
The law is named after Andrew Cristillo, a 35-year-old father of three who was killed on Aug. 3 after being hit by a driver charged with dangerous driving and stunt driving.
Jordan Cristillo launched a petition in his brother’s honour in an effort to save other families from going through the same pain they endured.
The 18-year-old man charged in that crash had also been charged after a car hit an Ontario Provincial Police vehicle Premier Doug Ford was travelling in on Highway 401 in January.
Ford met with Cristillo’s family in the summer and pledged to bring forward legislation in response to the family’s petition.