Our lawyer, Pei-Shing B. Wang 王沛翔律師, was featured in today’s World Journal, a leading commercial newspaper in the Chinese community. Following is a translation of the article:
A York University graduate who is now a practising lawyer, Pei-Shing Wang reminds individuals who would like to become lawyers that in recent years law schools have been emphasizing oral advocacy. Effective presentation skills and English fluency are both important for those who wish to become lawyers.
After one year of senior high school [in Taiwan], Pei-Shing Wang moved to Vancouver to complete his secondary school diploma in 1999. Thereafter he studied commerce at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto and law at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University.
Looking back, Pei-Shing Wang considers his first year of law school very challenging. “The Latin and the legal technical language were very difficult,” said Wang. To become familiar with legal writing, he relied on frequent review of the texts and diligent note taking.
When Wang first arrived at law school, he faced the vast difference between the continental [Taiwanese] law system and the common law system. He managed to let go of concepts not applicable to the common law so he could start again with an open mind, as if learning a second language.
After graduation from law school, lawyer candidates must pass the bar exam and article for 10 months before they are licensed. During the licensing process, the candidates must also demonstrate that they are of good character. No serious run-ins with the law are permitted.
Wang pointed out that visible minorities face additional challenges if they wish to article in major firms. The keys to securing an articling position in a major firm are good grades and fluent English.
According to Wang, an articling position in a major firm pays about $60,000 a year. Once he or she is licensed, the salary doubles or triples.
Although gaining admission to law school is difficult in itself, once the student is there he or she finds that studying law is no easy task. Fortunately, Wang was interested in studying precedents. “If you study law for money,” he said, “you will get bored easily.”
Regarding the tuition fees of $16,000 per year, Wang relied on student loans and scholarships. He recalled that although the lectures took up only about 10 hours per week, the time required to study the materials amounted to five times that much. In his second year, he chose family law, a field that members of the public can relate to. In his third year, he finished his major paper of approximately 10,000 words.
Wang reminds new immigrants that Canadian law may differ greatly from that of their native country. Newcomers to Canada are encouraged to observe the local law. For example, having an extra-marital affair would be grounds for divorce in Canada but not generally considered illegal. In Taiwan, on the other hand, adultery may be considered a crime.
Also, acceptable parenting styles may be quite different from those in immigrants’ native countries. In Canada, if parents still see their children as property and treat them as such, the authorities may become involved. Wang believes that parents should speak to their children when they misbehave.
Click on the image to view the actual file.
Publication Ban in Williams’s Divorce Is Set Aside
The divorce involving the notorious convicted serial killer Russell Williams has taken another detour in the Court of Appeal.*
Williams’s wife, identified only as M.E.H., obtained a publication ban and a sealing order by motion from the Superior Court of Justice on April 12, 2011. Various media outlets then intervened and appealed the publication ban.+
On January 24, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the challenged provisions under the publication ban, unless the ban is further ordered by the court within 14 days.
In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge correctly identified the legal principles relating to publication bans and sealing orders. However, the evidence at bar could not support that the order was necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice. Absent that finding, said the Court of Appeal, “the orders could not have been made under the controlling jurisprudence.”
Under the jurisprudence, a publication ban should only be ordered when:
(a) such an order is necessary in order to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and
(b) the salutary effects of the publication ban outweigh the deleterious effects on the rights and interests of the parties and the public, including the effects on the right to free expression, the right of the accused to a fair and public trial, and the efficacy of the administration of justice.^
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the wife’s right to go to court without fear of harm. “Access to the court should not come at the cost of a substantial risk of serious debilitating emotion or physical harm to the party seeking access,” said the Court of Appeal.
However, in the Court of Appeal’s opinion, the evidence provided by the wife wasn’t enough to justify a sealing order. In particular, the Court of Appeal could not find evidence that the media’s access to items covered by the publication ban would in any way negatively affect the wife’s ability to fully participate in the proceeding. In other words, the dangers of harm claimed by the wife had not been substantiated.
*2012 ONCA 0035
+See my previous post, “On Publication Bans and Sealing Orders in Family Law,” August 17, 2011
^R. v. Mentuck, 2001 SCC 76, at para. 32
This blog is provided for your reference only and is not a substitute for the law. The law may have changed since the publication of this article. This article is not legal advice and should not be regarded as such.