Ontario law society addresses question of accreditation and regulatory authority
This opinion piece examines the limits of a professional regulator’s authority when concerns about a university extend beyond the professional school it accredits. The author argues that the Law Society of Ontario’s public-interest mandate gives it a legitimate role in legal education and professional entry, but questions whether that authority should extend to broader university-wide issues at Toronto Metropolitan University following a review that documented antisemitism on campus. The piece distinguishes the situation from a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision involving Trinity Western University, in which the university itself imposed a policy directly affecting admission to its proposed law school. Here, the author argues, the concerns involve the university’s broader response to discrimination rather than a discriminatory rule or finding specifically involving the law school. The discussion also considers the challenges for a regulator when proposed responses involve contested definitions of antisemitism, political expression, and academic freedom, arguing that accreditation should not become the mechanism for resolving broader institutional or political disputes. For professional regulatory organizations, the article raises questions about the boundaries of a regulator’s public-interest mandate, the appropriate connection between accreditation and conduct outside a regulated program, and the importance of defining clear limits on regulatory authority while addressing legitimate concerns about professional education and public protection.