LSO 2026 AGM Motion: Withdrawal of Accreditation of Lincoln Alexander School of Law (TMU)

Law Society of Ontario | 2026 Annual General Meeting

MOTION: Withdrawal of Accreditation of Lincoln Alexander School of Law

Meeting: Law Society of Ontario Annual General Meeting – September 16, 2026

WHEREAS the Law Society of Ontario has long rejected discrimination, a rejection founded on the recognition that a diverse profession is in the public interest. It is also grounded on this critical reality: optimal competence in the legal profession is not only a function of proper training in the law, but also of equal access without discrimination to that training. A law school whose policies create a discriminatory environment based on protected grounds (e.g. sexual orientation, race, religion) which discourages persons who identify on the basis of such grounds from attending it compels the Law Society of Ontario do indirectly what it could not do if it offered this education directly, namely, adopt a discriminatory restriction on who may gain access to the legal education necessary to become a lawyer. This discrimination is wholly inconsistent with the Law Society's function to ensure a competent bar. It will also be deeply offensive to affected minorities and the public served by lawyers since it will restrict access to prerequisite legal education for reasons that have nothing to do with inherent merit.

AND WHEREAS the report of the Honourable Mary Lou Benotto, released August 14, 2026, (the “Benotto Report”) in respect of Toronto Metropolitan University (“TMU”) describes how Jewish students, faculty and staff at TMU experience hostility “that crossed into intimidation, dehumanization and antisemitism”, abetted by the failure of TMU to “consistently and decisively” enforce its rules intended to prevent such misconduct. According to the Benotto Report, many Jewish TMU community members report feeling unsafe attending classes, that they have to hide their Jewish identities, and that they tell their Jewish friends not to let their kids go to TMU. Simply put, the Benotto Report establishes a prima facie case that TMU has, through its actions (or lack thereof), created a discriminatory environment which discourages Jews from attending TMU, and, by extension, Lincoln Alexander School of Law.

AND WHEREAS the Law Society of Ontario has been clear that accreditation of a law school at a university which adopts policies which have the effect of discouraging attendance by potential students on the basis of protected grounds is contrary to the public interest, inconsistent with the Law Society’s function to ensure a competent bar and deeply offensive to the public.

AND WHEREAS the Law Society of Ontario announced its Annual General Meeting on August 6, 2026, for September 16, 2026, beginning at 5:15 pm virtually only and will provide virtual access information at a later date and moreover set an unreasonable deadline of 5pm on August 7, 2026, and that the Benotto Report was not released until August 14, 2026.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. The Law Society should waive the deadline for the filing of this motion at the 2026 Annual General Meeting because the email notifying the profession went out 31 hours before the deadline and the urgency and immediacy of the issue. Her Honour’s report was released on August 14, 2026 and has an important impact on the legal profession.

2. Convocation revoke the Law Society of Ontario's accreditation of the Lincoln Alexander School of Law at Toronto Metropolitan University, pursuant to the Law Society's authority over accredited Canadian law schools and admission to Ontario's lawyer licensing process, subject to procedural fairness and to appropriate transitional measures protecting students already enrolled.

3. The withdrawal takes effect for admissions to the Lincoln Alexander School of Law beginning with the next entering class, unless Convocation determines that an earlier or different effective date is required in the public interest.

4. Before restoring accreditation, the Lincoln Alexander School of Law and Toronto Metropolitan University be required to demonstrate, to Convocation's satisfaction, that they have implemented effective and enforceable measures addressing antisemitism, harassment, intimidation and discriminatory conduct, including the material recommendations of the 2026 external review led by the Honourable Mary Lou Benotto.

5. Convocation establishes an expedited, transparent process for considering the School's response, with an opportunity for submissions from current students, faculty, alumni, Jewish members of the university community and other affected persons, and publish its decision and reasons.

6. If the Treasurer or Secretary concludes that an Annual General Meeting cannot itself finally determine accreditation, this resolution be treated as a formal recommendation and urgent referral to Convocation for a recorded decision at its first meeting following the Annual General Meeting.

Reasons Supporting the Motion

The Law Society has a statutory obligation to regulate the legal professions in the public interest and to maintain standards governing entry to the profession. A law school's accreditation conveys that its program and institutional environment are consistent with the formation of lawyers who will be expected to uphold equality before the law, professional integrity, freedom from discrimination and confidence in the administration of justice.

Furthermore, the Law Society has interpreted this statutory obligation as requiring the rejection of discrimination, not just by it and its members, but also by law schools it accredits. In the Law Society’s factum to the Ontario Court of Appeal defending its decision not to recognize Trinity Western University because of its code of conduct the LSO wrote:

“The Law Society of Ontario has a longstanding rejection of discrimination founded on the recognition that a diverse profession is in the public interest. It is also grounded on this critical reality: optimal competence in the legal profession is not only a function of proper training in the law, but also of equal access without discrimination to that training. A law school whose policies create a discriminatory environment based on protected grounds (e.g. sexual orientation, race, religion) which discourages minorities from attending such schools compels the Law Society of Ontario do indirectly what it could not do if it offered this education directly, namely, adopt a discriminatory restriction on who may gain access to the legal education necessary to become a lawyer. This discrimination will be wholly inconsistent with the Law Society's function to ensure a competent bar. It will also be deeply offensive to excluded minorities and the public served by lawyers since it will restrict access to prerequisite legal education for reasons that have nothing to do with inherent merit.”

Moreover, on September 11, 2019, Law Society benchers approved a motion to require licensees to acknowledge in their Annual Report Filing, in accordance with the professional conduct rules, their special responsibility as a lawyer or paralegal to respect the requirements of human rights laws in Ontario and to honour the obligation not to discriminate.

The approved motion read:

“That the Law Society shall require every lawyer licensee to acknowledge in the lawyer annual report that, in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct, the lawyer has a special responsibility to respect the requirement of human rights laws in force in Ontario and, specifically to honour the obligation not to discriminate on the grounds of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences (as defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code), marital status, family status, or disability with respect to professional employment of other lawyers, articled students, or any other person or in professional dealings with other licensees or any other person.”

Discriminatory practices are, according to the Law Society, “inimical to its objective of providing equal access to prerequisite legal education and equality of opportunity within the legal profession.”

It is fair, therefore, to insist that the LSO, having set a precedent that accreditation depends on the school providing a welcoming, safe and inclusive environment for all students, regardless of their identity, apply that precedent without fear or favour without regard to the nature of the school (religious vs. secular) or the identities of the students being discriminated against.

The Lincoln Alexander School of Law is the law school of TMU and is accredited by the Law Society of Ontario.

On August 14, 2026, Toronto Metropolitan University released the external review report led by the Honourable Mary Lou Benotto. The report is university-wide; it does not expressly find that the Lincoln Alexander School of Law, standing alone, is 'inherently antisemitic.' Its findings are nevertheless grave and directly relevant to the continued accreditation of a professional law school operating within TMU.

The Benotto Report records that Jewish students, faculty and staff described hostility toward Jewish identity and Zionism that crossed into intimidation, dehumanization and antisemitism. Participants reported concealing visible markers of Jewish identity, avoiding events, altering routines and withdrawing from campus participation. The report records statements from Jewish faculty that 'Jews cannot self-identify safely' and that some had 'gone underground.'

The report describes antisemitic graffiti; spitting and verbal harassment directed at visibly Jewish individuals; spoiled milk thrown at Jewish students; online identification and targeting; posters depicting Jewish student leaders with inverted red triangles; militant imagery; and educator statements reported as denying or minimizing the Holocaust, invoking 'Jewish supremacism,' or normalizing hostility and violence toward Jews. Crucially, it reports that Jewish members of the TMU community are reporting considering leaving TMU or discouraging other members of their community from attending TMU owing to the antisemitic environment on campus. TMU has, through its actions (or inactions) created a hostile and discriminatory environment for many members of the Jewish faith.

The report concludes that TMU possessed policies capable of addressing much of the misconduct but too often failed to apply them consistently and decisively. It finds that unclear enforcement contributed to escalating tensions and to a perception that disruption carried few consequences. It further concludes that, since the 2024 MacDonald Report concerning a letter signed by TMU law students, antisemitism at TMU increased; the earlier initiatives had not been adopted or had not achieved their intended result; and antisemitism had surged.

The connection to the Lincoln Alexander School of Law must be stated with precision. The Benotto Report is not a separate investigation of the law school and does not make a finding that the law school itself is inherently antisemitic. It does, however, expressly revisit the 2024 MacDonald Report concerning a letter written by TMU law students, disagrees with the MacDonald Report's approach to identifying antisemitism, and finds that the initiatives recommended following that review were not adopted or did not achieve their intended result. The Lincoln Alexander School of Law operates within the university environment described by Justice Benotto and depends upon TMU's policies, complaint processes, administration and institutional culture. The mover therefore submits that the findings of the Benotto Report provide a prima facie basis for believing that the actions (or lack thereof) of TMU have created a discriminatory environment which discourages Jews from attending TMU, and, by extension, Lincoln Alexander School of Law. Such discriminatory policies require the Law Society to decide whether continued accreditation remains consistent with the public interest and the ethical formation of future lawyers, consistent with its existing policy (described above).

Justice Benotto recommends, among other things, adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism as an educational and policy framework; recognition that discrimination against Jews may manifest through opposition to Zionism; consistent enforcement of codes of conduct; timely sanctions for misconduct; regulation of online harassment, intimidation and doxxing; and mandatory education for incoming students.

In his August 18, 2026, Financial Post/National Post column, Howard Levitt argues that the report reveals a workplace and institutional culture problem that no diversity statement can solve. In his analysis, the evidence is not merely of energetic academic debate, a communications failure or political controversy. Jewish employees who conceal their identity, withdraw from campus life, fear speaking about antisemitism and lose confidence that administrators will protect them are employees retreating from their workplace. Levitt characterizes the distinction starkly: ordinary disagreement is one thing; an employee's inability to identify safely as a member of a protected group is a workplace crisis.

Levitt also emphasizes that an employer's responsibility is measured by the cumulative reality of the workplace, not by the number or length of policies posted on its website. TMU did not create every hostile statement or protest, but its own commissioned report found that it failed to apply existing policies consistently or decisively and recorded a lack of confidence that complaints would produce meaningful action. Levitt argues that these facts engage obligations under human-rights, collective-agreement and employment law and may expose TMU to claims that the working environment has become intolerable. He carefully notes that the Benotto Report did not find constructive dismissal and had no mandate to do so; rather, it supplies evidence, testimony, institutional admissions and a warning that TMU's lawyers should take seriously.

Levitt further addresses academic freedom and political expression. He does not contend that criticism of Israel is necessarily antisemitic or that pro-Palestinian advocacy should be prohibited. His point is that academic freedom does not require Jewish professors or staff to tolerate discrimination, intimidation or a workplace in which they must suppress their identity. Nor does protecting political expression require the University to protect discriminatory conduct. The institution's responsibility is not to resolve the Middle East conflict but to ensure that people can study and work without fear. His analysis reinforces the need for enforceable accountability rather than another open-ended process of study.

Levitt's article does not intend to investigate or make findings about the Lincoln Alexander School of Law specifically. Its relevance to this motion is institutional. It explains the legal and human significance of the university-wide conditions found by Justice Benotto and why published policies, diversity statements and further study are inadequate where members of a protected group suppress their identity out of fear. The mover relies on Levitt's analysis not as proof of separate misconduct by the law school, but as support for the submission that the Law Society cannot assess the accreditation of a professional school in isolation from the institutional environment in which its students and faculty study, teach and work.

TMU's response was to appoint a further implementation task force, chaired by the Honourable Bob Rae, with an implementation blueprint due in March 2027. The Canadian public, current students and the profession should not be required to wait months for another committee to decide whether and how to act upon findings that have already been made. Accreditation is not an entitlement. It is a public-interest assurance that must remain responsive to serious evidence bearing on institutional integrity, equality and the preparation of future lawyers.

Request to Accept Motion After Filing Deadline

TO: The Secretary and Treasurer, Law Society of Ontario

RE: Request for exceptional acceptance of the enclosed 2026 AGM motion

I respectfully request that the enclosed motion be accepted for consideration at the September 16, 2026 Annual General Meeting notwithstanding the published filing deadline of 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 7, 2026.

The request is exceptional because the central evidence on which the motion rests did not exist publicly before the deadline. Toronto Metropolitan University released Justice Benotto's final report on August 14, 2026, seven days after the deadline. Compliance was therefore impossible: licensees could not responsibly formulate, support or sign a motion based on a report that had not yet been released.

The prejudice from refusing to receive the motion is substantial. The report describes a serious deterioration in the safety and equal participation of Jewish members of the TMU community, a surge in antisemitism, and repeated institutional failures to enforce existing policies. TMU has responded by appointing another task force whose implementation blueprint is not due until March 2027. The public interest requires timely scrutiny by the regulator responsible for accrediting the University's law school; the Canadian public should not be required to wait while another committee studies findings that are already before it.

Accepting the motion would not predetermine its merits. It would permit licensees to debate whether the Benotto findings require regulatory action and would preserve any procedural fairness owed to the school and affected students. Any concern about notice can be addressed by prompt circulation of the motion to licensees and by treating the motion, if necessary, as an urgent recommendation to Convocation rather than as a final adjudication of accreditation.

I therefore ask the Secretary and Treasurer to exercise any available procedural authority to waive or extend the deadline, deem the motion filed, or place it before the meeting with the consent of the meeting. Alternatively, I ask that the motion be referred immediately to Convocation and placed on the agenda of its first available meeting for a recorded decision.

Signatures (By-Law 2 requires ten LSO members)

1. Sam Goldstein, LSO No. 39955D (mover)

2. Cecil Lyon, LSO No. 29274M

3. Carl Irvine, LSO No. 54008B

4. Betsy Rachel Kane

5. Daniel Epstein, LSO No. 69615J

6. Joseph R. Young, LSO No. 29746S

7. Philippe Maurice Capelle, LSO No. 31559I

8. Sergio Ruben Karas, LSO No. 28086H

9. David Garson, LSO No. 41061W

10. Robert Michael Teper

Signed and filed with the Law Society of Ontario, August 21–24, 2026, for the September 16, 2026 Annual General Meeting.