Get on the path to results today.
Get on the path to results today.
Why vote for me?
I want to make it clear that I am a supporter of the Law Society of Ontario. I am grateful for being allowed to practice law and I have tried to own the Oath of Office I took before Justice Callaghan in February 1992. I am not connected. Other than the lawyers who supported my nomination, I have no person in authority sponsoring my candidacy. I am not the CEO of LawPro, I am not a Deputy Judge, I do not see holding the office of Bencher as an opportunity to earn or to increase my credibility. I have no preconceived notion of what it takes to be a Bencher and I am open to suggestions from the profession. I am at the point in my life where I am interested more in giving than receiving. I am not wealthy. I am struggling to find the correct balance between earning and donating the time necessary to be an informed Bencher. My wife of 50 years and I have 3 children and 4 grandchildren, and I purport to be an example to them in both what to do and what not to do. I want the job of Bencher and I am asking for your vote on election day.
Alcoholism;
My father, grandfather and I are Alcoholics. My father passed away with 50 years of sobriety. My grandfather passed away before he recovered. I have not had a drink of alcohol since May 1979. To some alcohol is relaxing, to others it is facilitates socializing, to others it is medication for social ailments such as fear, and resentment, shyness, but above all fear. I was afraid of everything. Therefore, to me alcohol had become everything. I drank from age 13 to 35.
Why did I stop?
The choice at the time was between incarceration and freedom, not between drinking or not drinking. My life had become unmanageable. In the face of example after example for not drinking, I continued to indulge. I could not control or remember what would happen to me, ( and others), when I drank. My life had deteriorated to the point where I was using weapons to assert myself. I am told that following a fight in a bar, I went home grabbed a pistol, I returned to the bar and shot one of the fellows who had beaten me up. Within 15 hours, I was introduced to life in a jail and the possibility of living in jail for many years. Fortunately for both me and the victim, he survived the wound and I survived the fear of 25 years as a guest of His Majesty.
How did I stop?
I was released on bail on condition that I follow the direction of the Priest who had accepted me into the alcohol recovery program he was directing. I had agreed to attend the program to get out of jail. I was looking for a drink and the Priest made it possible for me to have what I wanted. However, for unexplained reason(s) I did not take that drink. I attended the program daily for 10 months and followed the rules as the house designed by the Priest to induce the desire not to drink. One of the rules was to l plead guilty to the charges against me. The Priest was afraid my old lifestyle would return if I did not plead guilty and take the punishment. On March 17, 1980, I did what I was told and I plead guilty. At my sentence hearing, the Court asked the Priest if he thought I would return to alcohol. The answer was no. The reason for his confidence was that I had done everything I had been told to do. I was sentenced to 21 months incarceration. I served 4. One of the members of AA gave me a job. The custodians at the Guelph Correctional Centre arranged for me to obtain a temporary absence parole. I was released to a half way house run by the John Howard Society and at the 7 month mark, I was given a parole. When the 21 months were up, I served a year on probation and after the probation year was up, my sentence was satisfied and I rejoined society.
How did I become a Lawyer?
Without alcohol and the large amount of time on my hands resulting from the freedom that accompanied a life without alcohol, I was now free to choose what I wanted to do with my life. I chose medicine and went back to University. I did not qualify for medical school but one of the members of the admissions committee told me not to despair, the legal profession would like me and I should apply for admission to a Law School. In September 1986 I was accepted into Windsor Law. My attendance was deferred for 1 year which meant in September 1987, I attended first year of law at Windsor. In the deferral year, we moved our family to Windsor. I got a job as a part time truck driver. In 1990, I graduated. I then articled at the City of Toronto and from there, on February 8, 1992, at the age of 48, I was called to the Bar, no pun intended.
The path I chose as a lawyer was criminal law and family law. I had chosen every opportunity presented to me to learn how to deliver legal services. I was a prosecutor in night court for 2 years. I was doing the small claims court work for a travel agency. I picked up my first family law client on the day I was called to the bar. I was a member of the newly formed Law Society Alcohol Program that introduced me to a large number of lawyers from various disciplines and they were willing to help me. Later I joined the Lawyer Referral Service which grew to the point of servicing roughly 1600 referrals a year. I became very active In the Continuing Professional Development program. All of this advancement equipped me to be able to say yes to a greater number of potential clients which took me in different directions other than family law, but my Criminal Law Practice has always occupied the greatest percentage of my time.
Why a Bencher?
There is no single reason for wanting to be elected to convocation. I was a candidate in the previous Bencher election and garnered 400 votes. I know what it takes to be elected and I have no way of making my candidacy known other than to announce my candidacy and give the profession an opportunity to examine my candidacy on my website. From what I have learned about the job, I am confident I can commit to the time requirements. My main motivation is to try to allow others to benefit from my experiences, good and bad. There is no effective assistance provided to a lawyer or paralegal struggling with a hearing disability. The sound amplification system in the courtrooms does not meet the test of meeting the challenge of assisting the hearing impaired. There is a limit to the number of times a court will allow a lawyer to ask that a question or an answer be repeated. I have an FM system I purchased from my hearing aid vendor that allows me to distribute microphones around this courtroom, one before the Judge, another at the witness box, the podium, the dock, wherever a speaker is likely to be located when speaking. Because I suffer from hearing impairment is not a reason to consider me as worthy of your vote. What makes me worthy of your vote is that as a lawyer with a hearing disability can advance the cause of a hearing impaired lawyer. The impairment is the problem. What is the remedy? Often it is a choice between several remedies or perhaps there is no fix. I know the issues and I will be more likely than not to recognize an opportunity to advance the cause for hearing impaired lawyers than lawyers who do not suffer from hearing impairment. The same can be said for overcoming alcoholism. I know what it took for me to overcome the desire to drink. Others need not go as far as I did. It is no easy task but when the opportunity presents itself, I know that I will be able to recognize an opportunity for someone to overcome the disease and work with that person to overcome its tragic, inevitable result. Is there room for a bencher in the ranks of convocation who is hearing impaired and has suffered from Alcoholism and who knows from personal experience how it can be defeated? What happens is when you add being in jail to the mix. To me the opportunities to assist other lawyers overcome their problems in these areas are multiplied simply by sharing my life’s experience with other lawyers.
On the save the trees at Osgoode issue, my personal preference is to not cut them down. Unless they are diseased, or the squirrels and birds are a nuisance, we should preserve them for as long as we can. When articling at the City 30 years ago, I would often walk the sidewalks in front of Osgoode to relax in the presence of nature so close to the concrete of Nathan Philips Square. I witnessed persons come to Osgoode with bags of nuts to feed the squirrels. They obviously enjoy the presence of the trees and the almost tame animals. Why is there such a rush to decrease the green space so close to the courts and history. Unless there is a public safety issue, the trees, and the environment they foster should be preserved. It’s a disgrace the way the LSO spends its resources. Here are two compelling examples that we are oblivious to, yet they go on daily. How much more money is being spent that we do not know about? It is going on, right in front of us. We don’t have to look very hard to find more abuses.
Example Number 1:
My research indicates that service providers in the USA are hired to provide CPD streaming (Peachtree)and to manage the bencher election ( CompuServe), to manage the bencher election, common sense dictates there must be true Canadian Businesses that can offer these services. Why are we spending our dollars in the USA and paying an extra 40% for the privilege. On investigation, whose pocket will be revealed is being lined by this misalignment of priorities. Is the premier of Ontario behind this? Go Canada!!!
• It appears that the CompuServe hired to manage the bencher election is a US Firm with a Toronto Office for a front to get business for the US parent and it will be at the CDN equivalent of US dollars, assuming no competition, but I am confident there is 100% Canadian content available right here in Toronto, if not Ontario or Canada, more on this one, stay tuned!)
Example Number 2:
My research reveals that Raj Anand, a lawyer who works for Weir Folds, has been on a retainer for some time now to do PHC meetings for the LSO. In a society of Lawyers we need to look beyond our benchers for someone capable of doing PHC meetings?? I have been doing criminal pre-trials for charges ranging from Murder to simple assault for 30 years. I will be pleased to do the PHC meetings for the LSO.
The Hacket Affair
1. My first priority is to respond to the Court.
2. My next priotity is to respond to communications received by fax at 905-387-9079.
3. Emails and their attachments are subject to a minimum 48 hour response window.
I am flexible. I wqant to hear from you but emails have become a menace. If you have a document to serve to me that falls outside my priority please contact me at 905-387-2129 and we will talk about accepting what you want to send to me.
My office is open from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm every day but Saturday and Sunday.
Communications from any source received after 5:00 pm are treated as next day communications.
No Ethics Article
Yes! I was ordered to pay $500 for swearing. Read More
My response to the writer of the article went unpublished.
Copyright © 2022 Corcoran Law Office - All Rights Reserved.
Office: 905.387.2129
Powered by GoDaddy Website Builder
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.