Chi-Kun Shi

Lawyer Bencher Candidate – Toronto Region

Priorities

My first priority as a bencher will be to reverse the Statement of Principles (“SOP”) requirement. I cherish the fundamental freedoms that define us as Canadians. My candidacy is my stand against the Law Society of Ontario’s (“LSO”) attempt to erode our freedom of expression. I have struggled with my survival instinct to give in and just, so to speak, check the box and go with the flow. However, after much soul searching, I reject such forced speech and forced thought with my heart and soul. Running to be a bencher is my proactive way to defend our freedoms.

Equally important is to return the focus of LSO to its core mandate – oversee that Ontarians are served by licensees who are competent in and compliant with the laws of Canada. LSO must discharge its core mandate without overstepping into the realm of policing expressions and thoughts.

For those who feel that opposition to SOP is a tempest in a teapot, please consider this. Who is to decide what behavior constitutes failure to “promote” equality, diversity and inclusion (“EDI”) and thereby professional misconduct? Down that road is where we find the genesis of thought police.

I spent my childhood in Hong Kong in the 60’s, next door to China where the Chinese Cultural Revolution raged on for years. It was weaponized by identity politics, inciting families to disown each other, friends to betray friends, young people to murder total strangers, all in the name of cleansing anti-social ideas from the Chinese conscience. The perpetrators were possessed by a sense of self-righteousness. The British comedian Stephen Fry has sound advice for all of us: never be too sure that you are right. A policy that allows room for dissent such as freedom of expression is healthier than a dogma because it is more receptive of differences. Where is the room for difference of opinion in LSO demanding that all lawyers pledge fealty to EDI? What will happen to any lawyer that questions EDI policy? LSO’s demonstrated self-righteousness and its SOP dogma has no place in a free and democratic society.

In refocusing LSO back to its core mandate, LSO’s current budget, comparable to that of City of Oshawa, need to be examined and justified. For the same purpose, the current articling program should be re-examined as to its efficacy in nurturing young lawyers to serve Canadians from all walks of life.

Background

I am an immigrant from Hong Kong since 1975.

Before entering law, I was an aerospace engineer. In my engineering career I had the opportunity to work on the Space Shuttle Canadarm remote manipulator system and Ontario Hydro’s nuclear disaster response program. Looking back, I am grateful for the opportunities that this country has always offered me. It has made me an optimist and a steadfast believer in the goodness of our society and fellow Canadians.

For 28 years, I have practised civil litigation, mostly in sole practice. On the personal side, I am a mother of two children whom have both flown the coop now. Being a mother has been my most proud experience. It has provided me with profound personal growth, self-reflection and challenges on how to support another person with distinct ideas and ideology.

My current volunteer work includes screening high school applicants for admission to University of Toronto Faculty of Engineering undergraduate program, appearing as guest commentator on current affairs at OMNI TV Cantonese and Mandarin news programs, and providing pro bono legal service to community group ALPHA dedicated to promoting the learning of Asian history in WWII.

Enjoy this candidate’s “Of Counsel” interview while you read more about them!

Candidates I support

Toronto:
Robert P. Adourian; D. Jared Brown; John F. Fagan; Sam Goldstein; Philip H. Horgan; Murray Klippenstein; Lubomir Poliacik; Geoff Pollock; Nicholas dePencier Wright

Outside Toronto:
Ryan Alford (NW); Gerard Paul Charette (SW); Joseph Chiummiento (CE); Jean-Jacues Desgranges (E); Gary D. Graham (CW); Cheryl R. Lean (E); Cecil Lyon (E); C. Scott Marshall (CW); Trevor Robert Parry (CS); Jorge E. Pineda (CS); Brian L. Prill (CW); Alexander D. Wilkes (CE)

Paralegal:
Ian G. Wilkinson

Something the LSO does that it should stop doing

Require Statement of Principles

Something the LSO doesn't do that it should start doing

website

www.stopsop.ca

email

cks@chikunshi.ca

social media

All Candidates were invited to comment on any or all of the following topics

Expand to read Candidate's views
Expand to read Chi-Kun's views
I support a much leaner organization with a basic budget, focussed on the core mandate of overseeing licensees’ competence in and compliance with the laws of Canada.
Expand to read Candidate's views
Expand to read Chi-Kun's views
I am opposed to the Statement of Principles (“SOP”) requirement and if elected will work to have it lifted. I reject such forced speech and forced thought with my heart and soul. Fundamental freedoms define us as Canadians.

For those who feel that opposition to SOP requirement is a tempest in a teapot, please consider this. Who is to decide what behavior constitutes failure to “promote” equality, diversity and inclusion (“EDI”) and thereby professional misconduct? Down that road is where we find the genesis of thought police.

I spent my childhood in Hong Kong in the 60’s, next door to China where the Chinese Cultural Revolution raged on. It was weaponized by identity politics, inciting families to disown each other, friends to betray friends, young people to murder strangers, all to cleanse anti-social ideas from the Chinese conscience. The perpetrators were possessed by a sense of self-righteousness with no room for dissent or difference. Where is the room for difference of opinion in LSO demanding that all lawyers pledge fealty to EDI? What will happen to any lawyer that questions EDI policy?

LSO’s demonstrated self-righteousness and its SOP dogma has no place in a free and democratic society.

Artificial Intelligence in Legal Service Delivery

Expand to read Candidate's views
Expand to read Chi-Kun's views
I support a fundamental rethink of the articling system to focus on making it work for the students and clients from all walks of life.
Expand to read Candidate's views
Expand to read Candidate's views
Expand to read Candidate's views

Reconciliation and Indigenous Communities

Expand to read Candidate's views
Expand to read Candidate's views
Expand to read Candidate's views

Specific Enhancements to Licensing System

Expand to read Candidate's views
Expand to read Candidate's views
Expand to read Candidate's views
Expand to read Candidate's views
Expand to read Candidate's views

Diversity and Inclusivity Priorities

Expand to read Candidate's views

Scope of practice for paralegals and non-licensees

Expand to read Candidate's views

FOLA asks: Thoughts on Funding Staffed Local Law Libraries

Expand to read Candidate's views

Other topics

Candidate contributions on additional topics

Expand to read Candidate's views

Other topics

Candidate contributions on additional topics

Expand to read Candidate's views

Other topics

Candidate contributions on additional topics

Expand to read Candidate's views

Endorsements of this candidate

Some candidates have chosen to provide lists of the people supporting their candidacy

Expand to see this Candidate's endorsements