Why Canada Is Rethinking the Bar Exam, and Why Candidates Should Care

British Columbia has changed its bar-admission model. Ontario is considering replacing its licensing examinations. For candidates, the important question is not whether an exam disappears. It is what regulators may expect them to demonstrate instead.

September 23, 2026

9–13 minutes

The headline sounds dramatic: British Columbia has moved away from its traditional bar-admission examination model, and Ontario may follow.

But “the bar exam is disappearing” does not quite capture what is happening.

British Columbia has replaced its Professional Legal Training Course, which retired in August 2026, with the Practice Readiness Education Program (PREP). PREP is an online program combining learning modules, interactive learning and practice simulation. It is now the official bar-admission training course in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Nunavut. Law Society of British Columbia

Ontario has not made that change.

Instead, the Law Society of Ontario’s Professional Development and Competence Committee has proposed replacing the existing barrister and solicitor licensing examinations with a mandatory skills-based course and assessment process. Canadian Press reported on 16 September 2026 that the Law Society said the previous month that no decision had yet been reached and there was no timetable for one. Law Society of Ontario

So what are the regulators actually trying to do, and why should candidates care?

What is Ontario reconsidering?

Ontario currently requires lawyer licensing candidates to successfully complete both a barrister examination and a solicitor examination. The examinations are multiple-choice and competency-based.

Importantly, the Law Society does not describe them as tests of memorization alone. Its own report says they assess knowledge and comprehension, application, and critical thinking, including the ability to arrive at conclusions requiring sound judgment. Law Society of Ontario

But the Law Society also identifies a limitation.

The examinations are not designed to assess certain skills required of lawyers, including interviewing, legal research and writing, oral advocacy and negotiation. Law Society of Ontario

That is the issue at the heart of the present debate.

A regulator is ultimately trying to determine whether someone possesses the minimum competence required to enter legal practice. If important parts of that competence cannot readily be observed through the existing examination, should the regulator assess candidates differently?

Ontario’s Committee thinks the question is worth asking.

Why is the Law Society considering change?

The Committee identifies four developments behind its review.

The present barrister and solicitor examination model was introduced in 2006, while the underlying competencies were last updated in 2011. The Committee says it considered changing candidate demographics, increasing operational challenges in delivering the examinations, developments in approaches to assessing entry-level competence, and changes taking place in other jurisdictions. Law Society of Ontario

It also records concerns raised by candidates.

Some candidates described the examinations as an exercise in “indexing”, arguing that the breadth of the material and tight timing can encourage rapid retrieval rather than deeper engagement with concepts. The report records concerns that candidates without established Ontario networks may not have access to indices prepared and circulated by law-school peers. It also records questions about why legal writing and oral advocacy are not directly assessed. Law Society of Ontario

Those criticisms do not establish that the present examinations are ineffective. They are concerns recorded by the Law Society as part of its review.

But they help explain why the regulator is reconsidering the model.

What does the alternative look like?

British Columbia provides a useful example because PREP does not mean assessment has disappeared.

At the end of PREP, candidates complete a Capstone Evaluation using simulated legal matters. They are evaluated in three categories: oral skills, written skills, and ethics/client relationship management/practice management. Candidates must demonstrate entry-level competence in each category and overall. CPLED

CPLED’s broader competency framework contains seven domains and 86 performance indicators. They include communication, professional relationship management, critical thinking and analysis, advice and advocacy, ethics and professional responsibility, and practice management. CPLED

So BC has not removed the gate.

It has changed what candidates are required to demonstrate at the gate.

That distinction is important.

Why should NCA and internationally trained candidates care?

Because internationally trained candidates are now a substantial part of Ontario’s licensing population.

In 2025, Ontario registered 3,286 new lawyer licensing candidates. Forty per cent had graduated from law schools outside Canada. Law Society of Ontario

The same Law Society report shows a significant difference in first-attempt examination outcomes. JD/LLB candidates recorded first-attempt success rates of 90% on the barrister examination and 86% on the solicitor examination. For internationally trained/NCA candidates, the corresponding figures were 62% and 61%. Law Society of Ontario

Those figures tell us that an outcome difference exists. They do not, by themselves, tell us why.

The Law Society’s earlier report expressly says that the causes of poorer outcomes among NCA candidates are likely multifaceted. It also says the proposed skills-based course is intended, together with other initiatives, to address some of the challenges faced by internationally trained graduates entering the profession. Law Society of Ontario

Candidates should therefore be cautious about drawing the tempting conclusion that replacing the licensing examinations would make licensing “easier”.

It might simply change the abilities being exposed to assessment.

A candidate who finds a time-pressured multiple-choice examination difficult may perform differently when asked to write, speak or work through a simulated legal problem.

Conversely, a performance-based assessment may make abilities such as legal writing, client communication, professional judgment and practice management considerably more visible.

Different does not necessarily mean easier.

Is the skills-based model obviously better?

No. And the debate should not be presented that way.

A standardized examination has important advantages. Candidates sit a common assessment and are evaluated against an established standard.

The Ontario Bar Association has raised concerns about moving from standardized testing toward human-scored assessments, including questions about subjectivity, fairness, evidence supporting the change and public confidence. OBA

The Advocates’ Society has similarly supported skills training while arguing that the licensing process should retain one or more objectively scored standardized assessments. It says standardized testing provides both fairness between candidates and an objective gatekeeping mechanism for minimum competence. Advocates

Those are serious objections.

A performance-based system may observe things a multiple-choice examination cannot. But it must still answer questions about consistency, reliability and fairness.

The problem of assessing competence does not disappear merely because the format changes.

So what should candidates do now?

The first answer is simple.

Do not prepare for an Ontario licensing system that does not yet exist.

Ontario has not replaced its licensing examinations. Candidates should continue to follow the requirements applicable to their licensing process and watch official Law Society developments rather than make decisions based on headlines or speculation. The latest public reporting says the Law Society has not yet reached a decision on the proposal. CKPG Today

Beyond that, our view at AGP e-class™ is that candidates should distinguish between preparing for an assessment and developing as a lawyer.

If the current requirement is an examination, learning how that examination works matters.

But legal development should not end there.

Can you identify the important issue without having it identified for you?

Can you work with facts that do not fit neatly into a pre-existing answer?

Can you explain why a rule matters rather than merely find it?

Can you communicate a legal conclusion clearly?

Can you exercise judgment when the answer is not obvious?

These are not predictions about what Ontario’s future assessment will contain. They reflect the kinds of competencies already appearing in the regulatory discussion and in PREP’s published framework. CPLED

And unlike examination technique, they remain valuable whichever assessment model ultimately survives.

The real story is not the disappearance of an exam

It is easy to describe what is happening as the possible end of the bar exam.

That may be the least interesting part of the story.

British Columbia still assesses candidates. Ontario’s proposal would still assess candidates. Neither model abandons the idea that entry into the profession requires evidence of minimum competence. CPLED

What is being reconsidered is what counts as persuasive evidence of that competence.

That is why candidates should care.

The question is shifting from whether someone can pass a particular assessment toward a deeper regulatory question:

What should a future lawyer have to demonstrate before the public is expected to trust that person with legal work?

Whatever happens to the bar examination, that question is not going anywhere.

Have questions about your Canadian legal pathway?

If you are navigating the NCA process, Canadian legal education or the transition toward licensing and would like to discuss your position with AGP e-class™, you can reach us here:

Talk to AGP e-class™

Primary sources

The article relies principally on the Law Society of Ontario’s September 2025 Committee report, its April 2026 licensing data, the Law Society of British Columbia’s current PREP materials, and CPLED’s published PREP and competency materials.