Ultra Vires Volume 24, Issue 5 - February 2023

Ultra Vires

Variety at a Price

Goodmans LLP Café re-opens at U of T Law after three years

The Faculty Strikes Back: The Return of Legal Process

2023–24 sessional dates approved and the return of the legal process requirement looms

TAYLOR RODRIGUES (2L)

Dean Jutta Brunnée kicked off the February 8, 2023, Faculty Council Meeting announcing that the Faculty of Law has started the academic planning process. She plans to engage students, faculty, and alumni in identifying challenges, opportunities, and priorities for the Faculty over the next five years. The Faculty plans to publish a five-year academic plan by the end of the 2023–24 academic year. The Faculty previously published a 2017–22 Academic Plan.

Dean Brunnée said she had three broad priorities when she became Dean: energize and strengthen the community, encourage inclusive excellence, and promote genuine institutional leadership on local and global problems. She said she is continuing to pursue these priorities and that she wants the Faculty to hold bi-annual conferences to help grapple with law in a changing world. The first of these conferences will be on the climate crisis over March 2–3, 2023 in the Jackman Law Building. She encouraged students and faculty to attend.

Dean Brunnée announced the next J’s Java’s will be on February 28, 2023, and Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, the Faculty’s Jurist in Residence, will be in attendance.

As the first order of business, the minutes of the January 11, 2023, Faculty Council meeting were approved.

After almost three years, the Goodmans LLP Café (“the Café”) finally returned to service at U of T Law on February 1, 2023. The Cafe’s opening was announced by U of T Law Associate Dean, JD Program Christopher Essert on January 27, bringing a selection of breakfast and lunch foods, coffee, tea and cold drinks back to the law school.

The Café first closed in March 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It had remained closed ever since, despite the return to in-person schooling at U of T Law in August 2020. Ultra Vires (UV) previously reported that a number of other facultyspecific cafés remained closed during the 2021–22 school year. According to U of T’s Food Services website, most of the dining locations have now returned to service.

In a comment to UV, Associate Dean Essert highlighted the amount of time and

hard work the administration put into discussions with U of T over the past few years to reopen the Café. February 1 was “the soonest we could open it once all relevant discussions were concluded,” Associate Dean Essert explained.

The Café’s opening marked the end of U of T Law’s free coffee and tea service, which had been available Monday–Friday throughout the 2022–23 academic year. U of T Law first introduced the service in February 2022 on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The administration also made free coffee, tea and snacks available during exam periods—beginning with the Fall 2021 exam season.

Associate Dean Essert confirmed that as the “exam coffee [service] was intended to make sure that students had access to coffee in the building during exams,” the much-

loved exam service will not be returning this spring.

While the Café’s opening offers U of T Law students a greater variety of snacks and beverages, students have expressed frustration that they now pay for the same quality of coffee they had previously received for free. The cost of certain food items, such as sandwiches (lowest price of $6.99) and salads (lowest price of $8.99), is also particularly high.

Questions remain about whether the Café has opened up its full service. Students who attended U of T Law before the COVID-19 pandemic shared that the Café formerly offered a range of espresso beverages in addition to their current offerings. Current students and faculty members will have to wait and see if the range of products is expanded.

Students’ Law Society (SLS) President Meaza Damte (3L) said that the SLS has been focused on building community in the law school for the past month. She voiced the students’ appreciation for the February 7, 2023 lunch with Justice Abella and Professor John Borrows’ January 25, 2023 lecture, “Voicing Identity: Cultural Appropriation and Indigenous Issues.” Damte said the SLS planned a group trip to the ROM After Dark, a Medical Malpractice Mixer with the U of T Medical School, and a Valentine’s Day message board. Damte also revealed that the SLS is working on a study tips video with the Academic Success Program and encouraged students and faculty to share any study tips they have.

Associate Dean, JD Program Christopher Essert presented the Curriculum Committee’s Interim Report and the proposed 2023–24 sessional dates. Associate Dean Essert said the Curriculum Committee has not decided what to do regarding the “problem with legal process.” Faculty Council previously voted to replace the mandatory 1L Legal Process course in the winter semester with the mandatory Indigenous Peoples and the Law course.

Associate Dean Essert said the Curriculum Committee has not made a final decision but is leaning towards recommending the introduction of Continued on page 3

NICOLAS WILLIAMS (2L)

THE GOODMANS LLP CAFÉ. CREDIT: IAN T. D. THOMSON

THE INDEPENDENT STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW

84 Queen’s Park Crescent Toronto, ON M5S 2C5

Ultra Vires is the independent student newspaper of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. We provide a forum for diverse viewpoints on topics of interest to our readers. We aim to foster dialogue on academic and social issues between students, the faculty, and the broader legal community in Toronto, Ontario, and Canada. Our content does not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board. We print six issues per year. Ultra Vires is printed by Master Web Inc.

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF

Harry Myles and Shae Rothery

BUSINESS MANAGER

Griffin Murphy

ASSOCIATE BUSINESS MANAGER

Ashley Chana

NEWS EDITORS

Thomas Russell and Nicolas Williams

ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITOR S

Yashleen Jhand and Amanda Oprisan

FEATURES EDITORS

Angela Feng and Hye-seon Jung

ASSOCIATE FEATURES EDITORS

Julia Allen and Erin Lee

OPINIONS EDITORS

Stephen Mapplebeck and Rebecca Rosenberg

ASSOCIATE OPINIONS EDITORS

Manreet Brar and Abhirami Sasitharan

DIVERSIONS EDITORS

Amy Kwong and Fievel Lim

RECRUIT EDITOR

Hussein Fawzy

EDITOR-AT-LARGE

Vivienne Stern

ONLINE EDITOR

Alyssa Wong

STAFF WRITERS

Claire Bettio, Natasha Burman, Luka Knezevic, and Taylor Rodrigues

RECRUIT REPORTERS

Janice Fung and Jeffrey Liu

VISUAL COORDINATOR

Jennifer Sun

STAFF PHOTOGRAPHERS

Thomas Alexander and Ian T. D. Thomson

SOCIAL MEDIA COORDINATORS

Kaitlyn Nelson and Jasveen Singh

LAYOUT EDITOR

Alexandra Fox

ADVERTISING

If you are interested in advertising, please email us at business@ultravires.ca

ERRORS

If you notice any errors, please email us at editor@ultravires.ca.

SUBMISSIONS

If you would like to submit a tip, letter, or an article, please email us at editor@ultravires.ca.

Ultra Vires reserves the right to edit submissions.

EDITORS' NOTE

Dear Readers,

You made it! Reading week has come and gone, and we are at the halfway point of the term—only two more months ‘til sweet, sweet summer freedom. We hope everyone had a chance to relax (and not read) during reading week and feel refreshed for the final stretch.

In this issue, we have our usual SLS and Faculty Council updates, along with several topical stories on the 32nd annual BLSA national conference, recent violence on public transit, TTC budget cuts, the reopening of Goodmans LLP Café, and a cheeky take on a certain mayor’s resignation.

We are also excited to feature this year’s winners of the library poetry contest as well as the first In Beer Veritas review of the Craft Beer Club! Our opinions section is likewise a-buzz with hot takes on the Faculty moot requirement, intersessions, and exam feedback.

Stay strong in these final two months and perhaps take a break with a crossword (we hear the back page has one). As always, if you have any comments or want to get involved with UV, you can reach us at editor@ultravires.ca.

The Faculty Strikes Back: The Return of Legal Process

Continued from page 1

TAYLOR RODRIGUES (2L)

an upper-year legal process course requirement. The legal process requirement would require current 1Ls and future JD students to take a legal process course, such as Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure, or a general legal process course to graduate. He said the Curriculum Committee would likely come back to the next Faculty Council Meeting to seek adoption of this recommendation.

Associate Dean Essert said the proposed 2023–24 sessional dates are very similar to the 2022–23 sessional dates but noted three key differences. First, there will be no upper-year classes on days with oncampus interviews (OCIs). Previously, only upperyear classes before 5pm were cancelled on days with OCIs. Second, the exam period in December 2023 will be shortened by one day to allow more time for administrative tasks such as collecting papers and distributing them to professors. Third, winter semester classes will start on January 8, instead of

January 2, giving students a longer winter break but shortening the April 2024 exam period.

Assistant Dean, Academic Sara Faherty suggested the Faculty Council discuss how long the add/drop period should be. Traditionally, it has been roughly two weeks, which is longer than most other faculties. Assistant Dean Faherty and SLS representatives said they got an unusually high number of complaints this year from students that the Add/Drop period was too long. A longer Add/ Drop period gives students more time to “try out” classes, but students need to wait longer to have certainty over what their final schedule will be.

Associate Dean Essert and SLS representatives both suggested that the unusually low number of courses offered this academic year contributed to long wait lists for courses, which delayed students getting into their preferred courses. However, Associate Dean Essert caveated that many of the

courses that were not offered this year had small class sizes and the Faculty expects to offer more upper-year courses in the next academic year.

Faculty Council voted to adopt the proposed sessional dates with one modification: they shortened the Winter 2024 add/drop deadline to January 26 at 5pm, making the period two weeks.

Professor Larissa Katz presented the Graduate Program Admissions Report. She said admissions statistics have been consistent over the last several years. Professor Katz said the Faculty admitted 156 new graduate students in Fall 2022, totalling 191 graduate students. 69 percent of the 2022–23 LLM students chose the Coursework stream, as opposed to the Theses streams. 71 percent of the 2022–23 GPLLM students chose the Canadian Law in a Global Context concentration.

Professor Katz highlighted the financial aid the Faculty provides to LLM and SJD students. Do-

Students’ Law Society February Update

Highlights of 2023 from your SLS team

MEAZA DAMTE (3L), PRESIDENT OF THE STUDENTS’ LAW SOCIETY, 2022–23

Student Life and Academic Committee

(SLAC)

Your SLAC team has been advocating fiercely on your behalf this semester based on feedback we have received about an array of issues. Earlier this semester, the Executive Committee met with senior administration to discuss the grade release delay. We know that this was extremely stressful for students trying to meet various deadlines like the 1L recruit and clerkship applications. According to senior administration, there were a number of factors that led to the delay:

• First, the Records Office received a larger than usual volume of papers and exams that did not follow the correct naming conventions. This resulted in significant time and resources being

devoted to tracking down the identities of the students who submitted assessments without their pseudonyms.

• Second, due to the written work deadline’s proximity to the closure of the University for the holidays, the Records Office did not have enough time to get student assessments to their respective professors.

• Lastly, there was an unforeseen illness that resulted in reduced staffing.

We understand that this was a difficult time for many students. Moving forward, the Faculty has adopted sessional dates that give the Records Office an extra day to distribute exams and papers to professors. Students can view these sessional dates on e.le-

gal under the February 11, 2023, Faculty Council heading.

Social and Finance Committee (SFC)

Your SFC team has been hard at work this semester to bring the U of T Law community together. We started the semester off with Frost Week, ringing in the New Year at Bar St. Lo. From weekly trivia and Calls to the Bar to our Valentine’s Day festivities, we hope that you have enjoyed the events we put on this month!

SFC would also like to acknowledge that we have listened to your feedback about more diverse Call to the Bar offerings. On January 20, we organized a group trip to the Royal Ontario Museum’s After Dark: DesignTO edition, a monthly, themed, 19+ event. It was a huge success, and

Rising Levels of Violence Aboard the TTC

Is police presence enough to curb the worrying trend of TTC violence?

MANREET BRAR (1L)

Content warning: This article discusses violence, police violence, and anti-Black racism.

On Wednesday, January 25, around 7:30am, two Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) workers were chased by a person wielding a syringe near the intersection of Yonge Street and Dundas Street. Approximately seven hours later, a 16-year-old boy suffered serious injuries after being stabbed on a TTC bus at Old Mill subway station.

These occurrences are the most recent in a string of violent incidents on the TTC. In just the month of January, a woman suffered life-altering injuries after being stabbed multiple times on a Spadina Avenue streetcar in broad daylight; a group of teens shot a female TTC employee with a BB gun near Markham Road and Progress Avenue; and a man was pushed onto the subway tracks at Bloor-Yonge station.

2023 is not unique in this regard either; in fact, it is part of a larger trend of heightened levels of violence on the TTC network compared to pre-pandemic levels. Readers may recall the death of Vanessa Kurpiewska, who was fatally stabbed at High Park station or Nyima Dolma, who passed away after being set on fire onboard a TTC bus at Kipling station.

There is no rhyme or reason to the attacks: they have occurred in all parts of the city, at all times of the day, and on streetcars, buses, subways, and both inside and outside TTC stations. Naturally, this has left commuters feeling scared. While some people have looked for ways to protect themselves, others have opted for alternative methods of transportation at a time when the transit system is experiencing record-low ridership.

In response to the increased violence and its resultant unease amongst the public, the Toronto police have deployed 80 police officers across the TTC net-

work daily to prevent crimes and enhance public safety.

Rick Leary, TTC CEO, concedes that while the TTC doesn’t know what is behind the recent increase in violence on the TTC network, the TTC understands the root causes are complex, systemic issues that “require longer-term solutions, and they will be at the table with these [to address] crime prevention, mental health and addiction and homelessness.”

Amalgamated Transit Union Canada national president, John Di Nino, said the violent incidents had reached “crisis” levels; he called for a national safety task force. John Tory, who resigned from his position as the Toronto Mayor on February 17, supported Di Nino's request while emphasising that the deployment of additional police presence is needed at a time of anxiety. The City of Toronto has also announced the deployment of an additional 50 special constables across the TTC network.

While some people may view an increased police presence as a source of safety, it may propagate more unease, especially among members of racialized communities. A 2020 report by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) entitled The Disparate Impact found that Black folks are more likely to be proactively arrested, charged, and subjected to uses of force in police interactions. The OHRC has expressed hesitance at past increases in police presence due to the concern that it may exacerbate racial profiling. Moreover, Diana Chan McNally, a harm reduction case manager at the non-profit All Saints Church, warned that people experiencing homelessness might become a target for the police, who may conflate violence on the TTC with individuals taking shelter in stations. The executive director of TTCriders, Shelagh Pizey-Allen, said the expansion of police presence

on the TTC system is a “bandage solution” that doesn’t address the underlying issues of violence in Toronto. Similarly, public health experts and criminologists have called for an approach that addresses the root causes of violence, such as a lack of housing affordability, homelessness, and mental health support.

Commuting students have expressed concern about riding the TTC, especially those with no other alternative; Uber is prohibitively expensive while walking or biking may not be geographically feasible or possible considering Toronto’s ever-fluctuating weather patterns.

On January 31, the University of Toronto Provost Office sent out an email acknowledging that the news of violence may be distressing for U of T community members. The email also included links to public safety resources and tips from both the Community

mestic LLM students receive an average award of $5,850, which represents 53 percent of their tuition, and international LLM students receive an average award of $16,176, which represents 33 percent of their tuition. The Faculty guarantees SJD students a stipend of $17,500 per year and many SJD students secure external funding.

The Faculty distributes financial support to LLM and SJD students based on financial need and academic excellence. Financial support for JD students is awarded based only on financial need. GPLLM students do not receive financial aid from the Faculty.

The next Faculty Council Meeting is scheduled for March 22, 2023. Dean Brunnée said she expects it to be a busy meeting with many voting items.

we look forward to organizing similar events soon. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us with event ideas!

Lastly, we have some exciting events coming up! We kicked off Oakes Week on Monday, February 27 to celebrate the anniversary of the R v Oakes decision. We held breakfast in the atrium on Monday morning, followed by a special edition of J’s Java with special guest Justice Abella on Tuesday, and our usual Call to the Bar will be on Thursday. Lastly, we are excited to see you all at Law Ball on March 18, Viva Laws Vegas! We listened to your concerns, and this year there will be a higher capacity, less crowded bars, and more photobooths.

Signed, Your SLS Team

Safety Office and the TTC. While the Provost’s response provides valuable resources and tips, U of T can help students prioritise their safety by providing the option to attend evening classes virtually or making lecture recordings accessible.

Although the concerning levels of violence are a reflection of systemic issues that require broader organisational responses, there are several individual steps you can take to keep yourself safe. Items, such as pepper spray and knives, are illegal to carry around in Canada, but TTC riders may wish to carry other personal safety devices, such as portable alarms. The Request Stop program allows TTC travellers to get off the bus between regular TTC stops between the hours of 9pm and 5am. Stay aware of your surroundings by minimising distractions and looking around frequently.

THE SOUTHBOUND 510 SPADINA STREETCAR. CREDIT: IAN T. D. THOMSON

The 2023 Grafstein Lecture Focuses on the Social Implications of

AI

Professor Kate Crawford discusses the ideas from her new book, Atlas of AI

TOM RUSSELL (3L)

On the evening of February 8, the Rosalie Abella Moot Court Room was full of academics, artificial intelligence (AI) enthusiasts, and posh tweed jackets. The Grafstein Lecture in Communications is an annual event established by retired Senator, the Honourable Jerry S. Grafstein, K.C..

The speaker this year was Professor Kate Crawford, a principal researcher at Microsoft Research, co-founder and former director of research at the AI Now Institute at New York University, and associate professor at the University of New South Wales. Prof. Crawford discussed some ideas from her 2021 book, Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence

Prof. Crawford began her lecture by highlighting that we are currently at an inflection point in the development of AI. ChatGPT has been the talk of the town for the past few months. Additionally, Google announced its own AI chatbot, as did Microsoft. Some news outlets have warned that this may turn into a sort of “AI arms race” that could have unintentional consequences. Prof. Crawford’s writing aims to shed light on what these consequences might be. She describes her book as a look behind the curtain, looking critically at how exactly the “magic of AI” really happens.

In her lecture on February 8, Prof. Crawford gave a summary of four concerns, which she labelled different “grounds,” that she has about how the magic of AI comes to be.

First, Prof. Crawford identified issues with “ground truth”—otherwise known as the reality individuals seek to model with an algorithm. Machine learning used in the development of AI uses training data to calibrate the algorithm to accurately identify the training data. However, Prof. Crawford identified a fundamental problem with this approach to acquiring training data. She lamented that the current philosophy is “quantity over quality.” The process of acquiring training data has been dependent on click-workers, ignoring the benefits of any human expertise, stripping the data of any context, and ignoring the cultural and subjective decision-making involved in this process. We are left with ground truth that is subjective, stripped of any context, and without any external measurement of the validity of the data.

Second, Prof. Crawford pointed to the issue of what she calls “slippery ground” with our current emphasis on collecting datasets as massive as possible. She began her argument by asking us to imagine nouns existing along an axis from the most concrete

to the most abstract (e.g., rock versus hypocrite). The problem, Prof. Crawford stated, is that training data that pairs abstract nouns to images can quickly resemble moral judgments that capture the culture and prejudices of the developers of that training data, especially when stripped of any context or external validation. Prof. Crawford brought up the example of ImageNet, and the 2019 story on the algorithm by The New York Times The New York Times story highlighted concerns that people were being assigned moral judgements based on their gender and race, amongst other characteristics. In response, ImageNet took efforts to strip its datasets of dangerous image-noun pairings. However, Prof. Crawford is unconvinced. She asked the audience how we should define “safe” when we are in the business of classifying people.

Third, Prof. Crawford explained the issue of “polluted ground.” She stressed that the computer power necessary for AI is enormous, requiring specialized hardware and energy. The current “AI revolution” is poised to occur at a time when the environment is already incredibly strained. The tech sector is poised to overtake the aviation industry as the biggest polluter. If AI does end up becoming a staple of almost every element of society, then there is a risk that the day-to-day functioning of our society will dramatically increase its carbon footprint.

Finally, Prof. Crawford also discussed the issue of “generative ground.” Prof. Crawford asked the audience what will happen to ground truth when most content is being produced by AI. She noted some concern about how AI will change how we understand ourselves and others when most of the language and images we consume are based on statistical representations of the past. Prof. Crawford noted that no one really knows the answer to this question, but it is worth thinking about.

At the end of her lecture, Prof. Crawford stressed a few points. She first emphasized that there is no standard and quality control for datasets currently used to train AI when there probably should be. Second, it is unclear how we will investigate datasets when they are made up of billions of entries. Third, there is a risk that laws and regulations will stray dangerously far behind the development of this technology. Fourth, we will encounter difficulty understanding creative control in this new age of AI. Finally, we do not truly know who will win and lose as a result of this change in information technology and there is a danger that it could entrench power into a

smaller set of hands.

Prof. Crawford’s lecture was insightful, interesting, and, at times, quite concerning. The promise of the AI revolution is exciting and scary at the same time, and I am grateful that there are academics like Prof. Crawford who devote so much effort to understanding the consequences of our actions and trying to steer us toward a better tomorrow. During the question and an-

swer period of the lecture, one audience member asked her if she was an optimist or a pessimist. In response, Prof. Crawford replied, “I think if I was a pessimist, I wouldn’t be able to do this job.”

If you are interested in learning more about Professor Kate Crawford’s work and ideas, check out Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence, now available online.

Trustworthy AI? National Institute of Standards and Technology Releases Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework

What could this mean for upcoming legislation in Canada?

ALESSIA WOOLFE (1L) AND HANNAH ROSENBERG (1L)

Exciting new advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) promise benefits in industries ranging from finance to healthcare. AI can solve complex problems faster than humans and it is quickly shaping up to be the next step in automation. On the flipside, AI-powered content generation tools like ChatGPT and Google’s “Bard” present new threats ranging from plagiarism to fraud. In Canada and the United States, there is currently no comprehensive legislation governing the use and development of AI.

However, regulatory initiatives are emerging—the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) was released on January

26. The NIST is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce that aims to “promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.” Although NIST standards are non-binding, they can potentially become industry-standards with widespread use. For example, the NIST Cybersecurity Framework is internationally recognized and outlines best practices for organizations seeking to manage cybersecurity risks. The AI RMF presents guidelines for industries to develop “trustworthy” AI: AI that is lawful, ethical, and technically sound. The idea behind the

guidelines is that AI will only be used when people can trust the technology, and adherence to the framework will achieve this goal.

Framework The AI RMF is broken into two parts. Part One is about framing the risks associated with AI by identifying the features that make it trustworthy. Part Two outlines the contents of the framework to guide the development of trustworthy AI. In Part One, there are seven characteristics for identifying the trustworthiness of an AI system: (1) valid and reliable; (2) safe; (3) secure and resilient; (4) accountable and transparent; (5) explainable and interpretable; (6) priva -

cy-enhanced; and (7) fair.

Self-driving cars are an example of an AI system whose trustworthiness could be characterized using these descriptors. The car must be valid and reliable in that it must consistently obey traffic rules, avoid obstacles, and not interfere with other cars and pedestrians. Safety is paramount, given the high risks posed to human health and life when driving. A secure car would not be vulnerable to cyberattacks, and a resilient car would be able to drive safely during the sudden onset of a snowstorm. In a transparent system, the decision-making mechanism is generally accessible and reviewable. Thus, if the system fails to function properly, transparency can

Continued on page 5

PROFESSOR KATE CRAWFORD, AUTHOR OF ATLAS OF AI: POWER, POLITICS, AND THE PLANETARY COSTS

Trustworthy AI? National Institute of Standards and Technology Releases Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework

Continued from page 4

assist in determining who should be held accountable. It should also be possible to explain how the car makes decisions like when to brake and interpret why the car makes a decision in a given scenario. The car will also inevitably collect extensive data on driving habits, where a person spends time, how much time they spend there, and more, highlighting the need for privacy. Finally, facial recognition technology may be used to differentiate between humans and inanimate objects on the road. However, if the car cannot recognize the features of some people as well as others, this lack of fairness would be a significant ethical and safety problem. All of these characteristics interact with one another and sometimes must be balanced against each other.

The NIST AI RMF provides guidance on translating the characteristics of “trustworthy AI” into practice in Part Two. It does so through the four core “functions” that organizations can use: governance, mapping, measuring, and managing. Mapping tracks different stakeholders and functionalities of AI systems to anticipate the risks. Then, the seriousness of the risks are measured to align the system with the characteristics of trustworthy AI. These indicators are used to manage the risks by monitoring and responding to them. The AI RMF brings these core functions under governance, pointing to the need to create a whole-of-organization approach that brings together and coordinates these different functionalities.

Implications

The AI Risk Management Framework will be

an important tool for organizations internationally. Though standards are voluntary, NIST compliance is a requirement for many public sector entities in Canada (for example, the Canadian Sector for Cyber Security must adhere to the NIST cybersecurity standards). Given this requirement, the NIST framework can influence how Canada will legislate around AI. The federal government’s new private sector privacy bill, Bill C-27, is currently at second reading in the House of Commons. One of the proposed acts in the bill is the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, which will be the de facto comprehensive AI regulation. As this proposed legislation makes its way through Parliament and goes through changes, the need for NIST compliance in industry may affect the final product.

One of the main benefits of AI is its ability to parse enormous quantities of data and recognize patterns that may be invisible to humans. Inexplicability is a necessary side effect of the power of AI, but it is also a major source of distrust. The risk management framework requires AI systems to be explainable, but the extent of this is yet to be determined. Balancing the need for explainability with the power to perform tasks beyond human capability continues to be a challenge. Only time will tell if the NIST framework will serve its mission to create safe, secure, and reliable systems, or if regulation will impede AI’s progress and potential.

Editor's Note: Alessia Woolfe and Hannah Rosenberg are both 1L representatives of the student-led Privacy and Cybersecurity Law Group (PCLG).

Inaugural U of T Faculty of Law Students' Research Symposium Launches in March

Opportunity for law students to present their research

TAYLOR RODRIGUES (2L)

The inaugural U of T Faculty of Law Students’ Research Symposium will be held virtually on March 24–25, 2023. The submission period has closed, but ticket registration for guests is open until March 17, 2023 and is free. It will feature a variety of panels on various areas of law and presentations from law students. I sat down with the Research Symposium’s founder, Nik Khakhar (3L), and co-organizer Emily Sarah Hean (2L), to learn more about the Research Symposium.

Ultra Vires (UV): In your own words, what is the Research Symposium?

Nik Khakhar (NK): Most law schools have internal research symposiums where only students from their law school can make submissions and present their research.

The Research Symposium is U of T Law’s first student-run, student-targeted conference that invites law students from across Canada to present research on any topic they want about the law. We are inviting faculty, law professionals, moderators, and U of T Law’s LLM program to ask questions to student presenters to think about their ideas more critically.

The Research Symposium serves two main purposes. First, to get students interested in academia and academic research. Second, to get students to look at how research applies to day-to-day practice. Social science research has taught us that we can use quantitative or qualitative evidence to

prevent wrongful convictions, save lives and improve society. Getting an appreciation for the link between legal research and legal practice makes for more resounding legal competence.

UV: What made you decide to found the Research Symposium?

NK: I did my 1L at the University of Windsor and then transferred to U of T in 2L. At Windsor, they run the Canadian Law Student Conference, which is similar to the Research Symposium. I presented at the conference in 1L. I was surrounded by 3Ls from whom I learned about diverse legal topics. I felt super intimidated but also learned so much. It gave me a lot more confidence in presenting, as well as approaching people from different walks of life and in my own research. It gave me an appreciation of how academia intersects with practice.

When I transferred to U of T, I realized that U of T doesn’t have an equivalent conference. I went to U of T workshops almost every other week since my second year of undergrad. One of the reasons I transferred to U of T was for its appreciation of academic research. I thought that getting students immersed in this academic culture would be one of the most powerful ways to get students to make the most of the school and what it has to offer.

Emily Sarah Hean (ESH): This was really Nik’s law school dream and throughout the jour-

ney, it also became my dream. It’s a really cool way to share your research. I also noticed that a lot of the Faculty’s certificate programs have a requirement to present a paper at a conference, but it’s really hard to find where to present. The Research Symposium provides that opportunity for students. It makes it more accessible to complete a certificate.

UV: What is the structure of the conference?

NK: It’s all online. We wanted to showcase the law school buildings, but getting space for an inaugural conference was difficult. We also wanted to make it accessible to the broader community: the legal community, family, friends, and everyone who supports academic research. We didn’t want travel or cost to be a barrier.

ESH: Each day will be different. The keynote speaker will be the Honourable Justice Gloria Epstein, a retired justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal. We will update https://uoftlawsymposium. wordpress.com/ with the other speakers, presenters and moderators as they are finalized.

People are welcome to drop in and out throughout the two days. There’s no requirement for guests who register for the Research Symposium to attend all of the sessions. We want people to be able to engage with it in the way that they learn the most.

UV: Who would you recommend to attend the conference?

NK: We recommend faculty, legal professionals, and law students to attend. It will let faculty see what students do outside of class. Students not presenting will be able to get exposed to academic research. We’ve been reaching out to lawyers at different firms and different Crown offices to invite them to attend and ask questions to student presenters. We want to help lawyers see the ongoing research of their future colleagues and give students a chance to connect with legal professionals. We want law students to get a better sense of what questions they will be asked in research and in the courtroom.

ESH: I really think that all law students should try to attend. I was lucky enough to moderate the Canadian Animal Law Conference in fall 2022, and that was the first academic conference I attended. We kind of forget that you can learn for the sake of learning. Going to that conference reminded me that learning is fun. It’s so fun listening to smart people talk about stuff that they know a lot about. The Research Symposium is such a great opportunity to expand your mind further, and I think that’s why a lot of people chose to go to law school.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Editor’s Note: Taylor Rodrigues submitted a paper to the Research Symposium.

ALESSIA WOOLFE (1L) AND HANNAH ROSENBERG (1L)

Intersession or Interruption?

Winter semester does not have to be this bad

SABRINA MACKLAI (3L JD/MI)

January sucks. The holidays are over, the skies are grey, and, if you are a U of T Law student, there’s a good chance you have class bright and early on the Monday morning after New Year’s Day. This one-week, onecredit intensive class was the bane of many law students’ existence until final papers were due around a month later on February 1.

I have no issue with the law school offering intensive courses. In fact, I think they’re a great idea. They allow students the opportunity to be introduced to an area of law or policy to which they might otherwise not be exposed and, as the law school advertises, “to learn from some of the best legal scholars, jurists and policy-makers in the world.” Intensive instructors have included past and current jurists from both within and outside Canada.

However, the intersession period as currently implemented does more harm than good. In an already busy month—filled with mooting deadlines, clerkship applications, and new classes—having a 3000-word graded paper is the last thing any law student wants on their to-do list. And yet, students graduating from U of T since 2021 are required to

complete the winter semester from hell in either their second or third year.

Speaking with friends who were in intensive classes this past term, we agreed that while the content was interesting, the timing was far from ideal. One person even commented that since the majority of intensive classes are graded, students are incentivized to choose a class with material they’re already familiar with—this way, they have a better chance of getting a higher grade. But this defeats the purpose of intensives, which are meant to broaden students’ scope of study. Other students commented that having the paper due a month after the intensive class ended, and after their other classes started, led to subpar work since it was difficult to recall what was taught. Sure, they could have written the paper on the weekend before regular classes started, but cramming a paper into a weekend is also not ideal. Especially for students with mooting deadlines, that weekend was already packed.

Intersession does not have to be carried out in this way. While intersession at U of T Law only started in 2020, the concept has existed at other law schools for many years and in a notably different format. For ex -

ample, Harvard Law, the supposed basis for our intersession period, gives students three weeks to devote their time to studying, researching, or participating in a legal clinic. Closer to home, Western Law offers a January intensive period where students have practically a month (January 9–27) “to study advanced and specialized topics without the distraction of other courses” and, for students participating in a moot, “the opportunity to concentrate their efforts on preparation and practices.” The University of Ottawa also has a similar “January term” where students can even opt to be graded on a “Satisfactory/Nonsatisfactory” basis.

While these other law schools give students time to actually reap the benefits of the intensive course and focus on their other commitments, U of T Law forces students to somehow do it all at once. At the very least, other schools allow students to be graded on a pass/fail basis that removes some of the unnecessary stress caused from having an additional class outside one’s area of expertise. Alternatives clearly exist, so it is unclear why U of T has chosen the route that causes the most unnecessary stress for students.

Moot Schmoot

These concerns were raised years before the intersession period was even implemented. In 2017, the Moot Court Committee released a statement expressing their concern over the effect of the intersession period on the competitive mooting program. At the same time, Ultra Vires also reported on students’ concerns about the intersession, which covered its potential negative impact on mooting, clinics, and Law Games. It seems, however, that the Faculty rushed to implement the intersession period without giving adequate time and consideration to the raised concerns. When the 2017 Students’ Law Society president voiced concerns that there was inadequate student consultation to implement this change, former Dean Edward Iacobucci was reportedly “unfazed” and “reiterated that the decision was ultimately Faculty Council’s to make.”

In 2014, Professor Benjamin Alarie remarked that, “[the] beauty of [a] Legal Intensive course is you have it for two weeks— then you're done. And your course load is one course lighter.” This would be great if it were true. Almost ten years since this statement, intensive courses are here but they are far from ideal.

Is the traditional oral advocacy system really the answer?

REBECCA ROSENBERG (3L)

The dreaded moot. I was anxious about U of T Law’s mooting requirement even before I decided that I was going to attend the school. As someone who is not necessarily exhilarated at the thought of appellate litigation, a competitive moot was definitely not in my plan. So, I took what I had to: the Upper Year Moot (“UYM”) course.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I did the UYM and it really wasn’t as bad as I was making it out to be in my head. It’s a one-credit, pass-fail course, so the stakes were low enough that I was able to keep talking myself out of any nerves I felt leading up to the in-person mock trial. I even had some fun thanks to the fact that I had a great partner and an interesting fact pattern to work with.

However, I still felt some lingering upset about the whole process; it wasn’t about the oral advocacy itself but about the lack of options available to fulfill the requirement. Evidently, I understand the need for an oral advocacy requirement. I am personally still interested in oral advocacy, and I know I will likely litigate during my legal career. But what about students who don’t wish to pursue litigation, or are not interested in appellate litigation specifically? What other options could the school have for people seeking different methods of oral advocacy that they are either more comfortable with or about which they are more passionate?

I asked Associate Dean, JD Program Christopher Essert whether there could be other opportunities outside a competitive moot or the UYM that would satisfy an oral

advocacy credit. He responded that every student must engage “in at least one instance of sustained, substantive, oral argument, where the oral argument is also based on legal research and the production of an associated piece of written legal advocacy.”

So, could other courses already offered at the law school count towards our oral advocacy requirement? When I brought up the idea of Trial Advocacy or Negotiation potentially fulfilling these criteria, Associate Dean Essert wrote that the Faculty is not closed to the possibility that other courses could meet the oral advocacy framework, but as of right now, those courses do not fulfill the requirements.

I think those courses could definitely meet the oral advocacy goals, if not already, then with some minor additions to the course curriculum. For transparency’s sake, I have not taken Trial Advocacy (although I did play a witness for the final trial) or Negotiation, but I have had many conversations with peers who did take those classes. In many cases, they mentioned how the courses facilitated the development of important oral advocacy skills.

In Trial Advocacy, students must participate in workshops with practicing lawyers where they enact scenarios involving oral advocacy, such as cross-examinations and opening statements. And, of course, they must participate in a full, in-person mock trial at the courthouse. There is no legal research involved, but it could be incorporated into the pre-trial motions for issues such as evidence or procedure. In Negotiation,

students are given fact patterns and have to negotiate one side in order to get the best result. While I admit that there’s not much legal research and no written legal advocacy involved per se , I don’t see why an element can’t be added that requires a written brief or statement of fact.

These are just two examples of courses, but there are and can be many more. The University of Ottawa Faculty of Law’s Common Law Section allows for a wide range of courses that can satisfy the students’ oral advocacy requirement. These courses are listed in their online catalogue and include courses such as Mediation Theory and Practice, Dispute Resolution, Interviewing and Counselling, and various clinic courses; it also includes Trial Advocacy and Negotiation.

On the topic of clinics, I also asked Associate Dean Essert whether doing oral advocacy at a clinic externship, such as Downtown Legal Services, could satisfy the requirement. While he could not answer the question in the abstract, he said the Faculty could be open to having a conversation about it with a student, the clinic staff, and others involved. However, this would have to be a case-by-case assessment.

One final point is that there are other competitive oral advocacy competitions that don’t count towards our oral advocacy requirement, but perhaps should. Do external competitions such as the Hicks Morley Labour Moot or the Hockey Arbitration Competition of Canada (HACC) meet the oral advocacy criteria? It seems that at least the Hicks Morley does, as it involves

legal research, writing, and the presentation of oral arguments. HACC is sport-focused and caters to the agency side of arbitration. Although it does include aspects of labour law and salary negotiation, I can recognize that this type of arbitration might fall just outside the criteria despite the rigorous research and oral advocacy skills that go into it.

Given all this, why are our oral advocacy courses so limited? If we believe our student body to have diverse interests in future career paths, why restrict our course options for such a vital component of our legal education? Yes, we can participate in these courses regardless of them meeting our oral advocacy requirement. Yet, many students may not have the time or energy to be able to take on additional extracurricular activities, or may feel that they should forgo taking Trial Advocacy since they have to do a moot anyway. And for some, being able to take something that’s not a formal moot might take some pressure off of the requirement and allow them to pursue an alternative avenue of oral advocacy that they enjoy or can envision being more beneficial to their career goals.

On the bright side, the Faculty appears to be open to the idea of broadening the opportunities for courses or competitions that complete the oral advocacy requisite. There is obviously incredible value in allowing students to develop their oral advocacy. I don’t think that value is lessened in any way by recognizing the wide variety of ways in which lawyers advocate outside of fake moot settings.

No Job? No Problem!

Comforting words from a 2L who did everything wrong in her 1L job search

CLAIRE BETTIO (2L)

Hi, 1L friends! I hope everyone isn’t too stressed, but I do remember this time last year being kind of terrible. There was the 1L recruit, LSSEP applications, actual classes and readings (who is she?), and all anyone could talk about was what they were doing for the summer.

I just want to give a perspective that will hopefully let you breathe a little easier. TLDR—it’ll all be fine, don’t be too hard on yourself, just keep working away at things. Take it from someone who did literally everything wrong in their job hunt last year and is still doing just fine.

This time last year, I had never written a cover letter. Never. Not once. In high school, I worked as a deli counter clerk at the finest (read: only) Polish deli in Bolton, Ontario, slicing deli meat after school. Throughout undergrad, I worked as a waitress at the same restaurant for 4 years.

This time last year, I had never done a formal job interview. Unless you count my two-minute sit down with my boss at the Polish deli which featured exactly THREE questions—(1) are you legally allowed to work in Canada? (Yes); (2) can you work weekends? (Also, yes); and (3) are you Polish? (My mom is). I suppose you could also

count my interview to be a server—see questions (1) and (2) above.

All this to say, I had no experience, no idea what I was doing and, despite being in fancy U of T Law, I felt very underqualified. I remember sending the CDO my resume for them to look over and having them ask, with a sad glint in their eye, “is there anything else you could put on this?” The answer was, unfortunately, no.

Last year, though I planned on applying for the 1L recruit, I didn’t end up submitting any applications. I rationalized this by saying it was because I didn’t want to work at a full-service firm, but really, I was just feeling discouraged and overwhelmed.

I told myself I would get organized for LSSEP applications. I put together some cover letters and tried to fix up my resume; I submitted applications for maybe 10 jobs and heard nothing back.

I kept applying throughout the rest of the school year as jobs would get posted on UTLC, but before applying for my first post-LSSEP job, I sent my roommate my cover letter to get her thoughts. Exactly two minutes later she sent back “typo, first sentence.” Yikes. No wonder I wasn’t

hearing back from anywhere.

By the end of the school year, I still hadn’t heard back from anywhere but had to find a job for the time being. I spent the first two months of my 1L summer working as a server at the Madison Avenue Pub (seriously, ask me about it…I have stories). I thought about just giving up my job search, but I really didn’t want to spend the entire summer serving again and wanted to try working in law. So, I kept applying to everything that got posted. I ended up getting a few interviews in May, but ultimately wasn’t chosen for the jobs…until I was!

Near the end of June, The Globe and Mail posted an ad for a two-month position as an intern in their legal department. I applied, interviewed, and was hired! Around the same time, an individual I’d interviewed with for a research position earlier in the summer—who didn’t hire me at the time—contacted me about some new work he needed someone for. I went from months of hearing “no” to getting two quick yeses.

Apply to the positions even if you don’t think you’re qualified. Do the interviews even if you find the process stressful. The worst thing that

can happen is that you have to sit through a really awkward conversation that you can laugh about with your friends later. You never know who might remember you later for other jobs, and all it takes is one person to say yes to help you get the ball rolling.

Some people might absolutely disagree with me about this, but I’m going to say it anyway. I think a huge part of landing your first job in a new field is luck—the right time, right place, right day, and right interviewer. At least this is what I told myself to deal with being rejected from so many jobs last year. But I’m going to say it to you too. Don’t take not getting hired personally. Just keep applying because you never know what’s going to stick.

Finally, your 1L summer is not indicative of how your 2 or 3L summers will look. So let go of that stress. Things ended up going better for me in the 2L recruit probably because I learned so much about what not to do in 1L. Best of luck guys, be kind to yourselves, and get a friend to proofread your cover letter! No matter what happens this summer, I promise everything will be just fine.

Bring Back the Free Bean Juice!

Having a paid café exploits a captive audience— and courts student hostility

PALOMA ALAMINOS (3L)

On February 1, the Goodmans LLP Café (“the Café”) in the Jackman Law Building opened for the first time since the pandemic hit. Emails from the Faculty about the reopening were jubilant—Associate Dean, JD Program Christopher Essert described it as “the day we’ve all been waiting for” in his January 27 announcement, and I’m sure many students felt the same way. But others, like myself, are questioning the return to a paid service after the Faculty has shown us that it is capable of providing free service. Given the total absence of coffee and tea options near the law school, and the extent to which students at the Faculty are addicted to caffeine, choosing to charge students for something previously provided for free is more than just unfair. It’s exploitative.

Now, I recognize that the Faculty has no obligation to provide free coffee, tea, or snacks to students. There is, sadly, no clear common law or statutory duty of an educational institution to provide niceties to a nonresident student population. But were I representing the claimants here, I would argue that a free service not only shows respect to students’ diverse financial backgrounds and disposable income, but it’s also arguably a component of that ever-lauded, oh-so-exclusive U of T Law “experience.” After all, are we not professionals? Are we not the next great generation of lawyers—the progeny of the Harvard of the North, even? Surely if the U of T Law experience is so competitive and exclusive that it can only truly be experienced inperson, that experience includes providing a free coffee service.

Moreover, the Café isn’t cheap. Worse, it’s really the only option near the law school, except Ronald McDonald’s, if you want to grab a coffee or a quick bite between classes. No one is going to make the hike to the Aroma on Bay Street or the Starbucks on Bedford when they have a paid option on-site—and U of T is banking on that, literally! The Goodmans LLP Café is operated by U of T Food Services, itself part of U of T’s Spaces & Experiences department. The profits of the Café go to U of T, straight to the central adminis-

tration and not to the Faculty. It would feel a lot less like being exploited if the Café profits went directly to, say, equity initiatives for students at the Faculty or to legal and justice movements in our community.

Finally, I have heard from several students who preferred the free coffee service and are disappointed, if not actively upset, about the return to a paid service. One student told me that they did not want to give U of T “any more money” than they already had. Bringing back the free coffee would massively boost student goodwill towards the administration.

The Faculty has always framed their free coffee and tea service as something to fill the gap “[as] we await the re-opening of our Goodmans Café” (see Associate Dean Essert’s September 6, 2022 email, “Coffee Service – Starting Tuesday, September 6, 2022”).

The attitude of the Faculty is that any food or drink service is exceptional, a “gift” to students, proof of the administration’s benevolence. So why not follow through on all that benevolence? Making a free service permanent would do wonders for student morale. After all, law students are weak animals, and the administration should really know that by now. I guarantee that our goodwill can be bought merely by providing free bean juice and snacks!

None of this is to say that the free service we had until now was perfect. The hours were only 8am— 12pm this past semester, and, unlike during the 2022 winter exam season, there were no snacks. I have nothing against Goodmans Café itself. But failing to provide free coffee and tea for students is not inevitable: it is an active choice by the Faculty. The Faculty had the opportunity to continue the free service or to further extract profit from a captive student base, and they chose the latter.

Given the exploitative nature of a paid service, the inadequacy of last semester’s free service, and the huge amount of student goodwill that bringing back free service would create, I ask the Faculty to consider implementing a new and improved free self-service. This service would ideally have:

Extended hours: Classes run until the evening, and everyone needs a late-afternoon pick-me-up. Keeping the coffee service open until 5 or 6pm would better reflect the needs of the student body.

• A variety of snacks, pre-packaged meals, and beverage additives suitable for diverse dietary needs: One complaint I have heard about the Goodmans

Café is their total lack of any plant-based milk options. A coffee service that respects students’ needs would include a suite of plantbased options.

If funding this kind of free service is, for some reason, beyond the Faculty’s means (despite how high our tuition is), I suggest they provide a “pay what you can” option. Come on, Faculty! Bring back the free bean juice!

THE GOODMANS LLP CAFÉ. CREDIT: IAN T. D. THOMSON

ISO Unsolicited Feedback

Giving reasons for grades would help improve the student experience

NAOMI CHERNOS (3L)

I often joke that my law school grades are none of my business and have nothing to do with me. Coping mechanism aside, there’s some truth to this.

After all, we attend classes, do readings (sometimes), and take notes for four months, and then pour that into an exam or paper in a stress-induced trance, cross our fingers and wait. A month or so later, we are awarded a strange letter label, and nothing else.

Those letters, representing where you fell on a curve of students relative to the class, don’t tell you much about the quality of your exam or paper or where you went wrong. In short, they won’t actually help you learn. Without receiving actual feedback, even if students have the option of approaching their professors directly, student learning is inevitably falling through the gaps.

back does, in fact, have a meaningful impact on student success. I can say that the clinics and moots where I have received direct feedback, instead of a grade, were more valuable learning experiences than any class. Schwarcz and Farganis found that students given feedback performed better in all their courses. Forcing students to critically analyze their own skills, instead of simply telling them where they placed on a curve, promotes their acquisition of legal skills, beyond “teaching to the test.” It helps students learn to communicate clearly in writing, recognize legal issues, synthesize applicable legal precedent, and develop persuasive policy arguments.

This isn’t a U of T Law-specific issue, but instead, a long-standing norm of legal pedagogy. 100 percent finals with little to no offered feedback, either after the exam or throughout the semester has long been identified as an issue that law schools ought to work to change for the sake of their students as noted by

Daniel Schwarcz and Dion Farganis in

the Journal

of Legal Education

In law school, at least theoretically, we’re supposed to be learning, not just the law, but wider skills that help us “think like lawyers.” Most of our classes, even if they are built around different topics, revolve around common skills that we could improve upon when given specific individualized feedback.

Studies have shown that individual feed -

While the Faculty, to their credit, have begun increasing tiered assignments in the first year, and have placed some emphasis on providing feedback in 1L students’ small group class and Legal Research and Writing, there seems to be the understanding that after first year, law students are primarily on their own, and individual feedback is not the norm, but an appreciated exception. Although law school is a three-year endeavour, the attitude appears to be that after the first year, students are done acquiring legal skills and are now simply waiting to meet the bar requirements. While I’ll admit that this is a controversial take, upper-year students should also be learning. Promoting a cultural shift towards reasons for grades would help promote this.

Giving reasons for grades would also be beneficial to student mental health. Studies have shown, unsurprisingly, that law students

have higher rates of anxiety and depression than the general population. One possible cause is our grading system. When grades rest entirely on a single final curved against classmates, this diminishes students’ sense of academic self-efficacy and the sense that they have the ability to exert control over outcomes. Academic self-efficacy is important to a student's ability to master new concepts and guard against the mental health problems that disproportionately plague law students. In Kathryne M. Young’s article with the Fordham Law Review, students surveyed across 36 law schools consistently mentioned that relying on curved assessments makes them feel that it never matters how well they know the material in any absolute sense, but only how well they know it compared to their peers. As we know, nothing good comes from comparing yourself to others. Giving students reasons for grades would promote the sense that grades aren’t arbitrary, but actually based on factors they have control over.

Yes, we do have the ability to get feedback once we ask for it, but this places the burden on students to approach a professor, which is nerve-wracking. It’s also not unheard of for professors to overlook requests or refuse them outright. I appreciate that as law students, we are expected to advocate for ourselves, but this can become exhausting. Furthermore, as our Governing Council Academic Appeals Committee recognized in 2020, procedures that put the onus on students to request help disproportionately impact students from historically disadvantaged backgrounds. As the

law school claims that they are working for a “culture of compassion,” no longer forcing students to fight for feedback seems like a simple first step.

I’m sensitive to the fact that this would create work for professors. However, we could assume that most professors are already following a rubric or standardized scale and are thus likely already giving reasons for grades, but students are not being provided with them. This would, if nothing else, promote a more thoughtful, standard approach to grading. Reasons for grades would also not need to be provided alongside the initial grade release on a student’s transcript, but afterward, alleviating the burden on our long-suffering Records Office. At more than $33,000 a year, it’s hard to argue that we haven’t earned some kind of feedback from our professors.

I appreciate that not every student is going to want explanations and that this would increase the workload on professors and administration, but the current standard promotes a sense of opacity and arbitrariness about grades that not only negatively impacts student health, but feeds into the idea that law school is simply a three-year waiting period for a career, rather than an institution of higher education. We like to claim that we’re a leading academic institution. Shouldn’t we be doing what we can to help students learn?

Legal Journalism: P (No reasons given, or in this case, needed)

Falling Recklessly Into the “Death Spiral”

The TTC’s budget ignores the far-reaching and severe impacts of service cuts

ALISHA KRISHNA (3L)

In 2017, I was a somewhat regular user of Line 2 of the TTC. I distinctly remember the day we suddenly found Line 1 cars adorned with stickers proclaiming their newly won “Transit of the Year” award. By 2018, a UK-based survey found that the TTC was the sixth worst for average commute time globally. A study in 2022 found that TTC commuters have some of the longest—and farthest—commutes among large cities in North America.

The stickers from 2017 were removed within a year, but you can still see their traces on train cars today. Bad service remains a consistent and very public complaint among riders of the TTC. The situation demands an explanation for the TTC’s 2023 budget, including service cuts of nine percent and a 10-cent increase in subway fare. The City Council approved this budget on Wednesday, February 15.

In the 1990s, Toronto found itself in the midst of a devastating recession. Unemployment rose, and fewer people had a workday commute. In response, ridership and fare revenue dropped.

The City cut TTC service out of desperation. With the benefit of hindsight, we now know that it took nearly two decades for the TTC to recover its ridership. Transit experts call this a “death spiral,” and the lesson was clear: reducing service in response to decreasing ridership irreversibly compromises the public’s trust in transit.

people in this city. At the City Council meeting on February 15, TTC staff said that they would only make minor reductions to service in the form of increasing waiting time without eliminating routes. But, as explained during deputations at the TTC Board meeting on January 9, any service reductions have elevated impacts on equity-seeking groups.

Deputants remarked that people need transit to access services such as food banks. Low-income workers need reliable transit services outside of “peak” times. Speakers with accessibility needs reported that they already have difficulty accessing a bus with available accessible seating; an extended wait time between buses means fewer chances to actually be able to take transit. Speakers argued that the issue with service reduction is not only increased waiting time but reliability; less-frequent service during nighttime hours poses heightened safety risks, particularly for women and queer riders.

The sting of these service cuts hurts more given the TTC’s “safety” plan and corresponding increases in other budget line items. The TTC plans to hire 20 Community Safety Ambassadors and ten new Streets to Homes workers to direct houseless people to resources, as available. However, they also plan to increase the number of special constables on the TTC by filling 25 vacant positions and hiring 25 new special constables. Finally, they will hire 50 security guards who will be given “advanced training”

in nonviolent crisis intervention.

No one questions the need to make the TTC safer, especially in light of recent events. However, critics point to the ways this budget is selfdefeating. The emphasis, they say, is to move away from reactive, punitive solutions and address the underlying causes of violence. Special constables and security guards do not keep us safe but instead threaten the safety of, in particular, Black and Indigenous riders.

In her comments on the budget, Shelagh Pizey-Allen of the advocacy group TTCriders criticized the TTC’s plan for conflating people experiencing homelessness with violence. As a consequence, the TTC’s outreach workers mainly offer housing support. The task of de-escalating mental health crises is now the responsibility of specially-trained security guards. Using enforcement here is additionally confusing, given the recent and promising success of the City’s Community Crisis Service program as a viable alternative.

Decreased ridership flowing from service cuts deters people from taking transit for fear of being alone and makes transit more unsafe for those without an alternative. Counsellor Jon Burnside, Chair of the TTC Board, commented that the recent violence was a result of “society’s problems migrating onto the transit system.”

The TTC’s plan fails to realize that people use public transit to access their employment, medical care, and community supports that can miti -

gate these problems. Cutting service, therefore, makes these problems worse.

The budget passed during the City Council meeting on February 15. In light of the truncated 14-day review period and the shadow of ex-Mayor John Tory’s “strong mayor” powers, public discussion has been brief but passionate. Because it is so central to everyone’s lives, people care deeply about the state of their public transit.

However, there is so much we still do not know. Pizey-Allen says that we do not know why the TTC Board budgeted for safety in the way it did, or whether this funding will come from the TTC or the City’s budget. During the City Council meeting on February 15, Counsellor Alejandra Bravo received no definite answer regarding exactly which routes will be cut and only received vague promises that they used an “equity lens” to plan service reductions.

It is frustrating that these decisions were made contrary to the lived experience of those most affected as well as the advice of experts. The resulting budget reflects the TTC Board’s misplaced priorities and short-sighted policy.

I hope that the harm which will be caused by the TTC’s plan can be mitigated during the next budget cycle. In the meantime, we must throw our support behind the numerous community organizations that force politicians to understand that they must invest in healthy and safe communities. This starts with our public transit.

In Beer Veritas: Is It Worth It?

These three pubs are worth it at three different price points

ALEX FOULGER-FORT (2L), JEREMY JINGWEI (2L), AND ANDREW PARKER (2L)

It’s the Craft Beer Club’s inaugural Ultra Vires column…and we’re here to answer the age-old question: is it worth it? We did the hard work drinking from three different pubs at three different price points to give you our “Worth It Winners.”

The “I Have Money to Burn” Option

Alex Foulger-Fort (2L) Bar Volo, 17 St. Nicholas Street

The Toonie Option

Jeremy Jingwei (2L)

W Burger Bar, 10 College Street

Of TikTok fame, W Burger Bar sits at Yonge Street and College Street and is certainly the most cost-effective option. Where else can you get $2 glasses (albeit not full pints) or $10 pitchers of PBR? The beer is cold and cheap, making it an excellent post-study group hangout spot! With domestic tuition rising to $33,040 for the 2022–23 academic year, saving a few

The Mid-Range Option

Andrew Parker (2L)

Prenup Pub, 191 College Street

Prenup is, without a doubt, the single most incredible mid-range bar within walking distance of the Faculty of Law. Like a jukebox in a small-town bar, they’ve got all the classics, boasting a pages-long beer list that includes offerings from Ontario, Germany, Belgium, Italy, France, the Czech Republic, and more. If

dollars here and there certainly doesn’t hurt. However, if you’re dead set on drinking only craft beer, I might skip this option given the complete lack of craft beer representation on the pub’s menu. That couldn’t be me though, considering I’m a self-proclaimed endorser of the motto “quantity over quality.”

P.S. Be prepared to wait if you don’t have a reservation (thanks, TikTok)

you enjoy a sweeter beer (i.e., a beer that isn’t really a beer at all), try the Fruli Strawberry. Made from “one-year-old oak-aged lambic & pure cherry juice,” it’s essentially an alcoholic fruit punch.

Prenup also has an excellent schnitzel—a must for any ostensibly German bar. Whether you’re flush with student loan cash or surviving on a diet of chickpeas and hardtack, Prenup offers an inviting atmosphere and a beer to fit any budget.

At the upper end of the price scale, Bar Volo has—in my objective opinion—the best craft beer bar in Toronto. The menu features a beer for every letter of the alphabet (you order by the letter), all from within Ontario. Bar Volo also carries a rotating selection of cask ales, a rarity in North America. A number of the beers across the menu come from Bar Volo’s brewery, which operates in conjunction with the bar itself and can be bought in cans to take home. The bar has a European-style atmosphere with dim lighting and tightly-packed seating. Ordering occurs at the bar, often becoming crowded later in the evening. This socially-conducive atmosphere is a welcome change from the table-service model of bars that many of us are accustomed to. Bar Volo also has a sister location called Birreria Volo, located on College Street in Little Italy.

At McMillan, you will be at the driver's seat of your own career. From developing a niche practice area to interacting directly with clients, you will have an unparalleled degree of responsibility and freedom at a Firm that champions diversity, collegiality, and entrepreneurship.

Victor Kim Associate, Employment & Labour Relations

INSIDE W BURGER BAR. CREDIT: W BURGER BAR

FOOD AND DRINK AT PRENUP PUB. CREDIT: PRENUP PUB

Announcing the Bora Laskin Law Library’s 6th Annual Poetry Contest Winners

Another year of outstanding student poets

ALEXIA LOUMANKIS, REFERENCE & RESEARCH LIBRARIAN (BORA LASKIN LAW LIBRARY)

Our Annual Poetry Contest is one of the library’s favourite initiatives. We love that it encourages creativity and diversion in an environment that is often very stressful and that students from each of the law school’s programs participate. While we very much appreciate the time and effort it takes to write a poem, we’re most grateful for the mettle required to submit it for others to read and judge.

Once again, we were impressed with all of the

poems submitted and selecting the top three was very difficult. This year, first prize goes to Samar Moghal (1L) for Greatness; second prize goes to Abbey Butler (2L) for Untitled; and third prize goes to Emily Chu (1L) for Ode to the Upper Years

Congratulations!

Thank you to all those that entered a poem in the contest. We value your creativity and participation.

Until next year.

Greatness

I have always been told

I am destined for greatness

But what is greatness if everyone is great

What is greatness but suppressing my mistakes

Is there greatness in failing to learn

Will I find it while yearning for more

Is greatness a grade

a salary or trade

Is greatness a will an ethic or fate

Is greatness a quality of using my days

Or is greatness an existence of meaningful weight

Is greatness a reality or just in my head

Is greatness nothing more then to work myself dead?

By Samar Moghal (1L)

L TO R: EMILY CHU (1L), ABBEY BUTLER (2L), AND SAMAR MOGHAL (1L). CREDIT: IAN T. D. THOMSON

Untitled

Late at the library, the last student there, Closed up my laptop—I’m free for the night. More time at the fishbowl I simply can’t bear But what I saw next gave me a great fright!

A pile of work built up at the door

More pieces were falling, blocking my path.

I tried to leap out but there kept coming more Law school was showing its might and its wrath.

The pile was made of textbooks and case law, 10am deadlines and readings past due.

I thought, enough!—this is the last straw, And yet the work continued to accrue.

Law review articles 50 pages long

Racing before study room bookings fill

Threats of getting the Prof’s question wrong

A statute, a treatise, a Parliament bill

Cases about who gets to claim the fox

Contracts about selling oats, old and new

How to convince those in the jury box

Drinks with snails in them for which someone sued

Oh, I’m tired of studying federalism

How I dream of a day off, to go to the spa

Soon I’ll sell out into capitalism

All of this just to get trapped in Big Law

With this mountain of work I will never be free

I can’t stand the thought I’ll never meet perfection. They’ve taken away the free coffee and tea, And my schedule’s awful (thanks a lot, course selection!)

Just as I carried too many a worry

I called up my friends to come help dig me out.

They answered my prayer and rushed out in a hurry

They all brought their shovels; told me not to pout

We dug our way out with some group study laughs

Got some free pizza from that club’s law session

Split up our readings to share paragraphs

Went to office hours, answered all my questions

With buckets of coffee to keep us awake, And sport intramurals to lessen the stress, It sometimes does feel like there’s so much at stake

It might not be perfect, but we know it’s our best

Exam puzzle tables and word searches too, We locked eyes over carrels, cozy in the stacks. Law school is tough but we’ll make it through, Thank god for my friends, ‘cause they’ve all got my back.

After not so long, the mountain was cleared. Down Philosopher’s Walk with all my good mates, We chose to unwind with a couple quick beers. See you tomorrow—library at 8?

By Abbey Butler (2L)

Ode to the Upper Years

The path is distressingly clear, I’m petrified at the thought of progress. Faltering on such a path, there is no one to blame but me.

Yet footsteps adorn the hallowed ground ahead, ancient beings have tread this earth before.

Is it too much to ask for Their memories? What about Their eyes?

For They have seen the stars dance, the seas part, the forests kill, and mountains tear themselves asunder.

A single orb rolls toward me, my request has been granted.

Perhaps as a gift, perhaps as a warning.

It is hard not to grow fond of Their ancient eye, for it fits snug in my socket.

Heaven seems a little closer, the earth a little more stable, I see the light They once saw, only a little dimmer.

And I can see inside my brain, when I roll it into the back of my head.

Can wisdom be found, within this pitiful slumber?

But the path I embark is still a lonely one, for I remain deaf to Their voices.

And I still keep mine own eye in my pocket just in case, for the world turns in mysterious ways.

By Emily Chu (1L)

Prompt: write a Haiku about the University of Toronto Faculty of Law

Law books pile high Stare decisis echoes loud Justice seeks its path.

By ChatGPT

Editor’s Note: This text was generated by GPT-3, OpenAI’s large-scale language-generation model, where indicated. Ultra Vires takes ultimate responsibility for the content of this poem (but please don’t sue us).

ABBEY BUTLER (2L). CREDIT: IAN T. D. THOMSON

EMILY CHU (1L). CREDIT: IAN T. D. THOMSON

Gearing Up to Be Goofy! Law Follies Swiftly Approaches

A conversation with Sophie Fu (3L), one of Follies’ fearlessly funny leaders

CLAIRE BETTIO (2L)

Ultra Vires (UV): For readers who are unfamiliar with Law Follies, would you mind describing what it is?

Sophie Fu (SF): Law Follies is a beloved U of T Law tradition where, each year, students from the faculty write, direct, produce, and perform in a musical comedy show for the whole school. It’s sick: imagine a glee club mixed with a comedy troupe but packed with anxious law students yearning for some form of emotional outlet and stress relief. The show mainly revolves around poking fun at law school, the legal profession, and ourselves through acting, singing, and dancing.

UV: Could you describe what the process of putting the show together is like?

SF: The making of a Follies entails different forms of work in the fall and winter terms. In the fall, we focus on writing and host a weekly Writer’s Room, where we bounce ideas off each other and edit submitted scripts. Casting, filming, and video editing happen in the winter. Altogether, it usually takes six months to put the show together, with the busiest periods being in January and February before the show.

UV: How many students are involved with putting Law Follies on?

SF: It depends. We welcome anyone interested in getting involved and try to engage as many students as possible. Law professors are also involved in acting for Law Follies.

UV: How long have you been involved with Follies?

SF: I have been involved with Law Follies since 1L, taking on various roles such as actress, editor, and sketch director.

UV: What is your current role in Law Follies,

and what are your responsibilities?

SF: My current role is Co-Director, and I’m responsible for overseeing the filming, production, and logistics of the show, along with the executive team and other members of Follies.

UV: What is your favourite thing about Law Follies?

SF: Being part of Law Follies is so much fun! It’s always great to take a break from school, find my artistic side, and make good friends!

UV: Is there a sketch you’re most excited about in this upcoming Follies?

SF: A small spoiler alert...but I’m looking forward to a sketch about AI and tax…

UV: Do you have a favourite sketch from previous years’ Follies?

SF: There are so many! It’s hard to pick a favourite. I like the sketch called Cognomore from 2022 because it resonates with me so well.

UV: When and where is Law Follies this year?

SF: Law Follies 2023 is returning as a pre-filmed revue show and premiere night is March 16, 2023, at the Scotiabank Theatre.

UV: Finally, how can students acquire tickets, and when will they become available!?

SF: Tickets are FREE this year, but we will kindly ask students to donate to any charities if they can. We will release information on acquiring tickets in mid to late February. We can’t wait to see you there and LOL together!

Why U of T Law?

CREDIT:

Incoming exchange students share their experiences

FATIMA AAMIR (2L)

U of T Law students often complain (rightfully so) about the volume of their readings, their unrelenting schedules, and how sterile and soul-crushing the Bora Laskin Law Library can feel on a crisp Saturday morning, among many other things. But how have incoming exchange students—who come from a range of countries including the United Kingdom, Belgium, Singapore, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as from both civil and common law jurisdictions—experienced our school?

Aside from wanting to live in Toronto—a city most exchange students knew of beforehand given its size, diversity, and cultural output—for some months, students were drawn to U of T Law for its prestige and the opportunities it provided them to take courses unheard of at their home institutions. A student from Manchester, UK shared that courses about "Aboriginal policy/Indigenous rights are completely new [to me] and I've been interested in how colonialism has shaped both UK law and law around the world for a few years." Similarly, another student expressed an interest in Refugee Law as his home country of Singapore di.d not have any refugee legislation and this area of law was essentially non-existent.

Coming to U of T Law on exchange allowed students to discover new areas of law they might want to practice in, especially for those who came from institutions with rigid academic requirements that precluded them from exploring beyond the required courses. A student from London, UK explained that at her home institution, she had only one year (out of three) to choose her own modules, which—if she hadn't come on exchange—would limit her to four full-year courses. "If I hadn't gone

abroad," she reflects, "I wouldn't have taken all these different classes, and would never have found out that tax law was something I'd be interested in practicing in the future." She adds that she appreciated how many of her professors at U of T Law were practitioners themselves—a marked contrast to back home. This way, she got to learn the day-to-day realities of particular areas of law, rather than being limited to more academic or abstract perspectives.

However, despite the opportunities for intellectual growth, some exchange students have felt ignored by U of T Law and their peers. A student from Belgium admits, "I don't feel hugely integrated with most law students here—I spend almost all my time with other exchange students." It might be tempting to attribute this to the tendency for exchange students to "stick to their own," but it's important to note the genuine struggles that drive a wedge between these students and their peers.

Exchange students may experience difficulty adjusting to Canadian legal education, especially if they come from civil law jurisdictions. Some have called for organizing introductory sessions or providing resources at the start of the term to support exchange students as they familiarize themselves with the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is important to remember that U of T Law students had their entire 1L (and their two-week Legal Methods course) to get comfortable with key areas and features of Canadian law, including how to research, read, and cite case law. As exchange students will have a far steeper learning curve, it's all the more important for them to feel adequately supported.

Toronto Law Schools Compete in 2023 Legal Hackfest

Law students design a technical solution to social media’s fragmented public discourse and underrepresentation of marginalized groups

NATASHA BURMAN (3L)

On Saturday, January 21, 70 students from Toronto’s three law schools, the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, and the Lincoln Alexander School of Law, came together to design technical solutions to the 2023 Toronto Legal Hackfest problem. The event took place in person at the Centre for Social Innovation in Toronto and was led by the Faculty of Law’s Josh Morrison, the Director of the Future of Law Lab.

This year’s problem centred around fragmented public discourse on social media platforms. With the increased use of social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok as news outlets, polarized discussions and the underrepresentation of certain groups in discussions create and spread disinformation. When underrepresented groups, such as women, people of colour, the LGBTQ2S+ community, and religious minorities speak up, they face a disproportionate amount of online harassment and abuse. Students were tasked with designing creative solutions targeting this broader issue, with more specific guidance provided by assigned mentors on the day of the competition.

Students signed up individually or in pre-formed teams to participate in the Hackathon and did not need to have any previous knowledge of technology, law, business, or coding. However, some students with STEM backgrounds did incorporate actual code and technical concepts into their solutions. The competition was judged by professionals from law firms and legal technology companies, with the winning team taking home a $500 prize.

The winning team created a prototype of a social media app extension that uses natural language processing to assess all the content viewed by a user. They also presented an automated database that catalogues and reports the offending harmful content to the platform administrators. The winning team then identified the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act as the legislation that would dictate the terms of use of the app. The team created an opt-in feature users must agree to in order to access the extension. They also determined that the one-party consent rule within the Criminal Code would need to be followed if users wish to report offending content to outside authorities.

Damien Deng (2L JD/MBA), a co-organizer of the event, discussed how solving technical problems, like the one at issue at the Hackfest, can strengthen law students’ skills. “First, it helps with developing diverse perspectives. It is increasingly important for any law student to be able to understand the different aspects of an issue, legal or not. Second, by working through problems that law students are not necessarily already familiar with, they can improve their critical thinking and problem-solving skills—skills that are transferable to the study and practice of law.”

Deng also commented on the benefits law students gain from exposure to technical problems, “...as technology becomes more advanced and sophisticated, it is inevitable that law students will be required to not only work with technology but also learn how to leverage technology to solve problems more efficiently.”

Morrison views these events as a unique type of experiential learning wherein students can work with corporate or not-for-profit clients to solve challenging problems. “In law school, we tend to focus on the theoretical, and most of our practical training is solely from

a legal perspective. Hackathons and case-based workshops allow students to consider issues from a variety of angles, including strategic, operational, marketing, and public relations perspectives. Each of these areas are interconnected with law and can have a significant impact on the business. Understanding the business’ objective is critical to delivering value to your client and the lawyers that appreciate this are often the ones with the best long-term career prospects.”

Morrison hopes that students take the chance to get out of their comfort zone and try these types of sessions out, as they can be extremely helpful in understanding how the best lawyers balance mitigating risk with offering creative solutions.

If you are interested in getting involved in similar events in the future, Deng notes that the law school has many student-led organizations centred around technology that host events throughout the school year. The Legal Innovation & Technology Group (LIT), in collaboration with the Future of Law Lab and the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy, will host a multidisciplinary case competition this March. Look out for event information in the coming weeks!

Criminal Law Twitter: How to Get Started

An introduction to the indispensable tool of the criminal bar

LAUREN TEIXEIRA (3L), ON BEHALF OF CRIMINAL LAW STUDENTS’ ASSOCIATION

For most of us, Twitter is in the distant past. The same is not true for criminal lawyers, particularly the defence bar. In fact, it seems to be a regular part of their day-to-day lives. Not only is it a convenient way to network, but it is perfect for sharing professional and personal news, and useful for keeping up with the constant emerging news within the criminal law field.

When I first began my 1L summer job at a criminal defence firm, my first task (not kidding) was to create a law Twitter account. I had no idea what that meant or what it entailed at the time. But fast forward a couple of years, and I have found it to be an invaluable tool. Criminal law is constantly changing, and lawyers will always tell you that one of the most beneficial things you can do is stay up to date with current Ontario Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) cases—what they don’t tell you is how unfeasible that actually is, especially as a law student with a million other responsibilities. Law Twitter is a practical way to keep up with new case law without spending hours reading cases, as well as a way to meet and get to know lawyers in the field without spending a ton of time networking.

Lawyers utilize their accounts for different purposes. Some lawyers provide a brief overview of a recent case or identify an apparently controversial point.

Others discuss their views on current issues within the justice system, and some provide advice to students and newer calls.

If you aren’t interested in actually tweeting, you’ll be happy to know that it isn’t necessary. Many students and lawyers have accounts in which they simply view others’ thoughts and throw in the odd favourite or retweet (myself included). If you do decide to tweet, keep in mind that while it is social media, there still is a very professional aspect to it. The opinions and views that you share may impact your employer.

Getting started may seem daunting, so I have compiled a list of criminal lawyers with Twitter accounts that may be of interest to you. From there, you can seek out accounts that suit your preferences. You can find their name, Twitter handle, current employment, and what I find their Twitter account to be valuable for below.

• Chris Sewrattan: @SewrattanLaw

o Criminal defence lawyer at Sewrattan Criminal Lawyers; instructor at Lincoln Alexander School of Law

o One to two-sentence upshots of cases

• Neha Chugh: @nehachughlaw

o Criminal defence lawyer and principal at Chugh Law

o Legal insights and funny personal tweets that remind you of the other side of lawyers' lives that we often don’t see

• Lisa Kerr: @coleenlisa

o Professor at Queen’s University Faculty of Law

o Variety of tweets surrounding criminal law, including insightful commentary on cases

• Harpreet Saini: @SainiLaw

o Criminal defence lawyer and principal at Saini Law

o A mix of humour, advice, and sharing of personal experiences in criminal law

• Ryan Handlarski: @RHDefence

o Criminal defence lawyer and principal at RH Criminal Defence

o Updates on his cases and commentaries on others, along with views on current political happenings

• Peter Sankoff: @petersankoff

o Criminal defence lawyer and principal at Sankoff Criminal Law

o Commentary and sharing of podcasts/ events that benefit young legal professionals

• Chris Rudnicki: @chrisrudnicki_

o Criminal defence lawyer and principal at Rudnicki and Company

o Thought-provoking tweets about trends and cases

• Daniel Brown: @DanielBrownLaw

o Criminal defence lawyer and principal at Daniel Brown Law; Criminal Lawyers’ Association President

o Updates on cases moving through the system; also helpful for networking opportunities—he often retweets job opportunities and upcoming events

• Thomas Surmanski: @TomSurmanski

o Former criminal defence lawyer at Robichaud’s; current Assistant Crown Attorney

o Case summaries in 1-2 sentences

• Annamaria Enenajor: @AEnenajor

o Criminal defence lawyer at Ruby Shiller Enenajor DiGiuseppe, Barristers

o Interesting legal insights and updates

• Paul-Erik Veel: @PaulErikVeel

o Litigation lawyer at Lenczner Slaght LLP

o Mostly predictions of leave to appeal at the SCC

Black Law Students Across Canada Join Together in Halifax

A personal reflection on the 32nd annual BLSA National Conference

PAUL MOHAN (3L)

On February 16, Black law students from across the country descended on Halifax for the 32nd annual Black Law Students’ Association (BLSA) of Canada National Conference. Greeted by a surprisingly warm day, over 500 attendees began a threeday conference filled with social events, panels, and speeches. After the conference was held entirely online in my 1L year and a spike in COVID-19 cases during my 2L year caused me to miss the in-person

portion of the conference in Vancouver, I was excited to attend my first conference in person.

As part of a delegation from the University of Toronto—consisting of 12 current law students, a handful of recent grads, and Professor Abdi Aidid— I was appreciative of how much work has been done to try to increase Black law student representation at the Faculty.

At the first significant event in Halifax, I was

blown away to see the room full of 500 Black law students, articling students, and legal professionals representing BLSA chapters from coast to coast. Having previously been in a career with minimal Black representation, this was encouraging to see. When the conference began 32 years ago, there were only around 40 students. To know that there could have been even more this year if there were no capacity limits shows just how far Black representation has

come in the legal profession.

As we celebrate Black History Month, it is essential to remember where we have come from, but also we need to think about where we can go and what still needs to be done. The theme for the conference was “Forward & Upward—Bending the Arc towards Justice.” The theme comes from the famous Martin Luther King Jr. quote, “We shall overcome because the arc of the moral

Continued on page 14

Black Law Students Across Canada Join Together in Halifax

Continued from page 13

PAUL MOHAN (3L)

universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Multiple keynote speakers—including recently appointed Chief Justice of Ontario, Michael Tulloch—made clear the context of the quote. Originally, it was spoken by Unitarian minister Theodore Parker, an abolitionist, who knew that “bending the arc” would require some pulling. Robert Wright, Executive Director at the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute, delivered a rousing speech about this ongoing struggle and the work that still needs to be done to achieve it.

Throughout the weekend, there was a career fair as well as panels on a variety of different topics that included starting your own firm, becoming a firm partner, artificial intelligence, community advocacy, abolition, and mental health. The panel that I most enjoyed, and the one that I was glad to finally be able to take part in, was the Brother to Brother panel. It,

and the concurrent Sister to Sister panel, provided a space for very real and frank discussions about the different challenges that arise from presenting as Black in the legal space as your identified gender.

As part of the conference, there were opportunities to tour the Africville Museum and the North Preston community. The story of Africville is unfortunately not one that is well known, even within the Black Canadian community. Africville was a primarily Black community located on the outskirts of Halifax. Due to discrimination, the City of Halifax did not provide sewers, garbage disposal, or clean water access to the residents of Africville. Instead of providing the community with these services, the Halifax City Council decided instead to relocate the residents and destroyed Africville in 1980 (for more on Africville, I recommend watching the short docu-

mentary Remember Africville, which is available for free by the National Film Board of Canada).

North Preston is the largest black community by concentration in the country. Those who went on the tour spoke highly of how friendly and engaging the members of the community were. Currently, North Preston residents are fighting to gain ownership of the land that they’ve been living on for generations after their ancestors were not given clear legal title upon settling in the area hundreds of years ago.

These historical injustices are currently trying to be made right, but unfortunately, we know that discrimination is still present, a fact sadly noticed during this conference. During an off-site social at a bar that the conference had rented out, attendees of the conference were faced with an experience that is unfortunately all too familiar when they were asked to

provide two pieces of ID to enter, something that is typically not required in the city, and claims of the space reaching capacity well before they actually did, which left a long line of attendees waiting in the cold. While things were eventually sorted out, it was an unfortunate blemish on what was otherwise a wonderful weekend.

The conference was capped off with a gala event that celebrated the accomplishments of the various BLSA chapters and recognized BLSA scholarship winners. As I looked at the room of sharply dressed individuals, I was proud of what I saw. There is always going to be more work to be done in improving Black representation in the profession, but with continual efforts such as the Black Future Lawyers program at the Faculty, it is a future that I am optimistic about.

Film Review: The Legacy of John Singleton

A reflection on John Singleton’s filmography

DOMINIQUE WIGHTMAN (3L)

Visionary Black director John Singleton tragically passed away on April 28, 2019. Gone too soon at 51-years-old, Singleton’s stellar filmography remains a gift to American cinema and a poignant reminder of how much Singleton still had to give.

Singleton made history as the first Black person and youngest person ever to receive an Academy Award nomination for Best Director with his debut feature, Boyz n the Hood (1991). Boyz n the Hood instantly established the 24-year-old Singleton as an artist. As his catalogue developed, Singleton reached the status of an auteur. His signa-

ture bold and confrontational directorial style, elevated by his keen awareness of contemporary and historical Black culture, projected confidence and sophistication into almost every frame of his films.

Some accuse Singleton of being heavy-handed, but his films deal with heavy issues—familial and romantic love, pedagogical culture wars, right-wing radicalization, and the harsh realities of young Black people in America. Most importantly, though, Singleton’s films celebrate life in communities that were unfairly portrayed and judged by his contemporaries. Singleton shows

us the beauty in the ghetto and is proud of his South Central Los Angeles heritage.

While most effectively displayed in the masterful Baby Boy (2001), Singleton’s love for the ghetto is equally raw and compelling in his maligned sophomore effort Poetic Justice (1993). Starring Janet Jackson and Tupac Shakur—another visionary Black artist lost too soon—Poetic Justice was largely misunderstood by critics at the time, who failed to appreciate the nuance and cultural depth Singleton brought to the road movie genre. Singleton captured the emotional highs and lows of romance in the ghetto through flavourful set

Gardiner Museum Review

UV visits our other friendly neighbourhood museum

LUKA KNEZEVIC (2L)

The Gardiner Museum is a ceramics-focused museum located just a three-minute walk from the Faculty of Law. Although smaller and less known than its neighbour, the Royal Ontario Museum, the Gardiner Museum still provides an experience that is worthwhile for anyone interested in art or history, especially when you consider that students visit for free. The museum features numerous collections, but our review focuses on Karine Giboulo’s Housewarming, the “European Porcelain of the 18th and Early 19th Centuries” collection, and the “Ancient Americas” collection.

Karine Giboulo: Housewarming

A temporary exhibition that will run until May 7, Housewarming provides a social commentary on the pandemic, consumerism, and human attitudes toward nature, through tiny clay polymer figurines. The Montreal artist also blends in personal pieces describing her own life, including her ankylosing spondylitis diagnosis. She placed the pieces strategically amongst the canvas, which is fittingly spread out and takes the form of a house. Take, for instance, Morning Self-Portrait (2022), where the artist’s image is sculpted into a polymer figurine, and trapped in a coffee pot in the kitchen. Such a placement invites the viewer to consider Giboulo’s interpretation of caffeine dependence and

addiction, and relates to an idea that is so entrenched in our society. While the metaphors range in subtlety, each provides a unique look into specific behaviours and attitudes that permeate society. Specifically, the pandemic-related artworks highlight the devastating impact of COVID-19. The pieces detailing Giboulo’s personal life underscore themes of mortality, disability, and the overarching notion of life. Overall, the exhibit is an excellent reframing of serious themes using toy-like clay figurines. While it can be challenging to position one’s self close enough, or in some cases low enough, to the work in order to get the best possible view, it is undoubtedly worth it.

European Porcelain Collection

The European Porcelain Collection provides a historical retelling of Europe’s passion for porcelain that began centuries ago. This “porcelain fever” broke out in the Netherlands and started a craze for imported porcelain from China and Japan. Due to Asia’s early mastery, many European makers subsequently “borrowed” the same styles. The Gardiner Museum does an excellent job of making this point clear by placing the European Porcelain Collection close to Chinese and Japanese ceramics. Overall, this collection provides an excellent physical record of the porcelain trade

as well as commentary on the influence of global trade.

Ancient Americas Collection

The Ancient Americas Collection is, in my mind, the most diverse collection. The array of styles—both art style and ceramic type—are notable. For instance, there are figurines depicting men, women, and children, as well as more functional artifacts, such as an incense burner or face mask. The collection provides a detailed look into the historical cultures of Mesoamerica, the American Southwest, Andean cultures, and intermediate areas. The use of photographs in the background of these sculptures helps orient the viewer and provides a useful reminder of the diverse terrain that exists throughout the Americas. This collection allows the viewer to appreciate the sophistication of the high cultures that existed for millennia prior to the arrival of Europeans.

Closing Remarks

The Gardiner Museum is great for spending an afternoon or a break between classes. The museum’s collections help one learn about historical and contemporary experiences and cultures. The museum also provides hands-on opportunities for aficionados, which is high on our list of reasons for wanting to visit again soon.

design and innovative cinematography—particularly his up-close shots of his lead superstars, which gave audiences a profound sense of intimacy with celebrities from whom we all too often feel disconnected.

Singleton produced, wrote, and directed other fantastic films, including the aforementioned Baby Boy and the gripping, righteously infuriating Rosewood (1997). Higher Learning (1995), like Poetic Justice, is worthy of critical reexamination. Collectively, Singleton’s filmography has cemented his legacy as a visionary, if woefully underappreciated, Black artist.

KARINE GIBOULO’S MORNING SELF-PORTRAIT, 2022. CREDIT: LUKA KNEZEVIC

By Jason Quinn (1L)

R IGHTS R EVIEW

The International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law

An independent student-led publication

2022–23 Rights Review Editorial Board

Co-Editors-in-Chief: Martha Côté (3L) and Julianne Schmidt (2L)

Senior Editors: Duncan Crabtree (2L) and Ally Mastantuono (2L)

Junior Editors: Fatima Aamir (2L), Hannah Beltran (1L), and Vidit Desai (1L)

Online Editor: Jason Quinn (1L)

COMPETITION AND CONFLICT BANNING RUSSIAN ATHLETES FROM THE OLYMPICS

It has been over a year since Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, and international efforts to navigate the conflict without escalating it have produced a number of controversies. While some of these issues raise novel concerns, the movement to ban Russian athletes from participating in the 2024 Paris Olympics is reminiscent of a longer history of Olympic diplomacy. To this day, the Olympics continue to serve as an arena responding to geopolitical tensions and human rights concerns surrounding the actions of participating states. Their history provides some insight into the possible impact of banning Russia from participating in the 2024 Games, but questions remain about the legal implications of such a ban. The Olympics provide a uniquely publicized opportunity to make a statement, with more than 2 billion people having watched the most recent games in Beijing. While apolitical in theory, the Olympics have been a forum for political statements on numerous occasions. The Council on Foreign Relations, a foreign policy think tank based in the United States, reports that athletes have used the Olympics as a stage for political demonstration from as early as 1906. Protests by participating athletes come to mind. The Olympics have also been repeatedly subject to boycotts and exclusions stemming from geopolitical issues throughout history. For example, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) did not invite defeated states following the World Wars to participate. During the Cold War, the Games were riddled with boycotts by Eastern and Western allies. Yugoslavia was excluded from the 1992 Summer Games in Barcelona as a part of sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council for acts of aggression against BosniaHerzegovina. Perhaps the most glaring example of an Olympics ban tied to a state’s human rights violations took place in 1964, when the IOC banned South Africa from more than 12 Olympic competitions over apartheid. Most recently, calls to boycott the 2022 Beijing Olympics gained traction in response to the Uyghur genocide.

Russia is no stranger to being excluded from the games in some capacity—it is currently coming out of a four-year ban tied to a doping scandal, which took effect in 2019. While the Russian team was not able to formally participate, Russian athletes were allowed to compete under the banner of the “Russian Olympic Committee.” The difference with current calls to ban Russia from Paris 2024 is that it would prevent all Russian athletes from competing in any form. Restricting participation by athletes based on their nationality creates new problems for athletes, states, and the IOC. Banning athletes is not a new phenomenon, but the inherently political nature of complete national bans in response to human rights abuses warrants additional considerations. While the IOC must worry about the social, political, and economic ramifications of either allowing or excluding Russia from the games, a ban also poses legal

questions rooted in the Olympic Charter (“the Charter”). The fundamental principles of Olympism outlined in the Charter arguably suggest contradictory courses of action. On the one hand, the second fundamental principle of the Charter promotes a "peaceful society concerned with human dignity." This can hardly be reconciled with inaction in the face of human rights violations. However, sanctions against athletes from states engaging in such conduct would likely run afoul of the fifth principle, which prescribes “political neutrality” by the Olympic Movement. Ideally, when such apparent contradictions in the Charter pose a problem in practice, these would be resolved by bringing a claim to a specialized forum like the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which was initially intended to respond to legal controversies tied to the Olympics.

Athletes with legal grievances pertaining to the Olympics must submit their dispute to the CAS, which has an ad hoc division to deal with the Olympic games. The Olympic ad hoc division arbitrates disputes pursuant to the Olympic Charter, and other applicable regulations. By adhering to

section 59 of the Olympic Charter, for example, the CAS would be likely to uphold a ban enacted by the IOC, even if it is conditional. Moreover, recent CAS decisions confirm that the requirement to compete as a neutral athlete, with limited national indicators, is not contrary to human rights.

Still, according to a report by law students Tim Matthews, Kara McKay, and Tanveer Hussain, the CAS is less bound to rigid precedential decisionmaking. Therefore, even though past jurisprudence has tended to support the inclusion of all athletes in the Olympics—at least as neutral participants—the CAS would likely rule in favour of a ban supported by the IOC under the Charter. However, there must be a dispute for the CAS to get involved. The IOC has announced their support for the participation of Russian athletes as neutrals in the 2024 Olympics, making a CAS appeal from individual athletes unlikely.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC), for its part, has already permanently banned Russian and Belarusian Paralympic teams from competition for their national roles in the invasion of

Ukraine. The Russian Paralympic Committee did not compete in the 2022 Beijing Olympics. It sought an appeal at the CAS, but IPC rules do not include an arbitration clause, which prevented the action from moving forward in that particular forum. However, the IOC is distinct from the IPC, and may be less willing to take a similarly forceful stance against the human rights violations committed by Russia in Ukraine.

For now, the 2024 Olympics are fast approaching, and with no end to the Ukraine war in sight, Russia’s participation in the Paris Games remains uncertain. If exclusion from the Games could in fact offer a legal sanction to denounce human rights violations, an aggressor state acting in violation of international law is a suitable target for a reprimand. Yet the IOC currently remains supportive of Russian participation, to the extent that it has not yet acted to exclude it from upcoming games. Though the Committee has not indicated that it will pronounce itself on the issue anytime soon, the coming months will undoubtedly give rise to more cries to ban Russia from competition in Paris and perhaps legal action.

THE RUSSIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE AT THE OPENING CEREMONY FOR THE 2022 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES. CREDIT: AP PHOTO/JAE C. HONG

INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT THE NET-ZERO OBSTACLE NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT

By Alex Foulger-Fort (2L)

Why are governments around the world failing to enact climate change legislation? For many governments, one reason is that they worry about the prospect of lawsuits from transnational corporations and foreign investors. Under the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms contained in most of the world’s free-trade agreements (FTAs) and bilateral investment treaties (BITs), transnational investors can sue national governments in private arbitral tribunals over policies and legislation that they believe reduce the value of their investments in that country. This has become a hotly contested issue in trade and investment circles, but the issue must now become part of the public discourse surrounding climate change.

FTAs and BITs generally contain several protections for foreign direct investment to encourage the inflow of foreign capital. These protections generally seek to ensure the equitable treatment of different investors and a certain degree of stability in the host country’s regulatory environment. When foreign investors believe that a host government has enacted legislation or taken certain regulatory action that jeopardizes the value of their investment (like cancelling a mining permit), they may be entitled to trigger the ISDS clause and compel the host nation to participate in investor-state arbitration, bypassing the domestic court system. Some commentators argue that the threat of ISDS proceedings has

imposed a “regulatory chill” upon many national governments, stultifying domestic climate action and preventing states from meeting their climate obligations under the Paris Agreement.

In fact, many recent suits commenced under the ISDS mechanism have been about climate action. A 2021 report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) found that the fossil fuel industry is “the most litigious industry in the ISDS system,” responsible for almost 20 percent of all known ISDS cases. But the problem spans industries. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that between 1987 and 2021, investors brought 175 claims in relation to measures governments had taken for the protection of the environment. These are high numbers relative to the number of ISDS claims submitted per year. The 2021 IISD report found that the number of arbitration cases per year has risen from an average of 4.1 between 1972 and 1999, to an average of 53 per year between 2000 and 2020.

The growing prevalence of these cases is the tip of the iceberg. Investors frequently demand billions in compensation, amounts which would cripple many nations. Based on available data from UNCTAD and the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, since 1995, investors have “brought claims demanding at least $195 billion and won awards totalling at least $73.2 billion.”

The average award in fossil fuel cases is over USD$600 million, almost five times the average amount awarded in non-fossil fuel cases. To make matters worse for states, investors have succeeded in 72 percent of cases at the merits stage.

In adjudicating these matters, it appears as though arbitral tribunals have consistently failed to adequately incorporate climate-related considerations into their decision-making. For example, in a dispute arising out of Costa Rica’s expropriation of an investor’s biodiversity-rich land for the purposes of conservation, the tribunal held that “the purpose of protecting the environment for which the Property was taken does not alter the legal character of the taking for which adequate compensation must be paid.”

Investor-state tribunals are creatures of the international investment law (IIL) regime. They are designed specifically to address investment-related issues and disputes which arise under the terms of FTAs and BITs. As a result, arbitrators are often not equipped to handle ‘external’ issues relating to the environment, human rights, or sustainable development.

From a legal perspective, the ISDS system is riddled with controversy. First, the system allows private parties to bring an action against a state without first exhausting local remedies (i.e., the national justice system), a customary rule of international law. It is unclear why foreign investors should be exempt from this

rule. Moreover, international tribunals often work on a confidential basis (many decisions and awards are not published), escape public attention, and usually refuse to allow third parties such as NGOs from intervening to provide a neutral or specialized perspective.

Second, arbitrators often employ very strict interpretations of contractual/treaty provisions in line with the principles of IIL. From an international law perspective, IIL is seen as a “self-contained” regime; the regime largely operates according to its own principles and rules, with little influence from other international regimes (such as international environmental law), or even international legal norms and customary rules. This often leads to myopic interpretations of treaty provisions, even where the language is more explicitly designed to protect the regulatory power of states. This conflicts with the push against self-contained (or ‘fragmented’) regimes in the international law sphere. The argument goes that in an age of concurrent global crises, which require coordinated solutions, legal regimes ought to collaborate and be subject to international norms relating to environmental protection and human rights.

Third, many ISDS decisions can be read as showing blatant disregard for state sovereignty and states’ right to regulate within their jurisdiction. Can treaty-based investment protections trump the right of a state to legislate within its own public policy arena? The apparent bias in favour of investment protection may be partially attributable to the myopic interpretations described above, but the treaties themselves may also be to blame. Many FTAs and BITs provide little explicit protection for states’ right to regulate, tilting the scales in investors’ favour.

In this view, ISDS clearly poses a problem. To the extent that the system imposes a regulatory chill upon states, it does so with questionable legal legitimacy. The question then becomes, what should be done? There are a number of calls for reform. The majority of these proposals call for new treaty language with more explicit protections for states. One commentator, Gus Van Harten of Osgoode Hall Law School, has also proposed incorporating an environmental “carve-out” in such treaties, meaning that ISDS cannot be applied to environmental disputes. Others have focused on the fragmentation issue, and discussed ways in which arbitrators could incorporate environmental considerations into their interpretive analysis.

However, we should also be asking whether it is desirable for investor-state tribunals to resolve climate change disputes. Should these creatures of the IIL regime have jurisdiction over issues that are clearly beyond their mandate and expertise? Perhaps these disputes should be resolved by an international tribunal dedicated to climate change issues. Such an institution would itself raise a number of concerns, but it seems unlikely that environmental considerations will ever be given equal footing with investment considerations while the latter has home field advantage.

Bottom line: ISDS is rarely cited in mainstream discussions as a major barrier to climate action, but that must change. Revisiting the current arbitration model is imperative to thaw the regulatory chill.

CREDIT: CHARLIE RIEDEL/AP FILE

Intra Vires

Totally real news from a sleep-deprived Faculty of Law

AMY KWONG (2L) AND FIEVEL LIM (2L)

Despite cost increases for coffee, survey shows no decrease in overall student body caffeine levels

On February 1, the Goodmans LLP Café opened its (metaphorical) doors for the first time in years, replacing the free coffee and tea program. Despite the fact that a cup of coffee costs around $2, an initial survey indicated that students remain just as caffeinated, if not more than before. Superfans were spotted at Goodmans up to three times a day to get their much-needed fix, while other students have ventured away from Jackman to more popular coffee chains. Whatever it takes…

Lecturers for 6–8pm classes collaborate to create soothing sleepcasts

Professors who teach classes from 6–8pm have a new side hustle: recording and distrib -

uting sleepcasts to tired students in need of a good night’s sleep. The sleepcasts, modeled after those found on the Headspace app, feature gentle lectures over ambient noises such as rain sounds, ocean waves, and crackling fireplaces. “Sometimes I still have some energy at the end of the day, but once I hear my professor’s voice, I can instantly feel myself drifting off,” commented a student. Popular sleepcast topics include intellectual property, securities regulation, legal ethics, and family law.

Reading Week exodus

Ahh, it’s finally that time of year, reading week! You may have seen less and less of your friends in the preceding weeks, but no doubt they were gone last week to someplace warm— the Carribean cruise they’ve been muttering

about, maybe. Classes with no attendance requirement have seen a skyrocketing of, well, … no attendance, and word on the street has it that the most popular courses anticipated next year are those without this pesky requirement. I can Zoom in from Bali, right?

Justice Rosie Abella Fanclub opens annual membership registration

After the wildly successful Students in Conversation with Justice Abella event, the official Justice Rosie Abella Fanclub has opened membership registration for the year. Fans of Justice Abella can register to officially become a “Bella” until the end of 2023. Bellas will receive a membership card and early access to tickets for future Justice Abella events, including the upcoming Rational Connection event during Oakes Week. Those who purchase Supreme

Court status membership will also receive a welcome package that includes an exclusive photobook, an acrylic keychain, and three random photocards. Hurry, memberships are limited and WILL sell out!

Are you Law Bawling or Law Balling?

Law Ball tickets have seen a significant increase in price this year, a whopping 30 percent increase from last year. Inflation really hitting hard, eh? Students burned by the long lines, mid-tier music, and grumpy bartenders of Lawllywood might be opting out of a risky gamble this year, but others are all in—what’s another hundred or two out of the line of credit when you’re in LAWS VEGAS? Maybe it’s time to hit up that trust fund baby you met last year in Crim. There’s no property division after a shotgun wedding…right?

The Ultra Vires Cartoon Caption Contest

U of T Law Considering Releasing Students' Grades Only After They Graduate Secret documents show plan to withhold students’ grades as long as possible

LUKA KNEZEVIC (2L)

A source close to the Faculty of Law Records Office has provided Ultra Vires (UV) with confidential documents that outline the Faculty’s plan to delay the release of students’ grades until after graduation. The documents describe the plan as motivated by three key factors: to promote “equity” between the years, to implement an innovative and confusing strategy that will cement the Faculty’s place atop Canadian and international law school rankings, and to limit the amount of feedback that professors have to give to students.

Firstly, many 1L students this year expresed dismay at the late grade release, saying that it was extremely stressful to receive

grades so close to the deadline for the 1L recruit. The Faculty has recognized that the late grade release stress was unduly concentrated onto the 1Ls. The documents claim that this new plan will “increase stress levels significantly for 2Ls and 3Ls.'' The Faculty claims this would demonstrate the law school’s commitment to equity and equality, “because everyone will suffer equally.”

Secondly, the documents state that “only the top law school in Canada would dare implement such a record-breaking, innovative, and untried method.” This completely unsupported statement is followed by 33 pages of different Faculty members thanking each other for being brave and working

Panic! At The City Hall

Mayor John Tory takes a crack at Rob Ford’s scandalous legacy

S.J. MARTIN (2L)

On Friday, February 10, Toronto Mayor John Tory publicly admitted to having an affair with a staffer. How scandalous! Tory, the 68-year-old silver fox, stated that the unlikely pair began their tryst during the COVID-19 pandemic, with their storied romance ending earlier this year. According to Tory, he and the 31-year-old staffer mutually decided to part ways, with Tory describing the development of the relationship as a “serious error in judgment.” Tory proceeded to apologize to his family, including his wife of over 40 years, and the city of Toronto, claiming to be “deeply sorry” for his actions. Tory officially resigned on Friday, February 17.

John Tory famously succeeded Toronto’s sweetheart, the late Rob Ford, as mayor in 2014. Ford paved the way for mayoral scandals after a cellphone video of him smoking crack cocaine in one of his finest white button-down shirts surfaced online. News of Tory’s affair came a mere 3,384 days after Ford (may he rest in peace) publicly confirmed the video’s contents. Tory had big shoes to fill—lest we forget the late mayor’s stint on Jimmy Kimmel Live! . In 2013, after Ford claimed to have smoked crack in a “drunken stupor,” he selflessly declared that he would not be stepping down as mayor “for the sake of the taxpayers.” Put simply, Ford walked so Tory could run. Unlike Ford, who was notably “happily married… [with] more than enough to eat at home,” Tory evidently was not; instead, he found himself in the warm embrace of a 31-yearold staffer.

After winning the 2014 mayoral election, Tory (ironically) promised to unite a city divided by scandal and vowed to restore Toronto’s international reputation. Tory’s legacy centres largely on his affinity for the TTC—which includes rendering much of Eglinton Avenue unusable and a startling recent uptick in TTC violence. Admittedly, in preparation for this article, I found myself scouring the internet in an attempt to discern what exactly Tory has done during his tenure, save his unfortunate engagement with the TTC. I stumbled upon the “About Mayor John Tory” page on the City of Toronto’s website, where Tory has purportedly “worked to build the city up as a global hub for technology and innovation.” Perhaps that’s a stretch? Anyhow, I, like many Torontonians, look forward to the completion of the Eglinton line and riding alongside an increased police presence.

The question becomes: who will succeed John Tory as mayor, and what might their legacy be? This process is governed by the City of Toronto Act . Following a mayoral resignation, City Council must declare the mayor’s seat vacant at the next meeting. Within 60 days of this declaration, City Council must pass a by-law requiring a by-election be held to fill the vacancy.

Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie officially took over on February 17 and will oversee the Office of the Mayor until a new mayor is elected. Until then, let us pour one out for mayors past, Rob Ford and John Tory.

at such an amazing school. One Faculty member was even quoted in the meeting minutes as saying, “the Faculty’s vision is a revolution.” It is unclear how this plan will further the school’s reputation, but the Faculty seems to believe that if you repeat something enough, it is only a matter of time before people agree.

Finally, the plan is purportedly designed to free up more of the professors’ time. Indeed, students who have already graduated are less likely to appeal a grade or ask for more detailed feedback. The documents also provide guidelines on how professors should respond to students who do request feedback. The guidelines recommend using

key phrases like “Get over it, that was years ago” or “I don’t remember” or “Yeah, this comes down to legal writing experience; don’t worry, you’ll get there.” The hope is that professors’ newly acquired free time will permit them to focus on ignoring students’ emails more effectively.

UV reached out to the Faculty of Law to see if there were any concerns on how this new plan might affect students’ abilities to secure competitive employment that often hinges on academic performance. The Faculty did not respond, but our source confirmed that the administration felt that this was an “us” problem, not a “them” problem.

TORONTO CITY HALL. CREDIT: SCOTT WEBB VIA UNSPLASH

Ultra Vires Presents: ENERGY

LIFE IN CAPS LOCK

I don’t know about you, but I need a pick-me-up this time of year. That’s why this playlist is filled with bangers only. It provides a consistently high BPM soundtrack for workouts—or really intense studying, which we all know can sometimes feel like a workout too. Every song, whether it be a drill, hyperpop, or punk anthem, has a fast and furious cadence to make your thoughts feel like they’re running on a hamster wheel. Featuring tracks by SOPHIE, Offset, Poppy, Big Freedia, and more!

EMILY CHU (1L)

The Ultra Vires Crossword "Flowers"

NOAM EPSTEIN ROTH (1L) AND EVA BOGHOSIAN (1L)

Down

1 Official akin to an ump

2 Journalist and civil rights activist, B. Wells

3 Dilapidated

4 Key above shift

5 Web address

6 Sargasso or Black

7 This Is the ___ (2013)

8 Prevent

9 A loan-seeker may need one

10 Electrical resistance unit

11 Follower of a Chinese chairman’s ideology

12 Inverse trigonometry function

13 Japanese rice wines

19 The prodigal one

21 Employer of many Jackman students, for short

24 “and others”

25 Traveler’s permit

26 Did something

27 Past tense of 71-across

28 Network for Sister Wives

33 Adams and Jefferson to each other, e.g.

35 Mild pain

37 Squash or trial locale

39 Rihanna’s recent performance window

40 Gloomy

41 South of Bloor, perhaps

42 Black-and-white treat

43 Greet’s partner

45 Cause for low beams

47 Rise up (against)

48 Roma’s home

49 Armed forces

50 Texting format, for short

52 Tree pose experts

54 Symbol of wisdom

55 Makes less burdensome

60 What Shia LaBeouf did in Holes (2003)

61 KGB adversary

62 Way to one’s heart

63 Consequential, slang

65 One who is likely born in August 66 Inexact no.

the Philip C. Jessup International Moot Court Competition? I think Justice Mahmud Jamal’s speech at the Canadian National Rounds’ opening ceremony describes it per fectly. He said that people would certainly regret signing up for the Jessup while they struggled to complete their memorials (equivalent to a factum for other moots). I fully agree with that, as I remember those late nights where I was looking into numer ous sources and rephrasing my messy argu ments, thinking about why I decided to do the Jessup. But Justice Jamal also talked about how joyful and rewarding his experi ence was at the competition. I agree; my mooting experience was indeed the biggest