Ultra Vires Volume 25, Issue 5: February 2024

Ultra Vires THE INDEPENDENT STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

FACULTY OF LAW

Students Face Wave of Locker Thefts

Just as U of T Law students were finally getting back into the swing of things after returning for the spring semester, students started reporting thefts at the law school. Several students had valuables taken from the school’s lockers. The alarm was first sounded when a post was made on the U of T Law Virtual Community Facebook group, advising members that thefts had occurred.

The targeted lockers are located in the basement, largely away from the building’s staff and out of view of any cameras. The lockers near the kitchen and lounge area in Flavelle House appear to have been the primary targets.

One student shared that they commonly stored their laptop in their locker while at school. One day, when they returned to their locker, they found it was open and discovered their laptop was missing. Their lock, which they stated was not of the best quality, appeared to have been jimmied open, not cut.

Another student who reported having a hoodie taken from their locker shared a similar experience, stating the lock appeared to have been “opened as if the person knew the passcode.” These individuals reported the incidents but have not yet seen any response.

Another student also reported being the victim of a theft earlier in the school year, around mid-October. They had left the law school around 5:30pm and had left their iPad and Macbook in a bag in their locker. Approximately two hours later, they returned, and the bag was still inside the locker, but the iPad and Macbook were gone. Strangely, the lock was still attached and looked “completely normal,” just as it had been left. This student reported the incident to the school, Campus Police, and the Toronto Police but has still not received any helpful response.

On February 1st, Sara-Marni Hubbard sent out an email acknowledging the Faculty’s awareness of the recent locker break-ins and stated that Campus Police had been notified. The email further noted that the building is publicly accessible, and students should therefore take proactive measures to protect their belongings, such as purchasing a good quality lock.

Whether students having better quality locks would have prevented the thefts effectively is impossible to know, but a quick Google search for “how to pick Dudley combination lock” yields a variety of results.

Students are provided fobs for entry to school buildings at the outset of their studies, but they are primarily needed for entering Falconer Hall

(which, unless they are trying to get to the UV office, students don’t often need to do). Fobs were introduced in the wake of COVID to control access to buildings during the 2020-2021 school year. As the importance of controlling capacity diminished, evidently the use of fobs did as well. The doors are now unlocked from 7:30am until 7:00pm, but students have also reported instances of these hours not being followed. One student who was a victim of the thefts expressed concern that the main door was still unlocked at 7:20pm.

The Faculty provided the following comments on the incidents:

We want to acknowledge that these incidents can deeply affect how you feel about your safety and comfort here at the law school. We too are troubled by the recent break-ins and are making significant efforts to address the issue.

The Faculty of Law in partnership with U of T's Campus Safety strives to provide a secure environment and as such, have added additional building patrols and will be implementing a bait locker program. We will continue to monitor the situation. In the meantime, we recommend that members of our community continue to employ the following theft prevention strategies:

• Invest in a high-quality lock for your locker.

• Consider leaving valuables that you don't need for the day at home.

• Pay attention to your surroundings when accessing your locker, especially when depositing items into your locker. Report any suspicious activity to Campus Police or Building Patrollers.

Please continue to report all incidents of theft to the University of Toronto Campus Safety at 416-9782323.

CREDIT: TAYLOR RODRIGUES

AS SEEN IN THESE IMAGES, SOME STUDENTS DID ALSO HAVE THEIR LOCKS CUT. CREDIT: TAYLOR RODRIGUES THE DUDLEY LOCKS AVAILABLE FOR SALE IN THE LAW SCHOOL BOOKSTORE. CREDIT: SHELBY HOHMANN

CREDIT: TAYLOR RODRIGUES

Ultra Vires

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

Amy Kwong and Alyssa Wong

BUSINESS MANAGER

Manreet Brar

ASSOCIATE BUSINESS MANAGER

Jamie Oneschuk

NEWS EDITORS

Nicolas Williams and Abby Sasitharan

ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITORS

Leon Xu and Evan Squire

FEATURES EDITORS

Erin Lee and Julia Allen

ASSOCIATE FEATURES EDITORS

Asra Areej and Rachel Chen

OPINIONS EDITORS

Brianna Rowe and Jacqueline Ovsenek

ASSOCIATE OPINIONS EDITORS

Albert Cheng and Rosemary Fang

DIVERSIONS EDITORS

Fievel Lim and Christine Wang

ASSOCIATE DIVERSIONS EDITOR

Allie Silcoff

PUZZLES EDITOR

Ronan Mallovy

ASSOCIATE PUZZLES EDITOR

Mahnoor Noor

RECRUIT EDITOR

Rebekah Kim

EDITOR-AT-LARGE

Vivian Li

ONLINE EDITOR

Michael Chen

STAFF WRITERS

Taylor Rodrigues, Emily Sarah Hean, Shelby Hohmann, Olivia Schenk, and Mina Alam

OPINIONS

Dear readers, We hope you all enjoyed the reading week break and took some time off (instead of spending all that time actually reading). If you really did read all week, we’re impressed by your diligence and commitment. For those of you who are now behind, this year being a leap year means that you have one (1) extra day to get on top of your readings—and one extra day to read UV!

This issue is jam-packed with news, reviews, some Valentine’s Dayflavoured tea, and a nostalgic look back to the UV of years past.

Students’ Law Society Update

February edition

JUSTIN KIM (3L)

Can you believe that we are nearly halfway through this semester?! Compared to the fall semester, the winter semester always seems to fly by. Nevertheless, I hope everyone was able to enjoy their Reading Week. On behalf of the Students’ Law Society (SLS), I would like to provide the following updates:

Valentine’s Day Candygrams

Candygrams! This year, the Social and Finance Committee (SFC) organized something new to spice up Valentine’s Day at the law school. I hope you were able to send a free candygram to a friend or someone special! Your SFC representatives came together to handwrite each message and fill every bag with some of your favourite candies and chocolates. We also had free cookies in the atrium, alongside a decorated board where members of the law school community wrote cute messages to one another.

Law Ball

On March 16th, I’m excited to welcome you all to the Old Mill Toronto Hotel. Law Ball is our winter semester flagship event, which we started planning last summer. This year, we launched a new initiative which offered discounted tickets to those who expressed that they would experience significant financial hardship and would not be able to attend Law Ball otherwise. For several years, students have indicated to the SLS that the cost of Law Ball prevents them from attending. The SLS is strongly committed to making sure that all students, regardless of financial status, are able to participate in law school community events. I hope that this pilot program inspires equity initiatives in future SLS events. This year, we were also able to offer more Sober Volunteer tickets. A special thank you to Taylor Clapham (2L), who is leading the SFC’s Law Ball Subcommittee, for all her hard work. Student and guest

tickets are almost sold out, so don’t forget to grab yours! See you all at Law Ball!

Oakes Week

Regardless of whether you spent Reading Week travelling or catching up on all the readings you pushed back, your SFC put together a fantastic first week back to celebrate the anniversary of the R v Oakes decision. We hope you were able to enjoy Monday’s “Pressing and Substantial Breakfast,” Tuesday’s “Rationally Connecting with the Dean,” and Wednesday’s “Balancing Test Trivia,” and we hope to see you at tonight’s “Minimal Impairment Call to the Bar.” Thank you to the Faculty for sponsoring Monday’s breakfast, with food catered from Pumpernickel’s!

Spring Election

The SLS Spring Election is tentatively scheduled for mid-March. As your outgoing SLS President, I cannot stress enough

the importance of an engaged student body. Your vote will shape the academic and student life experience not only for you, but for the entire student body. I highly encourage anyone who is interested to put their name forward. I know that it can be an intimidating experience to put yourself out there. Nevertheless, representing your peers is incredibly rewarding, and I’m sure many of my peers on SLS will agree. Whether it be sitting in meetings or making club funding decisions, you will have the opportunity to directly impact the student experience.

This year’s spring election will also feature a student fee referendum regarding the Public Interest Advocacy Summer Employment Program fee. In this month’s edition of Ultra Vires , I have written an Opinion article on page 6 which explains this further. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me or any of your peers on SLS with any questions or concerns.

Follies 2024: The Good, the Bad, and the Baby They haven’t cancelled us yet!

MINA ALAM (2L)

At the start of the year, in a dark room deep in the bowels of the law school’s basement, the Faculty of Law reaps an undisclosed number of names from the student pool. These unfortunate few inherit a chilling burden: to make the law school laugh again.

On February 15, 2024, the law school kicked off reading week with the annual showing of Law Follies. Throngs of students flocked through slush-filled streets to Scotiabank Theatre to watch the free showing, courtesy of this year’s sponsor, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (though donations towards local legal clinics and charities were encouraged).

Tensions at the law school ran high, as recruits, moots, and serial thefts weighed heavily on students’ minds. Unity was needed more than ever. You could read the same

question on the face of every attendee: how many musical numbers would they make us sit through?

The cast of this year’s Follies, in addition to the typical insouciant 3Ls and not-likeyour-other professors, featured an unprecedented number of 1Ls. Or at least more than I recall there being last year.

The skits were rawer and realer than ever before. The audience was subjected to graphic footage of 1Ls emerging from their first set of exams. A delightful series of Philomena Cunk-esque interviews with professors gave students insight into the inner machinations of the characters that make up the Faculty. Someone finally brought up the fact that the building is running out of space to dedicate to sponsors.

As with any form of art, viewing experi -

ences are subjective and varied. I could describe to you in great detail the catharsis I felt watching my property and evidence law professors bully my torts professor, my allergic reaction to the objectification of Lady Justice, or how I came to understand and even accept that Cognomos’ inability to give me the schedule I want is the only thing keeping the world from certain disaster.

Instead, I asked around to see what other viewers thought of the show. Here are some of their reviews:

“The trauma of law school really does make us all funnier.”

“I’ve never seen my own love of Diet Coke reflected back at me like that. It was disturbing.”

“Women are funnier than men.”

“The shot-for-shot remake of the American Psycho business card scene was a tour de force.”

“The jokes were much less depressing and hope -

less than last year.”

“I only laughed at three skits. No—two. And I was in one of them.”

“I check Spotify every morning to see if they’ve released the WAP remake for streaming.”

However, soon enough, these exchanges all turned to the same sinister topic:

“I was not prepared for the baby.”

“It was memorable. Sometimes for the wrong reasons.”

“Every time I thought it was over, there was more baby.”

“The piss scene was traumatic.”

“I haven’t been able to look at my infant child the same way in days.”

“Please, for the love of god, stop putting grown men in baby costumes.”

Will Justice B. Bebe make a reappearance? We can’t know until next year.

Until then—stay funny.

U of T Law’s Wild Ride to Yelawstone

A recap of the 2024 Law Games

ABBY SASITHARAN (2L) AND ABBY BRUYER (2L)

Last month, law students at U of T embarked on a spirited journey to Saskatoon for the 2024 Law Games. From January 3–7, this annual event—hosted this year at the University of Saskatchewan—was an opportunity for law schools across Canada to showcase their competitive spirit and camaraderie.

The Law Games features various competitions—the Sports Cup, the Academic Cup, the Talent Cup, and the Dirty Cup. The days concluded with nightly socials ranging from lively pub crawls to energetic galas.

Representing U of T Law was captain Abby Bruyer (2L), accompanied by Maddy Regan (2L), Hassan Valji (2L), Rachel Park (1L), Francis Rweyongeza (2L), Carson Cook (2L), and Saskatoon native Quinn Rozwadowski (2L). Collaborating with the team from the University of Manitoba, they formed "Team Moronto" for the second consecutive year.

Recruitment for Law Games proved challenging once again, with the initial interest of around 40 participants dropping to below 10 due to issues such as travel to Saskatchewan and an unwillingness to sacrifice valuable time off during the winter break. This narrowed it down to a dedicated core of seven students fighting to preserve the honour of U of T Law.

The team found the atmosphere at Law Games to be vibrant and welcoming. Socializing with other teams was a highlight, and U of T Law’s merger with the University of Manitoba proved successful, creating lasting connections.

“Law Games was hands down the highlight of my law degree!” said Hassan Valji, while Rachel Park described it as the perfect opportunity to “feel connected to the broader legal community and grow closer to existing friends.”

Despite being one of the smallest teams, the team held their own in all eight sports of the Sports Cup. A special shout-out goes to U of T Law MVP Hassan Valji, who was committed to the cause and sometimes played multiple sports a day. Shout-outs also go to Abby Bruyer and Maddy Regan for representing the team two years in a row. Team Moronto's crowning achievement was winning the Talent Cup with an energetic performance choreographed by the University of Manitoba's Heather Morris. The team made their own line dance and engaged in acrobatic stunts and lip-syncing. The team finished the number off with a surprise twist (you had to be there to know what it was!).

In the words of Quinn Rozwadowski, “Law Games was a blur, in the best way possible. I can’t recommend the experience strongly enough.”

Outside of the games, the team explored Saskatoon, appreciating its beauty—they would recommend it as a must-visit. Although the cold weather gradually descended (typical for a Saskatoon January), reconnecting with last year's teammates added a nostalgic touch to the experience.

With the 2024 Law Games having concluded, team members encourage future participation, emphasizing the value of the event beyond competition.

Captain Abby Bruyer stated, “You don’t need to be a multi-sport athlete to participate—you just need a good attitude, a willingness to try new things and put yourself out of your comfort zone. It’s a great way not only to meet other people from other law schools but get to know your peers at U of T Law even better!”

The team is already gearing up for Law Games 2025! If anyone is interested in helping organize the U of T Law Games 2025 team, they can reach out to Abby Bruyer.

Federal Court Sides With the Freedom Convoy

Justice Mosley ruled on the decision to declare a public order emergency and its impact on Charter rights

OLIVIA SCHENK (2L)

On January 23, 2024, the Federal Court declared that the federal government’s declaration of the public order emergency, and associated measures, in relation to the “Freedom Convoy” was unreasonable and infringed on protestors’ Charter rights. Despite finding the Government’s actions illegal on multiple grounds, Justice Mosley indicated considerable sympathy for the Government. In his conclusion, Justice Mosley even stated, “[h]ad I been at their table at that time, I may have agreed that it

was necessary to invoke the Act.” The Government has already expressed its intention to appeal the decision.

Background

In early January 2022, the Minister of Health clarified that unvaccinated Canadian truckers would be allowed to enter Canada under the new vaccine mandates so long as they complied with pre-entry arrival and eight-day quarantine requirements. The “Freedom Convoy 2022” planned a

demonstration in Ottawa in protest against the requirements.

The initial demonstration consisted of a blockade of downtown Ottawa by hundreds of vehicles and thousands of individuals. As the demonstration continued, the Ottawa Police Service Chief expressed concern about managing the situation. On February 6, the Mayor of Ottawa declared a state of emergency. On February 12, Ontario declared a state of emergency.

Cabinet received information that 55.7%

of funds crowdfunded to support the demonstration (about $3.6 million USD) came from donors based in the U.S.. In addition, alleged extremist elements were taking part in the protest. Applicants present at the protest acknowledged that Nazi symbols were indeed present.

Smaller protests emerged elsewhere but were largely managed by local law enforcement. Five additional border blockades also popped up at locations including Sweetgrass-Coutts, Alberta; Emerson, Manitoba;

CREDIT: ABBY BRUYER

CREDIT: ABBY BRUYER

and the Bluewater Bridge in Sarnia, Ontario. However, law enforcement quickly resolved most of these blockades.

Invocation of the Emergencies Act , RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp) (the “Act”) was recommended to the Prime Minister by the Acting Clerk of the Privy Council. On February 14, a Public Emergency Order was issued through power granted under section 17(1). In addition, an emergency economic measures order was made on February 15 pursuant to section 19(1). Under the Economic Order, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) disclosed the information of 57 named individuals and entities to financial service providers, resulting in the temporary freezing of approximately 257 accounts.

On February 22, the RCMP contacted the financial service providers and requested that the accounts be unfrozen. The Public Emergency Order was revoked the next day, terminating the Economic Order. Despite the Proclamation and associated powers having all been revoked, the Court exercised its discretion to hear the applications notwithstanding their mootness.

The Court granted four applications for judicial review: the applications of two protestors, Edward Cornell and Vincent Gircys, who were directly impacted by the economic measures, and those of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Federation under public interest standing. The case record exceeded 11,000 PDF pages and included protestor affidavits, public opinion surveys, media reports, oral testimony, and expert evidence.

The Court rejected the argument that the case concerned a question of central importance to the legal system as a whole and held the standard of review would be reasonableness. Justice Mosley’s reasons are summarized below.

The Emergencies Act defines a national emergency very narrowly

The definition of national emergency in the Emergencies Act is very narrow. First, the Act defines a national emergency as an “urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature” that creates a situation that either (1) “seriously endangers the lives, health, or safety of Canadians” and exceeds “the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it” or (2) “seriously threatens the ability of the Government to preserve the sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity of Canada.” Second, a national emergency requires that the situation cannot “be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” Third, a public order emergency can only be declared if there is a “threat to the security of Canada” as defined by s. 2 of the Canada Security Intelligence Act , RSC 1985 c C-23 (the “CSIS Act”). In particular, the Proclamation relied upon concerns about “the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological objective…”

These requirements of national emergency were not satisfied, and thus, the invocation of the Act was unreasonable and ultra vires

The Government failed to show that the

alleged national emergency could not be dealt with under any other law of Canada. At the time, the evidence only supported that local and provincial capacity was exceeded in Ottawa. The Proclamation’s statement that an emergency existed throughout Canada was an overstatement of the known situation by the Government.

In addition, the definition of public order emergency in the CSIS Act was not satisfied. Aside from the discovery of weapons at the blockade in Coutts, threats of serious violence were absent. Furthermore, the situation in Coutts was safely resolved. A potential for serious violence or inability to say there was no potential for serious violence did not satisfy the test under the CSIS Act. Justice Mosley suggested that had the term “threats to the security of Canada” been left undefined, this threshold would have been satisfied. Harm caused to Canada’s economy, trade, and commerce, while serious, did not constitute threats or the use of serious violation to persons or property.

The Court held certain measures unjustifiably infringed s. 2(b) and s. 8 Charter rights

Section 2(c), freedom of peaceful assembly, was not infringed because gatherings that employ physical force in the form of enduring or intractable occupations of public space that block local residents in order to compel agreement are not constitutionally protected.

Section 2(d), freedom of association, was not infringed because the special measures adopted did not limit participants' ability to

communicate with one another in pursuit of their collective goals and form whatever organization they thought necessary to do so elsewhere.

Section 7, right to life, liberty, and security of the person, was not infringed because, despite section 10(2) of the Regulations imposing fines and possible imprisonment, deprivation was temporary and subject to judicial review. This is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Section 2(b), freedom of expression, was infringed because peaceful protestors could have been caught under the terms of the Regulations.

Section 8, the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, was also infringed. The disclosure of financial records by the RCMP constituted a seizure, and the lack of an objective standard before accounts were frozen breached section 8.

The breach of sections 2(b) and 8 were not justifiable under section 1 because they were not minimally impairing. The measures were applied across Canada despite evidence supporting they should have been limited to Ontario and potentially Alberta. For section 8, the freezing of bank accounts could have affected innocent joint account holders. These uninvolved parties could have been cut from the means to access necessities for the household. No effort was made to find a solution for this. In addition, determinations were all informal and ad hoc, without any process to appeal a determination.

Declaratory relief was granted.

Reviewing Prospective Requirements in Taxation

Does the rule of law actually prohibit retroactive legislation?

TAYLOR RODRIGUES (3L)

Rory Gillis, Assistant Professor at Western University, delivered this year’s second James Hausman Tax Law and Policy Workshop on January 31, 2024. His talk “Two Conceptions of the Rule of Law’s Prospectivity Requirement in Taxation” challenged the pervasive view that the rule of law prohibits all retroactive laws.

Gillis claims most legal scholars and lawyers believe that the rule of law prohibits all retroactive legislation. He cites the Canadian Bar Association’s 2023 submission to Parliament:

Applying legislation retroactively is a serious violation of the rule of law as it is inherently arbitrary for those who could not know its content when acting or making their plans and it is duplicitous and dishonourable to apply legislation retroactively and that overly frequent recourse to such a method may undermine the effectiveness of law in governing human behaviour.

Gillis's thesis is that there are two main conceptions of the rule of law’s prospectivity requirement in the literature and neither are satisfying. A broad prospectivity requirement is appealing on the surface but cannot be justified; a narrow prospectivity requirement can be easily justified but does not seem very useful.

First, there is Lon Fuller’s compliance conception. It holds that it is impermissible to retroactively impose a duty in the past and immediately punish someone for not discharging a duty they did not have at the time. However, the rule of law permits governments to retroactively impose duties in the past if individuals have the opportunity

to comply with the new duty without being punished.

Second, there is Joseph Raz’s reliance conception. It holds that the rule of law always prohibits all retroactive law that disrupts individuals’ reliance interests. Individuals relied on the past law, and it would be unfair and incongruent with the law’s action-guiding function to retroactively change past law.

Gillis argues that most retroactive tax laws comply with Fuller’s compliance conception but not with Raz’s reliance conception. For example, the Canada Recovery Dividend (also known as the windfall tax on bank profits), implemented in 2022, requires banking and life insurance groups to pay 15% of their profits in 2020 and 2021 over $1 billion. However, it can be paid in equal installments over five years.

The Canada Recovery Dividend imposes a future obligation to pay taxes based on events that occurred before the tax was implemented. It complies with Fuller’s compliance because it allows the taxpayer to comply with the law; it does not immediately impose tax arrears. Raz’s reliance conception would prohibit the Canada Recovery Dividend because banking and life insurance groups relied on the past tax law to run and plan their businesses.

Gillis points out that Raz’s reliance conception is far too strong. If retroactive law is wrong because it disrupts peoples’ reliance interests, any change to the law that disrupts someone’s reliance interests is wrong.

For example, many homebuyers buy a

home in part based on its property tax rate. If Toronto announces today that it will raise its property taxes by 10% next year, it still disrupts the reliance interests of homeowners who chose to buy in Toronto based on current property tax rates. Many would have paid a lower price for their home if they had known that the tax rate would rise.

Since Raz’s reliance conception leads to the absurd conclusion that the rule of law requires that the law never be changed, Gillis argues we ought to reject it.

This leaves us with Fuller’s compliance conception, but Gillis argues its problem is under-inclusivity, not over-inclusivity.

Suppose Canada introduced a requirement that all 18-year-olds had to complete two years of military or community service in the next two years. Then two years later, Canada changed the law so that all 20-year-olds who had not completed two years of military service would have to spend the next two years completing military service—even those who had already completed two years of community service.

Gillis thinks these laws would comply with Fuller’s compliance conception but conflict with our intuitions around fairness and the rule of law.

Gillis maintains that the rule of law restricts governments' ability to pass retroactive laws but admits he does not know how to articulate this restriction. He suggests a qualified reliance conception may be correct: the rule of law only prohibits governments from passing laws that interfere with their subjects' “serious” reliance interests

(rather than all their reliance interests).

This qualified reliance conception would permit Toronto to raise its property taxes to keep up with inflation because it was not reasonable for anyone to rely on Toronto never raising property taxes. It would also prohibit forcing individuals to complete two years of military service after they already completed two years of community service, as it would be reasonable to rely on the old law that stated community service was equivalent to military service.

Gillis said this qualified reliance conception is inspired by Michael Graetz’s view that prohibiting retroactive law is inefficient.

Graetz argues that since virtually all legal changes interfere with reliance interests, the risk of legal change should be treated similarly to other risks. Everyone should just consider the risk that governments will pass new (prospective or retroactive) laws when planning their lives, similar to how people consider the risk of changes in market conditions.

Gillis thinks a qualified reliance conception could solve Fuller’s compliance conception’s under-inclusivity problem and Raz’s reliance conception’s over-inclusivity problem. However, he admits the problem with his qualified reliance conception is drawing the line between a reliance interest and a “serious” reliance interest.

Professor Emily Satterthwaite of Georgetown University will present the next James Hausman Tax Law and Policy Workshop on March 6, 2024, on a to-be-confirmed topic.

Students’ Law Society Fee Update Referendum

Increase to the Public Interest Advocacy Summer Employment Program Fee

JUSTIN KIM (3L)

Editors’ Note: Justin Kim (3L) is the President of the Students’ Law Society (SLS). The opinions expressed in this article are his own and do not represent the views of the SLS.

This year’s Students’ Law Society (SLS) Spring Election will feature a referendum regarding an increase to the Public Interest Advocacy Summer Employment Program Fee. I hope that you will take a few minutes to read this article to ensure you are wellinformed about this upcoming fee referendum.

Each year, the SLS sponsors at least two first- or second-year U of T Law students to work in a public interest legal role. After applicants identify a public interest organization that aligns with their interests, they prepare a proposal that includes the legal and public interest aspects of the project they will be working on. Through the Public Interest Advocacy Summer Fellowship, students have gone on to work at organizations such as the Barbara Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, Structural Genomics Consortium, Conference Board of Canada, and Ecojustice. Effectively, the SLS Public Interest Advocacy Fellowships allows students to work for a public interest organization that would otherwise not be able to fund their summer experience.

For more than twenty years, the Public Interest Advocacy Summer Employment Program Fee has remained $15 a semester for full-time JD students. Each year, the SLS collects roughly $18,000 through this

fee. The value changes every year due to the size of the law school cohort. Until the 2018-2019 Academic Year, the SLS has budgeted $18,000 to fund three fellowships at $6,000 each. After the Ford Government’s Student Choice Initiative in the 2019-2020 Academic Year which allowed students to opt out of ancillary fees, the SLS funded two rather than three fellowships at $6,000 each, This was the result of opt-outs by some students. Since ancillary fees became mandatory the year after, the SLS returned to collecting approximately $18,000 but has continued to offer only two fellowships year after year.

Due to the carry-over surplus that arose from only having to fund two fellowships, in the 2020-2021 Academic Year, the SLS By-law regarding the Public Interest Fellowship was revised, increasing the amount per fellowship to at least $8,500.

Recognizing the increased cost of living, the importance of funding students adequately, and the amount offered by other fellowships, the SLS has increased the amount per fellowship every subsequent academic year. In the 2022-2023 Academic Year, the SLS funded two fellowships at $10,000.

However, the current issue is that there is no longer a carry-over surplus in the Public Interest Fellowship account from which the SLS can effectively fund at a higher level. In the 2021-2022 Academic Year, the amount collected via the Public Interest Fellowship Employment Program

fee was $17,896.07. In the 2022-2023 Academic Year, it was $18,212.50. Paying a total of $20,000 when the SLS is only collecting about $18,000 is not sustainable. Hence, there is a glaring need for a fee referendum.

If successful, this fee will increase from $15 to $20 per semester for full-time JD students and from $7.50 to $10 a semester for part-time JD students. If you are a fulltime student, you will be paying $10 more next year compared to this year. This positions the SLS to expect to receive approximately $24,000, and provides the capital to continue supporting law students who pursue a public interest legal job. By raising about $24,000 each year, any excess funds can be carried forward to future years. This will provide the “runway” for which another fee referendum would not likely be on the horizon. Additionally, the Career Development Office (CDO) currently offers other fellowships, many of which are valued at $12,000. In theory, the approximately $24,000 could be split in two, making it more comparable to the CDO fellowships.

If the fee referendum fails, the SLS will either 1) reduce the number of fellowships from two to one or 2) reduce the amount of each fellowship from $10,000 to about $8,500. Both scenarios are not ideal. Again, since only about $18,000 is collected, funding two at $10,000 each is not sustainable. The surplus the SLS once had from reducing the number of fellowships from three to two no

longer exists. Every year, we hear about the “push” away from public interest jobs and the “pull” elsewhere. The SLS fellowships provide students with the valuable opportunity to work for a public interest organization of their choice. Requiring students to find these organizations makes them unlike most other fellowships presented by the CDO. I strongly believe that neither the number of these fellowships nor the amount should be reduced. I hope that you will agree.

Per the SLS Constitution, a motion regarding a student fee referendum must be approved by both the Student Life and Academic Committee (SLAC) and the Social and Finance Committee (SFC). On February 12th and 15th, I motioned before SLAC and SFC, respectively. On both SLAC and SFC, not only did the motion pass, but it also passed unanimously. As a result, in mid-March, the SLS Spring Election will feature a referendum regarding an increase to the Public Interest Advocacy Summer Employment Program Fee.

The following questions will be included simultaneously with the Spring General Election:

Do you approve of the SLS Public Interest Advocacy Summer Employment Program Fee increasing from:

• $15.00/semester to $20.00/semester for full-time students; and

• $7.50/semester to $10.00/semester for part-time students?

I am happy to answer any questions or concerns at studentslawsociety@gmail.com.

Grades Do Matter

Thinking critically about the academic culture at U of T Law

SHELBY HOHMANN (2L)

Each year, U of T Law welcomes bright incoming students who are used to standing out academically and subjects them to a new environment where they risk becoming what they have always feared: average students. Speaking from personal experience, this isn’t much of a dramatization.

Entering law school can be a difficult academic transition for high-achievers (AKA most law students at U of T…and lawyers in general). The Faculty evidently recognizes the need to validate and support students, especially 1Ls, as they navigate a new academic reality. Mass communications repeatedly emphasize that “a P is considered an excellent grade” and, nevertheless, that grades are only one measure of success in the program. Sure, this is a bit of encouragement to hear, but as I have progressed through law school, I have noticed the

problematic culture that surrounds grades here and personally experienced how difficult it can be to accept that trying your best in law school probably won’t lead to being the best (as it often did in past academic experiences). Can that be changed?

Hopefully, most of us are now far enough removed from the much-anticipated and ominously-warned-about grade drop to take some time to reflect and consider why we think about our grades the way we do at this school. For me, moments of spiraling have often been brought on by comparing myself to others whom I view as more successful and intelligent and, more broadly, by a generally weird school culture surrounding grades.

There are several ingredients I view as responsible for this culture. Most obviously, our modified pass-fail system al -

lows for less differentiation among students, which is a double-edged sword: the system may in fact, reduce anxiety, as the Faculty likes to claim, but it can also limit one’s understanding of their true academic standing. There is no such thing as an H- or P+, even if students may be ranked and distinguished from one another in this way by professors.

This is another important factor in the culture: a general lack of transparency in how the grading scheme truly operates. For instance, the Faculty website is confusing with its description of Distinction standing. It outlines the credit requirements, but never actually explains how it is determined or provides cutoff numbers. Aside from specifying how the credits of students in different situations (like on exchange) are calculated, the only other Distinction clarification on the website is: “This standing is determined on the basis

of the student's weighted average in each year of the academic program, and only for law courses. No rankings are calculated or retained by the Faculty.” Maybe there is more information out there, but students shouldn’t have to dig for it or be left in the dark.

Finally, there is, of course, a competitive culture at U of T Law. Some people are open about their grades, while others place an extremely high value on their privacy. I like to think of myself as falling into the former camp. Although hearing about the grades of others can prompt comparison, I think this openness can also be a powerful antidote to a hyperindividualized, success-focused culture. The feelings of shame that might surround getting a P start to dissipate when they are viewed critically and discussed honestly with others. Conversely, reluctance to share one’s successes may result

in ego issues and rob you of the opportunity to share in your joy with your community (which is what we’re supposed to be a part of here…right?). I’m not saying this means posting your grades on LinkedIn (please do not do that), but perhaps it is worth taking a moment to think about how you approach and discuss grades and whether that’s truly the best way. Speaking from my experience, you don’t want grades to be something you lose friends, sleep, or your mental health over. To their credit, the Faculty has also touted the importance of openness around grades, recognizing the impact that hearing about experiences with a variety of grades can have on 1Ls.

Any law student also knows that, in some instances, grades are indeed the only real measure of success that matters—at least in clearing initial hurdles. Clerkship is arguably the most relevant example. Although the Faculty states that they have waived the requirement of obtaining the elusive (at least for me) standing of Distinction, it remains a de facto necessity. My clerkship aspirations were given a swift, grades-based reality check at the beginning of 2L. The more I thought about clerking, the less interested I became, but I still feel a little pang of disappointment whenever I (along with all other 2Ls) receive a clerkship-based email. It’d be great to not be bombarded

with these when the Faculty and CDO are well aware of the fact that clerking is not a realistic option for the vast majority of students (and some, myself included, may still be upset about this fact).

As I’m sure people can understand, this was a difficult topic to write about and required some vulnerability, which is not my specialty. After all, I’ve spent the entirety of law school thus far trying to convince others and, with much more difficulty, myself that I am smart enough (whatever it is that means). The last thing I want is for my peers to think I’m not smart after I expose myself in UV as a “non-distinction girly.” But I can recognize how that thought essentially contra -

dicts everything I have said about wanting to combat the problematic academic culture here.

If I had the solution to feeling academically inadequate, most problems in my life would be resolved—but alas, I do not. What I can say with some confidence is that positive email messages are not of much assistance. What could actually make a difference is increased transparency and efforts to reduce this weirdly secretive and competitive culture. You, reader, can be a part of making these changes and start by analyzing your own attitudes. In general, grades do indeed matter, but for the most part, it’s up to us to decide how they matter.

Take Note: Thoughts on the Volunteer Note-Taking System

Notable for its guilt-inducement—but will it help you become a better student?

ABBEY BUTLER (3L)

Nothing hits you right in that little guilt sweet spot like the emails from professors and the administration asking for volunteer notetakers. Unless you are a notetaker already, these emails have a way of making you feel uniquely immoral about not assisting in the University’s accessibility mission by giving up even more of your free time to take on an additional academic commitment. Some students have reported that the emails seem especially guilt-inducing this year—prompting me to give you my unsolicited opinions regarding the volunteer notetaking system (you’re welcome). Hopefully, you will find some of this noteworthy.

The volunteer notetaker system involves students submitting their course notes to an online system. The notes are then made available to students registered with Accessibility Services who have received notetaking as an accommodation. Students who submit at least 75% of their notes for a course over one semester are rewarded with a $50 gift card at the end of the school year in recognition of their efforts. When no one volunteers to submit their notes, every student in the course receives an email requesting notetakers (often from the professor via Quercus; sometimes personally from Sara Faherty). However, these emails sometimes appear to be sent out regardless of whether there is already a volunteer notetaker or not. One student, Fievel Lim (3L), has remarked that every single course he is taking this semester has sent out an email saying that “no one is submitting their notes,” despite the fact that he has been submitting notes for all of his classes. I was a volunteer notetaker for four courses last school year. Taking on this role has many (real or purported) benefits. For one thing, it encourages you to actually attend class because (a) other students depend on having access to your notes, and (b) you must submit notes for 75% of the classes to receive a gift card. Volunteering encourages you to take good notes, meaning you must stay engaged and listen rather than online shop or plan vacations. It forces you to review and organize your

notes after every class (however, I found this more of a hindrance than a benefit, as I will explain below). Doing all of this might help you gain a more fulsome understanding of the course content and potentially do better on the exam (theoretically?). Lastly, volunteering might give you the warm fuzzies because you are being a good person by helping other students.

However, the notetaking system is not without its downsides. The University portrays submitting your notes as extremely easy: You take notes for class anyway. Why not just take an extra minute to submit them for others to use? Yet, I found myself spending a lot of time editing and re-organizing my notes before I considered them acceptable to provide to other students. For one thing, I use many abbreviations in my notes, some of which are idiosyncratic, that must be defined or replaced with the full term for others to understand them. I also sometimes include personal thoughts or questions that ought to be removed, lest I lead someone astray with my ramblings. I also frequently intertwine my notes from doing the readings before class with my notes taken during the lecture. I am often reluctant to include my reading notes, particularly for parts that the professor did not discuss in class or due to potential inaccuracies. Separating what the professor discussed from my personal interpretations of the readings can be time-consuming. All in all, I definitely did not find that submitting notes was a simple click of a button.

Then, there is the confusion between the University of Toronto’s program and the Faculty of Law’s. The main U of T campus runs a note-taking program that rewards volunteers by entering them into a draw for a gift card rather than guaranteeing a gift card for each course. Cue the confusion when I accidentally emailed the main U of T note-taking contact to redeem my gift card instead of emailing the Faculty of Law contact. I did not receive any response and sent follow-up emails every few weeks. Eventually, I got a response

that the gift cards were won by lottery only, until finally, I figured out that the Faculty of Law runs a different program. After all this, I still did not receive any gift cards until months later because the cards for the Fall and Winter semesters are handed out at the end of the school year.

As a result of submitting notes for four courses in my 2L Fall semester, I received a $200 President’s Choice gift card (redeemable at Loblaws and affiliated shops).

I have to admit, this was very nice to receive, even though it only covered about one-and-a-half grocery hauls (inflation ☹).

On the other hand, if we assume that an average course involves two hours and 50 minutes of class time per week, and there are 12 weeks per semester, then you are taking notes for 34 hours per course. Assuming you submit 100% of the notes for a course, then a $50 gift card is paying you $1.47 for each hour of notetaking. You earn less than that if you consider the time it takes to edit, re-organize, and upload your notes after each class. Of course, volunteer note-taking is not a part-time job; the gift card is obviously intended as a token of appreciation and not as a salary. Still, given that we pay $35,000 in tuition each year, and given the amount of money this school must spend on something like J’s Java alone, $50 per course is pretty low for the university to meet its accessibility requirements. I guess it’s the thought that counts?

Petty complaints about the monetary figure of the gift card aside, the largest issues with the notetaking system are structural. For example, the 75% rule. By only requiring 75% of notes to be uploaded to receive a gift card, the system encourages students to volunteer and recognizes that they may sometimes be absent due to sickness, unplanned life events, and so on. However, a student who is receiving accommodations may then miss up to 25% of the notes for a course. That is a significant percentage, and if the university is serious about increasing accessibility, it should address this.

Then there is the basic question of

whether it is proper to place the burden on students to fulfill the law school’s human rights obligations. Students who are already under incredible time pressure in law school are being guilted into giving up more of their personal time to provide a service that, arguably, should not be the responsibility of students in the first place. A recent email I received stated that “There are peers in our… class who have received note taking as an accommodation … but who are not able to receive notes because no one in the class has volunteered to share notes.” Shame on you, U of T Law students! Don’t you know sharing is caring? Why are you not “assisting in our efforts to make learning at law school as accessible as possible?"

Alternatively, why not have professors develop notes to send to Accessibility Services? After all, they are the ones who prepare their lectures (at least, in theory…). I recognize that any professor reading this will absolutely hate this suggestion (to the professors: please don’t hate me!). But, who would be better at creating notes that are an accurate and complete reflection of the class content than the professor, who is an actual employee of the university?

Another idea is to specifically assign students or others to take notes, more akin to a part-time volunteer role or job. Law student Amy Kwong (3L) suspects that this may already be happening in certain courses: During the first session of one course this semester, there were some individuals exempted from the requirement to “go around the class and introduce yourselves.” She did not recognize them and suspects they may have been undergraduate students assigned as dedicated notetakers. But don’t quote us on that.

Ultimately, having any note-taking system in place is certainly better than not having this accommodation available at all. But it’s up to you to factor in whether you have the capacity to provide this accessibility service on the university’s behalf. To note, or not to note, that is the question.

A Legal Battle Over Chalk River Nuclear Waste Site

What it means for First Nations, s. 35, and humanity

On January 9, 2024, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) approved the construction of a Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) for low-level nuclear waste at Deep River, Ontario. 10 of the 11 Algonquin communities opposed this decision. This month, Kebaowek First Nation (“Kebaowek”) filed an application at the Federal Court challenging the procedural aspects of this decision. A lawsuit at this juncture is significant for two reasons. First, it tests the expansion of the judicial reading of s. 35 of the Charter. Second, it initiates serious considerations about the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP ) under the UNDRIP Act (UNDA).

The basis of Kebaowek’s challenge is that CNSC, a federal agency, did not satisfy its s. 35 constitutional duty to consult. According to councillor of Kebaowek Justin Roy, while the application of the NSDF project was filed in 2015, Kebaowek was not meaningfully engaged until the end of 2019, and did not agree with CNSC on consultation funding until three years later. At the final hearing on August 10, 2023, Kebaowek’s legal arguments highlighted how CNSC did not consider any of their rights in issue or propose any mitigations. In fact, the CNSC did not have a single question for First Nations intervenors. When Roy then asked whether CNSC would answer some questions, Commissioner Velshi said, “that’s not how the process works.” The recording of the hearing is available on the CNSC’s website. On the other hand, CNSC took the position that they had fulfilled their constitutional responsibility to consult and accommodate

Indigenous rights in reaching the January 9 decision.

Leaving the facts aside, the significance of Kebaowek’s lawsuit is beyond its ultimate outcome. In recent years, Canadian courts have increasingly recognized the UN Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP ) in Indigenous cases. Last year in White and Montour v Quebec, the Quebec Superior Court relied heavily on Canada’s commitment to UNDRIP in overturning the Van der Peet test for Aboriginal rights under s. 35. This month, in Reference re An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) also cited UNDRIP extensively. Kebaowek will now test the Federal Court on reading UNDRIP into the s. 35 constitutional duty towards Indigenous peoples.

When it comes to waste disposal issues, Article 29(2) of UNDRIP specifically mandates “free, prior and informed consent” from Indigenous peoples. Canadian courts have never interpreted s. 35 of Charter as guaranteeing more than a procedure of consultation and, if necessary, accommodation. In Delgamuukw v BC, the SCC left open the possibility that a full consent by First Nations is required in some cases, but so far we don’t know what factual matrix would culminate in such a consent requirement. The 2023-28 Canadian Action Plan to implement UNDRIP promises to align with Article 32(2), which calls for “consultation and cooperation in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned in order to obtain free, prior and informed consent, prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and

other resources.” Could the Federal Court continue the recent judicial trend of UNDRIP empowerment by requiring consent in Kebaowek’s case? Further, in White and Montour, the Quebec Superior Court adopted the presumption of conformity approach, under which Charter rights are to be interpreted as providing at least the same level of protection as the international human rights guarantees that Canada has ratified. Although White and Montour does not bind the Federal Court, it gives hope that the Federal Court will also consider this approach, thereby broadening Indigenous rights at the federal level.

Disputes over the consultation duty arise often. In many cases, the discontent is not only with the procedure, but also with the decisions themselves. At its core, Canada’s judicial upper hand with respect to Indigenous rights and titles fails to satisfy a growing culture of reconciliation. The next step to lower this upper hand is to implement a consent requirement. If the judiciary is willing to recognize consent in this case, or give the legislature or future courts a nudge towards that direction of consent, it would be immensely helpful.

I say immensely helpful because there are current ongoing conversations between the Crown and First Nations in Ontario about high-level nuclear waste disposal. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NMWO) is considering two potential sites— Saugeen-Ojibway Nation (South Bruce) and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (north of Lake Superior). Kebaowek’s case can open a conversation for other First Nations dealing

with waste disposal projects, and urge the government to mandate Indigenous consent in these issues and perhaps beyond. While it is true that the Ontario Power Generation honoured the consent of the Saugeen-Ojibway Nation when the latter voted against the disposal of high-level waste in 2020, without a legal mandate for consent, such noble honours are deeply insecure. Currently, spent fuels sit in dry casks on the surface of the earth, posing national security and safety risks. One can hardly imagine a more pressing and substantial objective than this to override Charter rights. The odds are stacked high against the impacted First Nations.

A decision to deposit nuclear waste in Ontario with unsound procedure should concern all citizens. The significance of recognizing Kebaowek’s right of consent is beyond NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard). The truth is, the waste has to go somewhere. The construction and operation of a high-level nuclear waste site itself is a huge security risk—to date, not a single country has found a permanent home for these spent fuels, with Finland coming the closest. The point of consent is joining hands to swallow this hard truth, no matter where the burial site ends up being. If we can accept that building a repository is a necessary step, then a move towards that goal requires a firm social agreement to keep it underground. And no such agreement can be reached without a robust, and perhaps lengthy, procedure in the first place. An unsound nuclear waste site selection process that gives rise to future conflicts with Indigenous peoples is a risk that humanity just can’t afford to take.

YIWEI BIAN (2L)

THE PROPOSED NEAR SURFACE DISPOSAL FACILITY. CREDIT: CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES

RIGHTS REVIEW

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

An independent student-led publication

2023–24 Rights Review Editorial Board

Editor-in-Chief: Fatima Aamir (3L)

Senior Editors: Jason Quinn (2L) and Daniel Edmeades (2L)

INTERNATIONAL LAW AT ITS INTERSECTIONS: TRANSNATIONAL BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS REFLECTIONS FROM THE 52ND ANNUAL CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW CONFERENCE

By Foti Vito (3L)

This article reflects the views of the author alone, not the International Human Rights Program, nor the Rights Review Editorial Board members.

Attending the 52nd annual conference of the Canadian Council for International Law (CCIL), held in Ottawa from November 2-3, 2023, was an incredibly insightful experience, made possible through the support of the International Human Rights Program (IHRP). The conference, themed “Inside the Venn: International Law at its Intersections,” presented a unique opportunity to complement my experience as a student in the newly returned IHRP clinic. The CCIL conference highlighted how practitioners of international law are increasingly operating at the intersections of diverse legal issues. As international law intersects with domestic legal orders in particular, there is a heightened need for collaboration with subject matter experts who can enrich traditional legal approaches with interdisciplinary insights. The conference’s exploration of these dynamics reflected the new and interdisciplinary vision of the IHRP clinic, which is now focused on advancing corporate accountability, climate justice, and Indige-

ARDI

nous rights. As a student in the IHRP clinic, a few of my peers and I are supporting an anticipated lawsuit involving allegations of serious human rights abuses committed by a Canadian resource extraction company operating abroad. In light of my clinic project, during the conference I focused on deepening my understanding of the intersections between transnational business and human rights, a recurring theme across several of the panel discussions.

One of the panels, "Strengthening Human Rights Through International Economic Law Actions—The Right Tool for The Job?", delved into the appropriateness of using trade and investment law as instruments for strengthening global human rights. The emergence of legislation related to corporate human rights due diligence, such as Canada’s new forced labour and supply chain reporting law, is a clear indicator of this shifting landscape. The panelists emphasized the need for mechanisms that mandate broader societal consultation in trade and bilateral investment agreements, underlining the evolving nature of human rights issues in transnational business.

Another intriguing session was "Arbitration Beyond Investor-State Dispute Settlement: New Intersec-

tions in International Law.” A main focus here was The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration, an innovative set of model rules that enable communities to arbitrate against corporations in business and human rights disputes without requiring the involvement of states. The challenge, however, lies in obtaining corporate consent for such arbitrations. A thought-provoking proposal suggested making this consent a prerequisite for foreign investors seeking access to investor-state dispute settlement against host countries.

Lastly, the panel on "The Intersection of Jurisdiction and (International) Human Rights Law” particularly resonated with my experience in the IHRP clinic. A compelling point was made that without access to jurisdiction, rights remain unenforceable, highlighting the tension between the law of jurisdiction, which is primarily focused on peaceful co-existence between states, and international human rights law, which seeks to uphold fundamental individual values. I was reminded how this tension is prevalent in domestic claims against Canadian corporations for alleged human rights abuses committed abroad, where the issue of forum non conveniens often arises. During the

discussion, the panelists underscored the limitations of relying solely on courts to advance international human rights, highlighting a sentiment also found in the realm of transnational business, where the need for government regulation is increasingly recognized.

Reflecting on my attendance at the CCIL conference overall, the experience meaningfully enriched my perspective as a student in the IHRP clinic. The diverse keynotes and panels provided me with a more nuanced understanding of emerging issues within the realm of international law, especially as they relate to transnational business and human rights. The conference's interdisciplinary focus emphasized that effective international lawyering calls for collaboration, creative legal thinking, and strategic policy engagement. The conference also provided students with an excellent opportunity to learn about career paths in international law and to network with representatives from different government departments, law firms, and non-profit organizations. I strongly encourage students with an interest in international law to consider joining next year’s event!

BOOK TALK: THE UN AND THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE

IMSEIS DISCUSSES "RULE

By Fatima Aamir (3L)

This article reflects the views of the author alone, not the International Human Rights Program, nor the Rights Review Editorial Board members.

Introduction

On January 23, Queens Law Professor Ardi Imseis visited U of T Law to introduce his new book, The UN and the Question of Palestine. The event was organized by Professor Mohammed Fadel, who introduced the event by reminding audiences that Palestinian human rights and freedom are not recent concerns of Faculty or students at U of T's Faculty of Law. 2020-2021 saw the IHRP scandal at the University, where the Censure UofT movement called for donor transparency and the protection of academic freedom following the Faculty's rescission of a job offer to international human rights scholar Valentina Azarova due to donor concerns about her pro-Palestinian scholarship.

"The Censure UofT movement generated solidarity among faculty across different divisions in the university," Fadel recalled. Examples include Faculty Professors Anver M. Emon and David Schneiderman's article "The Storm Over Academic Freedom, Collegial Governance, and International Human Rights at UofT's Faculty of Law" and Fadel's own new class on the conflict, co-taught with Professor Ariel Katz at the law school last fall. "The goal was to normalize discourse about Palestine [at the law school] and to institutionalize it as an academic subject." The UN and the Question of Palestine Imseis began his talk by sharing that 80% of

BY LAW" AND THE STRUCTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SUBALTERNITY

people in Gaza are not Gazans but were displaced (or are descendents of those displaced) from the 1948 nakba, which saw 700,000 Palestinians turn into refugees overnight. From 2002 to 2014, Imseis was Legal Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNWRA)— which was recently defunded by at least nine major donors, including Canada, in what critics have called "collective punishment" to Gazans. It was during Imseis' time at the UN that the limits of the organization in securing the human rights and freedom of Palestinians became bitterly clear to him.

Imseis said his book is the first dedicated to the UN's management of Palestine that offers critical comment. It challenges the "received wisdom" that the UN is the standard bearer of international legal order. Part of Imseis' scholarly intervention is his discussion of "International Legal Subalternity," which he defined as "the condition of those continually subjected to international law, but for whom international law's promises are perpetually kept out of reach." Imseis observed critically that the UN's management of Palestine illustrates the clash between "rule of law" and "rule by law." He defined the former as "law based on [the] universal application of norms, without regard to power or the station of subjects." The latter: "the cynical use, abuse, and selective application of international legal norms, by hegemonic actors, perpetuating inequity between them and their subaltern." Imseis was clear that international legal subalternity and rule by law do not simply illustrate the plight of the Palestinians. "You can

see this in other countries," he observed, "with the circumstances of refugees, internally displaced peoples, and Indigenous peoples." While Imseis is critical of the UN, he pointed out that Palestine's legal subalternity did not begin there. It began in the interwar period with the League of Nations, where British imperialism began undermining the rights of the Arab peoples. Imseis pointed to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Covenant, and the Palestine Mandate of 1922-1947 as critical and oftoverlooked moments that furthered the international legal disenfranchisement of Palestinians. For Lord Balfour, for example, the existence of Native Palestinians was unimportant. Privately, he declared, "In the case of Palestine, we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self-determination." Imseis added that Zionism is a self-described European settler movement imposed on Palestinians: the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, himself made it clear that "Zionism is a "colonial idea" and that the Jewish national home in Palestine will "form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism."

Despite the promise of a new global order based on the rule of law, Imseis illustrated that the UN remained true to these troubling legal frameworks it had inherited. Resolution 181, on November 29, 1947, saw the partition of Palestine. This Resolution reflected further contempt for the principle of self-determination and consent. For example, Imseis shared that Jose Garcia Granados, Guatemala's UN Representative who was one of the members of the UN Special Commit-

tee on Palestine (UNSCOP), stated on October 10, 1947 that "Palestine was no more Arab than certain Spanish countries of Latin America were Indian. The Jews had made a pleasant and healthy country out of a land in which a sparse and rachitic population had merely vegetated. It was incomprehensible that the Arabs should adduce their numerical superiority as an argument [for self-determination] ... an ignorant majority should not be allowed to impose its will." Such statements are unsettling. They echo the terra nullius justification that European settlers used to (often violently) impose their rule on First Nations communities throughout Turtle Island, in flagrant disregard for their self-determination and existing governance.

Imseis discussed how the Partition plan allocated the Jewish state 57% of the territory, including most of the fertile land. The economic viability of the proposed Palestinian state was found to be low, and Imseis noted that in response, Palestinians were expected to go to the Bretton Woods institutions and beg for aid. This entrenched a trend of pushing Palestinians towards developmental solutions to deal with festering legal and political problems.

For example, Imseis discussed UNWRA, where he used to work. UNWRA is an entirely distinct institution from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The UNHCR has 3 preferred "durable solutions" for refugees: voluntary repatriation (the preferred scenario), local integration into the country of immediate ref-

Continued on page 10

uge, and resettlement into a third country.

UNRWA emerged following the collapse of the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine, which lasted just three years, from 1949 to 1952. It failed because Israel never agreed to the repatriation of Palestinian refugees, and Arab states never allowed for long-term resettlement. "[The Commission] simply stopped working on a durable solution," said Imseis. The Commission's successor, UNRWA, is both a relief and work agency. It seeks not only to provide Palestinians with humanitarian assistance but also to integrate them into the economic life of the Near East–what Imseis considers a euphemism for resettling them following their ethnic cleansing. The idea, Imseis argued, is to put Palestinians to work where they are so they have no desire to return to the homes they were forcibly displaced from.

The UNWRA originated as a temporary agency. It has lasted for over 75 years.

At the time of Imseis' event, the ICJ hearing between South Africa and Israel on whether Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was ongoing. Despite audience pessimism regarding any meaningful outcome for the Palestinians, Imseis noted that a positive ICJ decision means third party obligations on countries like Canada to do what they can to halt genocide.

He added that while there has been close attention to documenting Israel's illegal settlements, deportations, torture, and the economic impact of its occupation on Palestinians, international human rights organizations do not go so far as to challenge the legality of the regime giving rise to these violations. "Is Israel's occupation lawful [in the first place]?" Imseis posed to the audience. This question is also being considered at the ICJ–hearings Canada has pulled out of at the last minute.

Professor Kamari Clarke's critical reponse

The book talk concluded with comments from Professor Kamari Clarke, Distinguished Professor at the Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies, and the Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies at U of T.

First, Clarke praised Imseis' "profound contribution to legal theory": his discussion of the "rule by law" in the international realm, which produces conditions of subalternity. She placed Imseis' approach in line with other Third World approaches to international law, where scholars problematize Eurocentricity, which "carries civilizing rationales into modern juridical settings." For the Third World, their sovereignty is circumscribed, conditional, Clarke emphasized, as Imseis has illustrated in his discussion.

However, Clarke went on to challenge Imseis by interrogating, "why are we ending with the UN?" For a book that painstakingly delineates how international law has been far from a domain of liberation for Palestinians, why conclude by investing faith in those very institutions? Clarke pointed out that for Palestinians, the problem is a fundamentally political one, not just legal. "Political solutions are needed alongside the space of law as a domain of possibility," Clarke argued, "and TWAIL scholarship (Third World Approaches to International Law) is valuable here." Clarke drew our attention to the affective nature of law. "What can law do for social mobilization; how is law instrumentalized for particular ends?" she asked. "These are political problems."

Clarke and Imseis both recognized that international law is shaped fundamentally by politics. In the audience Q&A, for example, Imseis noted that subalternity is a permanent feature of the international order; it is constantly shifting. "There are always new subalterns and new hegemons," he explained. "There's always, in law, power: who drafts the law, when do they do it, for whom, and how?"

NO RIGHTS FOR THE WICKED (PART I)

EXAMINING THE ACADEMIC ARGUMENTS AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO TURN OVER MASSIVE RUSSIAN FUNDS TO UKRAINE

By Jared Sloan (1L)

This article reflects the views of the author alone, not the International Human Rights Program, nor the Rights Review Editorial Board members.

To seize, or not to seize, that is the $300 billion question.

This monstrous sum represents the now-frozen foreign-held assets of the Russian central bank, immobilized by G7 and other countries following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. But as the war grinds on and funding for Ukraine becomes harder for its allies to sustain, some nations—Canada included—are weighing a more punitive proposal: confiscating Russia’s frozen riches and delivering them to Ukraine. The New York Times reported last month that the Biden administration has begun “pressing Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan to come up with a strategy by Feb. 24, the second anniversary of the

invasion.”

As appealing as this idea sounds from a moral perspective, there has been an active debate since the start of the war as to whether domestic and international law allow Western governments to actualize such goals. This column does not intend to wade into the debate, other than to say that the experts advocating for this plan have laid out a very clear and convincing case.

So, with a major decision potentially in the offing, I wanted to better understand the context—how we’ve arrived at this point, why this proposal is legally controversial, and how Canada is playing a role in these unfolding events—by working through some of the big questions. Watch this space in the months ahead.

Let’s dive right in—what exactly is the proposal, and what is the underlying legal theory?

If you’re looking for the full legal arguments, there are some wonderfully thorough versions available, most notably in a September 2023 report by the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), authored by renowned legal scholar Laurence Tribe and others. For a Canadian-focused view, it is worth reviewing the white paper on Bill S-278, tabled by Senator Ratna Omidvar this past October.

Drawing mainly from these two sources, I would summarize the legal underpinnings of this proposal as follows:

1. Under customary international law, there are robust protections for a state’s sovereign assets—often referred to as “sovereign immunity.” This shields a state from the judicial authority of foreign courts, but it does not—according to this argument—provide protection from the actions of another state’s executive or legislative branches. Per the white paper: “The international law doctrine of state immunity bars the national court of one state from adjudicating in proceedings involving another state. It does not, however, prevent the Parliament of another state from mandating the state’s executive arm to take action against the assets belonging to a foreign state.”

2. Ordinarily, such actions would violate customary international law pertaining to a state’s obligations not to interfere with another state’s sovereign property. (Note that these obligations do not stem from the “sovereign immunity” doctrine, but rather the “interrelated principles of reciprocity, comity, and fair compensation for expropriation” which govern normal legal relations between countries.) However, the international law doctrine of countermeasures would, in the current circumstances, permit states such as Canada to “suspend customary international obligations with respect to Russian state assets,” so long as such measures meet certain criteria (more on this to come).

Based on the above, the RDI report says that “G7 countries can and should amend their sovereignimmunity statutes to remove any doubt that a state like Russia is not entitled to the protections of sovereign immunity when it so blatantly violates international law.” As it so happens, Senator Omidvar’s proposed legislation provides a perfect example of how this can be done. As stated on her website, Bill S-278 would “amend the Special Economic Measures Act to allow for a legal pathway to seize and repurpose state assets, including central bank reserves, of perpetrators that breach international peace and security and redirect them to the victims that have had their lives shattered. The bill would allow the Governor in Council to dispose of a foreign state’s assets seized under the Act if the seizure occurred without a judicial order.” This proposal was last debated during its second reading in October.

For Canada, however, there is one problematic detail: just prior to its illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia appears to have transferred nearly all of the central bank reserves it kept in Canada— as in all but CAD $100-200, or just slightly less than the $1 trillion or more which may be needed to rebuild Ukraine. But in Senator Omidvar’s speech at the second reading, she explained that even if there was just $1, “the principles and objective of my bill still apply, and they are as follows: to create a legal avenue for Canada to seize state assets and, more importantly, to create a legal precedent that can be followed by other like-minded jurisdictions.”

As noted at the start, recent reporting suggests that the Biden administration now believes that there is indeed a legal way for other countries to follow Canada’s lead and hopefully establish a collective plan to seize and dispose of Russia’s frozen funds, the bulk of which lie in Europe (and Belgium in particular, where Russia moved the CAD $16 billion in reserves previously held in Canada). Such plans have been talked about for some time now; an official statement by the European Union in February 2023 expressed a commitment to support Ukraine’s reconstruction by “striving to use frozen and immobilized Russian assets in accordance

with EU and international law.” And the RDI report goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act provides the necessary authority for the U.S. President to transfer sovereign assets from Russia to Ukraine through executive action—much as Senator Omidvar’s proposed amendment would allow the Canadian government to do.

Of course, there arises the question of why countries are pursuing this avenue after two entire years of the untold death and destruction visited upon Ukraine. Part of it has to do with the evolving dynamics of both the war and political support abroad; the NYT piece referenced earlier cited the view of a senior Biden administration official that “eroding support for the war effort among Republicans and Ukraine’s increasingly

precarious military position made it clear that an alternative source of funding was desperately needed.”

There are also a number of concerns about the potential fallout of the planned asset transfer, particularly in relation to possibilities of damaging the position of dollars/euros as preferred global reserve currencies, and exposing the assets of Western governments/investors to retaliatory expropriations. These points have been contested, but that is not the focus of the coverage here.

Rather, the next article in this series will explore the question at the heart of the ongoing debate in international law circles: Can the seizure and transfer of Russian assets be lawfully per-

formed under the doctrine of countermeasures?

In the meantime, it is useful, I think, to remind ourselves just what is at stake in this moment, and why this transfer of funds, along with immediate and more effective support from Western governments, represents a moral and strategic imperative. By all accounts, there may be many hard months ahead before Ukraine has another chance to turn the tide on the battlefield. The West needs to reaffirm that it is in this for the long haul.

Or there is the alternative scenario—increasingly and depressingly imaginable—in which the West, after squandering the best chance of a total victory for Ukraine and then failing to position it for a

NO RIGHTS FOR THE WICKED (PART II) CANVASSING THE CASE FOR COUNTERMEASURES

By Jared Sloan (1L)

This article reflects the views of the author alone, not the International Human Rights Program, nor the Rights Review Editorial Board members.

On February 16, 2024, it was reported that Alexei Navalny had died in an Arctic penal colony, aged 47, survived by his wife and two children, and forever a heroic figure to all those who believe in freedom and democracy. As Joe Biden fittingly said of Navalny in a tribute speech, he was all the things that Vladimir Putin is not. And Biden made sure to put the blame squarely where it belongs: “Make no mistake, Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death. Putin is responsible.”

You may recall that in 2021, Biden threatened consequences “that would be devastating for Russia” if Navalny were to die in prison. With all that has happened in the intervening time, the idea of Putin ever being truly held to account by the U.S. (or anyone else) can feel dishearteningly remote, particularly as Ukraine struggles to secure the funds, weapons, and soldiers it needs to continue defending its territory. But as the death of Russia’s most famous dissident was reverberating around the globe, another prominent Kremlin critic chimed in with perhaps the best option available to Western governments at this moment. Garry Kasparov, the former World Chess Champion and chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative, wrote on X: Today would be a good day to seize $300 billion in Russian assets and give it to Ukraine.

This proposal is, of course, the central motivation for this series. Part I provided an introduction to the legal theory behind it, and the current efforts of Senator Ratna Omidvar to have Canada set an example for other countries in turning this idea into real policy. Part II was set up as a more detailed examination of the doctrine of countermeasures in international law, and how it would apply to the present context.

As mentioned in Part I, one of the most helpful sources in understanding this subject matter has been the white paper on Senator Omidvar’s proposal, written by three internationally-based attorneys. Upon rereading their carefully developed legal arguments, it seemed to me that the best use of this space would simply be to present the case—or at least an abridged casebook version, if you will— as written by the professionals. So, with full credit to the three authors—Jamison Firestone, Tetyana Nesterchuk, and Yuliya Ziskina—I have tried to piece together a faithful representation of their expert legal opinion. I hope you will find the arguments as compelling as I do (not to mention Joe Biden and Nikki Haley, who have both embraced a similar bill advanced by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee). And if so, I hope you will consider ways to express your support for Senator Omidvar’s efforts to pass Bill S-278. As Dennis Aftergut recently wrote in The Bulwark, we need not all demonstrate the courage of Alexei Navalny, but

surely we can all “do what the martyred Russian opposition leader asked—play whatever small part we can in preserving our own freedom.”

WHITE PAPER ON AMENDING THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES ACT TO ENABLE SEIZURE OF RUSSIAN STATE ASSETS

PART 2. Analysis of International Law Supporting Confiscation of Russian State Assets

1. Russia has an obligation to pay reparations under international law.

[24] The UN International Law Commission’s (“ILC”) Articles on State Responsibility (“ARSIWA”) reflect the customary international law obligation that states that commit an internationally wrongful act must “make full reparation for the injury caused by the intentionally wrongful act.” […] Importantly, the obligation of the responsible state may be owed to the international community as a whole, depending on the character and content of the obligations (for instance, an obligation under a treaty concerning protection of human rights or the UN Charter itself may exist towards all the other parties to a treaty or the charter). Finally, there is no requirement for the responsible state to consent before reparations, including compensation, are made.

[25] This means that Russia’s obligation to make reparations to Ukraine is owed to the entire international community and the international community is able to enforce such an obligation without Russia’s consent. In other words, states not directly injured by Russia’s conduct may seize and transfer Russian state assets to Ukraine without any form of agreement from Russia.

[26] There is no real dispute that Ukraine and probably other states are entitled to compensation from Russia. It is undeniable that since 22 February 2022 (and arguably, since its invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014) Russia has violated numerous international laws, including Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (generally considered the cornerstone of the charter) which provides that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”, the ruling of the International Court of Justice dated 17 March 2022 ordering that the Russian Federation “shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine”, as well as multiple provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Genocide Convention. As such, Ukraine and other parties to the UN Charter and the Genocide Convention, which include Canada, have the obligation to do what they can to stop these actions and hold Russia accountable for committing them, including by transferring Russia’s frozen sovereign assets to Ukraine.

[27] Given the existence of this obligation, Russian frozen assets can, and indeed, must be seized and transferred to Ukraine in satisfac-

tion of Russia’s existing obligation to make reparation. Any subsequent amount of reparation paid by Russia would be reduced by the amount of Russian confiscated assets already transferred to Ukraine.

2. The international law principle of state countermeasures permits other nations to confiscate Russia’s assets to compensate for losses caused by Russia’s unlawful actions.

[31] In international law, a state may take countermeasures in response to the internationally wrongful act of another state, which is intended to induce the latter state to comply with its international legal obligations. Countermeasures are, by definition, state acts that would ordinarily be unlawful, and thus would attract international legal responsibility (liability), if not taken in response to an internationally wrongful act by the offending state in order to achieve a specific objective: namely, cessation and/or reparation. The purpose of countermeasures is the need to restore the equality between sovereign states and to re-establish the balance that has been disturbed by the commission of the internationally wrongful act. Although the analogy is imperfect, countermeasures operate much like justifications or excuses found in criminal law.

a. “Countermeasures” are distinct from “sanctions,” and it is time to move from sanctions to countermeasures.

[35] The sanctions construct is appropriate for freezing Russian assets, which has accomplished the goals of constraining Russia’s access to its financial resources and hampering its economic growth and ability to attract foreign capital. Yet sanctions alone have proven to be ineffective in persuading Russia to call off its war, much less to deliver reparation to Ukraine and other states for the moral and material damage Russia’s war has caused and continues to cause. Thus, countermeasures are the most appropriate tool in the international law arsenal which could and should be used to enforce Russia’s compliance with its obligations to cease its breaches of international law and make reparations for the injuries caused by its actions.

3. Transfer of sovereign assets to Ukraine is a justified and permissible countermeasure against Russia.

[41] A lawful countermeasure should only seek for cessation and/or to obtain reparation for the injury caused. A lawful countermeasure has to fulfil several additional prerequisites: such a countermeasure must be: 1) taken in response to a previous international wrongful act of another state, 2) directed against that state, 3) taken after a prior call upon the responsible state and prior offer to negotiate, and 4) such a measure must be proportionate.

[42] Additionally, the countermeasure must be: 1) temporary and, “as far as possible, be taken in such a way to permit the resumption of perfor-

successful counteroffensive in 2023, now forecloses any path to an acceptable resolution by allowing assistance to run dry. As Lee Hockstader wrote last month in The Washington Post: That would leave Ukraine’s government unable to maintain basic services, and its military increasingly short of artillery ammunition, air defense capability and other equipment. Ukraine’s already badly battered front-line forces would become more brittle. Russian territorial gains would be accompanied by murders, rapes, kidnapping of children and other Russian war crimes on a chilling scale. This revanchist evil must be defeated at all costs. And who better to pay the costs than those who perpetrate the crimes?

mance of the obligations in question” (also known as the “reversibility” requirement), and 2) not imposed when the dispute is pending before a court or tribunal.

[43] The transfer of Russia’s sovereign assets is a valid countermeasure under these conditions.

1) First, Russia is plainly in breach of international law.

2) Second, the countermeasure of transferring Russia’s sovereign property satisfies the commonsense concept of proportionality and is not gratuitous. In effect, this countermeasure would constitute a narrowly limited abrogation of Russia’s property interest in certain sovereign assets. In any event, Russia could make a claim for the return of its seized property, but any such claim would be offset against a credit Russia would receive for payments already made to Ukraine out of its seized sovereign assets against Russia’s total liability for full reparation. Russia would only be entitled to a return of its assets from transferring or recipient states if the transferred funds exceeded its total liability for reparations. In practice, that will almost certainly not be the case since even conservatively estimated damage caused to Ukraine by Russia far exceeds the amount of its frozen sovereign assets.

3) Third, the international community has already put Russia on notice—indeed, has done so repeatedly—that it is in breach of obligations owed to the international community.

4) Finally, it satisfies the reversibility requirement: the transfer operates as a temporary and narrow de-recognition of the obligations concerning Russia’s property that Canada ordinarily owes to Russia. Once Russia resumes compliance with international law, and complies with its own international law obligation to make reparation, that de-recognition would be reversed, any payments already made to Ukraine out of Russia’s sovereign assets by third party states, such as Canada, would be credited against the debt Russia owes Ukraine, and Russia’s legal relations with Canada and other nations would be normalized.

[…]

[58] In short, if Canada and other western states want to face fewer crises like that in Ukraine, they should send the unmistakable message to the international community that Russia’s conduct will not be tolerated, and should avoid sending the aggression-encouraging signal that such conduct will be met with hesitation and appeasement.

[59] Last, if Canada or other countries are worried about the precedent they may set and are dissatisfied with the limitations already written into law, the solution is to narrow the effect of the precedent that is set, not to abstain from action altogether.

SOUTH AFRICA V. ISRAEL AT THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

A CONVERSATION ON THE LAW OF GENOCIDE WITH PROFESSOR WILLIAM A. SCHABAS

By Aysha Khan (2L)

This article reflects the views of the author alone, not the International Human Rights Program, nor the Rights Review Editorial Board members.

On January 22, 2024, the IHRP hosted Professor William A. Schabas for a special conversation on the law of genocide and the ongoing International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearing, South Africa v. Israel . Dr. Schabas is a law professor at Middlesex University and Leiden University and is world-renowned in his expertise in human rights law, genocide, and the death penalty. The event recording is up on YouTube.

Dr. Schabas began his conversation by sharing the historical context of the ICJ regarding violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, or the Genocide Convention. The Genocide Convention of 1948 sets a number of obligations on party states requiring them to enact legislation that prevents genocide, punish those who have committed genocide, and cooperate in extradition charges, among other items. Article IX of the Convention lays out the compromissory clause that enables any contracting party to unilaterally bring a dispute to the ICJ relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfillment of the treaty.

The first time a state brought a claim on the violation of genocide when they were not an injured party was in the case of The Gambia v. Myanmar. Gambia, on behalf of the 57 states that make up the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, claimed that Myanmar had breached its obligation under the Genocide Convention through its assault on the Rohingya Muslims. In support of Gambia, several Western Europe -

an states and Canada filed an intervention seeking a larger, expansive, and liberal interpretation of the Genocide Convention.

According to Article 63 of the Genocide Convention, these same intervening parties agree to be bound by the court’s ruling despite not being a direct party. The consequence of this intervention is pertinent to the current South Africa v. Israel case where several of the same interveners— this time on the side of the respondent— may no longer be able to advocate instead for a continued narrow approach.

Previous landmark judgements by the ICJ on claims relating to genocide have used strict interpretations of the Genocide Convention. In Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro , the Court adopted the conclusions from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia that found instead of a “collective” responsibility, guilt for war crimes should be individualized. Accordingly, Serbia was only found responsible of failing to prevent genocide.

Using this same framework, the Center for Constitutional Rights has brought a claim against U.S. President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin for failure to prevent genocide in Gaza. They argue that the U.S. has influence over the State of Israel to prevent genocide and is directly abetting its development with weapons, funds, and diplomatic cover. Dr. Schabas assisted in the case’s filing through a written declaration that found “there is a serious risk of genocide committed against the Palestinian population of Gaza and that the United States of America is in breach of its obligation [in the Genocide Convention].”

What happens next with South Africa v. Israel ?

As predicted by Dr. Schabas, ICJ justices, in response to the filing by South Africa, recently made a provisional order. This first stage by the ICJ has a relatively low threshold—similar to an interim injunction that only requires a prima facie case to go forward. The provisional order is released soon after an initial filing and can vary from being a symbolic gesture to a set of demands, like in the case of Ukraine v. Russia , where Russia was required to immediately suspend military operations in the territory of Ukraine.

The provisional measures, released on January 26, 2024, fell short of ordering an immediate ceasefire, but did trigger certain legal obligations. The following orders were directed at Israel by a majority of the justices:

1. Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of genocidal acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza and take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of such acts, including the killing of Palestinians in Gaza and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part.

2. Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit genocidal acts.

3. Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to Palestinians in Gaza.

4. Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

5. Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction of evidence related to allegations of genocidal acts against Palestinians in Gaza.

6. Israel shall report to the Court within a month on all measures it has taken to enforce the provisional measures. The second stage at the ICJ will involve a review of the admissibility and jurisdiction of the case. South Africa has six to eight months to submit a full application with more extensive analyses. In turn, Israel will have three months to make their objections.

Whether the Court will take a broader interpretation of the Genocide Convention remains unclear. Dr. Schabas stated that in the past, the Court has made a distinction between measures intended to physically exterminate a group and measures to expel a group from a territory. Historically, the latter has not constituted as genocide. This has since been criticized by countries like Canada for its narrow interpretation. However, the same countries that advocate for a broader interpretation, by doing so, may expose themselves to potential violations of the Convention.

Dr. Schabas ended with a salient point about the significance of South Africa’s decision to bring a claim to the ICJ on behalf of Palestine. After decades of international condemnation in their apartheid era, South Africa returns to the international arena—full circle—bringing their once-ally and lone friend to trial for claims they previously faced themselves.

Soup Dumpling Review

A fun way to hang out with friends in Toronto

FIEVEL LIM (3L)

When Justin Kim (3L) first suggested this “dumpling crawl,” everyone quickly piled in—I mean, who doesn’t love a good soup dumpling? He suggested four places: Juicy Dumpling, Yummy Yummy Dumplings, Qin’s Garden, and of course, the well-known Mother’s Dumplings. If you have been living in Toronto for basically any amount of time, at least two or three of these names will sound familiar to you. Most of us hadn’t tried all of these, so there was a welcome mix of old and new experiences for everyone. We started from Juicy Dumpling in Chinatown and made our way up north to Qin’s Garden for our final stop.

At each location, we ordered enough soup dumplings so that each of us got to try at least one and up to three, depending on the serving size. We ended up spending a flat $15.00 each, which was an auspicious coincidence. Below is our review of these four Chinatown places for soup dumplings.

Qin’s Garden

At a respectable $4.99 for six dumplings, this was unanimously a “bang for your buck” kind of dumpling. However, true Torontonians will know that the same purchase was $3.99 not too long ago (and even $2.99 before that). That being said, it was the cheapest dumpling on this crawl, a fact that did not escape anyone’s notice. Everyone also felt that the dumplings were a good size and very juicy, so the restaurant is definitely aptly named. Despite the restaurant being quite small (it’s really more of a takeaway place), we made the seating for eight work in a corner. The service was truly speedy, as it only took less than five minutes to get our three orders of soup dumplings. One reviewer commented that the dumpling skin was quite thin, which seemed to be the general consensus. However, there was also a remark that the meat probably could have been better. At this price point though, we were mostly satisfied.

Honestly, a strong 8/10 to start. A classic Torontonian checkpoint for a quick snack or even a full meal if you dare.

Casual warning that we were slightly shamed by the owners (in a language they thought we could not understand) for ordering barely any food after sitting down. In hindsight, we definitely should have just ordered takeout. Nevertheless, they were still very attentive, and the service was otherwise very good. They weren’t quite as fast as Juicy Dumpling, but we did order a bit more for a more substantial “lunch” (or because of the aforementioned shaming). The green onion pancakes were pretty good, but the pork, shrimp, and chive panfried dumplings were only okay. But let’s get to the star of the show. At $9.99 (double Juicy’s!) for six soup dumplings, we immediately felt the stakes rise. The general consensus was that they were not that dissimilar from Juicy Dumpling (aside from price), though some did note that it was “probably less seasoned” or “hotter” than their counterpart. These dumpling skins were even thinner than Juicy’s, and a few of us had a problem with the skin ripping.

This was around 7/10. Decent, but was it worth the increase in price?

After learning our lesson at Yummy Yummy, we decided the last two places should be takeout only. We went to order at Qin's Garden, then quickly popped over next door to Mother’s Dumplings. Qin’s Garden’s soup dumplings are advertised as the “largest in Toronto.” And large they were. At a whopping $9 per four dumplings, these were definitely the biggest soup dumplings of the day. Most of us considered it to have a “good heft” with more meat, though others felt that it was potentially too big to chew in one bite. The group was definitely divided on whether the filling’s slightly sweeter seasoning was a good or bad thing. I am personally in the camp that it was worse, but a good half of the group felt that it was a plus. For them, it was better than Yummy Yummy’s. What really stole the show was the chili oil that came with the dumplings.

Probably 7/10, similar to Yummy Yummy, depending on whether you like the sweetness.

Mother’s Dumplings

Saving the best, and probably most famous for last. Okay that’s an outright lie. This stop was by far the worst, at a staggering $14.35 (+ tax!) for eight dumplings that reminded us of frozen supermarket dumplings. Good thing we only had one dumpling each. The biggest complaint was that there was nearly no soup in this soup dumpling. The dumpling wrapper was also very thick, and the dumpling itself was quite small. The filling was unanimously found to be quite grainy, as if there was too much non-meat filler. It was definitely disappointing to have this as our final stop, but we did eat both Qin’s and Mother’s dumplings at the same time, which perhaps salvaged it a little bit.

3/10, would never return for this dish, to be honest. I’m sure it’s famous for its other dishes?

Overall, this was a fun way to spend a Friday afternoon with friends and a clear example that the activity isn’t as important as the company. This could easily be replicated with a pizza, gelato, bubble tea, or noodle crawl around downtown Toronto. Any excuse to see your friends, get some fresh air, and walk the streets of the city with a full belly is certainly a win in my books!

Yummy Yummy Dumplings

Juicy Dumpling

JUICY DUMPLING. CREDIT: REBEKAH KIM

QIN’S GARDEN. CREDIT: FIEVEL LIM

YUMMY YUMMY DUMPLINGS. CREDIT: REBEKAH KIM MOTHER’S DUMPLINGS. CREDIT: REBEKAH KIM

Ultra Vires’ 25th Anniversary Special: Interviews With UV Alumni

Looking back on UV’s silver jubilee

AMY KWONG (3L) AND ALYSSA WONG (3L)

This year, Ultra Vires will turn 25. The very first issue came out in September 1999, making UV older than some of the students who now walk the halls of Jackman Law Building. To kick off the celebrations, seven UV alumni shared their experiences and reflected on how UV has evolved over time. We heard from founding Editor-in-Chief (EiC) Melissa Kluger (‘01), 2008-09 co-EiC Rano Daoud (‘09), 2011-12 EiC Matt Brown (‘13), 2012-13 EiC Patrick Hartford (‘14), and co-EiCs Vivian Cheng (‘22) and Angela Gu (‘23) in 2020-21, as well as another staff member from the 2008-09 volume.

Most former EiCs were involved in UV in a different capacity before becoming EiC. For example, Rano Daoud had written articles for UV before being asked by the outgoing editorial team to take on the job of EiC. Meanwhile, Matt Brown, Vivian Cheng, and Angela Gu were all associate section editors as 1Ls before serving in the EiC role as 2Ls. Some alumni who were EiCs as 2Ls remained in an advisory role during their 3L years, sometimes taking on the title of “EiC Emeritus.”

UV: What is your fondest memory of your time in UV?

All the UV alumni emphasized how the people, and frequently the grind to finish issues on time, were the best parts of their UV experience. Several alumni also fondly remembered late nights staying at school, scrambling to finish edits or finalize layouts for the print issues. Though these moments were taxing at the time, they became emblematic of the UV experience. Matt Brown joked that his tenure as EiC was remarkable for its complete lack of accomplishment or seriousness.

One EiC also told us about receiving an upset phone call from a law firm, complaining about an article, though they could not recall the precise context.

Melissa Kluger (MK): I really liked the people I worked with on the paper. Everyone was so smart and talented and shared my passion for having a student paper at the school. In those early days, we didn’t have an office and we needed access to desktop computers to put the paper together (almost no one had a laptop at that time). We logged many hours in the computer lab in the library basement, where we would take over a bunch of computers to do our work. I have fond memories of the team working together there. I also really liked the launch parties— we’d book a fun venue somewhere off campus and bring together contributors, editors, and supporters to celebrate the new issue.

Patrick Hartford (PH): I loved the editorial meetings as we planned out upcoming issues. It might sound like a cliché, but it really

was a privilege to work on a passion project with so many talented people.

Vivian Cheng (VC): I loved our editing meetings before lockdowns! I also really enjoyed reading people's stories and feeling connected to the law school community.

Angela Gu (AG): My fondest memories of my time with UV have to be our editing meetings, UV parties, and the satisfaction of holding a fresh print copy, knowing all the hard work everyone put into it.

UV: What is a memorable struggle that you experienced with UV?

Responses included key events in UV history, from starting the paper from scratch to going on hiatus to dealing with the outbreak of COVID-19.

MK: I didn’t know anything about starting a newspaper (although I had started a creative writing magazine called Ultra Violet in my undergrad at Queen’s). And I had no training as a journalist. But the way I remember it, it all came together surprisingly smoothly. There were so many talented law students who could fill in the gaps on the things I didn’t know.

UV has not continuously run for the last 25 years—it was on hiatus from November 2008 to November 2009. A group of students representing the University of Toronto Law Union (UTLU) had sent a letter concerning “ethically unacceptable” practices including raising revenue through corporate advertising, an alleged bias towards corporate-oriented content, and distributing leftover advertising revenue to the editorial team through honoraria or stipends. ( Editors’ Note: The UTLU letter and UV’s response were printed in the November 2008 issue.)

A common misconception is that UV went on hiatus because the school shut it down, but former UV members said students simply didn’t want to run the paper anymore. Paying out the stipend was an inherited practice and amounted to “peanuts” in light of the amount of work students put into the paper. They emphasized that UV was an independent paper not funded by the school or by student fees, and that much of the staff signed on for a fun extracurricular activity with friends. When students were asked to run the paper under someone else’s rules, they felt that it was no longer worthwhile to do so if it meant losing both the stipend and UV’s independence. UV was later revived without the stipend.

Another major hurdle was the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, Vivian Cheng and Angela Gu were transitioning

to the co-EiC positions for 2020-21.

VG: We had our last editing meeting of 2020 over Zoom, which was quite exhausting, as editing meetings were full-day events at the time. I think UV adapted like everyone else, with having meetings online and relying on online communications. The unique thing about UV was that, past September 2020, we no longer had to produce print copies. We also didn't have to coordinate donuts, which was sad, but in some ways made it easier. I think the more challenging aspect was coordinating advertising. Everyone I worked with was always willing to help out, and I could see the engagement shine through even online.

AG: So much of the fun of UV (as with any extracurricular activity) comes from the in-person interaction and making friends, so we tried to translate as much of it online as possible. Pre-pandemic, we ordered sushi for editing sessions so we could keep going given the long days, but we switched to sending out gift cards instead. We also translated some experiences virtually—there were no more Doggy Days, so for one issue, we had everyone submit pictures of their dogs and we ran a compilation. You can’t 100% replicate the pre-COVID experience, but we made the most of what we had.

Not all years were affected by such major struggles. Hartford noted the tremendous amount of work put into recruit specials. Brown noted that the work of creating UV is made easier through ongoing advertising relationships, a captive audience of readers, smart colleagues who are good writers, and a team of passionate people. He continued: “There’s so little that I even remember about what happened in law school, except for my core community [like] Follies and UV. That’s what I look back on fondly.”

UV: How did working on UV impact your law school experience?

PH: Working on UV was a highlight of law school for me. Not because it helped my grades or looked good on paper, but because we were all there because we cared about the school and the issues we wrote about. From the light-hearted stuff to the critical pieces, it was all about contributing to the school community and making it a better place.

VC: Working on UV made my experience much more positive. I really enjoyed hearing what people found important and reading stories of events in the community. The people who worked on UV were very cool, down-to-earth, and hardworking. I still have very fond memories of working on it.

AG: Sure, there was UV stress on top of

school stress, but it was fun stress that we all signed up for, and we were bolstered by a sense of camaraderie. It was also a way to do something just for your own enrichment (“enrichment” used in the sense of giving an animal enrichment in an enclosure) and without the competitiveness that comes with so many other activities, to remember that there is life outside of schoolwork.

Daoud told us about how some things always stay the same—classes will be hard, people will be stressed, tuition will always go up—but UV was a break from the grind. Brown joked that UV is great for people who are motivated by attention, with the added bonus of being able to do some service journalism and contribute to a chronicle of student history.

UV: How did working on UV impact your post-law school experience?

MK: Ultra Vires helped me see that there were unique and important stories that law students and the legal community wanted and needed to read. That stayed with me after law school. After a short career as a media lawyer, I started my own legal media company called Law and Style Media Inc. LSM launched Precedent Magazine in 2007—a career and lifestyle magazine for Toronto lawyers. Over the past 17 years, the magazine has evolved and changed, but it continues to hold true to the same ideas behind the founding of UV—telling stories that matter to lawyers and law students, not with a focus on the law itself but about the culture of being a lawyer. Precedent helps to build a sense of community and push the envelope on important topics, just like Ultra Vires.

Some former EiCs told us that working on UV has contributed to their current work lives in smaller ways.

PH: I think that working on UV helped give the confidence to take risks and try something entrepreneurial.

AG: Doing back-up for companies’ disclosures and proofing drafts is not so bad when I associate the process with the fun of fact-checking and copy-editing for UV, while others associate it with Law Review (no shade to Law Review).

For others, UV had little to no impact.

Daoud told us that this was the first time he had been asked about UV since he graduated. Similarly, Brown said that, after law school, UV has had no impact: “And that’s the beauty of it.”

UV: Do you have any advice for UV readers, from your perspective

as a U of T alum or a UV alum?

Some UV alumni encouraged students to get involved:

MK: You can find what you love when you are at law school—even if what you love isn’t practising law. Getting involved in things I cared about helped shape my future in the best ways. And having a law degree is helpful beyond the formal practise of law. It can take you all sorts of places.

PH: Get involved. The newspaper is what students make it. People have this idea that the editors are carefully sifting through mountains of submissions to decide what gets printed. In reality it was all about encouraging people to submit. Have you always wanted to try your hand at movie reviews or comics? Contact UV and volunteer to do it.

Others emphasized enjoying the law school experience. Daoud emphasized that being a U of T graduate opens a lot of doors: “Don’t go into a job or career that will make you miserable. You didn’t work this hard to be miserable, you worked this hard to be happy.” He acknowledged that the advice is cliché, but sometimes needs to be repeated. Another writer echoed similar sentiments, saying that law school is a small part of life and unimportant in the long run, so have fun.

VC: Enjoy law school! Be engaged in class and make good connections with your professors and classmates. Even though it can be arduous and tedious at times, it goes by quickly.

AG: Don’t take yourselves too seriously! We all need a bit of levity to get through law school. Read the Diversions column.

UV: Are there any articles that you remember writing/publishing that you would like us to share with readers as part of the 25th anniversary special?

MK: There are two topics we covered in those early days at the paper that I’m especially proud of:

Special Feature – Mental Health:

Depression, Stress & Addiction (Volume 2, Issue 4)

Mental health was still quite a taboo topic 25 years ago—at the law school and more broadly. But many students (and lawyers, professors, and judges) still struggled, even though it wasn’t discussed as openly as it is now.

I’m proud of the work we did to publish a special feature on mental health. The story that really stands out is “History of a Breakdown”—a first-year student’s personal account of being hospitalized for severe depression and suicidal ideation. I just reread it today and it is as raw and thoughtful and beautifully written as it was the day we published it. The student included his name, and I remain incredibly proud that we provided a safe space where he could share his experience. He hoped that he would help others going through a similar experience. I’m sure that he did. The special feature also included advice and mental health resources for students, plus a staff editorial calling for more openness when it comes to talking about mental health at the law school.

First-Year Class Warned that Honesty is the Only Policy (Volume 2, Issue 5)

My other favourite article is the time we broke a national news story in our tiny, fledgling student paper. The paper hadn’t even been around for two years when we broke the story of the U of T law school grades scandal.

At the time, first year students took yearlong courses and had practice exams in December. The marks on those exams were unofficial and meant to help students understand how they were doing in preparing for the year-end exams. But law firms wanted transcripts for hiring first-year students, so they asked U of T students to submit those unofficial grades. This had been going on for years, but something changed in 2001 and an alarming number of students submitted false grades. And so, the law school stepped in.

I was tipped off by a memo from the Associate Dean posted on a hallway message board telling first years that they had an obligation to abide by the university’s code of conduct, which states that it is an offence to forge or falsify academic records. I knew

something was up and began to investigate.

I cringe when I read this article now—my news-writing abilities were not well-honed (or perhaps not honed at all), my quotes from key players were paraphrased, and I missed the opportunity to write a far more enticing headline. But by understanding the climate at the law school and listening carefully to what was going on, we were able to discover a pretty big story in our midst. A few weeks later, all the national news outlets were clambering to get their hands on the story. I was hounded by the press for more information, and excerpts from my story (with its lacklustre headline, paraphrased quotes, and beginner reporting) showed up in national papers.

I’ve thought a lot about this event and the law school’s response to the falsified grades over the years. I have mixed feelings about how it was handled and the law school climate it came out of, but I did come away with some clarity that I wanted to continue tell the important stories happening in my community and that *maybe* I was kind of good at it.

PH: It's not an article, but I was really proud of the cover art we did for a couple issues during my tenure as EiC and in the years after. We hired a local artist from OCAD (Ontario College of Art & Design University) to do some really cool work, and I like to think it made a splash.

AG: In Reclino Veritas (Volume 21, Issue 4) (Editors’ Note: This was a review of all the different chairs found around the law school.) But honestly, there were so many good ones, from my year as CoEiC, from before, and from the UV teams that came after us—the monthly issues just keep getting better and better. Can’t wait to see what the next 25 years have in store for UV.

Daoud told us he enjoyed writing pop culture reviews to fill space when there weren’t enough submissions. He also recalled one particular instance when he had heard a student complain about how these reviews didn’t seem fitting for what should be a serious law school newspaper. Brown was especially proud of the annual “Oh, the Places You’ll Go!” articles, in which graduating students dig up the personal statements that helped them get ad -

mitted to U of T Law and compare what their younger selves thought they’d be doing against what they’ll actually be doing post-graduation. We were delighted to tell him that this tradition has continued on (look out for this year’s version in the next issue!)

On UV’s legacy

Many of the former EiCs expressed how they were glad to see UV reach its 25th year.

MK: I am so proud to see that the paper continues to thrive and do important work 25 years later. Thank you to all the amazing editors who have kept UV going and growing for so long. And thanks to all the editors who have reached out to me over the years—it’s been so great to connect with fellow legal journalists. UV law students really are the best law students!

PH: I'm just glad to have been a part of it and to see that it continues to thrive, donuts and all.

Others encouraged students to get involved in UV, particularly incoming 3Ls:

MB: Whatever is competing for your time in 3L—what are you doing anyway? It’s a total joke—you should totally do it.

And regarding becoming an Editor-in-

Chief:

MB: No one’s super pumped to be EiC— people just want to go to pitch meetings and write columns—but it’s so worth it.

It’s never too late to get involved with UV, especially with applications for the Volume 26 masthead opening in March and applications for Volume 26 Associate Editor positions opening in September. Who knows? Maybe one day you’ll also be getting interviewed by law students for a UV anniversary issue.

Editors’ Note: Submissions have been edited or omitted for brevity and clarity. This article has been abridged for print and the full article can be found online.

Taking a Bite Out of the Big Apple

UV’s comprehensive guide to the New York recruit

REBEKAH KIM (3L) AND CHRISTINE WANG (3L JD/MBA)

Every year, a significant number of U of T Law students participate in the New York recruit and succeed in securing a position in New York City. While this path is well-worn by many law students, resources for the New York recruit are far and few between, and students who wish to participate in the recruit often go on a wild goose chase when trying to navigate the New York recruit. In hopes of simplifying this process, this article aims to serve as a comprehensive guide for those who are interested in working in the Big Apple. Spoiler: it’s not all about your grades!

Basics of the New York Recruit

The New York recruit starts much earlier and ends later than the Toronto recruit, beginning as early as May and rolling to the end of August. Given this early start, it is important to apply early and to be proactive. Because the offers go out on a rolling basis, your chances will be better the earlier you apply. Moreover, because the recruit is not regulated, there are a plethora of routes you can take to get an offer. To maximize your chances, you should take the initiative to explore all possible opportunities.

That being said, this article will focus on the two most streamlined pathways of the recruit: the pre-OCI process and the OCI process. However, please keep in mind that there are plenty of other paths to the recruit, such as the Loyola Patent Law Interview Program and various firms’ diversity scholarships.

Pre-OCIs

Pre-OCI refers to the collective, informal process of applying to New York law firms before formal OCIs take place. During pre-OCIs, students submit their applications on the law firms’ own personal websites and do not wait for the school to formally collect and pass on their applications. The vast majority of law firms will open their application portals on their websites as early as the end of April, and these will typically remain open until the end of August. Firms review applications on a rolling basis and will often start extending interviews as early as the beginning of June.

In recent years, most New York firms have shifted to hiring a significant number of their summer associate classes through the pre-OCI process. Firms try to snatch up competitive candidates as early as possible, and some even hire up to 90% of their summer class through the pre-OCI process. So if you want to have the best shot possible, absolutely participate in pre-OCIs! You should be submitting your application materials through these law firms’ personal portals as soon as your complete 1L transcript is available (typically mid-May). Reserve the formal OCI process only as a “backup.” Many firms that hire U of T students may also not even conduct a formal OCI pro -

cess—so the pre-OCI direct application will be your only shot for these employers.

OCIs and Resume Collect

Alongside the rolling consideration of applications through the pre-OCI process, last year there were seven firms that participated in U of T’s 2023 New York OCIs, eight firms that offered to review applications through the U of T resume collect, and three firms that posted their job on UTLC for processes outside of either OCIs or the formal resume collect.

Like the name suggests, New York OCIs are similar to the Toronto recruit process: students submit applications through UTLC before the deadline and participate in the first round of interviews on a set date. Unlike Toronto, however, in-firm interviews (the callbacks) happen at the firm’s discretion and can take place anytime following that initial OCI day.

The resume collect is another process that takes place through UTLC. The deadline for resume collect and OCIs is the same. However, the first screening interview will typically not take place on OCI day and will be left to the firm’s discretion. The firm may also skip the screening interview and offer an in-firm interview immediately. It is simply a way for the university to collect students’ resumes and submit them to participating firms.

For 2024 summer associate positions, OCI and resume collect applications were due on June 20, 2023, and OCI day was a month later, on July 21. While these postings are an important “in” to the New York market, you should definitely be applying to any firm through both pre-OCIs and OCIs. There are no rules against double-applying to a firm (or even triple-applying, if you participate in other paths to the recruit). This allows you to be considered early through the pre-OCI process and re-considered for the OCI process if you were not extended that early interview.

Preparing for the recruit

Now that you understand the recruit structure, how should you prepare for it? The good news is that there is significant overlap with the Canadian recruitment process.

Applications will typically consist of a resume, a cover letter, your completed 1L transcript, and the occasional writing sample. While the cover letter and transcript will be the same as for Canadian applications, US resumes are only one page long, instead of two. To fit within this constraint, many students opt to cut out most of their extracurricular experiences or rework them into shorter bullet points. Don’t be afraid to mess around with the margins, white space, and font size as well, if necessary.

Many students assume that you have to

be at the top of the class to secure a New York position. This is simply not true. While there once may have been a time when American firms were willing to take a chance on Canadian law students only when they achieved the highest grades possible, with the robust network of U of T alumni working in New York and the now-established reputation of our school in New York, grades have stopped being the only determinative factor. In recent years, you did not need distinction to get your foot in the door. In fact, some students who have secured a position have shared that their grades consisted mostly of Ps. While there are still a few firms that are grade-selective, for most firms, grades are now only one of many factors they consider, and you should never selfselect out because of your grades. That being said, having high grades will only help your application, and it remains one of the best ways to maximize your chances.

One of the biggest preparatory aspects of New York—and one of its biggest challenges—is the networking process. Unlike Toronto, New York ascribes to a “come and take it” mentality, where recruitment teams place much more emphasis on how much a student has worked to get themselves in front of their associates and partners when determining who to interview. In fact, most firms have an internal referral system that allows attorneys to forward your resume to the recruitment team, and thereby give your materials significantly more sway when compared to applications that go in “cold.” Some firms will even go as far as to directly ask individual attorneys (that have met with you) whether or not they should interview you, and that answer alone will influence whether you move forward in the process. All of this means that, while grades are undoubtedly still important, non-distinction students can—and often do—get their foot in the door of even the most prestigious New York firms through networking.

How should you network?

The good news: U of T Law has a very established network of current summer associates and alumni in many New York firms. The bad news: you have to actually reach out to them. Most of these associates are typically more than happy to connect when you reach out to them for a coffee chat either through LinkedIn or email, especially when you draw upon any of your shared connections (i.e. “Wow, you’re from Toronto too?!”).

To easily find U of T alumni, you canconsult the UTLC upper-year and alumni repository in the New York folder, or even use the filter search option built into a law firm’s employee page. If a firm that you’re interested in doesn’t have any U of T alumni, don’t be afraid of expanding your criteria to other Canadians or to those who have a shared undergraduate

school or program with you! These can all be valuable jumping-off points in forging a connection. Once you feel that you’ve really connected with an associate, don’t hesitate to directly ask if they’d be open to being in your cover letter or to even passing your materials onto the recruitment team.

Another great opportunity to network is the career fair that the law school holds every March. This year, it will take place on March 22. Many New York firms will send Canadian alumni (and sometimes their recruitment teams) to meet with students at U of T, and these attendees often can (and do) pass the names of students who have met with them on to their firms. A few firms, in fact, go as far as extending pre-OCI interview offers to those that they’ve especially clicked with during the fair.

However, a key caveat to the networking aspect is that certain firms have a very strict grade cutoff (e.g., distinction standing students only) for each school. If this is the case, it will be extremely difficult to get past that barrier if your grades do not meet that threshold, even with extensive networking. While you should never self-select out, be wary of these cutoffs when choosing where to spend your limited time and energy.

Interviewing

The interview itself usually has two rounds: the screener and the callback. For some firms, if you apply through the preOCI process, you may skip the screener and go straight into the callback. In most cases, however, firms will determine whether they want to invite you to a callback through a screener.

Screeners are typically 15-30 minutes long. The main purpose of this interview is for the interviewer to have a first look at you and determine if they want to continue the interviewing process. If you get a screener interview, chances are you are already a candidate that looks great on paper, and they want to get to know you as a person. Given the nature of screeners, they will mostly be conversational (but some firms are known to ask behavioural questions, so make sure to do your research); however, they are very short, so your priority should be capturing your interviewer’s attention in the short timespan.

As with any interview, you should prepare by researching the firm and the interviewer and ensuring that you know your resume inside and out. For your firm and interviewer research, be sure to look through firm websites. You should also prepare answers to “Tell me about yourself,” “Why this firm?” and “Why NYC?”, as these are common questions that will come up throughout your NYC interview process. Be prepared to ask questions to the interviewers—asking thoughtful questions about the firm or the interviewer is one of the best ways to get interview -

ers to care about you as a candidate.

If you managed to stand out during the screener, the firm will extend a callback interview offer. After the pandemic, most firms offer their callback interviews both virtually and in-person, and you will likely get to choose the format of the interview. Virtual interviews are more flexible, and they let you interview from the comfort of your own home. In-person interviews let you see the firm office and meet its people, and you don’t have to worry about costs as the firm will pay for all your travel and hotel expenses. There is no superior format, so you can choose whichever format you are more comfortable with.

The callback interview is much more extensive than the screener interview, and you will likely interview with 3-5 different lawyers. You generally have to set aside at least three hours for the whole process. If your interview is in-person, it will likely also include having lunch with an associate, making the process even longer (the lunch itself is very much part of the interview process, so be sure to treat it like one). The actual interview structure will depend on the firm, but

generally, you will talk to each interviewer, one-on-one, for around 30 minutes. Each interview will be similar to the screener interview, but you will have more time to talk. The interviewers will be a mix of associates and partners, and the firm will usually try to cater the interviewers to your indicated interests (e.g., preferred practice groups, affinity groups, etc.). Prepare for callback interviews the same way you would for screeners, but since you have multiple interviewers now, be sure to research each interviewer in advance and prepare questions catered to each interviewer. At the callback stage, they are more sure of you as a candidate, so some interviewers will try to sell you on the firm during the interview process itself. This is a good sign; be sure to take advantage of it to learn more about the firm to see if the firm is a good fit for you.

Offers

If you are successful, the offer turnaround time after the callback interview is very fast. The typical turnaround time is anywhere between 24 hours to one week after the callback interview for successful

candidates. While there are instances of firms taking longer than a week to extend an offer, you should start managing your expectations if you do not hear back after a week. This is because many firms will choose not to follow up if you did not get an offer (i.e., they will ghost you).

However, once you get an offer, you can relax a bit. Unlike Toronto, there are no exploding offers, and you will typically have two weeks to a month to respond to the offer. Moreover, for pre-OCI offers, most firms are willing to extend the offer deadline to the end of your OCI process. In the meantime, you may even be able to leverage your existing offers against other firms (i.e. contacting a firm you really want to say you have an offer from another firm and would like to know if they will also extend you an offer).

With an offer in your hands, the tables have turned; firms are now trying to convince you to choose their firm, and most New York firms ensure that you know that they want you. Many firms will send you gifts or care packages, and they will invite you to their various in-person events (again, all expenses paid) to convince you to accept your offer. Use this

time to learn more about the firm and to figure out if it is a good fit for you. You can also ask the firm for a “second look,” where you visit the firm in-person, get a tour of the office, and chat with some additional people. Most firms will pay all expenses for you to fly to NYC for the second look. This is highly recommended for people who have interviewed virtually and did not get a chance to see the firm office in person.

Final thoughts

We hope the article was helpful in demystifying the New York recruit process. If you are interested in applying, we recommend that you: 1) try to keep your grades as high as possible, but do not ever self-select out; and 2) be early and proactive—start preparing your applications as soon as you are finished with exams so that you can take advantage of the preOCI process.

If you have any questions, do not be afraid to reach out to upper-years and alumni who have gone through the process. They understand what you are going through and can definitely make the process easier for you!

February in Music

The latest on musical announcements, releases, and news

EMILY SARAH HEAN (3L)

February was a very busy month for music, with both the Grammys and the Super Bowl happening just one week apart, as well as several celebrity birthdays, major tours, and the People's Choice Awards.

On the 4th, celebrities stunned at the 64th annual Grammy Awards presented by the Recording Academy. The event featured performances from artists including Olivia Rodrigo, Miley Cyrus, and Luke Combs & Tracy Chapman, among others.

A number of stars took home Grammys, including Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff, Miley Cyrus, boygenius, Killer Mike, SZA, and Billie Eilish. This happened to be Miley's first Grammy award, and she made a nod to it in her performance of “Flowers,” during which she belted out, “Started to cry but then remembered I, I just won my first Grammy!” This was a sweet moment akin to Taylor's 2012 Grammys performance of her song “Mean,” in which she sang, “Someday I'll be singing this at the Grammys, and all you're ever gonna be is mean.”

Taylor herself made waves at the Grammys that night, winning the 13th Grammy

of her career (her lucky number): Best Pop Vocal Album for Midnights . While fans were anticipating an announcement of her next re-recording, a fake error code and an HTML code full of clues flagged that this was a red herring, and she actually announced her 11th studio album, The Tortured Poets Department , coming out April 19, 2024.

Taylor also won Album of the Year for Midnights , making her the first artist in history to win the award four times. To top it off, just three days later, she took the stage again, bringing The Eras Tour to Tokyo, Japan.

The following Sunday, the Super Bowl took place in Las Vegas, where the Chiefs and 49ers faced off while Usher performed the halftime show. Before the game, Reba McEntire sang the national anthem, and Post Malone sang “America the Beautiful.”

This was not Usher's first Super Bowl— back in 2011, he joined the Black Eyed Peas during their set—and it was clear that he came prepared to put on a show. The set featured guest performers Alicia

Keys, H.E.R., will.i.am, Lil Jon, and Ludacris. We also saw Usher on roller skates, showing off one of his talents.

Usher’s performance wasn't the only musical buzz of the evening. In a commercial, Beyoncé announced her 8th studio album, Act II , which will come out on March 29, 2024, as well as the release of the first two singles from the album, “Texas Hold ‘Em” and “16 Carriages.” The album's genre is country, with both singles having a distinctive southern country sound.

That same weekend, artist Mitski took the stage at Massey Hall in Toronto, performing three sold out shows in a row (from Saturday to Monday). She signed copies of her latest album, The Land Is Inhospitable And So Are We , at local record store Sonic Boom.

Pearl Jam announced their next album, Dark Matter, on February 13, set to be released on April 19. They also released the title track, “Dark Matter,” on the same day.

All of the album announcements were speculated to be related to the upcoming

Record Store Day list drop, where fans could see which artists chose to release exclusives. The list came out on Thursday, February 15, and while some notable names are excluded (neither Taylor Swift nor Olivia Rodrigo are participating), there are still many incredibly popular names on the list, including Sabrina Carpenter, Maisie Peters, Paramore, Noah Kahan, Chappell Roan, Wiz Khalifa, and more.

On Saturday, February 18, there was the 49th People's Choice Awards, with stars such as America Ferrera, Billie Eilish, and Rachel Zegler in attendance. While Olivia Rodrigo failed to win any awards at the Grammys for her sophomore album, Guts won Album of the Year at the PCAs, and “vampire” won Song of the Year.

Olivia Rodrigo turned 21 on February 20, three days before embarking on the Guts World Tour, which opened on the 23rd in Palm Desert, California.

Lady Gaga continues to post more teasers about an upcoming release, and both Kesha and Megan Moroney have also hinted about new music. Check back in next month for another wrap-up!

MILEY CYRUS AT THE GRAMMYS. CREDIT: KEVIN MAZUR/GETTY IMAGES

Jury in a Hurry: You Confide, We Decide!

In this edition, your jurors deal with study room shooing, damaging dialogue, and more

JURY IN A HURRY

*Bang, gavel, bang* February’s Court is in session! Evidence has been gathered through our anonymous submissions process, and the jury is ready to deliver a verdict. Our jury has reached a state of reasonable doubt. We’ve pondered, we’ve squandered, but ultimately, we’ve reached a decision. Once again you are all guilty of something, and it’s time to find out why.

Dear Jurors,

What is the best way to kick people out of the study rooms that I have booked? I hate how often I get a dirty look from the people sitting in MY study room. I normally just knock on the door and give a little smile and wave (my smile is so kind btw) but people seem pissed or they take soooo long packing up their things. Wtf??? I need help jurors. What are other approaches to get these guys out of my room efficiently and without conflict?

Love,

Waving through a window

Dear Waving,

Here’s what you do. Queue up a walk-up song like you’re a professional boxer. We recommend “All I Do is Win” by D.J. Khaled. Make sure you are not wearing headphones; if spectators in the Fishbowl don’t turn their heads, you are doing it wrong. Cultivate an environment so toxic that even the bed bugs will leave.

But seriously, you have to be assertive. Drop the smile entirely. There is no room for pleasantries in the battle for study spaces during moot season. A quick knock at the door and zero eye contact is sure to do the trick.

We find you guilty of reckless courtesy. We sentence you to step the f**k up and give the tort of nuisance a try.

Dear Jurors, How should I approach family members over-involving themselves in my 1L recruit process? I love my

family dearly and I understand that they're only trying to help me. However, over the past week my family has called me eleven times solely about my resume's "personal interests" section. They're insisting I add "swimming (e.g., Bronze Star)," even though I haven't swum in ten years, achieved the certification in another province when I was twelve, and the certification itself expired eleven years ago.

Please help, Plagued by Parents

Dear Plagued,

My grandma is constantly telling me to include my high school theatre experience on my résumé. For context, I was Tree #4. Usually, I politely say “Thank you Grandma, I’ll think about it.” That is a lie. I never think about it again.

And this is what you might need to do. A little lying is actually okay in this context. Your family loves you and they mean well, but it’s difficult for them to look at your experiences impartially. The recruit process is about your career, and you shouldn’t feel guilty about putting your best foot forward. Even if that means making judgment calls your family wouldn’t.

The CDO is always your best resource when it comes to these kinds of questions. While you can consider your family’s advice, it’s okay to weigh it against the opinions of people who are more experienced in this area.

We find you guilty of being a model child for your parents. We sentence you to being your own mom and dad this time.

Dear Jurors,

I feel like one of the professors at the school hates me for talking about them behind their back. But the thing is, they make it so easy! It's not my fault if they have a scandal and everyone knows about it... What should I do?

Thanks,

Graduate of Gossip

Here’s the thing, Gradley. Can we call you Gradley?

People don’t like it when you gossip about them, and that’s actually a pretty reasonable reaction. We even have a legal term for it: defamation.

The desire to gossip is a normal one. Still, in a tight-knit community like the law school, you have to be really careful about what you say, how you say it, and who you say it to. It seems you’ve violated this principle of fundamental justice.

You had the self-awareness to submit this question anonymously. Make sure you do your gossiping in the same way.

In terms of mending your relationship with Problem Prof, you could move on and cut your losses (remember, our grading system is also anonymous). Alternatively, keep your head down and impress them with your work ethic.

We find you guilty of being a little looselipped. We sentence you to six months of keeping it in the group chat.

Dear Jurors,

Help! What on earth is estoppel? I am so confused.

Thanks, Confused in Contracts

Dear Confused,

You are not meant to understand estoppel. It’s a time-honoured law school tradition to create your own estoppel, whatever that may be.

If you need some actual advice, we recommend The Law of Contracts by John D. McCamus. It’s in the library course reserves.

We find you guilty of being a normal law student. We sentence you to the only appropriate remedy there is: estoppel.

Dear Jurors,

Should I believe him when he says he wants to be my moot partner forever? My other friend says he doesn't have good character and is lying. Is this hearsay?

Thanks, Mooting in Misery

Dear Mooting,

Moot partners aren’t always for life, and that’s okay. People in moot partnerships grow and evolve, and sometimes that growth happens in different directions. It’s kind of like the prizes you win in a competition. Some prizes you win together, like Best Respondent Team. Other prizes you win alone, like Best Oralist.

Generally, your friends have your best interests in mind when they give you advice. So, hear what they’re saying and make your own educated decisions about what to do.

If you decide this partnership isn’t for you, take what you’ve learned and apply it to your next one. Your new partner will appreciate your skills and experience (especially if you win Best Oralist).

We find you guilty of mooting monogamy. We sentence you to poly-advocacy.

Dear Jurors, My best friend got a bad haircut and asked if I like it... what do I say?

Regards, Bowlcut Bestie

Dear Bowlcut,

Has your friend recently gone through a break up? A traumatic life event? Or did their barber just sneeze at an inopportune moment?

No matter… Your job as a friend is to be honest but understanding. Each person’s style is their own, and you have to respect that. A good friend will stand by you, regardless of how atrocious your mullet is.

The great thing about hair is that it grows. Maybe keep this information in your back pocket until they ask what they should get done at their next appointment.

We find you guilty of shaving and abetting. We sentence you to getting the same haircut in solidarity.

Intra Vires Totally real news at a besieged Faculty of Law

FIEVEL LIM (3L) AND CHRISTINE WANG (3L JD/MBA)

Raccoons set to take over Toronto

“Tonight we take your power, tomorrow your bank accounts.” The raccoon uprising is coming, and there is naught that we humans can do but watch. Or at least, that’s what UV was told in an interview with the raccoon responsible for the outage that decimated the Toronto electricity grid last month. Our furry neighbours of the night have apparently been planning a coup to end the human reign once and for all, determined to expand the use of their opposable thumbs. Their sabotage is clearly working, given how devastating just one member of their pack was on our electrical infrastructure. Remember to lock your rooms at night, students!

Saucy intruder’s locker thefts

Another masked intruder was spotted earlier this month carrying out bags of student property. This time, it doesn’t seem to be one of our furry friends (or

so we think—it’s not like we have any security cameras to confirm this). Apparently, this mysterious individual keeps coming in at odd hours of the night in order to break into student lockers. One brave student had allegedly tried the age-old tactic of chanting “swiper, no swiping” at the thief, but it didn’t seem to work. Our hero just got beaten up by the saucy intruder instead. Rumours suggest that in order to combat this issue, Student Services is considering implementing text alerts for when a theft happens. Sent only after the fact, of course.

Faculty proposing solutions to locker theft Get stronger locks. 1

Saucy intruder 2: saucier than ever (someone please arrest him)

The saucy intruder is clearly very busy this month,

as they have apparently been responsible for not only these locker thefts, but also a new incident of voyeurism at New College. Maybe there’s something in the air at New College that the saucy intruder is drawn to, or maybe it’s the fact that their building just has lots of entrances accessible to the public. Who knows! Either way, we’ll be looking forward to the next UTAlert regarding this saucy (really just criminal) man.

True love conquers all

Night classes may not have been outlawed yet, but a solution to Maleficent’s curse of eternal sleep has been found—pizza! No, not true love’s kiss, sorry. At least two confirmed classes scheduled during the dreadful 6–8pm slot have been supplying weekly pizza for their students. Reportedly, attendance, number of students awake, and the presence of non-enrolled students have all skyrocketed to an all-time high since the implemen-

tation of this cure. 6–8pm classes not in on this are truly sleeping on the job. Who needs prince what’s-hisname anyway?

Follies next year will cast only law school professors

After the immense success of a certain professor’s skit at Law Follies this year, in which some professors played typical law students, the Faculty has decided that every skit will now be played by these talented actors. No longer will their acting skills be limited to poker faces when students ask interesting questions or “not seeing” raised hands—they will now be moving to the big screen, where they will replace students altogether. When asked for comment, the Faculty simply stated, “This will give students more time to do their readings.”

1 Note: the Faculty will not be reimbursing students for this purchase.

Swipe Right Into Their Hearts

Take a chance on love with these eligible law school courses

BRIANNA ROWE (3L)

Business Organizations , 2L

Entrepreneur

6’0.

Can bench 285.

On my way to millionaire status.

Follow my insta below

If I swipe on you, you’re welcome.

My interests: Drinking, entrepreneurship, working, exercise, podcasts

A life goal of mine

To start my own LLP

My real life superpower is… Paying as little taxes as possible After work you can find me… Wdym after work? LOL

Income Tax , 2L

No job to show

“Definitely the least boring person I know” – my best friend

“I feel so much smarter just being around them” – my other best friend

“VERY fun and exciting” – my other other best friend

Have you heard of BlueJ Legal?

My interests: Mathematics, reading, watching TV, staying in

Apparently, my life’s soundtrack is “Price Tag” by Jessie J

Believe it or not, I Am not all about the money. Things I own that just make sense A BlueJ legal subscription

Family Law, 3L

Idk what I’m doing

Always the bridesmaid, never the bride. I’ve gotten picked apart and taken for a ride by SO MANY people who just wanted to pick my brain but didn’t want to commit. At least I’m good for bar prep. NO ONE NIGHT STANDS!!

My interests: Going out, drinking, drama, mathematics, empathy

A quick rant about Cohabitation doesn’t mean you have to actually live together! I know the normal definition means to inhabit together but that doesn’t mean it’s always that definition!

We’ll get along if… You want a prenup

What makes a relationship is…

The ability to consummate, lack of affinity, you’re not currently married, you’re of the age of majority, and you consent

Admin , 3L

Influencer / Public Figure

Russian spies, shark (fins), bawdy houses, Russian spies. Yeah, you can say I’m exciting.

My interests: Politics, drinking, adventure, books

My simple pleasures

Clear, concise reasons grounded in the statute

Biggest risk I’ve taken is

Letting a Russian spy’s kid have citizenship

My dream dinner guest is… Justice Rand

Ethics , 3L

LSO Board Member

I am an AI generated profile, intending to match with those whom the user thinks are compatible. (Kidding! Mostly…)

My Interests: Writing, reading, rules, jokes, tea

A pro and con of dating me…

I’m extremely moral, but a little self-righteous

First round is on me if

You pass the Good Character requirements

All I ask is that you

Evidence , 2L

Mr. Big ;)

Not commit fraud

I’m just dying to declare my feelings for you. I promise I’m reliable, and I can be quite probative ;)

My interests: The principled approach, drinking, self-awareness, theatre

A friend’s review of me

“Claims to take a principled approach to problems, but actually just gets in the way” - JO

All I ask is that you

Not coerce someone into giving a confession Green flags I look for

Reliability, credibility, necessity, and maybe something like res gestae or something haha

Criminal , 1L

Police Officer, 3 rd Rank

The law is just, and I’m looking for someone who is as passionate about upholding it as I am. My interests: The law, drinking, coffee, true crime, hockey

Apparently, my life’s soundtrack is “No body, no crime” by Taylor Swift Things I own that just make sense

A manual on how to build a bomb, but not because I’m going to build one or anything Swipe right if…

You want me to explain the penal code ;)

Property, 1L

Fox Hunter

People can’t be chattel, but I’d like to call you mine. Some people overcomplicate things that ought to be simple. I just love relying on first principles.

My interests: Hunting, pets, news, baseball

A fun fact I’m obsessed with… Body parts can be property if enough work is put into them

What makes a relationship is…

You intend to possess and actually possess my items, and I am able to get them back after

If I could travel to any time in the past… 1805—when property law was simple and people didn’t try to complicate things.

Torts , 1L

Water Manufacturer (no flies XD)

I think it’s foreseeable that we get proximate.

My interests: Cricket, drinking, trains, pieces of metal

Two truths and a lie

Nuisance is a big part of what I do, I believe boys will be boys, Lord Denning is the GOAT Swipe right if…

You want a little taste of economic torts I guarantee you that…

I’m the reasonable person

Contracts , 1L

Doctor who will totally fix your hand 100%

No kids, no one night stands, not looking for a relationship, no liberals, no conservatives, no homebodies, must be an introvert, must have goals, must be willing to give them up for me. Got all that? Then we have a deal ;) My interests: Confidence, positivity, parking lots, stevedores

My real life superpower is…

Reading the fine print I guarantee you that…

There are no guarantees. Ever. A boundary of mine is Equity ought to be limited.

Constitutional , 1L

Tobacco and Toy Advertiser

I like things being neat and organized. I have a particular way of doing things that you better get on board with. But pretty low maintenance lol

My interests: Photography, education, spirituality, free speech I’m a 10 but I like the Van der Peet test My simple pleasures Federalism, Paramountcy, POGG I’m still not over…

The Greenhouse Gas Reference

Upper Year Moot , 2L

Destroyer of your Christmas Break

Looking for partner(s) in crime who just want that nice P! No keeners, no cares, no time—until it’s date night. Then your heart rate will be the highest it’s ever been.

My interests: Research, Writing, Theatre, Wine, Work Green Flags I Look For… Loves performing, willing to try again after failure, owns a suit After work, you can find me

Catching drinks with the judges! All I ask is that you

Submit on time.

Is it better to be in a relationship than single while in law school?

Realists appeal to the Supreme Court of Flavelle

OLIVIA SCHENK (2L) AND TAYLOR RODRIGUES (3L)

Background

On Valentine’s Day, February 14, 2024, the Bora Laskin Court of Law released its landmark ruling, Romantics v Realists, 2024 BLCL 14. The Romantics were triumphant, receiving a declaration “that it is better to be in a relationship than single while in law school.”

The Realists have appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Flavelle, the highest court in the land. Thanks to the intrepid investigation from its Staff Writers, Ultra Vires has received advance copies of both parties' factums. Below are excerpts from their thoroughly researched and judicially well-supported factums.

The Appellant’s Factum

1. The rule of law requires that the standard of review be correctness.

Under the Vavilov/Bell Canada framework, the correctness standard applies to appeals where the rule of law requires it. The rule of law requires that constitutional questions and general questions of law that are of central importance to the legal system be decided under the correctness standard.

Questions of love and romance are of central importance to law students’ identity and flourishing. Since law students are highly susceptible to peer pressure, declarations concerning relationships in law school must be correct.

2. GPA is Forever; law school romances are fleeting.

Every HH you get will stay on your transcript forever. Your crush from your 1L small group will probably forget about you the moment you

walk across the stage with your diploma.

The right relationship, with the right person, at the right time, can be incredibly rewarding. But law school is not the right time.

Law school is incredibly demanding. Between class, the mountain of readings, extra-curriculars, networking, and the recruits, law students struggle to find time just to sleep.

Students essentially come to law school to get a good job. Single law students can focus on law school, setting them up for success for the rest of their lives. Once you are licensed and add “lawyer” to your Tinder or Hinge profile, the right relationship will come in no time.

3. It’s about friends, not “best friend.”

The Bora Laskin Court of Law erred in finding that deep friendship can only be cultivated with a significant other.

The Appellant concedes that some people forge deep friendships with their significant other or become each other’s “best friends.” But we submit it is far better to have a variety of friends in law school, rather than a best friend.

Law school is a transformational time for many students. For example, nearly all newly admitted law students want to become human rights lawyers but nearly all graduating law students want to work on Bay St.

Spending all of your free time with your significant other and expecting them to meet all of your needs is risky. You may grow apart and then realize you let all your other friendships wither away.

Being single and cultivating a variety of friendships in law school gives you a larger sup -

port network and a larger referral network after you graduate.

4. You can be single, not celibate.

Students choosing to be single in law school do not also have to take a vow of celibacy (but they could).

If you’re being social and cultivating a variety of friendships, you’re bound to get on someone’s romantic radar.

Students can still get some “relief” from a steamy fling without committing to a long-term relationship. Just remember to be safe and that consent is sexy.

The Respondent’s Factum

1. The standard of review is to be reasonableness.

The Romantics agree with our friends, the Realists, that questions of love and romance are important questions of law. However, as stressed in Vavilov, the mere fact that a dispute is of wider public concern is not sufficient for a question to fall in this category.

This question simply lacks systemic or constitutional implications, at least until love is finally considered a principle of fundamental justice.

2. Law school romances build empires.

Fact: Michelle Obama and Barack Obama met during Barack’s 1L summer. If this iconic law school power couple let silly fleeting matters like distinction consume their law school agenda, where would they be today?

Nobody has ever asked the Obamas how many Hs they received in law school—except maybe Donald Trump. But Trump received no

Valentine’s Day at Jackman Did law students feel the love?

MANREET BRAR (2L)

There are law students who come into law school deeply committed to their partner, those who find love in law, and those who remain dedicated to the single life. No matter which of these you fit into, it’s hard to evade Valentine’s Day festivities.

Here are some very real accounts of what law students did to celebrate on the special day:

lAbel (2L) : My situationship (he has met my parents and we have been exclusive for 10 months and 3 days, but labels are scary) didn’t ask me to be his Valentine. I cried all day long. He claimed he didn’t know we were celebrating. It’s fine. I’ll probably cheat on him in the next few weeks—my moot coach has been looking extra cute lately.

@legallyinlove (2L) : [ alt text: a mediocre, miserable-looking man and the most beautiful woman you’ve ever seen in your life posing with a wilting bouquet from Loblaws ] Happy Valentine’s Day to my pookie, the love of my life. Our love is greater than any romcom. I love you!!!!!!

@legallyinlove’s reality: She asked for the flowers twice. He showed up to the elaborate three-course dinner she cooked with a discount bouquet, wearing stained sweatpants.

HHHHHHector (1L) : When was Valentine’s Day? I have an interview at every Bay Street firm, so I’ve spent all day and night preparing. How else am I supposed to buy land a Valentine’s date for next year?

delusionAlly (2L) : Hooked up with my situationship on February 13th, and was kicked out before midnight. So this is love?

Chronically Online (4L) : My long-distance fiancée was supposed to visit me. After a two-hour Via Rail delay and a cancellation, she gave up, and neither of us could afford another ticket. We watched Love Island on FaceTime until two in the morning. Maybe we’ll see each other next month?

Bed Buggin (3L) : Spent the evening of Valentine’s Day in P334 with my small group crush. She asked me if I had plans.

cyniCal(lum) (2L) : I spent the day hate-scrolling through people’s Instagram stories of their significant others. I think it’s so tacky that other people post pictures of their partners as a celebration of “their love” (but, secretly, I love knowing who is and isn’t in a relationship).

Hs during his JD at Trump University.

3. In the alternative, dating non-law students carries many benefits correctly identified by the court.

By finding a significant other in a less demanding discipline—engineering or medicine, for example—you can have someone with more time to keep your home clean and cook you meals. Just imagine all the additional readings you can get done!

Olivia Schenk (2L) stated in an affidavit submitted at the trial court “my engineer boyfriend looks forward to finally retiring and becoming a full-time homemaker upon my graduation. He has already been practicing his sourdough bread making in eager anticipation.”

4. Falling in love and renting a 1-bedroom basement apartment is the only way to afford rent in the city.

Face it, you need a roommate. Why not have your roommate also be your soulmate? Soulmate roommates have been proven to be 80% more likely to tolerate your 3am law school breakdowns when compared to non-soulmate roommates.

In addition, soulmate roommates are 20% more likely to let you in at midnight when you forget to bring your key to a late-night library cram session, 50% less likely to find your examseason-depression pile of dirty laundry intolerable, and 10% more likely to listen to your rants about the Administration.

The statistical evidence and jurisprudence are overwhelming; it is clearly better to be in a relationship than single in law school.

Ultra Vires Presents: February Air

While this February has been warmer than usual, here is a collection of songs to accompany walks in crisp February air. This playlist is perfect for taking a break and enjoying the green space this city has to offer. It features songs to listen to on a morning walk while remembering that we truly live in a city within a park.

It features Lights, Mitski, Mazzy Star, Radiohead, and Hannah Jagadu.

SARA ESAYAS (1L)

Law School Classes Alignment Chart

Having a (chaotic) good time with this one

VIVIAN LI (3L)

Lawful Good

Admin

Admin is all about the rule of law, so obviously it falls into the lawful category. It’s also about preventing unfair and unfettered uses of state power, which, as far as law school courses go, puts it pretty firmly into the good category as well.

Neutral Good

Whatever class you have for small group

Have I gone through three years of law school with a crim-sized gap in my legal education? Yes. Did small group kind of slap anyways? Also yes. As long as you make your peace with the fact that you won’t retain any knowledge about your small group subject, you’ll have a pretty good time.

Chaotic Good

Evidence

Can someone please explain what the principled approach is? Evidence is one of those courses where the outcome of a case will be highly fact-dependent, which can be either fun or frustrating, depending on who you are. If you like trying to piece together the chaos of seemingly contradictory holdings into a single cohesive rule, this is a class for you.

Lawful Neutral

Secured Transactions

Every once in a while, you stumble upon a class that’s actually just a 500-box flowchart in a trenchcoat. Secured Transactions is one of those classes—there’s virtually no caselaw, which means there’s no room for deviation. Instead, it’s all about following the rules, which means you’ll never have to answer a question in this class with “it depends.”

True Neutral

LRW

The class equivalent of the leftover pizza that’s been sitting in the Atrium for a few hours. It’s never anyone’s favourite, but it’s perfectly inoffensive.

Chaotic Neutral

Torts

Trying to come up with a coherent definition of reasonable foreseeability might make you want to tear your hair out, but at least the cases are interesting. After all, there’s nothing more chaotic than a torts fact pattern.

Lawful Evil

Biz Org

You’ll know this class is evil just by looking at the number of keeners gunning for biglaw fighting over it on the Cognomos waiting lists. Between that and the fact that it involves math, need I say more?

Neutral Evil

Any 8:30am class

Listen, I know that practitioners are busy people and that I should be grateful they’re sharing their time with us. However, I firmly maintain that any class that needs me to get up while it’s still dark out is fundamentally evil. God truly gives his hardest battles to his eepy-est warriors.

Chaotic Evil Trusts

Any course that relies primarily on equity is inherently chaotic. If you take Trusts, you’ll be sure to learn how to vibe your way through tax evasion and making sure none of your useless children get their grubby little hands on your hard-earned money. Sure, if you’re lucky, you might get to spend half a class on charitable purpose trusts, but the majority of your time will be spent learning how to make the rich richer. And besides, charitable purpose trusts aren’t even real trusts anyways.

Best Places to Cry at U of T Law (2024 Update)

A new, up-to-date guide for legal scholars sobbers

AMY KWONG (3L)

Did you know that the last time UV surveyed places to cry in the law school was in 2013? Over 10 years old, the article is practically a historical document. If it were a child, it would already be in Grade 5. If it were a 1L at time of publication, it would be well on its way to making partner.

While the old article has a lot to offer—including incredible photographs of the author crying on-site at many of the listed locations—it’s quite outdated and does not include anything from the Jackman Law Building, which opened in 2016. This is a real shame, since I personally think the Jackman Law Building has some great places for a little self-care cry.

And crying can actually be a form of selfcare! In addition to letting you pretend you’re a tragic protagonist in a Victorian novel, crying can have real health benefits: Harvard Health noted that crying can release oxytocin and endogenous opioids, which can help ease physical and emotional pain.

Therefore, I’ve compiled an updated guide to the best places to cry at U of T Law. Schedule your me-time in the form of a quick sob sesh between classes, or treat yourself to an extended bawl in a quiet corner.

Any single-stall bathroom in Jackman

As far as I know, there are a couple single-stall bathrooms available in Jackman: two on each floor of the law library and one by the Moot Court Room. These are nice because they lock, they muffle sound, and there’s a sink right there for you to clean yourself up before you return to the horrors of the outside world. Unfortunately, you will have to cry by a toilet, which sometimes just isn’t the vibe. Just try not to take too long, as people are always waiting to use these bathrooms.

Note: there are also single-stall bathrooms in Flavelle, but they are cramped, smell funny, and overall are vastly worse places to cry. Would not recommend.

A library study room

This location can be risky, as the glass walls can leave you exposed to concerned glances from passers-by. Depending on your crying style, this could be a positive or a negative. Your friends might stop by and offer some comfort, but if you’re really going through it and need to be left alone, this is probably not the best spot for you.

In the Fishbowl (but only if you can do it silently)

We’ve all been there—you planned to hunker down for the day and get stuff done, but you have a million and one tasks on your list, and suddenly it all just seems like A Lot. There’s no shame in letting a few tears roll down your cheeks as you consider the weight of the world and all its expectations. I can guarantee no one sitting in the Fishbowl is there for a good time either, so they’ll be sympathetic to your plight, and they’ll all have the decency to look away. But if you need to wail, it would be good manners to take that somewhere else.

The stairwell behind the Moot Court Room and J140

Tucked out of the way, this stairwell is hardly ever used, which means it’s a good place to get your tears out in private. The concrete does make the space a bit echoey, but that’s not a problem if you’re alone with nothing but your own thoughts to keep you company. If someone does walk in, you can always run up/down the stairs to another floor and make a hasty escape.

In Jessie Kussin’s office

Our beloved on-location counsellor Jessie always offers a sympathetic ear and a private place to vent and weep. Something about the comfy chair, the cozy lighting, and the little plants on the windowsill just open up the floodgates. Jessie has unlimited tissues on hand and can offer new perspectives on your problems. The only problem is that it can be hard to book an appointment, so this is more of a pre-planned cry spot than a spur-of-themoment thing.

Right out outside Jessie’s office

Sometimes the 50-minute allotted appointment time just isn’t enough. Cry in the hallway while Jessie’s white noise machine is still on and finish up before heading out.

In class, in front of the prof as they drone about cases you don’t care about, with no regard for propriety because you just need to get through this week, but the weeks start coming and they don’t stop coming, and it’s been a really hard week and I’m doing my best, so just give me this, okay?

Fuck it, we bawl.

CREDIT: RACHAEL GREGORIS

Logic Games (In Memoriam)

Challenge your brain with a blast from the past

FIEVEL

Sleuths are scrutinizing the soundness of a series of scholarly studies surrounding seashells and questioned exactly seven smart suspects—Sanderson, Schneiderman, Shaffer, Stacey, Stern, Stewart, and Su—each on a separate one of seven sequential days. Each suspect was questioned exactly once. Any suspect who confessed did so while being questioned. The investigation satisfies the following statements:

Schneiderman was questioned on day three.

The suspect questioned on day four did not confess.

Sanderson was questioned after Stacey was questioned.

Both Stern and Shaffer were questioned after Su was questioned.

No suspects confessed after Stacey was questioned.

Exactly two suspects confessed after Schneiderman was questioned.

1. If Su was the second suspect to confess, then each of the following statements could be true EXCEPT:

(A) Schneiderman confessed.

(B) Schneiderman did not confess.

(C) Shaffer did not confess.

(D) Stern confessed.

(E) Stewart did not confess.

2. If Stewart was questioned after Shaffer but before Stern, then which one of the following could be true?

(A) Shaffer did not confess.

(B) Stewart confessed.

(C) Stern did not confess.

(D) Stern was questioned on day four.

(E) Su was questioned on day two.

3. Which one of the following suspects must have

been questioned before Schneiderman was questioned?

(A) Shaffer

(B) Stacey (C) Stern

(D) Stewart (E) Su

4. If Schneiderman sells seashells to Shaffer by the seashore, then the shells Stern sells are surely seashells. If Stewart sells seashells by the seashore too, then who sells seashore shells?

(A) Schneiderman sells seashore shells.

(B) The shells Shaffer sells are surely seashells.

(C) Surely no one sells seashore shells.

(D) Su should know who sells seashells.

(E) Stacey doesn’t sell seashore shells.

5. If Stern and Stewart both confessed to sneakily selling seashore shells, then each of the following could be true EXCEPT:

(A) Shaffer confessed.

(B) Stern was questioned on day five.

(C) Stewart was questioned on day one. (D) Su was questioned on day one.

(E) Su did not confess.

6. If neither Stern nor Shaffer confessed to selling seashore shells, then which one of the following must be true?

(A) Schneiderman confessed. (B) Shaffer was questioned on day two.

(C) Stern was questioned on day four.

(D) Stewart confessed.

(E) Su did not confess.

The Ultra Vires Crossword Book club

RONAN MALLOVY (3L JD/MA ENGLISH)

Across

1 Reindeer herders of northern Scandinavia

5 Sound rebound

9 Picks, with "for"

13 Used

14 Christmas

15 Furious

17 Late 17th-century British queen

18 So-so

19 The White ____ (HBO series)

20 100, in a Marquez novel

23 Territory, informally

24 "Well I'll be!"

25 Novel featuring the Cliffs of Insanity, with "the"

31 Make happy

32 Encountered

33 Home for birds or bees

35 Make tracks

36 Cancel

37 Org. that may ask you to remove your shoes

38 Lucy's husband

40 Director's call

41 Trojan hero

44 Donna Tartt novel, with "the"

47 Ad hoc bomb, for short

48 Cul-de-____ (dead end roads — and yes, this is an acceptable pluralization)

49 Salinger novel, with "the"

57 Dynamic

58 Pot starter

59 Musician Billy

60 Tyler Perry character

61 Launch

62 Part of a balanced breakfast, perhaps

63 Take a nap

64 Boogers

65 Actress Larson

Down

1 Influence in a particular direction

2 Steak sauce brand

3 Vaccine technology

4 Tendency towards stillness

5 Compel compliance

6 Do

7 Egg-layers

8 Margarine prefix

9 Slicker, maybe

10 Fish or almonds, for example

11 Etymological origin for skin ink

12 Hot stuff

16 Toronto to Boston dir.

21 Phoenix ballers

22 Gender and sexuality initialism

25 Loads up (with)

26 Actress Witherspoon

27 Mr. and Mrs.

28 Taboo conversation topic, perhaps

29 Discourage

30 Writing assignment

31 Deg. for profs

34 Jobs for those completing a 31-Across

36 Wacko

39 Frozen spikes

40 Give up

41 In order to evaluate something

42 Mark in stone

43 Bit of plastic surgery

45 Prepare leftovers

46 Lacks truth

49 Kiss spotter at sporting events

50 Scientific jelly

51 Detergent brand

52 Plague vectors

53 Aware of, as a practical joke

54 Katy Perry hit

55 Himalayan cryptid

56 Coding command