U of T Law takes on the United Nations Law students advocating for change in Geneva
At a time when the international legal order is facing significant challenges and uncertainty, human rights advocacy is more important than ever. The International Human Rights Program (IHRP) at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law gives students the chance to use this legal training to address urgent human rights issues and contribute to the development of human rights norms. This year, I have had the incredible privilege to be a part of the IHRP’s efforts to both uncover the grave human rights violations taking place in Gaza and challenge Canada’s role in the conflict as a weapons exporter.
For the past year, students at the IHRP have been documenting the human rights situation in Gaza, with a special focus on the right to health. Our work has involved tracking damage to medical centres and infrastructure, shortages of critical medical supplies, and direct harm inflicted on healthcare workers and patients. Gathering reliable evidence is an essential part of human rights advocacy and forms the foundation for legal action across a range of forums. In September, we were able to submit a report to the United Nations Commit-
tee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) on the violation of women’s rights to maternal healthcare in Gaza. The report highlighted Canada’s legal obligations to ensure that the weapons it exports are not used to commit violations of international human rights law.
As a signatory to the CEDAW Convention, Canada undergoes regular reviews by the CEDAW Committee on its human rights record within our borders and internationally. This past October, I was one of four IHRP representatives who had the opportunity to attend Canada’s most recent review in Geneva, Switzerland. We arrived at the Palais des Nations alongside dozens of Canadian activists representing a range of women’s rights groups and issues, all hoping to have their concerns raised by the CEDAW Committee during its dialogue with the Canadian delegation.
With our report in hand, we spent our days in Geneva reaching out to members of the CEDAW Committee and other human rights experts and bodies to share our research. Our work was very well received.
We shared our findings with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. We quickly learned that similar efforts are being carried out in several countries to prevent their arms exports from being used in Gaza. While many Western governments have stopped the direct flow of weapons to Israel, weapons continue to reach Israel via the United States. In Canada, permissive trade agreements allow arms manufacturers to sell to the US with little oversight, creating a loophole in Canada’s regulatory framework. After months of arduous research, we felt encouraged to see that our work formed part of a much larger international effort to end these grave human rights violations.
We also had wonderful experiences meeting with members of the CEDAW Committee. As one of the most well-established human rights treaty bodies, the Committee has been willing to take on complex issues like the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) in Canada, leading to a national inquiry. Several members showed great interest in our research, listening carefully to our concerns about Canada’s regulation of arms exports, while considering the best way to address the issue with the Canadian delegation.
Our efforts were rewarded on the day of Canada’s dialogue with the Committee. The Committee took time to describe the grave obstetric harms women experienced in Gaza at all stages of pregnancy. While noting Canada’s feminist approach to foreign policy and commitment to sexual and reproductive health and rights, the Committee asked what Canada was doing to regulate corporations that contribute to these rights violations through the arms trade. What measures was
Canada taking to ensure that the US was not transferring weapons that Canada sold to them, to Israel? These questions and recognition represent an amazing result for our team. The Committee restated these concerns in their final written observation for Canada, including recommending a more transparent regulatory process for assessing the impacts of arms sales on the human rights of women and girls in accordance with Canada’s international legal obligations.
From the outside, human rights legal advocacy may seem like an exciting and highly rewarding field. The reality is somewhat different. Months of research, report writing, strategizing, zoom meetings, and relationship building result in a few crucial lines of text in human rights recommendations. However, our work with the CEDAW Committee is just one small part of the IHRP’s efforts on this issue, and this first win sets a powerful precedent. In the spring, the IHRP will engage in a similar process with the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Work is also underway to request an inquiry by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. These international efforts will also support a domestic lawsuit against the Canadian Government for failing to regulate arms exports properly. In turn, all of our work forms part of a larger international effort to bring an end to the human rights violations in Gaza using every tool possible.
The work of the UN Human Rights System, including the CEDAW Committee, is given meaning through the continued efforts of the activists who take the recommendations back to their home countries and use them to hold their governments to account. This is why the work of the IHRP and other Canadian human rights organizations is so important. I am incredibly honoured to have been a small part of this ongoing effort to advance the cause of human rights in Canada and around the world.
CASSANDRA GRIFFIN (3L)
CREDIT: INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRAM. CAPTION: IHRP TEAM MEMBERS AYSHA KHAN (3L), CASSANDRA GRIFFIN (3L), JAMES YAP AND NABILA KHAN AT THE PALAIS DES NATIONS IN GENEVA.
CREDIT: INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRAM. CAPTION: IHRP TEAM MEMBERS AYSHA KHAN, CASSANDRA GRIFFIN, JAMES YAP AND NABILA KHAN AT THE RED CROSS HEADQUARTERS IN GENEVA.
Ultra Vires UV INDEX
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
Manreet Brar and Abby Sasitharan
BUSINESS MANAGER
Leon Xu
NEWS EDITORS
Rachel Chen and Malka Younas
ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITOR S Yuha Khan and Alex King
FEATURES EDITORS
Julia Allen and Asra Areej
ASSOCIATE FEATURES EDITORS
Tyler Lee and Madura Muraleetharan
OPINIONS EDITORS
Puneet Kanda and Mariam Patsakos
ASSOCIATE OPINIONS EDITORS
Kaitlyn Matthews and Yebin Shin
DIVERSIONS EDITOR
Sakina Hasnain
ASSOCIATE DIVERSIONS EDITOR Kiwan (Paul) Kim
PUZZLE EDITORS
Matthew Farrell and Navya Sheth
RECRUIT EDITOR
Rosemary Fang
EDITOR-AT-LARGE
Cherry Zhang
ONLINE EDITOR
Siegfried Kahama
STAFF WRITERS
Katherine Fan, Georgia Gardner, Shelby Hohmann, Glenn Howard, Olivia Schenk, and Grace Xu
RECRUIT REPORTERS
Jane Byun, Alice Min, and Celine Tsang
STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
Kabir Singh Dhillon
SOCIAL MEDIA COORDINATOR
Parker Hopkins
LAYOUT BY Fox Hill Creative
ADVERTISING
If you are interested in advertising, please email us at business@ultravires.ca
ERRORS
If you notice any errors, please email us at editor@ultravires.ca.
SUBMISSIONS
If you would like to submit a tip, letter, or an article, please email us at editor@ultravires.ca.
Ultra Vires reserves the right to edit submissions.
Welcome back! Did you miss us?
New year, new courses, new exam policy, new global leadership (and lack thereof), and of course; a brand new issue! 2025 has brought a lot of change already, but you can count on UV to stay consistent (and persistent—write for us!). Also, a big welcome back to everyone that was on exchange. We know you missed us and our donuts.
In this issue, you’ll find coverage of the recent walk-in at the Wednesday, January
22 Faculty Council and a student’s opinion on this new change. You’ll also find advice on mooting, the 1L recruit and LSSEP positions. We know you just received your grades (Monday at lunch was such a perfect time for grade release), but we’ve got advice for writing exams (yes, you have to do them again).
Of course, it wouldn’t be a UV issue without its fair share of lighthearted content. Accordingly, you will also find in
Students’ Law Society Update
January edition
ISABEL BRISSON (3L)
Welcome back, we hope you had a relaxing break!
January is almost over and it has been an eventful month, to say the least. We kicked off the first week of school with Frost Week! Hopefully, the free hot chocolate, cookies, and cupcakes helped ease the transition back to school. The first Call to the Bar back was a success; the Maddy was tightly packed, and everyone was sporting their apres-ski outfits. We also recently sent out a ‘Save the Date’ for Law Ball—-keep
your calendars free on Saturday, March 8, 2025. Stay tuned for further information about ticket sales!
Exam Policy Change
Like you, the SLS found out about the open book exam policy change on Wednesday, January 15 and subsequently sent out a feedback form to students. Thank you to everyone who filled out the form—-your ideas, questions and concerns were raised
in the meeting with the administration on Friday, January 17. For those of you who did not read our statement, in short, the meeting was productive, the U of T Law administration explained their reasoning, walked us through the decision-making process, and discussed potential solutions. Further to our meeting with the administration, the SLS Executive Committee met with Dean Brunnée on Monday, January 22 to discuss the change.
Walk-In
In an effort to demonstrate student opposition to the exam policy change, the SLS organized a ‘walkin’ to the Faculty Council meeting on Wednesday, January 22 at lunch. The walk-in was nothing short of a success, nearly 50 students filled J140 to show their support. We want to reassure students that this is not the extent of our advocacy efforts on the issue and we appreciate your involvement. The SLS will stay in communication with students as the SLS moves forward in advocacy.
Faculty Council Meeting Included ‘Open Book’ Exam Policy Change Concerns and an Alarming Annual University Budget Presentation
January 2025 Faculty Council
OLIVIA SCHENK (3L)
On Wednesday, January 22, the Faculty Council held a meeting focused on the University Budget Presentation. The meeting began with a Students’ Law Society (SLS) organized walk-in to demonstrate opposition to the Faculty’s recent changes to the ‘open book’ exam policy. For more information on the stance that SLS maintains in relation to this policy, read Isabel Brisson’s (3L) most recent SLS update in this issue.
Under the new ‘open book’ exam policy, students are prohibited from accessing their hard drives during open book exams as written on the Examplify application, owned by ExamSoft. Open book exams, which were previously ‘semi-secure’ on Examplify, will now be ‘secure’, with computer access being locked down. The purpose of this policy is to prevent students from using generative AI software on their computers in the interest of academic integrity. The meeting was held in J140, which comfortably fit the Faculty Council’s regular attendees in addition to the student demonstrators.
Dean Jutta Brunnée began the meeting by commenting on the large student attendance in the room. She recognized the exceptional turnout was in relation to the ‘open book’ exam policy change. Dean Brunnée said she had told the University Budget Presentation speakers to come a bit later in anticipation of the walk in.
Dean Brunnée began by emphasizing that exam integrity is of the utmost importance at the Faculty and the change was made with this focus in mind.
The floor was then handed to SLS President Isabel Brisson (3L). Brisson began by affirming that the students who were present at the meeting had come to show collective opposition to the exam policy changes. She stated that while SLS agrees that academic integrity is essential, the potential impacts of the changes are too far reaching to be a proportionate response to the Faculty’s concerns. Isabel emphasized the lack of student consultation in the decision making process, the disproportionate impact on students with disabilities, and the financial burden of requiring students to purchase
physical textbooks and print physical notes. In concluding, Brisson thanked the administration for demonstrating their willingness to listen to student concerns and feedback, and work with SLS to find a potential solution. meeting with the SLS and listening to concerns, albeit after the decision had been made. She emphasized that going forward, SLS wants to formalize student involvement in the decision-making process for changes to exam policies.
SLS organized a walk-in to voice student concerns and require administration to answer questions regarding changes to the ‘open book’ exam policy. Following the demonstration the Faculty Council heard a University Budget Presentation that revealed the University is now operating at a deficit with limited hope in relief.
Carson Cook (3L) then spoke on behalf of the University of Toronto Law Union. He echoed many of the concerns expressed by Brisson, including financial burdens and disproportionate impact on students with accommodations. He called on Assistant Dean of Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI) Ada Maxwell-Alleyne to support the removal of the policy. He called on Dean Brunnée to stand by her EDI promises. He concluded by calling on Associate Dean Christopher Essert and Associate Dean Sara Faherty to repeal the policy.
Dean Brunnée then opened up the floor to student questions.
A student asked if those who had already purchased a digital textbook would be required to purchase a physical textbook, which would double their textbook costs.
Associate Dean Essert replied that the administration is working with the Bookstore to see if publishers would agree to permit students to return digital books with reimbursement before purchasing physical ones. He said they will have a final answer on the matter shortly.
Kabir Singh Dhillon (2L) asked if students will be required to bear the costs of
integrity and if the administration can provide assurance that students who require accommodations will receive access to technology. Associate Dean Essert replied that the Faculty will continue to rely on the professionals associated with the accommodation committee to handle student accommodation requests and needs. Assistant Dean Faherty went on to explain that access to hard drives during exams is relatively new. Students with vision issues in the past were given access to their hard drives on a case-by-case basis. She also stated accessibility services are prepared for the potential wave of new accommodation requests as a result of this policy change.
Dhillon asked a followup question:
Could you let us know what date you contacted accessibility services about this decision? Assistant Dean Faherty replied that Friday, January 17 was the first time Assistant Dean Faherty had specifically given accessibility services a heads up about the potential for additional requests associated with the exam policy changes.
Another student asked why this decision was not made through the Faculty Council. Associate Dean Essert explained that the administration of exams is not within the Faculty Council’s jurisdiction.
Emily Ernst (2L) asked for clarity on whether the new policy was set in stone or if the administration was open to repealing the policy should a viable alternative solution be found. Associate Dean Essert stressed that although nothing is set in
stone, at this time, he sees no other viable option to resolve the concerns of generative AI. The focus on accommodations and economic considerations are the areas in which the Faculty will seek to work with students. Dean Brunnée ended the session on the exam policy change due to time concerns. Subsequently, most of the attending students left.
The Graduate Law Student Association (GLSA) president Dimitrios Tsilikis spoke next. Tsilikis stated that the GLSA stands by the SLS president’s remarks and echoed Cook’s statements. He requested that the law school consider providing free printing, at least for this semester. Tsilikis finished with a few general announcements pertaining to the GLSA.
The meeting then proceeded to the University Budget Presentation. Dean Brunnée began by noting the continuing tuition freeze in effect since 2019 and the new international student restrictions has created a challenging time financially for U of T. The University Budget Presentation was given by Scott Maybury, Vice-President of Operations and Real Estate Partnerships and Vice-Provost of Academic Operations and Jeff Lennon, the University’s Assistant Vice President of Planning and Budget.
Maybury began by sharing that despite the University of Toronto budget being down 5.5%, the school is in a much better position than most other universities. Universities as a whole are down 40% on average, with some Canadian universities facing declines of up to 70%in budgeting. The University of Toronto has been insulated financially by outcompeting other universities for the remaining international students. Maybury stated the cumulative value lost from the domestic tuition reduction and freeze has resulted in the loss of over 1 billion dollars on education.
The largest portion of the school’s expenditure, 62%, goes to paying faculty and staff salaries. Maybury emphasized that every dollar for the past five years that went to increases in Faculty salary has been paid by
Continued on page 4
January Faculty Council Meeting Included ‘Open Book’ Exam Policy Change Concerns and an Alarming Annual University Budget Presentation
Continued from page 3
OLIVIA SCHENK (3L)
international students—every dollar.
Lennon spoke next on U of T’s Budget Model. Maybury chimed in that since 2006, there has never been an across-the-board budget cut. Now budgetary decisions are focused on individual divisions. The Faculty of Law has thrived under the modern Budget Model, much better than any other Faculty.
Maybury shared that the Faculty’s deficit currently sits at 2.4%. On the expenditure side, Student Aid can never be cut. This leaves limited options to reduce costs. Faculty and staff compensation is an obvious area to reduce costs, but discussions with
the various unions have not been going great. If salary increases cannot be negotiated down, there will probably be cuts to the number of employees at the University in the near future.
Maybury believes that out-of-province tuition increases may be an avenue to increase the University’s revenue. Despite raising out-of-province tuition every year, enrollment rate of out-of-province students has continued to increase. This is a strong indicator that an increase in out-of-province tuition will likely not impact out-ofprovince applications.
Lennon commented on the current state
of Student Aid. Tuition has grown annually by 1% since 2014. In the same period, financial aid has grown on average 6.2%.
The net tuition paid by students at the law school has decreased from about $21,000 in 2014 to about $12,000 in 2023.
Maybury also shared that the University is also pursuing commercial ventures to generate more revenue. For example, the University is investing in housing. This housing will be offered to students below market, but will still generate a profit for the University.
The presentation concluded with a question and answer period. One student asked
whether the increases in compensation costs were to the existing Faculty or to hire new Faculty. Maybury replied that, basically, increases were for existing Faculty and staff. The average U of T Faculty member’s salary increased 11% this year. Dean Brunnée stepped in to explain this was in response to the compensation freeze and that average increase was approximately 5%.
If you are interested in viewing previous Faculty Council meeting agendas, minutes, reports, and schedules, check out the e.Legal Faculty Council page. The next Faculty Council meeting will be in February. All students may and are encouraged to attend.
Faculty Council Meeting Discusses
JD and Graduate Admission Reports
November 2024 Faculty Council
GLENN HOWARD (2L)
The Faculty Council met for the first time in the 2024-2025 school year on November 27, 2024. Faculty Council members welcomed newcomers to the Faculty, discussed first-term law school events, and summarized the JD and Graduate Admission reports.
Dean Jutta Brunnée began the meeting by welcoming two faces to the U of T Law community: Professor Sabine Tsuruda (JD/PhD), who joined the Faculty in July to research and teach the law of work, contract law, and legal theory, and Annette Paul (MPA, CFRA), Assistant Dean (Advancement), who joined U of T Law in August of 2024.
Dean Brunnée noted that the U of T Law budget presentation by Scott Maybury, VicePresident of Operations and Real Estate Partnerships and Vice-Provost of Academic Operations and Jeff Lennon, the University’s Assistant Vice President of Planning and Budget, which was initially scheduled for October 2024, had been pushed to January 2025, the next Faculty Council meeting on January 22, 2025. The presentation includes information on how tuition is set and the law school’s funding streams and expenses.
The Dean also reflected on the success of the Faculty's 75th anniversary celebration held in September 2024 at the Isabel Bader Theatre. She announced there will be other events this year intended to bring together different alumni groups, such as former recipients of the Cecil A. Wright Dean's Key award, former Grand Moot participants, and alumni of the JD/MBA program. Dean Brunnée announced that there will also be a special issue of the Faculty of Law Review in March of 2025 where current Faculty Members will reflect on the contributions and accomplishments of former Faculty members.
President of the Students' Law Society (SLS), Isabel Brisson (3L), spoke next. Brisson first thanked the administration for its action in addressing the security concerns that students raised last year. All entrances, except for the Flavelle main entrance, are accessible through fob access alone. Brisson then addressed the ongoing frustration of students regarding the accommodations process, particularly the ability of students to access lecture recordings. She asked the Faculty to consider recommendations made by the SLS and the Disabled Law Students’ Association in the 2023-2024 academic year on providing recordings. Brisson ended her remarks by expressing gratitude for the Faculty's “continued partnership in making the school a place where everyone feels supported and valued.”
President of the Graduate Law Students' Association (GLSA), Dimitrios Tsilikis, spoke about the Association's current projects, which include transferring its banking account to the University, investing money that it has "sitting around", holding more social events, changing its constitution, and creating a work progress group for Global Professional LLM students.
The Faculty Council then approved the following change to the Master of European and Eurasian Studies program. The "Core Interdisciplinary Research Seminar", which is taught at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, will be changed from a mandatory full-year course to a mandatory half-year course.
Next, Professor Benjamin Alarie presented the annual JD Admissions report. Professor Alarie emphasized that the Faculty made fewer offers in 2024 (355 offers, compared to 361 in 2023 and 368 in 2024) but received a higher number of acceptances (231 accep -
tances, compared to 214 in 2023 and 210 in 2022). The higher number of acceptances was not expected. Professor Alarie attributed this "higher yield" to the success of the Faculty's financial aid program. Professor Alarie thanked Associate Dean Christopher Essert for quickly assembling new small groups to accommodate the larger first-year class.
Professor Alarie stated that the Faculty of Law makes offers in three waves: approximately 200 offers in December, 100 offers in late January or early February, and another round of offers in late February or early March. Professor Alarie shared that later offers have a lower acceptance rate, likely because offerees have started to plan on attending law school elsewhere. Professor Alarie stated that 2024 was likely an anomaly and that the Faculty would likely not "overcorrect" by making fewer offers for the 20252026 class. Professor Alarie thanked the Admissions Committee, composed of Faculty members, staff members, and 3L students at U of T Law for their work on the first round of admission profile reviews.
Other than the class size, the 2024 JD Class profile statistics Professor Alarie that presented were similar to previous years. The median LSAT was 167 (it has ranged from 166-168 for the last four years), the median GPA was 3.91 on a 4.0 scale, and a majority of the class identified as female. The complete class profile is available on the Faculty's website.
Next, Dean Brunnée thanked former Associate Dean of Graduate Programs, Professor Larissa Katz, whose term as Associate Dean ended on December 31, 2024, for her "attentive, energetic, and forward looking" work as Associate Dean. Professor Vincent Chiao took over the position as of January 1, 2025.
Professor Katz then presented the Graduate Admissions report, which showed an overall decline in applications to graduate programs (SJD and LLM) in 2024. However, Professor Katz stated that the pool of applicants was "amazing" and that the Faculty had still generated an "incredible" class of graduate students. She said that the U of T has mandated an increase to funding for all doctoral students, including law students, which will put the Faculty "in a much better position to compete with other excellent doctoral programs in law." Another highlight is that this year's SJD class has done incredibly well with receiving nominations for highly competitive grants. Moreover, Professor Katz emphasized that there was a higher uptake in GPLLM applications and the GPLLM class, with 169 new students,was larger than previous years.
In adjourning, Dean Brunnée stated that every five years, as part of the academic planning process, U of T requires all of its units to undergo a U of T quality assurance process. This process will be happening during the 2024-2025 academic year. It requires the Faculty to undergo an extensive self-study. This winter term, the Faculty will be soliciting input from students, Faculty, and staff in order to compile a report during the summer of 2025. During the 20252026 academic year, external auditors will visit the Faculty.
The following Faculty Council meeting was held on Wednesday, January 22, 2025. See Olivia Schenck’s (3L) article in this issue, titled “January Faculty Council Meeting Included ‘Open Book’ Exam Policy Change Concerns and an Alarming Annual University Budget Presentation”, recapping the January Faculty Council meeting. Additional Faculty Council meetings will be held in February and March.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Announces Plan for Resignation
The Liberal leadership race begins
OLIVIA SCHENK (3L)
On Monday January 6, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he would be resigning as Prime Minister and stepping down as Liberal leader in the coming months. Trudeau made the announcement outside Rideau Cottage, his official residence in Ottawa.
The Prime Minister began his departure announcement with gratitude: “Every morning, I've woken up as prime minister, I've been inspired by the resilience, the generosity and the determination of Canadians. It is the driving force of every single day I have the privilege of serving in this office.”
Trudeau then made reference to pressures from within the Liberal Party of Canada as influencing his decision to step down: “This country deserves a real choice in the next election, and it has become clear to me that if I'm having to fight internal battles, I cannot be the best option in that election.”
Pressure from inside the Liberal Party for Trudeau to step down had been intensifying since December 2024, when Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland resigned.
Trudeau clarified he would only officially step down once the Liberal Party selects a new leader through a nationwide vote: “I intend to resign as party leader, as prime minister, after the party selects its next leader through a robust, nationwide, competitive process. Last night, I asked the president of the Liberal Party to begin that process.”
In the same announcement, Trudeau declared he would be proroguing the House of Commons until March 24, 2025. Prorogation is a prerogative act of the Crown, taken on the advice of the Prime Minister. Proroguing Parliament ends the current
parliamentary session and functions as a suspension that stops all proceedings without dissolving Parliament. The decision to prorogue the House of Commons is likely a measure to prevent a vote of no confidence, triggering a general election, before the Liberals select a new leader.
The Liberals have scheduled an election for their new leader to be held on March 9. Typically, the process for Canadian federal parties to select new leaders takes four to five months. The Liberal party will be accelerating this process to under two months.
The rules outlining the voter eligibility for the upcoming Liberal leadership race have been published. To vote, a person must be a Registered Liberal, pay any required fees, and be a Canadian citizen, permanent residence, or person with status under the Indian Act. Those not yet registered with the Liberal Party who wish to participate in the leadership vote must complete registration by 5pm EST on January 27, 2025.
Some prominent names currently expected to run for Liberal leadership include: Former Governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney, Former Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland, Liberal House leader Karina Gould, MP Jaime Battiste, MP Chandra Arya, and businessman and former Liberal MP Frank Baylis.
Party members had until January 23, 2025 to enter the leadership race. Candidates for Liberal leadership will be required to pay a $350,000 entrance fee. The new entrance fee is over four times the previous leadership race entrance fee, which was only $75,000. Some interested candidates such
as Jaime Battiste, a Mi'kmaw member of Parliament from Nova Scotia, have expressed uncertainty in their ability to raise the required entry fee in time.
The next general election must be held on or before October 20, but this timeline could be accelerated if a majority of the House of Commons votes no-confidence. The Conservative Party of Canada has been attempting to bring a no-confidence vote for months. So far, the Liberal and the New Democratic Party have combined their votes to prevent a no-confidence vote from succeeding. However, after Trudeau’s resignation, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he would vote to bring down the Liberal Party in the next no-confidence vote.
After months of mounting internal pressure from the Liberal Party, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his plan to resign as prime minister, begin the new Liberal leadership race, and prorogue the House of Commons until March 24.
vatives winning a minority government, and less than 1% chance of either the Liberals or NDP winning minority governments. These polls overwhelmingly suggest Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre will be Canada’s next Prime Minister. It is most likely in 2025 that Canadians will see three different prime ministers: Trudeau, the next Liberal leader elected, and Poilievre. The proroguing of Parliament and rapid turnover of prime ministers in 2025 raise concerns about the ability of the Federal Government to handle imminent challenges including American President Donald Trump’s threats of imposing 25% blanket tariffs on Canada.
In response to the news of Trudeau stepping down, Poilievre responded by posting a video detailing a laundry list of complaints about the current Prime Minister and a call for Canadians to hold the Liberal Party as a whole responsible for Trudeau’s decisions over the years.
Currently, national polls indicate the Conservatives hold a 23 point lead over the Liberals and are on track for a landslide majority win. If an election were held today, CBC News Poll Tracker predicts there is a 99% chance of the Conservatives winning a majority government, 1% chance of the Conser-
Assuming Trudeau officially steps down on March 24, he will be stepping down as Canada’s 7th longest serving Prime Minister, behind previous prime minister Conservative leader Stephen Harper and ahead of former Conservative leader Brian Mulroney.
Women and the Law’s Professional Networking Cocktail Event
On January 14, the Women and the Law Society at the University of Toronto hosted their annual Professional Networking Cocktail Event in the atrium of the Jackman Law building. The event focused on celebrating the contributions of women in law and fostering connections between students and legal professionals.
The event aimed to highlight and celebrate the achievements of women in the legal field while providing students with opportunities to engage with experienced professionals. Scheduled a few weeks before the various 1L recruit deadlines, this opportunity allowed first-year law students to connect and network in a familiar and empowering environment. Speaking of the environment, Simone Grimaldi (1L) stated that “[T]he atmosphere was incredibly welcoming, filled with inspiring women who truly uplifted one another.”
The event saw an impressive turnout, with over 80 lawyers from more than 25 law firms and upwards of 150 law students in attendance. Students were able to interact with lawyers from a variety of practice areas and backgrounds, gaining valuable insights into the legal profession. The presence of accomplished female lawyers offered a unique perspective on both the challenges and opportunities that women face in the legal industry.
The success of the event was no accident. It was the result of careful planning and teamwork by the Women and the Law Society. Key efforts
included arranging catering and refreshments, venue selection, extensive outreach to firms, and consultation with previous participants and society alumni. As part of the organization process, the team also consulted with current 1Ls to ensure the event would be most responsive to their needs.
The evening went smoothly, a reflection of the dedication of the organizing team. Grimaldi stated, “[A]ttending the Women and the Law networking session was an incredible experience. It provided me with invaluable exposure to accomplished lawyers who shared their diverse career journeys and insights into the legal profession. [...] I had the opportunity to engage in meaningful discussions about the various paths within law and explore potential career opportunities. This event not only expanded my professional network but also empowered me to pursue my ambitions in a supportive community. I left feeling motivated and excited for my future in law!”
The Women and the Law Society extends its appreciation to all attendees, particularly the lawyers and firms whose participation made the event possible. This event reaffirmed the importance of creating spaces where women can connect, share experiences, and build networks in the legal field.
We hope you all enjoyed yourselves and left the night with new connections. We hope to see you all at our next event!
WOMEN
David B. Goodman Fellow: Professor Michele Bracther Goodwin
Unraveling reproductive rights as a legacy of control
MANREET BRAR (3L)
The David B. Goodman Fellowship, established in memory of the late David B. Goodman, Q.C., brings, on an annual basis, a distinguished lawyer or judge to the U of T Faculty of Law for a few days of teaching and informal discussions with the student body and the Faculty. The intention of the fellowship is for the Goodman Fellow to bring to the Faculty “the benefit of insights and ideas gained from long experience in the practical application of the law and, on the other hand, himself or herself be refreshed by a short return to the academic legal community.”
Previous Goodman Fellows have included, amongst others, former Supreme Court Justice Marshall Rothstein, Brian Bowman, former mayor of Winnipeg and U of T alumnus and former president of the Students’ Law Society at U of T Law, and Catherine O’Regan, United Nationals Internal Justice Council Chairperson.
This year, acclaimed bioethicist, constitutional law scholar, and prolific author Professor Michele Bracther Goodwin was selected as the Goodman Fellow. Dr. Goodwin earned her J.D. at Boston College Law School and both her LL.M and S.J.D at the University of Wisconsin. Read her impressive biography on the Georgetown Law website. Dr. Goodwin is the Linda D. and Timothy J. O’Neill Professor of Constitutional Law and Global Health Policy at Georgetown Law. She is also the CoFaculty Director at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. Professor Goodwin previously was a Chancellor’s Professor at the University of California, Irvine and founding director of the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy. She was the Abraham Pinanski Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and is a Senior Lecturer at Harvard Medical School.
Dr. Goodwin’s accomplishments are numerous. She is the 2023 recipient of the California Women’s Law Center Pursuit of Justice Award and was honoured in 2022 by the American Bar Association (“ABA”) with the Margaret Brent Award. In 2020–21, she was bestowed the Distinguished Senior Faculty Award for Research, the highest honour bestowed by the University of California. She is an elected member of the American Law Institute, a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, and a Fellow of the Hastings Center, a preeminent organization in the field of bioethics.
Dr. Goodwin has profoundly shaped the field of health law. She directed the first ABA accredited health law program in the nation and established the first law center focused on race and bioethics. Her scholarship, featured in leading journals such the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, New York Law Review, and Northwestern Law Review, tackles pressing issues like freedom of speech; religious liberty; slavery; equal protection; reproductive rights; and systemic discrimination. This year, Dr. Goodwin taught the Intensive Course: Reproductive Rights and Justice. I was one of the students in this course.
With a total of only 14 hours of class time over the span of a week, Dr. Goodwin deliv -
ered one of the most, if not the most, engaging and impactful courses I have ever taken.
The carefully curated content and Dr. Goodwin’s dynamic teaching style—marked by her vast knowledge and ability to foster meaningful discussion—created an incredible learning environment. Dr. Goodwin created an environment, wherein she encouraged open dialogue, encouraging students to answer questions and share their perspectives.
The course description speaks to the breadth of the topics covered. The course explored a wide range of topics, including abortion, personhood, artificial reproduction, and fetal protection laws. rounded in historical context, the course traced developments from early matrilineality and hypodescent laws to the eugenics era and contemporary debates on sex equality and racial justice. This historical lens was particularly illuminating as it revealed how deeply entrenched societal structures and biases continue to shape contemporary reproductive policies. Unlike the long essay typical of intensive course evaluations, students were evaluated on the basis of four policy position papers of about 625 to 750 words each. By writing these papers, students had the opportunity to engage with a topic of their choice after doing the assigned reading.
In the first class, Dr. Goodwin encouraged us to adopt a kaleidoscopic view—examining topics from multiple angles, turning the lens repeatedly to uncover new perspectives. Dr. Goodwin’s lectures extended far beyond the assigned text of her book Policing The Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood . She provided an in-depth understanding of the Constitution of the United States and its historical underpinnings, offering crucial context for each topic discussed. Dr. Goodwin went above and beyond to introduce ideas and examples outside of the text, illustrating the real-world implications of the issues at hand. For instance, she taught us about surrogacy and ‘baby farming’ practices in countries like India and Thailand, shedding light on the exploitation and ethical concerns tied to global reproductive justice. Through this expansive approach, she consistently connected historical narratives to contemporary debates. With each turn of the kaleidoscope, Dr. Goodwin challenged us to think critically, question assumptions, and engage deeply with nuanced and often uncomfortable realities.
incisive analysis of women’s reproductive justice. Although the book was published in 2020, prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization , which overturned Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey —two landmark decisions that decriminalized abortion—Dr. Goodwin accurately predicted the future trajectory of women’s reproductive justice in the United States. Drawing on historical realities dating back to the period of slavery in the United States, Dr. Goodwin points out patterns pertaining to the realities of women’s access to reproductive justice, including and extending beyond access to abortion, pregnancy, and motherhood. Her insights remain true today and will continue to resonate during Donald Trump’s presidency and beyond.
Dr. Goodwin’s insights illuminate not just the past, but the persistent patterns of control that shape reproductive policies today, underscoring the urgent need for legal and societal reform to address these inequities and promote true reproductive justice for all.
In class, Dr. Goodwin often spoke of “unstitching” and then “unravelling the thread.” With each new topic, she would meticulously dissect a phenomenon, breaking it into its fundamental components and revealing the underlying truths with remarkable clarity. She did this masterfully, drawing on various sources of knowledge such as primary sources, empirical data, and historical narratives and anecdotes. One particularly memorable discussion pertained to the way in which the state polices and disproportionately incarcerates Black women, particularly Black mothers, creating cycles of inequity that are difficult to escape—this mirrors patterns of control during the period of slavery.
Dr. Goodwin’s David B. Goodman lecture, titled Citizenship: The Long and Complicated Arc of Women’s Equality, on January 9, 2025 unraveled the thread of women’s citizenship and its persistent ties to sex inequality. The lecture was recorded and can be found on the U of T Law YouTube landing page (I highly recommend watching it if you did not have the chance to attend Dr. Goodwin’s lecture). She demonstrated how this fractured citizenship continues to influence reproductive health, justice, sexual violence, economic equality, and more, underscoring the interconnectedness of these issues and their deep historical roots.
in legal and social frameworks. She analogized Munroe’s story to The Handmaid’s Tale , emphasizing its relevance to the real and pressing situation in the United States. The book, a culmination of 10 years of research, interviews, and work as an expert witness, was published in 2020 as a warning about the trajectory of women’s reproductive rights.
Dr. Goodwin examined the historical roots of reproductive oppression, including coverture laws, where women’s legal identities were subsumed under their husbands’ authority, as well as the writings of Blackstone and Hale, which denied women any identity outside of marriage. These principles were invoked in Dobbs, marking a return to outdated and patriarchal legal theories. She also highlighted the historical denial of women’s reproductive autonomy, tracing it back to the abolitionist era when the criminalization of abortion intersected with efforts to maintain racial hierarchies.
Historical accounts, such as the story of Margaret Garner—who tragically killed her children to spare them the horrors of slavery— underscored the intersections of personhood, citizenship, and systemic oppression. Dr. Goodwin connected these narratives to contemporary challenges, illustrating how the past continues to inform present day struggles for equality. Garner’s story, in particular, served as a sobering reminder of the cost of denying personhood and autonomy to women, highlighting how these patterns echo through time.
Dr. Goodwin highlighted the U.S. Supreme Court’s reliance in Dobbs on archaic frameworks that perpetuate control over women and marginalized groups, echoing the historical injustices of slavery and coverture. In particular, Dr. Goodwin emphasized the role of Mississippi, tying the state’s historical legacy of racial and gender oppression to its pivotal role in challenging Roe v Wade , as the legislation contested in Dobbs originated there. She pointed out that Dobbs represents how the present frequently mirrors historical patterns of denying women autonomy and equality under the guise of protecting societal norms. Dr. Goodwin emphasized that “the scale of the harms brought about by the post- Dobbs era cannot be described as anything less than significant and drastic.”
Dr. Goodwin’s lectures springboarded off of and supplanted the first six chapters of her book Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood , acclaimed for its
Drawing on her book Policing the Womb, Dr. Goodwin began her talk with the harrowing story of Marlise Munroe, a pregnant woman who was declared brain-dead after suffering a pulmonary embolism. Despite her family’s wishes to remove Munroe from life support, Texas law mandated the continuation of medical intervention solely to sustain the pregnancy. Munroe’s treatment exemplified the ways women are often reduced to mere incubators
Following the lecture, Dr. Goodwin addressed questions from the audience, students and Faculty members alike. Professor Rebecca Cook asked Dr. Goodwin her thoughts on the criticisms of the reproductive rights movement as being fragmented whilst overly focused on the abortion perspective. In response, Dr. Goodwin answered the question, and concluded the lecture with a call for a renewed approach to reproductive justice, urging the movement to expand beyond abortion rights to address broader systemic inequities, including fetal protection laws and inequitable pregnancy outcomes. She stressed the importance of building on the foundational work of Black women in the reproductive justice movement and advocated for redefining citizenship and personhood to ensure true equality—a reproductive justice 2.0 is needed in this post- Dobbs era.
Law Follies 2025 FAQ
Get the dirt on the Faculty’s #2 comedy revue!
MEGAN CORBETT (3L)
When you hear the phrase ‘Law Follies,’ what comes to mind? For many of you, the answer might be, ‘I’ve maybe heard of it before’ or ‘I think I’ve seen someone posting in the community Facebook group about that.’ In this article, I’d like to help familiarize you with one of the Faculty’s longest-running traditions by answering some Follies frequently asked questions.
What is Law Follies?
Let’s start with the basics! Law Follies is both a group and an event. Law Follies the event is a show in late February of every year, where students at the Faculty gather to watch a series of sketches poking fun at life in the law school. Who makes these sketches, you ask? That’s where Law Follies the group comes in. Throughout the year, the Faculty’s best, brightest, and (self-declared) funniest stu -
dents gather to write sketches about the epic highs and lows of law school life. In early February, these Follies-ers film these sketches with the help of volunteer thespians from the rest of the faculty.
When and where is Follies this year?
Follies 2025 will be on Thursday, February 27 at Scotiabank Theatre. Doors will open at 7:00 PM, and the show will start at 7:30. Be there or be square! Just imagine the glamour of realizing how large your classmates’ pores are when you see them up on the big screen.
When did Follies start?
Follies is a long-running tradition at the Faculty! It officially began in 1982, beginning its life as a live show with law students acting onstage before the audience. The show went digital during the pandemic, and we’ve stuck with the pre-recorded sketch format since then because it allows us greater flexibility in finding new ways to deliver our creative vision (and because the cuts let us cover up the fact that we don’t know our lines).
Do I have to pay to attend?
No! Law Follies is very fortunate to have a generous sponsor in Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, which allows us to make Law Follies free for students. All you have to do to get your ticket is fill out a form that we’ll send out closer to the show, so we know how many people to expect. But if you’re feeling generous, we recommend donating to a charity of your choice in an amount equal to what you might otherwise spend on a movie ticket.
Can I bring guests?
Yes! Everyone is allowed to bring up to one guest per person, whether that’s your significant other or your best friend from Osgoode (although if your best friend is from Osgoode we might give you a seat in the back row). Just remember: what happens in Follies, stays in Follies.
Afterparty?
Yes! As mentioned above, Law Follies will be on a Thursday from 7:30 to 9:30 pm, meaning there’s lots of time afterward to enjoy the ‘afterparty’ at that week’s Call to the Bar.
My law school classmates aren’t funny. Why would I want to see a comedy show written by them?
I could tell you that any proceeds from the show go to a good cause, that movie theatre popcorn is delicious, or that it’s just nice to participate in the faculty community. But if nothing else, I can promise that Follies gives you the chance to see your classmates make absolute idiots out of themselves! You don’t have to laugh with us, we’ll take you laughing at us.
Do you have any relationship to the Follies 75 thing from earlier this year?
No! That was an event put on by alumni to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Faculty, which “borrowed” the Follies branding (our copyright suit is currently winding its way through the courts). Our show is the real deal
Can I expect to see any celebrity guests on the Follies red carpet?
Maybe! You’ll definitely see some of the Faculty’s most-beloved professors, who work with the Follies writers to develop a professors’ sketch each year. And who knows, if you’re lucky, you might see some other Follies alumni!
Can I still be involved with Follies? Absolutely! We’ll most likely be filming sketches up until the second week of February, so if you’ve got a burning desire to launch your acting career, get in touch with me or Humza Khan, or reach out to Follies by email, Facebook, or Instagram.
New Club Spotlight: Run Club, Fashion Law Society, Student Statecraft Society
GEORGIA GARDNER (2L)
With so many clubs at U of T Law, there’s something for everyone. This year, a number of new and inventive clubs have emerged. To learn more, I chatted with the founders and presidents of three new clubs: Emily Ernst (2L) of the Fashion Law Society; Ben Elhav (2L) of the Student Statecraft Society; and Audrey Wu (2L) and Brianna Grieff (2L) of the Run Club.
Whether you’re looking to stay active, explore the world of fashion law, or test your diplomatic skills, these new clubs offer an opportunity to connect, learn, and grow in ways that extend beyond the classroom. Ultra Vires (UV): Thank you all for taking the time to chat about your clubs! To start things off, why did you decide to create your club in the first place?
Emily Ernst (EE): I started the Fashion Law Society to shine a spotlight on a legal field that’s often overlooked but incredibly exciting! Fashion law blends creativity with
complex legal issues, from protecting designers’ intellectual property to tackling sustainability challenges in global supply chains. I wanted to give law students a platform to explore these topics and connect with professionals who are shaping the future of the industry. After my own experiences learning about fashion law, I realized how much I loved exploring this field. I decided to create a space where my peers could do the same. By creating this society, I hoped to inspire curiosity and provide opportunities for students to engage with the fascinating world of fashion law.
Ben Elhav (BE): The Student Statecraft Society was created to give students a chance to practice advocacy and negotiation in a fun and relaxed context. By immersing our participants in a new world populated by new countries that have to navigate challenges much like ours, we wanted to borrow from what makes moot problems so appealing, but without all the
necessary complication of research, writing and proofreading. This club is for students interested in geopolitics, debate, or simply in thinking creatively. It's only as serious as you want it to be, and it's designed in a way that fosters any level of participation.
Brianna Grieff and Audrey Wu (BA): We started the Run Club as a way for law students to connect with new people over something other than school. Given the surprising amount of law students who love running in their free time, we thought: “Why not run together?” The club actually began as a casual Facebook group chat started by a 3L (who graduated in 2024). We thought it’d be fun to keep it going and make it an official club so more people could join in.
UV: What kinds of activities or events do you run?
EE: The Fashion Law Society is all about creating unique opportunities for students to engage with the field. We organize infor -
mative panels featuring leading lawyers and fashion industry professionals, giving attendees firsthand insights into the challenges and opportunities in fashion law. We also host creative social activities, like crafty collage and mood board socials and team field trips to fashion-related events/locations (we attended a Vegan Fashion Show last semester and are planning to visit the Fashion History Museum in Cambridge to speak to fashion professionals who have act
ed as expert witnesses in recent design related intellectual property cases). On top of that, we maintain an active blog where students can read about cutting-edge fashion law issues and contribute their own articles, exploring topics they’re passionate about.
BE: As part of the Student Statecraft Society, members create and represent fictional nation-states in a diplomatic forum known as the Union of Territories (U of T).
Using the intuitive online website NationStates, students develop their country’s policies and engage in discussions, negotiations, and decision-making through an online server and bi-weekly in-person meetings. Key activities include responding to press briefings, participating in regional initiatives that tackle global challenges, and debating policy. The club fosters creativity, strategic thinking, and collaboration, with leadership rotating among our elected executive body.
BA: We plan weekly 5km runs that start and end at the law school. Everyone and all paces are welcome, and it's a great way to meet new people while getting in a good workout. When the weather warms up, we’re hoping to add post-run coffee runs to the mix!
UV: What ìs one thing about your club that you'd like the Faculty to know?
EE: The Fashion Law Society is a welcoming space where curiosity meets creativity! I want the Faculty to know that it’s not just about exploring exciting and niche areas of legal practice: it’s also a fantastic opportunity to connect with peers and professionals at the intersection of fashion and law. Whether you're passionate about intellectual property, sustainable fashion, business, labour and employment, real estate law, or international trade, the society is here to inspire, educate, and help you build meaningful networks (and make new friends!).
BE: That they're welcome to join too!
Professor Mariana Prado is considering participating as the representative of an observer state, like the Vatican (I suggested her state’s national religion might be Prado-stantism).
BA: We make sure that no one is left behind during a run. No matter what your pace or experience with running are, all are welcome to join!
UV: How can students get involved?
EE: Getting involved with the Fashion Law Society is easy! You can attend any of our academic or social events – we would love to see you there! Feel free to follow our Instagram @fashionlaw.uoft for updates on our socials and events! If you’re interested in writing, we’d love to feature your work on our academic blog. It’s a fantastic way to engage with topics that excite you and build your portfolio. Just email us at uoft.fashionlawsociety@gmail.com if you’d like to submit a blog post for our website! Whether you’re coming to events, exploring our blog, or contributing your own ideas, there’s a place for you in the Fashion Law Society!
BE: Students can attend our bi-weekly
in-person meetings, but they can also get involved online by creating a country at nationstates.net and letting us know about it. The good thing is that participation is entirely flexible. This is a fictional world, and so new news affecting all member countries is generated all of the time. We don't expect you to respond to any of it. This means that you can show up to one meeting to represent your country, see if that format is a good fit for you, and then not show up again for the rest of the year! It doesn't matter - we can write you out of the story at your request. You can also transition attendance from inperson meetings to online discussion or vice versa.
BA: You can stay updated on weekly runs through our Instagram @uoftlawrunclub. Follow and join us for a run! These interviews have been edited for brevity and clarity.
A Fantasy Football Report Card Subjecting NFL players to the Faculty of Law’s grading scale
TYLER LEE (1L)
Coming into 1L, I was nervous that my classmates would be nothing like me. Would they spend their Sundays rotting in bed, watching their favourite football team let them down week after week like I do? Would the word ‘encroachment’ remind them of a 5-yard penalty or of Professor Lee’s lecture on the ancillary powers doctrine? Would people even know what an Octobox is?
Luckily for me, I quickly found out that the Faculty of Law hosts a considerable number of devoted football fans just like me. During the Open House, I shook hands with Seahawks fans, a Patriots fan, and (to my awareness) the only Titans fan outside the state of Tennessee. After collecting a few classmates who seemed interested, I volunteered to start a 1L Fantasy Football League.
Seventeen weeks of split-screening readings with Redzone has taught me much about football, and I intend to share my findings. Ultra Vires has always been an important repository of recruit numbers, pressing issues, and sound advice for succeeding in law school. But do you know what’s more important than all of that? That’s right—Fantasy Football. Below, I have graded some notable NFL players based on their Fantasy Football performances over the past season.
LP - Christian McCaffrey
Christian McCaffrey is the upper-year who racked up Hs in 1L and then burnt out during their summer job. “CMC” was dominant in the season prior and remained poised for success in San Francisco’s offence. Many Fantasy Football managers came into this season with McCaffrey as the clear first-overall pick. On the other hand, McCaffrey came into this season with a secret case of bilateral achilles tendonitis. Not cool, man. That would have been nice to include in the disclosure package. Managers
who took McCaffrey suffered a surprise nine-week delay to his season debut. When he eventually retook the field, he wasn’t his former self. He put up four subpar performances before blowing his PCL and sitting out the rest of the season.
Note to self : take care of yourself during the off-season. Aidan Laubscher (1L), who drafted McCaffrey in the 1L Fantasy Football league, was blindsided by McCaffrey’s injury and finished in last place. As punishment for finishing last, notwithstanding Sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (I read Ford ), he will be rewriting a mock LSAT. Maybe McCaffrey can put his Stanford education to good use and help Aidan get back into the swing of Logical Reasoning.
P - Marvin Harrison Jr.
Marvin Harrison Jr. came into this season as the hotshot, K-JD 1L who breezed through undergrad. "Maserati Marv" was a superstar during his NCAA career. He was the rookie to watch after being slotted into Arizona’s offence with the competent (but vertically challenged) Kyler Murray at quarterback. However, Harrison Jr. did not enjoy the same dominance he did in college. That’s not to say he was bad . A P, after all, indicates strong performance. From a Fantasy Football perspective, Harrison Jr. put up a few solid outings, but was somewhat inconsistent. In the 1L Fantasy Football League, I traded Harrison Jr. to Sid Sidhu (1L) midway through the season for a package of Zay Flowers and Jameson Williams. What a fleece. Harrison Jr. was not a gamechanger for his new fantasy team manager, who failed to make the playoffs.
Drafting rookies in Fantasy Football is always a gamble. Law students know the plight of rookies all too well. Like every 1L going through federalism for the first time,
Marv is adjusting. The only difference is I’m not making $800k a year to read the Greenhouse Gas Reference , which is a shame considering how many times I’ve read it. Maybe fantasy team managers like myself shouldn’t have expected instant success. A P is all you can really ask of him. Give the kid some time and he’ll be up in the Hs.
H - Jerry Jeudy
Jerry Jeudy is the student who sits in the back and quietly aces the course. He had a sneaky-good fantasy season, finishing as the 11th ranked wide receiver this year. Jeudy put up consistently solid performances in the back half of the season as the top weapon on the Cleveland Browns. He battled through multiple quarterback changes and eventually balled out with the lovable Jameis Winston as his play caller. He was also the beneficiary of former teammate Amari Cooper's shipment to the Buffalo Bills, which resulted in an increased target share. Despite all this, Jeudy was barely talked about in the Fantasy Football scene. In the 1L Fantasy Football League, Jeudy singlehandedly dug Alex Kouri (1L) out of last place, earning Jeudy a very honourable H.
The big takeaway from Jeudy’s season: wide receivers don’t need a perfect quarterback situation to produce. Being the top weapon for a shaky quarterback results in a boatload of targets. Screen plays, checkdowns, and short slot routes are all in the playbook for quarterbacks with smaller arms, and are go-to options for teams playing from behind. This can result in consistent point production, especially in FullPPR league formats.
HH - Saquon Barkley
Saquon Barkley is the talented upperyear who finally got himself into the right study group. Barkley made the move from
the New York Giants to the Philadelphia Eagles in the off-season. Some managers were worried about Barkley’s involvement in the Eagles’ stacked offense, featuring mobile quarterback Jalen Hurts. Those worries were put to bed early. Barkley was unstoppable behind the stout Eagles offensive line, finding gaps and routinely breaking out for huge gains. Even with Jalen Hurts’ signature "tush push" siphoning points away, Barkley finished as the top-ranked running back with a handful of 30+ point outbursts. He was the star student of this year’s class. Unfortunately, his MVP performance was not enough to carry Caleb Lakhani (1L) to the playoffs.
Saquon Barkley is living, breathing, and 700lb-squatting proof that working in New York isn’t the best fit for some people. Barkley’s time with the Giants yielded decent Fantasy Football seasons, but it should have been obvious that he would see improvement playing behind Jeff Stoutland University. Pay attention to trades and free-agent signings, as they may indicate a player’s fantasy production will increase or decrease. Sometimes, players need to find the right environment for them to thrive (this isn’t entirely about football).
Closing Remarks
Fantasy sports leagues are a great way to build community and take minds off of the brutality of law school. If you’re a sports fan, give it a try! Additionally, I would be remiss not to congratulate Jordan “Gubes” Guberman (1L) for his victory in the 1L Fantasy Football League. Gubes entered the playoffs as the 8th seed and made a miracle run thanks to savvy waiver-wire pickups and his superstar QB, Lamar Jackson. Gubes will be taking home $440, which will supply almost one whole week’s worth of his coffee addiction.
The Column I Didn’t Want to Write
Confronting the hidden struggles of OCD, Jared Sloan reflects on his journey toward mental health recovery, inspired by a courageous story from a childhood acquaintance.
JARED SLOAN (2L)
Last summer, I ran into an old friend who was working at the Shaw Festival in Niagara-on-theLake, which is about a 40-minute drive from our shared hometown of Fonthill. Maybe old friend is stretching the truth. After attending the same kindergarten, I don’t think we crossed paths again until a brief encounter following our undergraduate graduation ceremony at Brock University, where we had overlapped only chronologically, given that her degree was in English and mine was in math. It was about a year later when we had another quick confab at The Shaw, after which I—as one does—poked around Google and LinkedIn for a few minutes to see if I could glean any further intel on what she had been up to since undergrad—or kindergarten for that matter. That’s when I began looking through a list of blog posts she had written in recent years, pausing on one titled My Eating Disorder. It was a courageous piece to write and a deeply discomforting one to read; in recounting her descent, she recalled eating a lunch of three carrot sticks and three snap peas, then seeing her reflection in the mirror—dull-eyed, gaunt-faced, stick-figure thin—and thinking, What the hell am I doing to myself?
Facing up to a mental illness is a scary, difficult thing. I’m not sure when exactly I realized that I had one. There is one night I can recall from my second
year of undergrad—the year that was totally online due to COVID-19—when, perhaps driven by the anxiety of an exam the next day, I was taking a particularly long time to get through the compulsions that had become part of my nightly routine. I had finished studying, but I couldn’t leave the room without feeling like everything was “set right” in my mind. I flipped the light switch on and off, on and off, waiting for the right feeling and the right number to coincide. I walked out, then back in, and tried again, and circled back again. I multiplied numbers together in my head to assure myself that I was still able to do it. Over…and over…and over. In all, it must have taken…30 minutes? Or 60? At some point time fails to really sink in.
However long it was, it prompted me to type “OCD symptoms” into Google and take a gander at the first couple of links. Uh-oh, I thought to myself, as it dawned on me that nearly every one of these symptoms accurately described my day-to-day existence. That’s a bit worrying. Let’s just forget I ever saw this! It is hard to see yourself as having a problem over which you have lost control. It is much easier to say to yourself, I am choosing to perform these compulsions and rituals because doing so allows me to be mentally sharp and to do my best work. And it can seem like a plausible story when you’re getting good marks in undergrad. But
you are really just creating a permission structure to justify increasingly insane and irrational behaviour, to gradually cede more and more control to the OCD demons until they have metastasized into virtually every moment and aspect of your life. Until you are staring at a single paragraph for 20 minutes, breaking into a nervous sweat because the words just won’t click into your mind in the right way. Until speaking or writing a few sentences begins to feel like a desperate struggle to find the right words that keep eluding you. Until you are spending much of your day doing things you don’t actually want or need to be doing, a prisoner to the next compulsive urge that takes hold of your unruly brain.
Until you have so thoroughly eroded your own confidence and capabilities that you are forced to look in the mirror and say, What the hell am I doing to myself? Or to borrow from one of my favourite Blue Rodeo songs… I want to know where my confidence went. One day it all disappeared.
I knew by last year that I needed to start getting treatment; I knew by this year that I couldn’t go any further like this, and I had to step away and actually commit to getting my mental health in order. There are many topics I would have liked to write columns on this school year; my own life was not among them,
but in the last couple years I have come to truly understand the value of speaking openly about these kinds of issues, and recognizing that you are not alone in dealing with them.
The author of the piece I referenced in the opening is named Julia. Her story is ultimately an uplifting one; she speaks about the beauty of recovery, of taking her life back and of having “looked my monster straight in the eyes and told him he doesn’t scare me anymore.” When the OCD has gotten so deep in your head, and so embedded in your daily activities, it is hard to imagine a future without it. I sometimes think about an Ernie Els quote at the 2016 Masters, when he was asked what he would do about his crippling battle with the putting yips: “I don’t know, give me a brain transplant.” But Ernie came back the next week and was the third-best putter in the field.
I am quite certain that these issues are not irreparable, and that I am not the only one here who has gone through something like this at some point (which is to say, don’t hold back if you have any useful tips/ideas to share!). I have felt so lucky to be in this program, and especially to write in these pages, and I cannot wait until I am healthy and ready to get back to the grind—or, perhaps more appropriately, ‘til I am myself again.
4 Tips for 1L's to Improve Next Exam Season
After enduring the whirlwind of emotions that comes with law school grade release, a 2L reflects on the lessons learned from 1L's first semester.
GLENN HOWARD (2L)
The Faculty released grades for the Fall 2024 term on January 20, 2025, sending a mix of dread, fear, excitement, and nervousness through the JD student body. When grades came out this year, I thought back to 1L, when I hurried to view my first marks in the privacy of an empty classroom, which I then remained in, feeling nauseous, for an extended period of time. When the feeling wore off, I wondered "How do I do better next time?" Having then improved between 1st and 2nd semester in 1L, I thought I would share four tips that helped me perform better on my second set of exams.
1. Request and Review Your December Exams
Fill out the form provided by the Law Records office in its grades release email to request a copy of your December exams and read them. You
may be surprised at what you wrote, which may be different than what you thought you wrote. Your first set of exams acts as a baseline, and reviewing them can help you understand what you're naturally good at and what you need to work on. If you're not sure what to improve upon, see the next tip.
2. Talk To Your Professors
Email your professor and ask to meet and review your exam. As stated on the Faculty website, "The Faculty of Law's policy is that students are entitled to review their examinations with the instructor." While it is intimidating, meeting with your professors about your exam is the best way to understand your grade. Having read your exam, you can come with a list of questions: Did I spot all the main issues in the fact pattern?
What were you looking for on the policy question? You will not take that exact first year subject again, but your next exams will have the same general format. Speaking with your professors will help ensure you're aware of the pitfalls you experienced in your first exams so you can avoid them next time.
3. Access Tutoring Through the Academic Success Program (ASP)
Contact the Academic Success Program and request tutoring in whatever subject(s) you find most challenging. My second set of exams went better than the first in large part because I accessed ASP tutoring. I clarified not just my understanding of the law, but also how to better prepare for exams in general. I highly recommend taking advantage of this free resource, which is only available
to you in 1L. It gives you access to upper-year students who can help you.
4. Work on Your Legal Writing
Lastly, try to improve your legal writing. Writing a law exam is a specific skill that you may need to work on. This was one area where I worked to improve, and my writing got better by doing some of the writing exercises in the readings for Legal Research & Writing, a course all 1Ls are taking this semester. (I particularly liked the exercises in Legal Writing in Plain English by Bryan A. Garner.) You could also read a chapter or two of a book on one of the subjects you're taking this term and reflect on the writing. What makes it good? What would you do differently? There are endless other ways to improve, and the important thing is that you choose something that works for you.
How to Survive (and Thrive)
During the 1L Recruit
AKA our declassified 1L Recruit survival guide, from your call day to interview week needs
ROSEMARY FANG (2L) & CELINE TSANG (2L)
To all the 1Ls who applied for the recruit this year, congratulations on completing the first part of the process! It’s an exciting time, but it can also be very nervewracking (for us, “nerve-wracking” might’ve been an understatement).
Despite the butterflies, we are both so grateful to have landed positions in the 1L Recruit last year, and we feel just as grateful to be able to share what we learned in the process, so you can sail smoothly through. (As a disclaimer, these are our opinions and experiences alone.)
1. I decided to apply for the 1L Recruit later than some of my peers, so I had a perpetual feeling of being ‘behind’ during the whole process, especially when I overheard what other students were doing—I didn’t get to chat with as many people as I wanted to, I didn’t feel like my materials were as polished as they could’ve been, etc. In reality, I think this mindset only served to stress me out further, when I could’ve been focusing on what I could do considering the amount of time I had left. — Celine
2. In the week or so between the recruit deadline and call day, firms will start to send out ITC (intent to call) and PFO (please f**k off) emails. The suspense of this period can be pretty tense. While there’s nothing you can do about the wait, my best advice for this time is that no news can be good news. While some firms send ITCs and PFOs, others will send nothing at all. In addition, even if you don’t receive an ITC and know that others have, that doesn’t automatically mean your application was rejected. I ended up receiving and accepting an offer from a firm that I had heard absolutely nothing from during the ITC and PFO period. — Rosemary
3. If I had to go through the recruit again (especially ITC week), I would avoid sites like The Canadian Law Forum like the plague. I remember that in the moment, it felt helpful to learn which firms were sending out messages, the timing of those messages, and even the schools of the students who had heard back. But, in hindsight, I think having that knowledge only exacerbated the stress of the process. There’s no way to really rationalize the recruit with the limited information the internet can provide. Instead of obsessing, it could be nice to take a breather and focus on the non-recruit aspects of your life you might’ve put aside while preparing.
— Rosemary
4. I am categorically not a morning person. Although I think the advice to schedule your topchoice firm early to indicate interest is generally applicable, I knew I would be rusty and sleepy at 8 am. 8 am might be a better time for a ‘practice’ firm, if you have the luxury to schedule it as such. So when my top-choice firm luckily got through to me first on Call Day, I immediately scheduled them for 10 am. And by the time I got to my first choice firm on Day 1, I had already started to figure out how I could improve, such as how to tighten up answers that were feeling too wordy. It was really helpful to have had the experience of a full interview ahead of interviewing at my top-choice firm. —
Celine
5. The day before my interviews, I practiced different walking routes between the firms, including any dinners or receptions, and made notes about the quickest pathways. While the PATH may be quicker and could be advisable if there is inclement weather, I would recommend trekking entirely above ground, especially if you (like me) are not too savvy with navigation. I also wore flats to all my interviews, which made walking even speedier! — Celine
6. Many firms will assign a host or articling buddy to accompany you during your interviews.
Your host will generally be the person showing you around the firm, taking you to your interviewers, and joining you on any lunches/dinners you may be invited to. I found it really helpful to reach out and schedule a coffee chat with my host in advance of my actual interviews. Getting to chat with the person who would essentially be chaperoning me around for three days allowed me to (1) see their face and hear their voice so that I could easily recognize them on Day 1 of interviews, (2) start building some familiarity with them, and (3) ask for their tips on the process and any information they might have about my interviewers. However, please note that there is a recruitment suspension period (aka the “blackout period”) that lasts from the deadline for application materials (this year, January 22, 2025) until the beginning of interview week (February 18, 2025). If your host is an articling student (as mine was), they may not be subject to the blackout period. In any event, use your best judgment on whether or not you want to reach out!
— Rosemary
7. When researching my interviewers, I created a chart with the lawyers’ headshots next to some notable facts from their biographies, so I could quickly refresh myself on their names and backgrounds before walking into the interview room. If my interview was with 2 people instead of 1, I tried to find areas of overlap (ex. same affinity group, same pro bono project) so when asking questions, I could direct it towards them both. I would also recommend asking about what you’re personally interested in, as that will likely lead to the most natural conversation. For instance, I always enjoy hearing about people’s clerking experiences so I often asked about how someone’s time as a clerk informed their practice, even though I am not applying to clerk. As well, I tried not to place too much emphasis on remembering everything about my interviewers. If you completely blank on someone’s biography and experiences, asking a more general question is totally fine. — Celine
8. I did quite a few mock interviews ahead of time and often got asked similar questions. But in
the actual interviews, I found that my interviewers were sometimes interested in very different topics than what I had prepared for. As a result, I learned to not become too attached to certain parts of my story that I thought would really resonate. Instead, I tried to be flexible in expanding on things I hadn’t really practiced, and leaned into stories and topics that I saw the interviewers enjoyed hearing about. — Celine
9. I also did several mock interviews, and while I found that running through questions was very useful, spending some time focusing on my body language also helped me feel more comfortable when actually interviewing. I tend to fiddle with my clothes and jewelry when I’m nervous. Having people point out these habits and other aspects of my body language (e.g., my posture, how I’m sitting in the chair, where I’m placing my hands when I’m speaking, etc.) allowed me to focus on how I physically presented at the interview. Because of this prep, I showed up on Day 1 (completely devoid of any necklaces or rings) ready to appear confident and composed through my words and actions.
Rosemary
—
10. On Day 1, I had a firm dinner, and while I knew that Day 2 interviews would be scheduled on Day 1, I hadn’t really considered that I would be getting phone calls in the middle of dinner. I got really flustered, especially when the call was not to request another interview, but to let me know they would not be moving forward with me. But in retrospect, the firms understand the hectic nature of the process and politely excusing yourself to take a call is perfectly reasonable—I let one call go to voicemail and had to call them back, by which point my preferred time was already taken. As well, I was really worried when I got a rejection because I immediately assumed that I must’ve done poorly on every interview that day, but I want to emphasize that rejection from one firm is not necessarily indicative of your success at another firm.
— Celine
11. I underestimated how tired I would feel waking up on Day 2. Day 1 was long, plus, I was starting to feel a little déjà vu. But try to push through! I found my energy levels rising when I started getting into the interviews again. And
on Day 2, I started to get a good sense of which firms were interested in me (which relieved a lot of stress), and I also found myself a lot more comfortable when returning to the same firms, which made the process more enjoyable for me.
— Celine
12. Finding people I could debrief with during the recruit process ended up being more helpful than I could have ever imagined. On some interview days, I had a lot of downtime between firm events. Rather than sitting alone and stewing in my own anxiety, being able to talk with friends (some who were also interviewing and others who had already gone through the process) helped me stay as clear-headed as possible. The CDO can also be an amazing resource as they are available to chat with students throughout interview week.
— Rosemary
13. I’ve often heard the recruit compared to dating, with all of its unique rules and formalities. In the same vein, I would recommend not reading too much into how the firms express their interest towards you. I had attended panels and spoken to upper-years, so I thought I knew what the “magic words” were. In reality, every firm is different and if you are getting signs that they’re interested, there’s no need to worry about not hearing a specific phrase—especially as firm processes are always evolving.
— Celine
In our experience, it was all too easy to fall into the belief that coming out of this recruit with anything less than a job offer was a personal failure. We want to assure you that putting yourself out there to apply and interview is already a significant accomplishment, especially considering how demanding 1L is. If you don’t happen to find something in this recruit, in which so few spots are available, that is not a reflection on yourself but merely the byproduct of a highly limited process. And not landing a position says nothing about your prospects for future recruits you may want to partake in.
Ultimately, there are so many other avenues you can pursue in your 1L summer, especially as so many firms simply don’t participate in the 1L Recruit at all. The 1L Recruit is by no means your defining chapter in law school. It is just one of many opportunities to come, in what is sure to be an illustrious and long career. Wishing you all the best of luck!
Trial Advocacy Review
Not quite a five star experience
SHELBY HOHMANN (3L)
What is Trial Advocacy (the Course)?
Trial Advocacy, referred to by most as ‘Trial Ad’ is an upper-year, four-credit course in which students learn the basics of all the skills they need to run a trial. Evidence Law is a pre-requisite or co-requisite for Trial Advocacy.The course structure consists of two classes per week, with one being a lecture where students are taught a skill (for example, how to do an examinationin-chief or cross-examination) and the other being a workshop where students get to practice the skill. Given the “intensive nature of the course,” attendance for all classes and workshops is mandatory.
The course culminates in students running a final trial with a partner and showing off the skills they have worked on throughout the semester. In addition to attending lectures and workshops and preparing for them, students taking the course are also required to complete weekly written assignments, though these are upgraded. From my experience, these were sometimes just the preparation that you would need to do for the workshop anyway (e.g. writing out your cross-examination questions), but sometimes they were something different, like writing out your theory of the case. The most exciting aspect of Trial Advocacy is, of course, that it is taught by real-life litigators, who offer constructive criticism (and, once in a blue moon, some praise) and grade students on their performances in the weekly workshops. This year, 14 out of the 29 members of the teaching faculty were Crown Attorneys of some form, while the other 15 were a mixture of family lawyers, criminal defence counsel, and civil litigators.
While Trial Advocacy was definitely a great (and intense) learning experience, some aspects of my experience were not the best. So, as much as I would highly recommend the course to anyone, including those who aren’t sure they want to do litigation, I wanted to share a full picture of what the course was like to ensure that everyone who wants to take it is as prepared as possible for what it may entail.
The Highs
As previously mentioned, getting to learn from litigators was a great experience. I think it is a nice way to make connections with lawyers and get practical tips on
things that would be hard to figure out on your own, like how to pause and take off your glasses to emphasize a cross-examination answer that really helps your case. Since most of law school is theoretical in nature, it’s nice to take a course that is very practical. The skills you learn are extremely useful and necessary if you are someone who hopes to be in court early on in your career. While I’m sure you could learn on the job, taking Trial Ad lays what I think is a vital foundation—plus, unlike mooting, you don’t have to try out to get the oral advocacy experience of Trial Ad (however you are at the mercy of Cognomos).
While learning trial skills was interesting, the most enjoyable parts of the course were definitely when we got to apply them. When learning cross-examination, we got to practice on members of the Toronto Police Service, which was great practice, especially for those of us who want to do criminal defence (i.e. me). For approximately the first half of the course, we worked with a problem surrounding the alleged illegal sale of cannabis by store clerk Pat Jones to an already intoxicated man, Walter Watkins. The witnesses in the case were Officer Grasse (get it?) and Jones. In early October, we ran mini-trials with assigned partners, acting as either the Crown or defence counsel.
away. For the final trial, we got to select our own partners and we then spent many weeks working with them and the faculty, trying to perfect all the aspects of our trial–though, as you will come to understand if you take the course, nothing is ever truly finished or perfect when it comes to Trial Ad. A few weeks before the final trial date in late November, we argued motions concerning the admission of certain pieces of evidence that had come out, namely a song posted by Sandy titled “Riding Reckless” and a vet report about other B. Ware horses that had passed away. In our case (along with many others), neither piece of evidence was admitted and the motion decision affected what arguments we could make at the final trial.
The most exciting aspect of Trial Advocacy is, of course, that it is taught by real-life litigators, who offer constructive criticism (and, once in a blue moon, some praise) and grade students on their performances in the weekly workshops.
In these mini-trials, we again got to question real-life police officers and present our cases to a panel of faculty members. Then, we sadly said goodbye to Walter Watkins, moving on to our final trial problem.
The final trial was a civil case involving a young adult, Sandy Patterson, who was severely injured after being thrown from a horse they were racing at B. Ware Riding Academy (get it?), a stable owned by Sam Bradley. In the problem, the horse, Redd, also sadly passed
Once the day of the final trial finally arrived, the whole class headed down to the Superior Court of Justice, where we got to make our statements and question our witnesses in front of an SCJ judge and a ‘jury’ (which, in our case, was comprised of four U of T undergrad students). Each team had to bring along two people to play their side’s witnesses, and we could bring however many observers we wanted. Following our presentations, the jury rendered a verdict and gave us feedback on our performances, along with the judge. Once the final trial was over, the course was finished, apart from a celebratory pizza party. In my opinion, finishing up a bit early and not having an exam was definitely the highest high!
The Lows
Most obviously, between workshop preparation, assignment completion, and lecture attendance, Trial Ad
is a big time commitment. I often opined that it felt not just like a class, but a whole additional extracurricular commitment. I suspect that it may feel somewhat similar to doing a competitive moot, but having only done the Upper Year Moot, I can’t say for sure. Nevertheless, I knew it would be heavy going into it, and at least a lot of the time, doing the workshops was pretty enjoyable. However, considering the amount of work the course is, it would have been nice to have received more clarity on how the grading scheme worked. Trial Ad used to be pass/fail, which I think is objectively a much better format for the course, given the fact that we were all learning as we went along and really just trying our best. Instead though, I believe that we were given ‘scores’ based on each week’s workshop performance. We never got to know these scores, and although we did get verbal feedback in the workshops, we were never given an actual understanding of how we were actually doing academically. Our grades at the end were a surprise, which could be expected in a course with a 100% exam, but in my view, the grades should not have been a surprise in a course where we were getting marked every single week. In relation to the unclear grading scheme, the instructors told us pretty early on in the class about something called the Arnup Cup, which is a trial advocacy competition whose U of T participants are selected from the Trial Ad class. This was sort of hanging over our heads for the entire semester since it was unclear how Arnup participants would be chosen. They eventually informed us that they would be observing us during our final trials, which basically ended up consisting of various Faculty members, including the Arnup coaches, randomly coming into our courtrooms and watching for a brief amount of time. Even when those who the Arnup Cup coaches liked were chosen, they did not narrow it down fully, so those chosen still had to try out for the spots. From what I saw and experienced, the way the Arnup Cup was handled and discussed created unnecessary stress and anxiety among students who were already likely being overworked.
Now that I’ve addressed some of the more overarching issues with the course structure, I want to tell some stories about more one-off questionable issues that arose. First, when we did the motions workshop, our judge told us that “there was no way” she was letting either piece of evidence in—and no reasonable judge would. While the latter point was probably true, it was a bit disheartening to hear this when we had put effort into preparing our arguments, and when other groups had gotten one or both pieces of evidence admitted. Second, my partner was unfortunately not feeling well on the day of our final trial run through, a week before the final trial. She went through the proper procedures to be permitted to miss the class, but instead of allowing us to reschedule the run-through, I was told that I had to do both of our parts. Not only was this anxiety-inducing, because I didn’t know my partner’s components that well, but it was also exhausting to run the entire trial by myself. Last but not least was probably the biggest headache of the entire course: the agreed statement of facts snafu. For context, our final case file, which was over 100 pages long, included a set of background facts. Many students took these background facts to be fair game to use in preparing their theories of the case and strategies, but in the week leading up to the final trial, students raised questions relating to these background facts that made it clear that different groups had different understandings of what they could be used for. Therefore, the weekend before the final trial, which was on a Tuesday, our instructors informed us that we had to get together with the team we were paired with for the final trial and draft an agreed statement of facts based on the background information. This last-minute assignment was difficult to coordinate and caused unnecessary worry at a time when we were already burdened enough with final trial prep.
Final Thoughts
All in all, if I could do it over again, I would totally still choose to take Trial Ad. I am, however, glad that I took it as a 3L rather than a 2L, as I am now pretty wellversed in managing my time and dealing with stressful situations. I do also hope that the instructors and Faculty can learn from the issues that arose this year so the course can be as beneficial as it can and should be.
The Runnymede Society’s Costume
The Runnymede Society and politicking on campus
POUROCHISTA RAHMATI (2L) AND THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LAW UNION STEERING COMMITTEE
One of our student clubs isn’t being very honest about its political aspirations. Canada’s bootleg version of the American Federalist Society, a network of clubs across law schools in the United States responsible for effectively organizing America’s right-wing law students and future lawyers into a reckonable force under Ronald Reagan, both Bush presidencies, and now the second Trump administration, is increasingly active on law school campuses once again. The Runnymede society, which operates 19 chapters across law schools in Canada, is self-described as a “membership based organization that invites speakers from across the ideological spectrum to debate legal ideas that engage the rule of law, constitutionalism, and individual liberty.” It has attracted controversy since its foundation in 2016.
Over the past semester, our own school chapter has run several events featuring prominent members of the profession. Amongst the invitees have been prominent conservative politicians such as former
Quebec Premier Jean Charest and Ontario’s current Attorney General, Doug Downey. These two have presided over freedom-loving pieces of legislation such as “Bill 78,” de-facto forbidding students in Quebec from protesting at or near universities during the 2012 student tuition strikes, and recent changes to the Trespass to Property Act in Ontario that allow the AG to bring fines of $10,000 and potentially jail time against homeless people who use drugs in public while ‘trespassing.’ However, this is a change-up from Runnymede Society regulars like Justice Nadon. Remember the Nadon Reference? For those of you who also wish to forget first-year Constitutional Law, Justice Nadon was hand-picked by Stephen Harper for those views which he has described at Runnymede events as “similar to conservative judges on the US Supreme Court.”
The allegations of a relationship between the supposedly ‘non-partisan’ Runnymede Society and the Federalist Society is alarming, though to my knowl-
edge they have yet to hold one of their signature joint events at our local chapter. To give you an idea of the strength of the Federalist Society - the current, nineperson US Supreme court contains six Federalist Society alumni, making up the entire contingent of judges appointed by Republican presidents. To quote a 2023 article from libertarian Canadian news-journal ‘The Hub’ on the Runnymede Society’s annual “Law and Freedom” conference, “nobody at the Runnymede Society even dreams of that kind of success, at least partly because Canada’s political and judicial system probably makes it impossible. But the existence of Runnymede should theoretically make life easier for conservative politicians. Consciously or not, through networking events and public debates, the Runnymede Society is helping build a roster of potential judicial appointees for any future Conservative government.” Or, as Runnymede founder and Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation Joanna Baron put it, “Obviously the Canadian legal community is a small community, and the game is influencing the influencers.”
Even more so than its American counterpart, the Runnymede Society preys on the pervasive fiction amongst the legal profession that the law and its practice are politically or morally neutral. But a closer look at the Runnymede Society’s history, activities, funding and the political ties of its leadership seem to reveal more insidious aspirations to the organization for the future of the legal profession and jurisprudence in this country than mere “debate” in the name of constitutionalism and individual liberty. The Runnymede Society’s backing relies, at least in part, on the political and financial interests of billionaires and multinational corporations. It is difficult to ignore the influence of these elites in Runnymede’s choice of test case litigation and in the discourse of who is legally deserving of rights, of “freedom” and “liberty,” and what even constitutes “rights” within the confines of liberal democracy. Attempts to excise that wealthy, elite influence from the law and the legal profession all over the world are perhaps in a more dire state than ever.
The Runnymede Society was established in 2016 by Joanna Baron [et al.], as the law school wing of the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), a selfdescribed ‘non-partisan’ charity that has also been described by liberal columnists in The Globe and Mail as a “conservative legal advocacy group.” This ‘non-partisan’ charity receives millions of dollars every year in publicly reported donations from groups like Fairfax Financial, the Aurea Foundation, and the Weston Family, and coincidentally seems to largely intervene on behalf of business interests (particularly in healthcare and education privatization) before the courts. Consider their long-running litigation of a right to private medical care in Cambie Surgeries v BC for instance, which was rejected. For a look at a more successful CCF intervention outside of privatization, we can look to Canada Frontline Nurses v Canada (Attorney General), which may well have turned the tide of Justice Mosley’s ruling in favour of the convoy.
It also just so happens that the founder of one of Canada’s most powerful right-wing libertarian think tanks, the Fraser Institute, was on the Board. And former Alberta Conservative premier Jason Kenney. And former Harper era chief-of-staff Howard Anglin. And Ezra Levant. In fact, the organization’s list of founders, donors, board members, and directors reads like a veritable “who’s-who” of the conservative political landscape in Canada. It is also entirely coincidental, of course, that in 2016 the Runnymede Society attested to a $10,000 dollar grant from the US based ‘Atlas Network,’ an organization dedicated to providing training, networking, and grants for rightwing libertarian organizations across the globe.
The Runnymede Society’s name harkens back to the meadow where the Magna Carta was signed by King John I in 1215. It’s a fitting callback - the Magna Carta was impressed upon the executive branch of government by members of an elite, wealthy aristocratic class uninterested in “liberal democracy” or legal “rights” for all in the fulsome sense of today. Eleventh century English barons were actively opposed to notions of egalitarianism. They were dedicated to advancing their own political and economic ends, not necessarily in fulsome (and certainly not in egalitarian) notions of “liberty.” At times, attempts to increase their influence in the political realm meant they found themselves at odds with the executive and the state’s own desire to maintain or expand power. As Professor SealeyHarrington noted in his article in Slaw discussing his refusal to accept an invitation to participate in a Runnymede debate, it is profoundly ironic that an act which is itself emblematic of the law’s inextricable relationship to contests for power is used as the namesake of an organization that largely rejects any place for critical theory in law schools.
I’d suggest to law students who are interested in Runnymede that there is a very narrow and inherently ideological vision of what constitutes “liberty” and “freedom” that is being advanced by the Canadian Constitutional Foundation, the Runnymede Society, and many of its speakers. This is a definition of “liberty” or “freedom” that prioritizes an unfettered “economic liberty” that was made intentionally absent from our constitution and no matter the price to other ‘rights’ or ‘liberties.’
There is a reason that economic privatization and the right to associate - the right to strike and form unions - is the focus of much of the “judicial overreach” commentary produced by Runnymede, its associates, and the network of right-wing think tanks in Canada and the United States that fund its course like the Fraser Institute. There is a reason that speakers at Runnymede “debates” are able to reach a consensus in opposition to the use of the Emergencies Act in 2022 and against the passage of Bill C-16 in 2016 (in the latter case, only having invited opponents to transgender rights aka Jordan Peterson to “debate”or what passes for a debate on the imaginary ‘pronoun police’). But consensus in opposition to the recent, persistent use of the notwithstanding clause by provincial governments across the country to legislate what would otherwise be deemed unconstitutional by the courts is elusive when it comes to transgender children.
I’d suggest the reason for all of this is ideological and reflects a lack of candour on the part of the Runnymede Society. I’d also suggest that there may be an international network of right-wing billionaires and multinational corporations intentionally trying to shift your political views and career aspirations as a law student and potential future jurist to the right, such that the law in Canada remains as friendly as possible to business interests. Flattering, right?
Additional References
Coyne, Andrew. “Conservatives discover the Charter can work for them, too.” The Globe and Mail (February 7 2024).
Fine, Sean. “Libertarian student group Runnymede Society seeks to shake up Canada’s legal culture,” The Globe and Mail (September 10 2019).
Fine, Sean. “Doctrine is ‘everything’ for Marc Nadon, the outspoken conservative justice rejected by Canada’s Supreme Court.” The Globe and Mail (October 2 2019).
Editor’s Note: Pourochista Rahmati (2L) is a
A 1L Guide to Mooting and Moot Tryouts
Anecdotes and advice from a mooter and Moot Court Committee executive
GRACE XU (2L)
My first moot tryout was a complete disaster. I thought I was prepared, but I blanked out and never got through my opening statements. Funnily enough, I still made it to the second round, only to be cut at the very end. I was disappointed but not surprised. The Moot Court Committee made the right call.
Despite all that, I enjoyed my tryout experience enough to try again this year. This time, I made it past my opening statement and bravely engaged with the panelists. They later called me to let me know that I earned a spot on a competitive moot. I was elated.
When I learned that Ultra Vires was doing a moot-related article, I jumped at the opportunity to share some tips and tricks— especially since 1L students will soon be participating in their own moot tryouts. Olivia Schenk (3L), a Moot Court Committee executive, kindly offered to share some insider tips. Schenk participated in the 1L Stewart Cup, 1L trial advocacy, and Competition Law Moot. She is currently enrolled in the Arnup Cup Competition.
This year, the Moot Court Committee is organizing the Baby Gale/Cassels Brock Cup and the Stewart Cup. For those who
are still on the fence, mooting can be a very formative and eye-opening experience. The Stewart Cup taught Schenk to love mooting. The experience also taught her that advocacy is not about “winning,” but rather about helping the judge better understand the parties’ positions so that justice can be served.
For those still interested in getting mooting experience, other moots unaffiliated with the Moot Court Committee are available. These include the Hicks Morley Moot Competition, Baby Hockey Arbitration Competition of Canada (Baby HACC), 1L Competition Law Moot, and 1L trial advocacy.
Having participated in the Hicks Morley Moot Competition myself, I get the sense that students who are interested in participating in a highly rewarding yet low-stakes mooting experience would enjoy it. Not only will you be able to develop your advocacy skills, but you will also meet incredible labour and employment lawyers from the firm.
Schenk found 1L trial advocacy very different from appellate level mooting. Conducting direct and cross examination at the trial level differed significantly from ad -
vancing arguments grounded in case law at the appellate level. All things considered, however, she found that her 1L mooting experiences eventually led to her first win in the Competition Law Moot with her mooting partner, Jon Herlin. Though she admits that it was at times scary to moot in front of real judges in a real court room, she found the moot very fulfilling. Schenk continues to leverage her experience as the Arnup Cup Competition unfolds.
Advice From a Moot Court Committee Member
I asked Schenk for any advice she has for prospective mooters. She shares her responses below:
Schenk:
1. “Connect with an upper year student with moot experience and ask them about their techniques for mooting. Even better, chat with a couple people to find strategies that vibe with you.”
2. “Participate in 1L moots for practice and to get a real feel if competitive mooting is for you!”
3. “Watch grand moot videos to get a better understanding of what moots look like!”
4. “Don’t let the tryout process stress you out! It’s low stakes! Worst case scenario you participate in the upper year moot class. If you really want to do a competitive upper year moot, you should try out for the Upper Year Moot Committee in 2L. That way if you’re not ready and don’t make tryouts, you’ll have another swing at bat in 3L!”
Edited for readability purposes.
Advice from a Mooter
My advice for prospective mooters is simple: provided you have done the necessary prep, speak slowly and remain calm. As simple as it sounds, speaking slowly and remaining calm made the difference between how I performed in my 1L and 2L tryouts. I found that speaking at an almost unnaturally slow pace prevented my thoughts from scattering.
Final Thoughts
Moot tryouts can be intimidating, but they are also valuable practice opportunities. If you’re a 1L preparing for your first tryout, know that you have it in you. And if you do not succeed on your first try, do not be discouraged. Take the lessons you have learned and come back even stronger. Best of luck!
LSSEP: The Recruit after The Recruit
A Guide to the LSSEP and Everything After
GRACE XU (2L)
One thing I wish I knew before applying to the Law School Summer Employment Program (LSSEP) was that it was more competitive than I thought. Since it was obvious that the 1L formal recruit was highly selective, I had the impression that I would default to an LSSEP position. That was not the case. Out of the eight LSSEP positions that I applied to, only one extended me an interview. I was fortunate enough to get the offer, but it felt too close of a call. This year, however, I get the impression that students have taken cautionary tales like mine a little too seriously. First-year students should know that the road to LSSEP is feasible. Not only that, but there are also more opportunities beyond LSSEP. For the sake of simplicity, I have summarized the new LSSEP Guide from the CDO. There are about a dozen employers participating in the LSSEP, with Downtown Legal Services (DLS) leading in number of prospective hires with about 25 to 30 potential hires. International Human Rights Program (IHRP), Advocates for Injured Workers (AIW), and Law in Action Within Schools (LAWS) follow suit with about 11 to 16, 8, and 6 potential hires respectively. Excluding fellowships and prospective Future of Law Lab hires, an estimated 74 to 85 students will be hired under the LSSEP. With a 1L cohort size of 232 this year, about 32% to 37% of students will be hired by LSSEP employers, fellowships and Future of Law
Lab aside. This is not an insignificant number.
Now, to some anecdotal LSSEP experiences.
DLS Recruit Experience
I only applied to two divisions at DLS. I ranked the Employment division first and the Housing division second. Ultimately, I got an interview with the latter. I found that asking for personal statements from previous summer caseworkers greatly benefitted me in the process.
The interviews conducted during the recruit process involved a set list of questions, most of which were behavioural ones. Interview candidates were also asked to submit a written assessment. I found that reaching out to previous summer caseworkers and booking a mock interview with the CDO helped me a lot with my interview performance.
That being said, students still interested in DLS following the LSSEP recruit will have a chance to work as a caseworker during the school term if they do not get to do so over the summer.
Opportunities Beyond LSSEP: Update Your UTLC!
Having spoken to several first year students, many were shocked to discover
LSSEP: The Recruit after The
Recruit
Continued from page 13
GRACE XU (2L)
that there were still opportunities beyond LSSEP. If this serves as any comfort to those participating in the LSSEP recruit, bear in mind that job postings will continue to appear on UTLC even when the LSSEP recruit is over. I would recom -
mend updating your UTLC account every now and then to check for job postings. Furthermore, students have the option to individually reach out to professors or regional law firms for summer opportunities.
Final Thoughts
The LSSEP recruit, while competitive, is just one of many paths available for securing summer employment. Opportunities don’t end with LSSEP!
To the 1Ls navigating this process, remem -
ber that your summer experience is not a definitive measure of your success in law school or your future legal career. Stay open to possibilities, keep learning from each experience, and trust that your path is unfolding in the way it is meant to be. And as always, best of luck!
Death of the “Command/ Ctrl-F” Function
U of T Law’s new open book exam policy
GEORGIA GARDNER (2L)
“It's not just about note storage—it's about access to a system where the answer to any question is just a click away.”
Like many students at the Faculty of Law, Associate Dean Essert’s email announcing that “Starting this term, [the Faculty of Law] will no longer be able to permit students to use summaries or notes saved on their hard drives in electronic form on open book exams,” left me with more questions than answers.
Yes, preventing students from accessing generative AI software during open-book exams is important. Yes, exam integrity should generally take precedence over note-accessing convenience. But was this the most efficient way to solve the problem? Preventing students from accessing their hard drives altogether?
I have relied on my trusty “CommandF” (I’m a Mac user) function in every one of my previous open-book exams. It’s been a saving grace, allowing me to quickly sift through my map and locate that one elusive case name or legal principle buried in weeks of lecture notes. More than once, it’s helped me tackle obscure “surprise questions”—curveballs some professors love to include to see if we’ve been paying attention in lectures.
It has also given me the comfort of not relying so heavily on my map should a curveball arise — a comfort that comes with having immediate access to all of the notes I could need on the exam, and having them in hand. I’ve always known that, worst case, should my mind draw a blank, I would have the entire semester’s lecture
notes and readings at my fingertips. I’d be able to easily draw upon them if needed. More than my “Command-F” function - I’ve enjoyed the pleasures of digital note organization. It has shaped the way I approach studying for exams. Hyperlinked Course Outlines. Desktop Folders. Digital Copies of Legislation. It's not just about note storage—it's about access to a system where the answer to any question is just a click away. Deviation from this familiar study strategy— the one that I have used to study for most of my exams (for which the open book policy applies) thus far, is a big shift.
The new openbook policy presents a host of challenges. As the Student Law Society pointed out in their faculty-wide email, there are many consequences from this new policy, particularly concerning students with accommodations that rely on their ability to access their notes electronically. Further, many who have previously purchased online textbooks will no longer be able to access them in the exam room. Colour printing in the law library costs $1.00 per page, which adds up quickly for students
like me who rely on heavily colour-coded outlines.
One obvious question comes to mind: Is this truly the best solution the faculty could come up with? Were there no alternative approaches that could have allowed students access to digital notes while still upholding academic integrity?
One obvious question comes to mind: Is this truly the best solution the faculty could come up with? Were there no alternative approaches that could have allowed students access to digital notes while still upholding academic integrity?
A friend of mine suggested proctoring software that records users’ screens, which she used during her undergraduate exams. This software allows administrators to review all screen activity and flags suspicious actions, such as copying and pasting, for a closer look. Such a system would allow students access to their digital notes, textbooks, and other resources while ensuring academic integrity is upheld.
If cell phones and other electronic devices are already banned during exams, why not take it a step further? Proctors could monitor laptop screens as they walk around the room, making sure students stick to allowed files and resources. With the right oversight, the fear of cheating can be alleviated without sacrificing the value of having convenient, searchable ac -
cess to notes. I would rather see U of T invest in hiring additional proctors to enforce integrity guidelines than restrict hard drive access altogether.
One silver lining is that as I prepare for my exams, I may develop a more intuitive understanding of my course content, knowing I cannot rely on my digital, searchable notes to bail me out. This constraint may encourage students to process course material on a deeper level, rather than simply collating it. To adapt, I’ll need to ensure that my maps are concise, accurate, and serve as a tool to guide my thinking rather than a crutch to fall back on.
Many professors emphasize that this approach—focusing on clarity and mastery rather than exhaustive detail—is one of the best ways to study for a law school exam. It forces a deeper engagement with the material and helps build the kind of confidence needed under exam conditions.
The death of the "Command/Ctrl-F" function marks a change in the way law students study for open-book exams, forcing students to trade the comfort of a perfectly indexed digital world for the challenge of working with what they can carry into the exam room. While this policy might feel like a step backward, perhaps it’s a chance to rediscover the art of clarity, precision, and distillation that our pre-digital-era predecessors prioritized for so long. We will adapt. We will trim our maps, sharpen our understanding, and prepare to meet the challenge head-on. Yet we’ll keep asking the question: was this really the best way forward?
Intra Vires
Totally real news from a totally back to the dark ages law school!
SAKINA HASNAIN (2L) & KATE SHACKLETON (2L)
Intra Vires Support: The Five Stages of Getting a P Denial: Impossible. I was first in my undergrad class! Anger: The professor just doesn’t understand my genius. How dare they!? Bargaining: If only I had done that Winter 1999 exam… Depression: I guess I’ll just drop out now. Nobody will hire me now. Acceptance: “P is a great grade.”
Is Grade Release Not Humbling Enough? Never Fear. The 1L Recruit is Here!
If your ego managed to survive grade release, do not worry. The 1L recruit will be sure to bring you back down to earth. Forget trying to be in the top 15% in at least one of your courses, try being in the 5% that manages to land a position. Not to mention the 1L class this year is larger than average while the number of positions are declin -
New Year, New Us
ing… Everyone always thinks they’re special but don’t worry, you’ll still be special in your own way.
CO-PILOT MAYDAY! Regulators Caught in Controversy!
You may have heard that the number of plane crashes has been increasing of late. Well, it seems U of T Law has been caught in the fray. Damage has been quite extensive, with the crash initiating a controversial new policy. However, many urge regulators to focus on the role of mechanical failures rather than user error. They point to the heavy burdens pilots already face and wonder if this new policy will push them to their breaking point.
Ever Wondered What Exam-Writing was Like Before the Advent of Technology?
Administration has decided to give U of T Law students the unique experience of a lifetime you thought we had evolved past! It’s back to the dark ages we go! Who needs access to their hard drive when the best hard drive is inside your head? Forget computer files—have the time of your life organizing binders and tabbing all your essential documents. Worries about excessive paper use have been greatly exaggerated— the Income Tax Act is a lean 3671 pages!
Saucy Intruder Spotted in the Medicine Garden
Astute observers will have noticed a fox frequenting the Medicine Garden. Rumour has it that the fox is a descendant of the infamous beast featured in Pierson v. Post , and has eagerly tuned into the debate between Professors Essert and Fernandez about the true meaning of the decision.
Because we know those gym memberships didn’t get renewed.
ABBY SASITHARAN (3L)
1. Resist the TikTok (or worse, Instagram Reels) temptation.
You might find that your brain is full of references to obscure videos. I sure do. I find myself able to list off Nara Smith’s kids with more ease than I can recount anything relating to hostile takeovers. And now, after the ban, the ban-lift, and the ensuing debates about responsibility, maybe it’s time for a cleanse. This year, let’s spend less time doom-scrolling and more time pretending to do readings in the fishbowl.
2. Show up to morning classes (occasionally).
The 9:30 am class that you ranked at the top of your list back in July isn’t looking too appealing now, is it? Wrong! This year, we are morning people. We will all show up to every morning class—and be so early that Terima will have to adjust its hours. Sorry not sorry.
3. Perfect the art of the ‘I totally did the reading’ face.
Although we will attempt to do *some* reading this year, we will also master the art of pretending to understand what’s going on. We will appear engaged during class discussions, nodding sagely. Pro tip: if you’re asked a question and don’t know the answer, drop a one-liner like ‘I concur’ and hope for the best.
4. Procrastinate less (after we finish this episode).
This year, we won’t be using the 1 am ‘what’s on today at U of T Law’ email as a mile marker for late-night work. Instead, we will read the email the next morning and finally know what’s on today at U of T Law.
5. Join an intramural team, even if we can’t play.
This year, our competitive side will be out on the field. Yes, most of us have not done anything remotely athletic since high school and yes, half the team may show up in business casual after a firm tour but this is our year to shine (and to argue with the ref if not). If we’re lucky, maybe we’ll even get a yellow card!
6. Grade release will not phase us this year.
Remember, Ps get degrees. Probably.
7. Prepare for open-book exams… for real this time.
Unfortunately, speed CTRL+F-ing “negligence” isn’t going to work this time around. Let’s go to class—maybe even read a few cases?
8. Apply for jobs, but keep complaining about the process.
And remember, the more connections we have on Linkedin…
9. Embrace the stress.
You heard that right. Law school is stressful, but it is also fleeting (thank goodness). This year we will: meet new people, make new group chats, and have fun!
10. Write for UV!
This is the year. You will finally submit that article you’ve been drafting in your head since 1L. Forget about moot facta, you’re aiming for UV fame this year. It’s not about what you write—it’s about how you frame the title to make it seem more intellectual than it really is. We’re kidding. Partially.
Like Swimming with Sharks? You’re in Luck, Clerkship Applications are in Session!
If you thought the 2L recruit was tough, the clerkship recruit is here to show you that it was child’s play . For those who survived 1L without being drastically humbled, the clerkship recruit will certainly do the trick. Unconfirmed reports indicate that a Distinction student may strike out…
CULPRIT STILL AT LARGE—INTRA VIRES NEEDS YOUR HELP!
WANTED: FAILED AI USER. Intra Vires is offering a reward for any information leading to the capture of the AI user in question. We promise we won’t hurt you, we just want to talk. We’re not upset, we’re just disappointed you were caught.
New Year, New Horoscopes
What’s in the cards for you this year?
MEGAN CORBETT (3L)
Welcome to 2025! Whether 2024 was a banner year or a bummer year, it’s time to look to the future. For this batch of ‘scopes, I charged my tarot deck overnight in the light of the full moon (or possibly a very round streetlight, I haven’t Windexed in a while) and drew one card for each sign to see what’s in store for them for the year ahead.
Aries, The Fool: This card carries two connotations for you, Aries. The first is that you will see the truth of a situation you had previously been misunderstanding or turning a blind eye to. This will, initially, bring some feelings of embarrassment—why didn’t you wise up earlier? But this will pass, and you’ll feel better once you’re free from the influence of the elephant in the room that you’d been avoiding eye contact with even though it definitely already knew that you saw it. Remember: being booboo the fool is temporary, but wisdom earned from experience is forever.
Taurus, The Emperor (Reversed): Don’t dust off your crown just yet. This card is Uno reversed, meaning that rather than getting to come into your own authority, you’ll be subject to someone else’s. This might be a hard-toplease professor, a new boss, or even a very particular roommate. But there’s a silver lining to this annoying cloud: while the best rulers have high standards, they also know how to be generous when those standards are met. For you, this could manifest in receiving the Faculty’s firstever HHH, a bonus that’s only 2% below inflation (score!), or roommate synergies you never dreamed of. Of course, knowing your stubborn Taurus ways, you might simply choose to tell that overly-particular roommate to do the dishes themselves if they’re going to be that way about it. Sometimes standing up for yourself is its own reward. And, who knows, maybe they’ll leave their nice coffee table behind when they move out!
Gemini, Death: Don’t panic! While this card may seem scary, it can often signify big positive changes. If not that, I hope you paid attention in Trusts!
Cancer, The Hermit: You spread yourself thin socially last year - you showed up to every event that your club-executive friends begged you to come to, hustled on networking until you hated yourself, and even actually watched a few of the 5000 Reels your mom sends you every day. That’s all well and good, but you can’t pour from an empty cup. This year, spend some time with the big three (me, myself, and I…or I guess you, yourself, and…you? I’m not trying to say we should hang out, I’m…busy) and enjoy the fruits of last year’s emotional labour.
Leo, Judgement: While I like to procrastinate on making major life decisions as much as the next girl, I can’t advise that you do the same. There’s some big commitment that life is begging you to make. Forget the pro/con lists, the endlessly asking your friends what they think while they gripe about your indecision in the other group chat, and the half-seriously reading horoscopes for some kind of sign: it’s time to say ‘screw it’ and just go with your gut. We only get this one, short life, and spending it agonizing about how the future might unfold rather than actually living that future is, to put it politely, stupid. I, however, will not be taking this advice, and will continue to waffle on every decision that faces me to the point of paralysis (I call them Eggo-stential crises).
Virgo, The Sun: The past few years have been a bit of a slog for you, Virgo. You’re known for being a hard worker, but that starts to feel a lot less effortless when the things you’re working for never seem to materialize. I’m here to tell you 2025 will be different. The card I pulled for you was the Sun: warm, golden, bringing life and joy and an elevated risk of melanoma to everyone it touches. Opportunities are going to present themselves, fortunate coincidences will pop up like irregular moles, and it’ll just be an unusually lucky 365 days overall, as the universe endorses all your efforts. Enjoy it, and (as I know you will because you’re too anxious not to), make hay while the Sun shines!
Libra, The Magician: Libra, I have bad
news. You’re going on a date with a magician this year. Yes, like a rabbit-out-of-hat, coin-outof-ear, card-out-of-deck magician. If you’re already in a committed relationship, your significant other is going to get into magic for one really annoying week because of a TikTok. Enjoy your magical connection while it lasts, but remember: a performer never loves anything as much as they love the stage (even if that stage is a third-graders’ birthday party). You will never be their top priority over chasing the smugnesshigh of getting to say ‘a magician never reveals their secrets’ to a curious eight-year-old, and that’s not your fault. It is your fault if you agree to go on a second date with them, though.
Scorpio, The Five of Pentacles: This is a surprisingly layered card. On the one hand, it refers to financial insecurity and struggle (that post-holiday credit card bill was rough, huh?). I’d advise you to do your taxes early if you think you can get a refund, and to avoid them if you think you can get away with it (for the sake of my own career, I’d like to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that I said avoid, not evade. I paid attention in Income Tax!). The other layer to this card is that the struggle is not the whole picture. Although things may be rocky financially, if you take a breather, you’ll realize that the other things in your life, like your friends, family, pet rock, etc., are all that you really need. I know, I know, you’d rather have the shinies, but at least pretend to be grateful while people are looking.
Sagittarius, Ace of Swords: Ace of Swords sounds like a sick Ren-faire rock band name, and that’s pretty much the vibe you can expect this year. Are Ren faires moderately-tovery cringy? Yes. Is it still fun as hell to drink a pint of mead, tear a chunk off a turkey leg, and watch a guy dressed in inaccurate period garb make a falcon fly in circles? Also yes! This year is all about being yourself, no matter what onlookers might think. And I promise, if you bring your authenticity A-game this year, you’ll have even more fun than the falcon guy. I know, I know, how could anyone possibly have more fun than the falcon guy? Just trust me, it’s in the
Saucy’s Back, Again
cards (card) for you this year. And if my online wildlife dealings proceed according to plan, a falcon is in the cards for me.
Capricorn, Ten of Cups: The ten of cups often signifies emotional satisfaction, family harmony, yada yada. I see a much more literal interpretation for you, Capricorn. Some Thursday this year, you are going to have a crazy night at Call to the Bar. A night you’ll recall with fond anxiety at your bar character assessment, a night that will change Faculty policy on allowing SLS to schedule these events, a night that will serve as a warning for generations of 1Ls to come. I’ll add the necessary disclaimers about imbibing responsibly, but don’t forget that well-behaved law students rarely make history (or the front page of Ultra Vires !).
Aquarius, Judgement: The judgement card can signify a reunion, the decisive moment of an old relationship either thriving or withering for good. In your case, either an ex will come crawling back into your life, or a friend you’ve lost touch with will ask to catch up over coffee, because they don’t know your New Year’s Resolution was to stop drinking coffee, because you haven’t talked in months. Either way, I recommend that you think deeply about whether you want to welcome this person back into your life. Tending the garden of your community is important, but sometimes, weeds need to be whacked for flowers to grow.
Pisces, The Chariot: The chariot card can signify overcoming obstacles through discipline and self-determination. Since we all know discipline isn’t your strong suit, Pisces, I’m picturing a different interpretation of this card for you: you’re going to get a speeding ticket sometime this year. Due to the aforementioned dubious relationship with discipline, I’m not going to get on a high horse and tell you to drop the horsepower. Instead, I’ll just recommend that you keep your registration handy and maybe rely on Waze a little extra this year, to help avoid getting bahnned from the autobahn.
How many times can Saucy be revived?
THE SAUCY INTRUDER
Saucy is back.
I recognize some of you may not be familiar with the Saucy lore.
The Sauciest Intruder first made its Ultra Vires debut in May of 2021 as an advice column. At this point, it had been a few years since UV’s previous advice column, Dear Denning. Dear Denning would pass judgement. Saucy simply gives advice.
Denning has not been heard from in many years now. Maybe it’s for the best. Maybe Denning too will resurrect out of the blue in coming UV issues.
Dear Denning may be analogized to the recently emerged Jury in a Hurry, a hip new advice column gracing the pages of UV. Much like Saucy, the jury stays anonymous, likely to ensure that the weight of their judgements are not tainted by their identities (and because, otherwise, everyone will know that they write for UV—embarrassing). Saucy is not intimidated by Jury in a Hurry. In fact, some healthy competition is certainly appreciated in a time when oligopolies tend to persist. Saucy is happy to share the limelight with
fellow advice. There certainly can’t be anything bad about being given different advice from all different directions, right?
Since 2021, Saucy has resurfaced a few times. However, Saucy is as inconsistent and unreliable as your on and off again situationship. Saucy is as hot and cold as your moot coach (one moment, they tell you your factum is hot garbage, and then the next, they ask you to make eye contact with them (buy me dinner first)).
The Saucy Intruder has also been accused of being behind the locker thefts of 2024 (we’re looking at you Shelby Hohmann). That is a deeply upsetting allegation. Saucy would never ever steal from law students (besides, what use is the Canadian Income Tax Act to Saucy who evades taxes like a pro. Saucy also does not want your leftovers from J’s Java—clean your lockers, you freaks).
However, the ‘saucy intruder’ is not a novel invention of Ultra Vires’ contributors of the past. The term appeared in Justice Livingston’s dissent in Pierson v Post,
a 1805 New York Supreme Court property law case. You may be familiar with the case (a saga, if you will) if you have taken a class with Professor Angela Fernandez. In the case, Post, a hunter, had his chase of a fox intercepted by Pierson (1800s style beef). The issue in the case involved determining the rightful ownership of the fox, which in turn involved determinations on the notion of “property” in and of itself. Justice Livingston characterized Pierson as a “saucy intruder, who had not shared in the honors or labors of the chase.”
Reader, you may be wondering to yourself: What does Pierson of Pierson v Post have to do with U of T law’s Saucy Intruder? In a way, Saucy intercepts you from ‘catching’ bad decisions with Saucy’s sage advice (I don’t know, we’re trying our best to make the metaphor work). Some of you may also have seen a fox roaming the grounds of Jackman Law—that fox is almost certainly the reincarnation of the fox in Pierson v Post—which means Saucy must be near. In fact, upon seeing the gorgeous orange creature, Saucy was inspired to pick up the pen once again.
Reader, you may also be wondering to yourself: Why is Saucy referring to Saucyself in both the first person and third person. On one hand, Saucy is me, and I am Saucy. However, Saucy has not always been me and will not always be me. Saucy is an identity I have assumed temporarily; however, Saucy’s identity transcends beyond myself. Don’t think about it too hard, you’ll hurt your brain.
So, all that to say yes, Saucy is an advice column. And after that in depth history lesson, Saucy is ready to answer your burning questions and concerns. Saucy’s associates have solicited questions from U of T law students. Concerns are wide-ranging, coming from lovers, keeners, and even from the faculty (deliberately lower case).
Saucy, I hate you. Bring Lord Denning back. — DDfan62
Well, I hate you too.
Hi Saucy,
I have a massive crush on someone in my small group. She is gorgeous, brilliant, and somehow always has the right answer to cold calls. We both share a love for Justice Brown’s dissent in Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pricing Pollution Act. The problem is, I already have a girlfriend—a fellow law student (but not in my small group!)—and every time I see this small group crush, I feel objectively guilty. What should I do?
— Jane Tortington
Dear Jane,
Congratulations on finding someone with whom you can discuss Reference re GGPPA (yay for provincial autonomy). I’m afraid, however, that your love for federalism may be being misconstrued as love for a classmate.
But, what the fuck is wrong with you? You’ve somehow managed to turn your life into a twisted Shakespearean tragedy (spoiler: those end with someone, or everyone, dead )
My advice is simple.
First, is this love or are you just dazzled by her ability to do readings before class. And are you sure this isn’t just some form of Stockholm Syndrome? In my wisdom, attraction in law school is 90% proximity and 10% panic-induced hero worship. Do some soulsearching to determine whether this is love, admira-
Thank you for your question, self-proclaimed Adonis. In asking this question, you’ve almost provided me with too much information about your philandering ways.
I’ll answer this question assuming you have a variety of options. But I also know you don’t have a partner, because let’s be honest, they would (actually, should) be your one and only choice.
One less lonely girl. The most obvious choice is your OG law school crush, the person you’ve been pining over since the first day of Legal Methods. You may be friends, a will-they-won’t-they sort of situation, or maybe acquaintances at best. It’s time to get over your nerves, declare your love, and ask them to be your date.
The Situation(s?). The beauty—and curse—of situationships is that they leave everything undefined. But Law Ball is where vibes meet reality. Inviting someone can feel like the “soft launch” of a relationship or a bold declaration of something more. Your secret rendez-vous will be everyone’s business (let’s be honest, everyone already knows with the way you seek them out during Call to the Bars). While it may clarify where you stand without having “the talk,” it may also send them reeling very far or a little too close, which could complicate things even more. But isn’t that the point of a situationship—to constantly confuse.
Now, I recognize you might have more than one situation. You may say, like my mother does, that you don’t have a favourite ‘ting’, but, like my mother, you certainly have a favourite.
Find your date at law ball. Why create all the extra work by looking for a date before the night has even started? Instead, woo one of the attendees. Bonus points if you steal someone’s date.
A SNAIL. Bring your non-law school friend. No one will know who they are, so they have to stay by your side the entire time. No one will be able to figure out whether you two are just friends or a thing—you’ll be the talk of Jackman the next day. If you’re feeling extra chaotic, ask a random SNAIL to be your date. No one. Play it safe, ask no one, fly solo. But don’t go completely alone (that’s weird), go with your friends. I’m hoping you have friends...
Remember, the true spirit of Law Ball isn’t about who you bring; it’s about how much you can drink.
Dear Denning,
On two occasions, I gave a classmate class notes for the lecture on res judicata. They then proceeded to get an H, while I P’ed the class. Can I sue for unjust enrichment?
Sincerely,
Notes for Nothing
Hi Notes,
I’m no Lord Denning (seriously, why does everyone keep sending me Denning questions?). But fine, let’s examine your situation. Unjust enrichment requires three elements: (1) enrichment or benefit (2) you suffered a corresponding deprivation, and (3) an absence of juristic reason for the enrichment.
You likely fail on all of these. Do you truly believe your oh-so unique notes for one class of Civil Procedure took your classmate from a P (or even LP) to H?
Your claim for equity fails. You voluntarily handed over those notes. There was no duress, no unconscionable transaction. You probably even said, “Let me know if you need anything else!” Classic mistake.
Take this as a hard-earned lesson in reciprocity. Next time someone asks for your notes, consider asking for something in return—don’t even try to be charitable (no one is).
flair to your petty crimes. If your dedication to thievery matched your study, I dare say you’d be topping the Dean’s List.
However, I sense a deeper meaning in your message. Could it be you’re not here to taunt but to seek absolution? Perhaps you wish to leave your life of petty larceny behind, to turn over a new leaf—or at least stop swiping people’s house keys. If so, I encourage you to return what you’ve taken and embrace a path free of locker larceny.
And let me make one thing clear: if you think you can intimidate me, you’re mistaken. I’ve faced cold calls, moot court judges, and the existential dread of reading Vailov at 3 a.m. You’re the least of my worries. P.S. I never use my locker—it contains nothing but garbage from 1L orientation, so please help yourself to my branded merch and 1L Cup t-shirt.
Yours truly, Saucy
Hey Saucy,
This whole ‘open book’ exam policy has me spiraling. The school just dropped a bombshell two days into second semester— no more electronic open book access! Now we’re stuck lugging piles of printed paper and binders into the exam room like we’re starring in some historical reenactment of the pre-digital era. CTRL+F is gone, and I feel like I’m being set up to fail. How am I supposed to prepare for this?
Kindest regards, Betsy Testie
Dear Betsy,
Ah, the great migration from sleek, searchable PDFs to stacks of color-coded chaos. Nothing screams “law school innovation” like rolling back to the days of physical paper cuts and highlighter fumes. I understand your anxiety—this change feels less like policy adjustment and more like a challenge to prove your ability to function under 19th-century conditions. It may be too late to drop the exam classes now, but fear not, Saucy is more ancient than (some of) the Faculty at the law school, and has got advice for you.
Print everything. Print your textbook (the one you pirated), print previous exams, print all ten outlines off of the SLS Dropbox, print the statute relevant to the course, and, obviously, print your outline and map. Hopefully, the printer will jam and everyone in your class will be stuck sans their materials. Automatic HH. Make sure to print your materials a few days before the exam. Go through them, get the paper used to your hands (no one wants fresh paper on exam day— you’ll get a paper cut). Rehearse flipping through your materials under a time limit. Do it with your friends, so you know exactly how angry you get when the person behind you does it on the day of the exam.
Just pretend like it’s a closed book exam. Some professors believe, nay know, that exams can be written by just remembering everything (every doctrine, every case, and every notion to which the professor has alluded and from which they will create their policy question). They did in the olden days, how hard could it be?
Best of luck,
Saucy
Dear Sauciest Intruder, I’m emailing on behalf of the Faculty. Grades were released on Monday, January 20 at approximately 12:45 pm. Students complained that this was “stress-inducing” and not an optimal way to release grades. We at the Fake-ulty are not quite sure how to approach grade release moving forward. What should we do for second semester grades?
tion, or just Stockholm Syndrome with a casebook.
Second, I’m no honourable Justice, but try to avoid a breach of contract. You already have a girlfriend. Remember, loyalty is not just a virtue; it’s an implied term of your relationship agreement.
By all means, avoid a conflict of interest. You have to choose. You can’t have both women. What, you think you can have a bunch of wives? You get one wife. This is the way the world works.
Should you choose to stay with your current girlfriend, recuse yourself from interactions with your small group crush. Sit on the opposite side of the classroom. Mute the group chat. Avoid sharing long glances. Avoid spending late nights together in Bora Laskin. Should you choose to dump your current girlfriend, then no one can help you. Before you know it, the whole school will know your business and will have taken a side. You will no longer have pres to go to. Who will you sit with at the library, in class, or at lunch? Who will be your date to law ball? And for what? Someone who likely thinks your name is Jade.
Dear Saucy,
Who should I invite to Law Ball?
— Adonis of Administrative Law
Yours truly,
Not Lord Denning (but close enough)
[The following message was sent to Saucy’s personal residence by a letter that was written with magazine cut out text]
Hi Sauciest Intruder, You think you’re clever, don’t you? Writing your stupid little columns, solving everyone’s problems like you’re the Dean of Morality. But here’s a mystery for you: how many granola bars does it take to satisfy a thief? How many missing textbooks before someone notices?
I’ve been watching you, Saucy. Watching as you strut around Jackman, thinking you’re untouchable. Well, let this be a warning. You’re next. Lock up your locker and lock up your secrets— because I already have the combination.
- Locker thief
Hello most elusive and infamous locker thief, Well, well. How the turn tables. Everyone better take back their allegations, because I certainly did not write myself that message (I would never ever fake anything in this column).
First of all, I must commend you on your creativity. Magazine cutouts? Truly, you’ve brought a cinematic
Regards,
The Fake-ulty
Dearest Fake-ulty,
Finding the best time to release grades is certainly a challenge. Different days and times of the day offer their advantages and disadvantages. For example, a 3 am grade release means that those fast asleep will wake up to their grades (terrible start) and those awake at this ungodly hour will certainly spiral, on their own. On the other hand, 3pm means students might check grades during class. I certainly don’t need the entire row behind me to see my LP in Competition Law.
While lunch on a Monday is somewhat a cursed time, it gives students the opportunity to leave the building or stay in Jackman and experience opening their academic history with friends and foes.
A 9 pm on a Thursday or Friday night feels like a safe bet. However, know that no matter what you do, you cannot win.
Saucy gives that email a thumbs up.
Do you want Saucy’s advice? Email Saucy at ragu@yahoo.ca
MATTHEW FARRELL (2L) AND NAVYA SHETH (2L)
20 U of T Law Pick-
Up Lines
If you’re out of places to look for your soulmate, I guess law school will do?
SHELBY HOHMANN (3L)
For the record, I don’t know how advisable it is to look for your romantic partner at the law school. Nevertheless, Valentine’s Day is fast approaching and if you don’t want to be single for the big day… maybe do something other than use these lines. But, since you’ve already chosen this school, you’re clearly not opposed to constant rejection, so go ahead and use them at your own risk. Also, reader discretion is advised.
1. Can I review your merits?
2. Are you Examplify? Because you’re the monopolist of my heart.
3. You’re a heart-estoppel!
4. If you were a snail I found in my bottle, I’d still love you.
5. Wanna get vending machine lunch?
6. I’m not AI, but I think we could generate something together.
7. You please my court.
8. I’ll give you a P that you’ll be pleased with.
9. Are you FH102? Because you’re always hot.
10. Unlike our exams, I’m truly an open book. And unlike the Faculty at this law school, I won’t let you down!
11. I’m into you and you can use that statement for the truth of its contents.
12. Are you a restrictive covenant? Because I’d like to touch and concern you.
13. Locker thief who? You’re the one who stole my heart.
14. I wish our exam grades had curves like you.
15. Are you my de facto assigned seat in class? Because I’ll fight for you.
16. I want to examine you objectively and subjectively.
17. Want to be in my (extra) small group? It’s just us.
18. I hope our feelings are moot-ual!
19. Legal writing isn’t the only area I’m point-first.
20. You wanna see what I’ve got on underneath these robes?
P.S.: If, somehow, one day, you get married to the poor soul you use one of these pick-up lines on, this is now a legallybinding contract and you have to invite me to the wedding. I love free food. Thanks!
The Ultra Vires Crossword
NAVYA SHETH (2L) AND MATTHEW FARRELL (2L)
Pangram Fill-In
NAVYA SHETH (2L) & MATTHEW FARRELL (2L)
Use the randomly listed clues to fill in this small crossword puzzle. Each letter of the alphabet will appear exactly once in the completed grid.
CLUES
n Holy book n Error n Feeling
n Sentimentality n Ruling party n Stir-fryer
n Problem... or solution A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
It’s