Ultra Vires Volume 25, Issue 6: March 2024

Ultra Vires

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

SLS Earned Their License to Bill at This Year’s Law Ball

SLS repeats last year’s winning law ball formula

On Saturday, March 16, U of T Law students braved the pouring rain to return to the Old Mill for the annual Law Ball. This year’s Law Ball theme was James Bond’s Casino Royale.

The Students’ Law Society (SLS) largely repeated last year’s Viva Laws Vegas-themed Law Ball. Both were significant improvements from 2022’s Law Ball at The Eglinton Grand.

Ticket prices for the event were the same as 2023. However, as a direct response to student concern about price being a potential barrier for some students, SLS also offered lower-cost equity tickets this year to help en -

sure more students were able to attend.

The Old Mill is a historic hotel nestled by the Humber River in Toronto’s West End. It is located directly on subway line 2, which was very convenient for both Uber and subway riders alike.

Guests walked through the beautiful Tudorstyle lobby to the check-in desk. Check-in was generally smooth, aside from the rush to beat the 9pm cut-off. This year, the SLS transitioned from a guest list to QR Code tickets to help speed things up.

Complimentary coat check was moved to the larger coat room on the second floor, providing a challenge for those in heels or those

that pre-gamed a bit too hard. For more eager first-time guests, it was a bit trickier to navigate from the coat room to the main event room itself.

After dropping off their coats, attendees could grab a photo with the signature James Bond gun barrel background or walk the red carpet into the main ballroom. Photos were high quality and printed immediately. Staff were generous to take multiple shots so guests could have both a silly and more serious group photo.

Like last year, there were three joined rooms: food and tables on the left, the dance floor in the middle, and casino games to the right. Many weary dancers appreciated the increased number of tables and chairs in the left room.

Lines at the three bars were short at the beginning of the night but grew steadily as the night went on. Line wait times crept beyond 30 minutes at the peak of the night. Many attendees tried to get their “money’s worth” from the open bar but the crowd kept the King’s peace. Security mainly only had to intervene to help clean up some glasses that were accidentally broken on the dance floor.

The DJ got the crowd dancing this year. He started with some Top 40 but realized it wasn’t landing (law students don’t have time to stay with “it”). Once he transitioned to some 80s, middle school, and high school throwbacks, and the crowd had gotten a few drinks, the dance floor started kicking.

Attendees could always take a break from the dance floor to see what new food was being served or gamble some fake money away. Taylor Rodrigues found the sliders and grilled cheese on the dry side but Olivia Schenk, a notorious cheese queen, found the grilled cheese really hit the spot nonetheless. The macarons were plentiful in both quantity and taste, with two flavours being offered, vanilla and blackberry. The late-night poutine and perogi bars were also crowd-pleasers. Roulette, blackjack, and poker tables were back this year. A few attendees missed the dopamine hit from pulling the golden lever of a slot machine.

U of T dressed spy-sy, but not all the guests could tolerate the heat. The temperature and the music rose in the middle room as the night wore on, but the music was drowned out by conversation in the left and right rooms. Thankfully, attendees could duck out to the seating in the hallway if they needed to cool down or needed a break from the noise.

Overall the event was a huge hit. Thank you SLS for all your hard work to ensure the night was one to remember. Or a night to forget, if you were one of the students who cleverly managed to convince the bartenders to start pouring triples.

Academic Plan for 2023-2028

OLIVIA SCHENK (2L)

On Wednesday, February 28, the Faculty Council held a meeting for the approval of the Academic Plan for 2023–2028. Dean Jutta Brunnée introduced the meeting by acknowledging the multiple previous meeting cancellations. A cover note was distributed clarifying that the Faculty Council was to endorse the principle of the Academic Plan by holding a vote at the end of the meeting if everyone felt informed enough to do so. Regarding events, a welcome day for new students was recently held. The Dean thanked those who participated and volunteered to help make the day a success. The event honouring the life and professional career of the late Professor Waddams was held on Thursday, February 29. Looking ahead, the 75th anniversary of the modern law faculty will be celebrated this September.

The Dean then went on to announce that the Ontario government had released an update for university funding. Domestic tuition fees will remain frozen for the next three years. This is good news for some, but it will pose a funding challenge for both the Faculty and the entire university, as mentioned in the budgetary meeting held earlier this year.

Students’ Law Society (SLS) president Justin Kim (3L) spoke next. He discussed some recent SLS events, including a recent breakfast held to celebrate the R v Oakes decision, J’s Java, Faculty Feud, and Law Ball 2024. This year, Law Ball equity tickets were offered to students who expressed that the cost of tickets posed a barrier to their attendance. Equity tickets were provided to every student who expressed a need. Next, Kim discussed that this SLS election will include a referendum regarding the two fellowships funded through SLS that allow students to apply for funding to work for public legal organizations. The fellowship fund is raised through Continued on page 3

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

CREDIT: STUDENTS’ LAW SOCIETY

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

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

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF

Amy Kwong and Alyssa Wong

BUSINESS MANAGER

Manreet Brar

ASSOCIATE BUSINESS MANAGER

Jamie Oneschuk

NEWS EDITORS

Nicolas Williams and Abby Sasitharan

ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITORS

Leon Xu and Evan Squire

FEATURES EDITORS

Erin Lee and Julia Allen

ASSOCIATE FEATURES EDITORS

Asra Areej and Rachel Chen

OPINIONS EDITORS

Brianna Rowe and Jacqueline Ovsenek

ASSOCIATE OPINIONS EDITORS

Albert Cheng and Rosemary Fang

DIVERSIONS EDITORS

Fievel Lim and Christine Wang

ASSOCIATE DIVERSIONS EDITOR

Allie Silcoff

PUZZLES EDITOR

Ronan Mallovy

ASSOCIATE PUZZLES EDITOR

Mahnoor Noor

RECRUIT EDITOR

Rebekah Kim

EDITOR-AT-LARGE

Vivian Li

ONLINE EDITOR

Michael Chen

STAFF WRITERS

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

RECRUIT REPORTERS

Sooyeon Park and Ammar Thaver

VISUAL COORDINATOR

Rachael Gregoris

SOCIAL MEDIA COORDINATOR

Olivia Bogner

LAYOUT EDITOR

Alexandra Fox

ADVERTISING

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

ERRORS

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

SUBMISSIONS

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

Ultra Vires reserves the right to edit submissions.

Dear readers, This is it—we’ve made it to the end of the school year and, with it, the end of Volume 25 of Ultra Vires. In this issue, you’ll find serious coverage about competitive moots and the Toronto 1L recruit, as well as fun stories like our Promise Auction profile (won by Professor Alarie Blue J Legal) and Law Ball review. We also have plenty of content to say goodbye to our graduates, with the bittersweet (but nostalgic!) “Oh, the Places You’ll Go,” UV’s own superlatives, and Ronan Mallovy’s final crossword.

Though we’re sad to be leaving, we’re also incredibly excited to hand over the reins of UV to our incoming EiCs, Manreet Brar (2L) and Abby Sasitharan (2L). We are confident that they will do an excellent job for Volume 26 and carry on the UV legacy. Furthermore, we hope that you, our fellow students, will join them (look out for applications!).

Thank you to everyone who has supported UV throughout the past 25 volumes—to all the writers, editors, photographers, artists, business managers, social media coordinators, and sponsors. And most importantly, thank you, dear readers. We couldn’t have done it without you. Here’s to the next 25!

Signing off,

Kwong & Alyssa Wong Co-Editors-in-Chief

25

Students’ Law Society Update

March edition

JUSTIN KIM (3L)

On behalf of the Students’ Law Society (SLS), I would like to provide the following updates:

Law Ball

On March 16, after months of dedicated planning, we hosted Law Ball at the Old Mill Toronto Hotel. This event, which saw the participation of nearly 600 students and guests, was a testament to our commitment to inclusivity and fun. We introduced a pilot program this year offering discounted tickets to those facing financial hardship and increased the number of Sober Volunteer tickets. This was a great success, and I want to extend my gratitude to the members of the Social and Finance Committee (SFC) for their invaluable contributions.

Spring Election

The SLS Spring Election concluded on Monday, March 18. As the outgoing SLS President, I am pleased to share with you all the members of the SLS Executive Committee for next year: Isabel Brisson (2L) will succeed me as President, and working with her

will be Chelsea Musanhu (1L) as VP Student Life, Maria Bon (1L) as VP Academic, Taylor Clapham (2L) as VP Social, and Alexander Kelly (1L) as VP Finance.

The elected year representatives for 2024-25 will be: Social and Finance Committee Reps

• 2L: Robyn Cumiskey and Lucas Fisher Student Life and Academic Committee Reps

• 2L: Kabir Singh Dhillon, Andre Lanoue, Ethan Kibel, and David Niddam-Dent

• 3L: Mahnoor Noor, Abby Sasitharan, and Carson Cook

The remaining committee rep vacancies may be filled at the Fall Election.

Fee Referendum

The spring election also featured a student fee referendum regarding the Public Interest Advocacy Summer Employment Program (PIASEP) fee. Nearly 70% of participants voted in favour of the SLS membership fee increase. The PIASEP fee is one of three fees collected by the SLS, and it supports

SLS in funding at least two first- or second-year law students to work in a public interest legal role through the Public Interest Advocacy Fellowship. The total cost of the PIASEP Fee will now be $20.00 per semester for full-time students and $10.00 per semester for part-time students. This reflects an increase of $5 for full-time students and $2.50 for part-time students per semester. Starting next year, the SLS can raise approximately $24,000 through the increased PIASEP Fee. I hope the SLS can now be fully self-reliant in funding self-initiated student summer employment opportunities through the Public Interest Advocacy Fellowship. This summer, the 2024 SLS Public Interest Advocacy Fellowship recipients will be working at the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario and the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic.

Award Results

The 2024 Award Cycle was also held concurrently with the Spring Election. The winners are listed below.

SLS Community Awards:

• Upper-Year Mentorship Awards: Marisa Benjamin (3L), Amy Kwong (3L), and Alyssa Wong (3L)

• Friend of the SLS Award: Sara Faherty Truth & Reconciliation Teaching Awards:

• Full-time Faculty Member: Professor John Borrows

• Adjunct Faculty Member: Professor David Walders

Graduation Awards:

• Valedictorian: Justin Kim

• John Willis Award for Leadership and Gina Caldarelli Memorial Prize for Spirit: Justin Kim

• Hail & Farewell Speaker Award: Professor Martha Shaffer

• Mewett Award for Teaching Excellence: Professor Martha Shaffer

• Staff Appreciation Award: Theresa Chan

Finally, as we approach exam season, I wish everyone good luck!

Academic Plan for 2023-2028 Unanimously Approved by Faculty Council

Continued from page 1

OLIVIA SCHENK (2L)

SLS student fees. These fees have not been increased for many years, and the reserve fund has been diminished. This referendum has been called to approve an increase in the fee paid per student to increase the size and number of fellowships SLS can offer and to create a carry-over amount to prevent a future deficit.

Graduate Law Student Association (GLSA) president Dimitrios Tsilikis spoke next. GLSA is currently updating its constitution to render each member’s position more clear. They hope the constitution will be ready for an approval vote before exams. GLSA has decided against flag football events due to lack of funding. The focus has been shifted to more grassroots events, including providing free donuts to students. The LLM work-in-progress group initiative, which was previously introduced in the November Faculty Council meeting, was not successful; however, Tsilikis will pass the idea along to the next GLSA president.

Professor Kerry Rittich began a motion to approve the sessional dates, which was unanimously approved.

Professor Brenda Cossman spoke next about the

Experiential Education Committee. Cossman noted that it is artificial to view mainstream courses and experiential courses as two separate silos because they are highly integrated. The committee was tasked with determining how experiential opportunities can feed more into substantive courses. A survey was conducted to try to better understand the current situation, but the response rate for the survey was very low. The committee has proposed the creation of a password-protected resource section on the new Faculty website relating to clinical and experiential education. It will include things like contacts for court and tribunal visits, discussions on reflection writing, engagement strategies for large seminars, prewritten case studies, and more. An annual summer research associate will be hired to build and maintain this resource.

Next, the Dean spoke again and steered the meeting to a discussion of the Academic Plan for 20232028. The Academic Plan is supposed to be updated every five years, but the Faculty is currently a year late, hence the reach encompasses 2023-2028. The Academic Plan’s consultation process was robust, starting with a Faculty retreat last year. Consulta-

tions were held with various constituencies, ranging from students to faculty members. Engagement and enthusiasm were high in the meeting for the first draft and suggestions made at the meeting were incorporated. The final draft has now been distributed. This Academic Plan is not intended to “reinvent the wheel” but will focus on the previous plan’s strengths and attempt to identify areas of improvement. There is a growing sense that the Faculty’s impact is becoming more pronounced, given the current state of the world. A strong emphasis in the current plan was placed on the value of community and the importance of diverse voices. The Academic Plan considers the major areas of legal education, research and scholarship, and impact, with inclusive excellence across all three areas.

The Dean went on to discuss how the Faculty has a lot of influence in the academic community at large. A key question is how to enhance modes of impact and continue to improve ways to showcase the Faculty’s work to the larger community.

The Dean then asked the room if everyone was comfortable that they had enough time to review the Academic Plan for an approval vote. She clarified

that this would be a conditional approval before the final review step.

Kim asked if the previous plan had shared the same goal and vision of inclusive excellence. The Dean responded that the vision was relatively the same, but that it is now more clearly articulated.

An SLS student member asked if a report was in place to track the success of the Academic Plan. The Dean replied that short, medium, and long term goals will be determined to ensure that the plan’s impact can be better quantified.

After questions were concluded, the Academic Plan was unanimously approved by the Council. and the meeting was adjourned.

The Faculty Council is the governing body of the law school and is responsible for making policy decisions relating to U of T Law, usually on recommendations from special and standing committees. The Faculty Council consists of all full-time faculty members and elected student representatives from the JD and graduate programs. If you are interested in viewing previous Faculty Council meeting agendas, minutes, reports, and schedules, check out the e.Legal Faculty Council page.

OutLaws Hosts Second Annual Drag Me Out of the Office

The mentorship mixer was an overall hit

VIVIAN LI (3L)

On Monday, March 18, OutLaws hosted Drag Me Out of the Office , their annual mentorship mixer. The mixer took place at The Drink and gave students a chance to connect with their professional mentors. In addition to lawyers and students, certain members of the Faculty made an appearance to show their support and to partake in the festivities.

As U of T Law’s queer students’ association, OutLaws hosts many academic and social events throughout the school year.

This year, they have hosted a career panel, bar nights, and a movie night, among other events. OutLaws also provides a safe and welcoming environment for queer students at the law school by advocating for students’ rights and coordinating with the Faculty on diversity initiatives.

Drag Me Out of the Office is an important event for OutLaws and to the broader queer legal community because it gives lawyers at many of the city’s large em -

ployers the chance to meet the new generation of queer lawyers. While each lawyer at the event already had a student mentee from U of T Law, the event’s informal and unstructured atmosphere allowed lawyers and students to mingle freely and get to know each other. Students were able to speak with associates and partners from Torys LLP, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, and Aird & Berlis LLP, as well as from several government offices, allowing them to expand

their professional networks and giving them a valuable opportunity to learn more about what to expect once they enter practice.

In addition to the networking, there was ample food and drinks, as well as a drag show that started later into the evening. Overall, it was an enjoyable night and a great way to start the week!

Editors’ Note: Vivian Li is the VP Social of OutLaws.

Winner Announced at LIT’s Annual Case Competition

Legal Innovation and Technology Group’s 2024 case competition on “IP and the Digital Age”

RANA GHAFOURI (2L) AND JANE BYUN (1L)

In a spirited contest of creativity and legal acumen, the Legal Innovation and Technology (LIT) Group held its annual case competition on Friday, March 15, 2024. This year, the grand prize was $1,000, sponsored by Norton Rose Fulbright LLP.

The competition centered around a hypothetical scenario involving two companies embroiled in a legal dispute over digital copyright and patent infringements—a scenario that mirrors real-world challenges as the legal industry struggles to keep pace with rapid technological advancements. Traditional intellectual property (IP) laws, largely developed in a pre-digital era, are often ill-suited to address the nuances of digital creations, leading to disputes that underscore the need for legal clarity and reform. Participants were asked to propose

a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework to address such issues.

Three teams stepped up to the challenge, offering unique perspectives on how to navigate and reform IP rights in an era where digital creations and platforms dominate. Their solutions emphasized the need for enhanced fair use provisions and the need for international cooperation, suggesting the establishment of a global IP protocol specific to digital creations.

In their deliberations, judges Professor Abdi Aidid and Future of Law Lab Director Joshua Morrison considered criteria such as innovations, feasibility, and impact potential. The competition was strong, with each proposal demonstrating a deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by digital transformation in IP law.

The winning team proposed a new piece of legislation—Protecting Intellectual Property Online Act (PIPO)—that makes changes to the existing Canadian IP framework. Key changes included giving discretionary authority to the Governor in Council to make regulations around copyright on digital platforms, and digital technologies including AI to accommodate the ever-changing needs regarding digital copyright and AI. Having a designated Governor in Council would ensure international harmonization and cooperation, agility, and timely development of regulatory networks to support greater algorithmic transparency and accountability. Another important solution that PIPO would bring is a designated commissioner with the expertise to resolve claims brought by parties, in order to increase admin -

istrative efficiency.

The LIT Group’s annual case competition not only highlighted the inventive spirit of the legal profession, but also fostered a collaborative environment for addressing pressing issues in IP law. Norton Rose Fulbright LLP and White & Case LLP’s generous sponsorships of the event underscore these firms’ commitment to fostering innovation within the legal sector. As the digital age continues to evolve, such events are essential in promoting creative thinking to eventually pave the way for legal systems that both protect individuals’ rights and are conducive to technological innovation.

Editors’ Note: Rana Ghafouri is a Co-President and Jane Byun is the Communications Director of the Legal Innovation and Technology Group.

Venture Capital Law Panel Recap

Venture Capital Law Society panel features lawyers’ experiences in venture capital

SASHA HIRSCH (1L)

On March 6, 2024, the Venture Capital Law Society (VCLS) hosted an Introduction to Venture Capital (VC) Law Panel, which featured discussions of the unique opportunities and challenges VC lawyers face, as well as advice for beginning a career in VC law. VCLS seeks to connect U of T Law students with Toronto’s rapidly developing VC landscape by providing information and networking opportunities, as well as by encouraging entrepreneurship.

Working in VC allows lawyers to form ongoing relationships with emerging companies that have high growth potential in order to facilitate their development and fundraising capabilities. The opportunity to work with an array of companies on the cutting-edge of innovation makes VC an exciting and fast-paced area of law.

The VCLS event featured four panellists with various levels of expertise in VC and Emerging and High Growth Companies: Tyler Cassack, an Associate at Torys LLP; Satnam Singh

Dosanjh, an Associate at Fasken; Nik Popovski, an Associate at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, and Hassan Shehata, an incoming articling student at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.

The panellists began by discussing the unique opportunities available to lawyers working in VC, namely the ability to work in close proximity with young entrepreneurs from the beginning of their legal careers. They noted that VC is unique in that early-stage companies often do not have in-house counsel. Accordingly, VC lawyers have an opportunity to act similarly to a general counsel in the early stages of a company’s growth cycle, helping to educate founders on legal risks and opportunities. Popovski noted that VC law provides a relatively high degree of autonomy to articling students and associates who express confidence in taking charge of client relations. Being able to form long-term relationships with entrepreneurs is also a unique feature of VC law, as other areas

of law, like M&A, tend to be centered around discrete, singular transactions.

The panellists also shared some of the challenges VC lawyers face, including inconsistent workflow. While lawyers can be very busy during some weeks, they can also experience substantial downtime in others. Cassack recommended that VC lawyers become comfortable riding the waves of this fluctuating workflow, though the panellists noted that adjusting to these variations can be difficult. VC workflow is also dependent on the state of the market, meaning that lawyers need to pay close attention to the broader economic context.

When discussing how law students can get involved in practicing VC law, the panellists noted that students do not need to have a specialized background in VC or finance, and that students can gain experience through doing rotations during summer jobs and articling. Dosanjh indicated that showing a demonstrat-

ed interest in VC, including through extracurriculars, could be helpful. Shehata also shared his experience working with VC companies. He noted that students hoping to work more broadly in VC can gain experience through externships or by proactively networking with VC companies. Finally, the panellists mentioned that mathematical skills are important to succeeding in VC law, as is being skilled at working with teams.

Notably, the panellists expressed that working with emerging companies and supporting them throughout their growth, as well as through exit opportunities, was highly satisfying and a positive experience. As VC law continues to develop, law students can look forward to unique opportunities to take a hands-on approach to facilitating the growth of emerging companies.

Editors’ Note: Sasha Hirsch is a 1L Representative of the Venture Capital Law Society.

Career Panel for Disabled Professionals in Law

On March 11, Disabled Law Students Association held a career panel for disabled legal professionals

JASON RUGGEBERG (2L)

On March 11th, the Disabled Law Students Association (DLSA) held a career panel on the experiences of disabled legal professionals. Four panellists appeared: Odelia Bay, Ph.D. student at Osgoode Hall and co-founder of the Canadian Association for Lawyers with Disabilities; Kelly McDermott, President of the Ontario Bar Association (OBA); Jeff Adams, Employment and Human Rights Lawyer at Fasken; and Simon Margolis, Knowledge Management Lawyer at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG).

We share some key insights from the panel below. Interested parties can find a full recording on the CDO website.

“Different disabilities are at different

stages” in the accessibility movement (Jeff). Disability comes in many forms, ranging from physical disabilities like mobility restrictions and chronic illness to neurodiversity such as autism and depression, and can be permanent or intermittent. Whereas some, like mobility disabilities, are fairly well understood and accommodated, others have further to go. For example, Simon noted that many people are unaware that the difficulties with communication and executive function that are sometimes associated with autism can be aggravated by overstimulation and certain social dynamics that are still common in law school and throughout the interview process.

“Something that is accommodating to

one person can be a detriment to another” (Jeff). For example, rumble strips on crosswalks are a safety feature for the visually impaired but can cause problems for wheelchairs. Furthermore, the same disability (as well as one’s understanding of it) may evolve with time. Odelia explained that people seeking accommodations don’t always know what they will need in advance or find options that will work for them. In those situations, people handling accommodations (e.g., HR or accessibility advisors) need to be knowledgeable about available options and flexible enough to make adjustments as needs arise.

“I'm not gonna say ‘don't self-accommodate.’ It's incredibly valuable and innova-

tive. [But] it's tiring” (Odelia). Disabled people often “make do” when accommodations aren’t available. However, these short-term solutions may feed the assumption that systematic changes aren’t necessary. For example, Jeff can get his wheelchair over one or two stairs. Although it can work in a pinch, it has led some friends to assume that steps are accessible for him to the same degree as ramps and elevators. Furthermore, repeatedly reminding others of barriers can be exhausting. The speakers emphasized the importance of remaining mindful of these considerations when self-accommodating.

“You [are] legally not required to disclose [disability] during… interview[s].”

It’s “a very personal decision based on your own circumstances” (Kelly). The panellists suggested discussing the decision to disclose in interviews with role models and mentors, also considering the visibility of one’s disability and when to bring it up. Although employers may appear accepting, systematic factors and individual bias are still present. However, “fit is a two-way street” (Kelly). Disclosing can “make [employers] reveal who they are” (Simon) and promote dialogue on how they approach disability and accommodations.

“It’s highly unlikely [firms will] actively retaliate against you for asking for an accommodation” (Simon). The panellists agreed that larger employers are unlikely to out-

right deny or retaliate against requests for accommodations. However, there may be more subtle pushback, such as requiring repeated disclosure to multiple HR staff or offering limited ranges of accommodations. Jeff suggested that asking workplace mentors which staff will be most responsive to requests may produce better outcomes. The panellists noted this advice might not carry to smaller employers, expecting more variation from place to place.

“27% of working-age Canadians identify as disabled [in 2022]… [but only] 5% of lawyers in Ontario [in 2021]” (Odelia). Odelia suggested there are more disabled people in law than we realize. Moreover, she noted that disability intersects with other traits (like gender and

religious practices, among others) to create further marginalization and conflict with the legal profession’s emphasis on billable hours and constant availability. The legal community needs to acknowledge these identities and “from the get-go, [ask] ‘what kinds of accommodations are needed?’”

Odelia also challenged how accommodations are framed. As opposed to a “pity parade” focused on inability, why can’t we say “I'm pretty awesome, which is why I'm here, and if we can work together, then I can continue to be awesome and contribute to this community”?

“I don't think change is gonna happen if we don't… live and share our experiences” (Kelly). The panellists emphasized the need for

an inclusive, empathetic community for disabled people and allies to celebrate successes and share support.

With that goal in mind, Kelly created the Peer Support Network, an online OBA portal to connect lawyers and students with resources and each other. The portal also offers confidential bi-weekly virtual support meetings for people with disabilities in law, which are available to students.

If you are interested in building the disabled community at U of T Law (as a disabled person or an ally!) or have questions about navigating disability, reach out to uoftlawdisability@gmail.com.

Editors’ Note: Jason Ruggeberg is a Co-President of the Disabled Law Students’ Association.

Law Students Tour Osgoode Hall

On March 4 and 11, the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History hosted tours of Osgoode Hall

JACK STEWART (3L)

Law students from U of T, Osgoode, and Lincoln Alexander toured Osgoode Hall on March 4 and 11. The tours were organized as part of the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History’s outreach to current law students and were hosted by Justice Sossin of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, one of the directors of the Osgoode Society.

The Osgoode Society has been trying to expand its visibility with law students in the Toronto area, and the tour is part of a series of events hosted by the Osgoode Society this year. Back in October, the Osgoode Society, in partnership with Torys LLP, hosted a panel discussion on the enduring significance of the Persons Case, featuring the Society’s president and former Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal for Ontario Robert Sharpe, Professor Patricia McMahon, and Professor Sonia Lawrence.

After brief opening remarks, students received a tour of some of the main rooms of the building, including the front atrium, the Great Library, and two court rooms of the Court of Appeal. The tour focused on the Great Library, which has been described as the most beautiful room in Toronto by BlogTO. The Great Library is open to the public on weekdays from 9am to 5pm, while tours of Osgoode Hall, often guided by clerks and staff lawyers at the Court of Appeal, are available during the summer months for anyone interested.

Osgoode Hall, named after William Osgoode,

the first Chief Justice of Upper Canada, is home to both the Law Society of Ontario and the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Justice Sossin discussed the history of the building, which was built between 1829-1832. After the 1837-1838 Upper Canada Rebellion, the building was taken over as an army barracks until 1843, but after 1844 it was repaired and expanded, first to add courtrooms, and later to host Osgoode Hall Law School, which operated in the building until 1965.

After the guided tour, students were invited to a short reception with refreshments and wine, served in the Court of Appeal’s informal lunchroom. After closing remarks, students had the chance to talk to people from other law schools, as well as a few representatives from the Osgoode Society, including U of T Law’s Professor Jim Phillips.

Participants received a free hardcover copy of Osgoode Hall: An Illustrated History. Current law and articling students can sign up for an annual student membership in the Osgoode Society for just $10 a year, which includes access to events and a copy of the Osgoode Society’s annual featured members’ book. This year, that will be Professor Adam Dodek’s history of the now-defunct law firm Heenan Blaikie, Foundations of Sand: The Making and Unmaking of a Great Canadian Law Firm

Editors’ Note: Jack Stewart is a student representative of the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History.

A Q&A on the Honourable Anita Anand’s Inspirational Political Career President of the Treasury Board

visited campus for a formal meet and greet

EDMUND NILSON (3L)

The Honourable Anita Anand, President of the Treasury Board and MP for Oakville, visited campus on March 5. In and of itself, this was not unusual—Anand is a professor at the Faculty, and eagle-eyed students have spotted her roaming the halls in the past. But this event was a formal meet and greet with students and an opportunity for engaged law students to interact with one of the federal government’s more prominent ministers.

After introductions and land acknowledgements, Anand spoke about the experiences that drive her political career before transitioning into a broader question-andanswer session with the attending students.

Both the comments and questions stayed broadly personal and apolitical, with little in the way of substantive discussion.

A variety of topics were discussed, but three stood out. The first is the importance, to both Anand and the attending students, of Anand’s status as one of, if not the, most visible racialized women in Canadian politics. Anand has, since her childhood, frequently been one of the only racialized women in the room, and the experience has clearly coloured her political and personal life, something she spoke powerfully about.

The second is the importance of her personal support network, in particular her husband, John. It is clear that his support is a

cornerstone of Anand’s career, in part because he seems, in Anand’s telling, more invested in Anand’s campaigning than she is herself. Anand also spoke about the risks of a political career to that support network—her father apparently worried that entering politics would destroy her marriage.

Anand’s decision to enter politics was also a focus, from her early work as a public intellectual responding to the Ford government to a parking lot meeting with a cabinet minister urging her to run to, finally, a meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

All of these topics were discussed skillfully, with the pacing and tone of an experienced raconteur. Anand also avoided dis -

cussing policy—although she spoke with evident pathos, much of the skill in her presentation was in avoiding making a substantive statement. The overall experience was much like watching a campaign speech, one delivered on home turf and before a broadly friendly audience.

The one exception to this was the final question of the event, a direct question about seizing Russian assets to indemnify Ukraine. There were, again, no substantive answers— but an aide did hand out a business card and contact information for a potentially receptive MP. Perhaps the biggest takeaway from the entire event is that visiting cabinet ministers make for a good networking opportunity.

THE GREAT LIBRARY AT OSGOODE HALL. CREDIT: JACK STEWART

A Visit From the Honourable Arif Virani

An insightful dialogue on the Minister of Justice’s remarkable journey and a glimpse into what lies ahead

ABBY SASITHARAN (2L)

The Honourable Arif Virani, the current Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, visited the Faculty on March 11. In conversation with Dean Jutta Brunée, Virani reflected on his time at U of T Law and emphasized the transformative nature of his experiences at the Faculty.

Since its beginnings at U of T Law (a building that looked very different when Virani walked the halls about 25 years ago), Virani’s legal journey has seamlessly integrated law and politics. During the talk, Virani acknowledged the value of mooting and clinic work, emphasizing the lessons he learned—including how his moot preparation resulted in him being the class expert of Section 24(2) of the Charter

Virani sees his role as one where he can provide the Cabinet with the best advice he can and in turn, allow them to make the most informed decisions. Virani touched on the personal difficulties of being in such a demanding role and not being able to spend as much time with his family as he would like. Virani mentioned that he balances this struggle with the understanding that a representative on the inside is needed. He talked

of the importance of South Asian representation during his role in the creation and development of the South Asian Legal Clinic, which took nine years to get moving.

When asked about his plans for the future, Virani addressed the need for diverse representation in the legal profession and stressed the importance of varied voices on the bench. He emphasized that he wants to see lived experiences reflected on the bench to empower informed decision-making. He wants to see legal minds, but also those who are connected and represent their community.

Law schools should accordingly empower students to pursue diverse career paths. Virani’s path included a summer position at a legal clinic and a subsequent yearlong internship with the International Human Rights Program before his articling position at a full-service firm in Toronto. Such diverse experiences will foster lawyers with practices that reflect the diversity of society.

Virani actively engaged with students and faculty during the talk—answering questions and participat-

CREDIT: ALICE XUE PHOTOGRAPHY

ing in discussions (he even included a lesson on the equitable doctrine of laches). His interactions provided valuable insights into the intersection of legal education,

public service, and the evolving legal landscape in Canada, making his visit to U of T Law an enriching experience for all in attendance.

Reconciliation through Legislation—The Supreme Court Rules on Bill C-92

A write-up of the background

and SCC

decision on Bill C-92

BRIANNA ROWE (3L)

On January 1, 2020, An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Children, Youth, and Families (“the Act”) came into force federally. This Act, colloquially known as “Bill C-92,” sets out mandatory minimums of the services and provisions for First Nation, Inuit, and Métis children and families as they encounter and interact with child welfare and family law systems across the provinces. This was a departure from the norm, as child welfare specifically is found to be under the provincial heads of powers of civil rights and matters of a general or local nature. In certain cases, Bill C-92 could completely alter a province’s child welfare scheme regarding how they handle cases with Indigenous children. For example, in Ontario, when a child is found to require intervention from a welfare agency or is ‘found in need of protection’, there is an order of priority for placement of the child and the first priority is where they were apprehended from, as keeping the status quo has often been found to be in the best interests of the child. In Bill C-92, however, the federal government imposes a new order of priority that lists returning the child to their parents as first priority, likely because the use of welfare agencies by the government has historically resulted in a disproportionate number of children being taken from their parents permanently.

Quebec challenged this federal legislation not long after its enactment with a reference to the Quebec Court of Appeal (“QCCA”), questioning if the enactment was ultra vires the federal government’s power. The QCCA, in their

judgement, recognized an Indigenous group’s inherent right to self-government, as Bill C-92 did in its preamble, s. 8(a) and s. 18(1). The QCCA ultimately found the Act to be largely intra vires, with the exception of two provisions that stated Indigenous governments could enact their own child welfare laws in compliance with the Act, and if they do so, their laws would have the force and effect of federal law (s. 21) and would be paramount to provincial law (s. 22(3)). The QCCA found that these provisions amount to a unilateral alteration of the Constitution. Both the Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General of Canada appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”), arguing that it was either completely ultra vires or completely intra vires, respectively.

On February 9th, 2024, the SCC released their decision, affirming that the entirety of Bill C-92 was intra vires the powers of the federal government and was therefore constitutional. They found the pith and substance of the Act came down to protecting Indigenous children and families in a culturally sensitive way and furthering goals of reconciliation, placing the Act firmly within federal heads of power.

However, unlike the QCCA, the SCC did not recognize an inherent right to Indigenous self-government. The Attorney General of Quebec had argued that the federal government recognizing an inherent right to selfgovernment amounted to an amendment of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The SCC disagreed and stated that the federal government

could bind themselves to the belief that selfgovernment is an Aboriginal right within the meaning of s. 35 if they so wished, but that does not in itself make self-government a part of s. 35. While the Act is said to “bind the Crown” and does recognize the inherent right of self-government, the SCC expressed uncertainty whether “the Crown” within the Act could mean both the Federal and Provincial Crowns, or just the Federal Crown. The SCC refused to make a determination, as the only question before it was whether or not the Act as a whole was constitutional.

The SCC also refused to make a determination on whether self-determination, even just in the current context of child and family services, is an Aboriginal right within the meaning of s. 35. The federal government is free to bind themselves as if it were, but only the Court can determine what is encompassed within s. 35, and that question is not currently in front of the Court. However, they reiterated that reconciliation is at the forefront of the purposes for this Act, and that while negotiations, settlements, and litigation are common ways to further Canada’s commitment to reconciliation, legislative initiatives are valid means to do so as well. The Court relied heavily on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes an inherent right to self-government and the need for reconciliation, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which brings the Declaration into Canada’s positive law.

Two potentially related anomalies mark this

decision, particularly for those who have been following the proceedings since the last hearing. The first is that this decision took 14 months to render, far longer than the anticipated 6 months that the SCC aims for. The reason for this may be, and the second anomaly is, that this judgement was unanimous, and was not written by an individual judge but by “the Court”. It is possible, as some scholars ponder, that the reason the decision took so long to render was that the SCC wanted the decision to be unanimous, and writing a legally sound judgement that all the Justices who heard the case agreed on took more time than a typical judgement.

While the SCC did not affirm the rights of Indigenous people to self-government, even in a limited context like child and family services, they did indicate that when (not if) the issue of whether self-governance under s. 35 comes before the SCC, this affirmation will no doubt carry considerable weight in that analysis. While careful, this decision does mark a step forward for Indigenous peoples and their rights to self-govern. More information regarding the attitudes of the current SCC towards Indigenous rights and governance, and a potential furthering of these issues may be coming soon, as Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation (a case argued at the SCC in December of 2022 regarding the applicability of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Indigenous governments) has also passed the 14-month mark and was released the morning of March 28, 2024.

13th Annual Promise Auction and Trivia Night Raises Over $4,500

Another year, another fundraising success for Indigenous organizations

AMY KWONG (3L)

In late February, the Promise Auction Committee returned with the 13th Annual Promise Auction and Trivia Night in support of Indigenous organizations. The Promise Auction took place online from February 26 to March 1. The Trivia Night took place on February 28, returning to an in-person format for the first time since the pandemic. Combined, the two events raised over $4,500.

As in years previous, the events raised funds for six Indigenous organizations: Aboriginal Legal Services, the Native Women’s Resource Centre of Toronto, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, the Centre for Indigenous Theatre, the Indian Residential School Survivors' Society, and the Toronto Council

Fire Native Cultural Centre.

The Promise Auction had double the number of items up for auction as last year, with 48 individual promises available for eager bidders. The most coveted item was a set of four platinum Toronto Maple Leafs tickets. The tickets sold for a final price of $1,050 after a fevered 46 bids, with many of the bids entered right before the 11pm deadline on March 1.

Many donors showed off their baking skills, offering a wide variety of goods, ranging from sourdough bread to “The BEST Cookies in the World.” Many crafty donors also rose to the occasion, offering handmade items such as beaded earrings, needle-felted animals, and custom crochet items. For bidders look-

ing to get closer to their favourite professors, professors offered opportunities for facetime through chats, bike rides, bike tours, and lunches.

Trivia Night took place in the Moot Court Room, hosted by in-house Jeopardy champion Professor Anthony Niblett. The return to in-person trivia was a boon for participants, who enjoyed clever quips, goodnatured heckling, and excellent catering from PowWow Café.

Over 50 participants battled their way through eight rounds of tricky trivia questions with Prof. Niblett’s famous categories format. The answers to every round hinted towards that round’s category, and teams received an additional point if they could guess

the category correctly. Notable rounds included ones where participants had to guess songs from short clips, guess names of celebrities from pictures, and guess the countries from a spinning map.

Not all participants found the trivia challenging— the winning team, De Facto Trivia, missed only one of over 60 questions!

The Promise Auction Committee was run entirely by students, in partnership with the Indigenous Initiatives Office. Committee members were Stephanie Rei (4L JD/MBA), Duncan Crabtree (3L), Ari Razack (3L JD/MBA), Nancy Chen (3L JD/MBA), Jasmine Dong (2L), Laxsega Sivaloganathan (2L), Daniel Jolic (2L), and Navya Sheth (1L).

Psilocybin Civil Disobedience

Sprouting

Psilocybin mushrooms dispensaries following in illegal cannabis dispensaries' footsteps

TAYLOR RODRIGUES (3L)

Did Canada legalize psilocybin mushrooms? No, but walking through downtown Toronto might have you thinking so. Google Maps lists 24 psilocybin mushroom dispensaries in Toronto.

Psilocybin mushrooms (“magic mushrooms”) are a group of mushrooms that contain psilocybin, a psychedelic drug whose effects often last for about 4-6 hours.

Common effects of psilocybin include visual and auditory illusions, a distorted sense of time (i.e. a feeling that time is sped up or slowed down), and a deep connection to nature. Effects vary by person and by dosage. Psilocybin can cause intense positive or negative emotions.

Psilocybin, combined with psychotherapy, is a promising treatment for many psychiatric conditions such as treatment-resistant depression and end-of-life anxiety. However, it is not a currently approved medical treatment in Canada. Psilocybin mushrooms were criminalized in Canada in 1982.

Psilocybin is a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). It is illegal to possess, manufacture, and traffick (e.g., sell or give) psilocybin without authorization.

There are three ways to obtain an authorization to use psilocybin. First, a participant could use psilocybin as part of a clinical trial. Second, a patient could ask their health care professional to request psilocybin through Health Canada’s Special Access Program. Third, an individual could make a s. 56 request under the CDSA to the federal Minister of Health to legally possess psilocybin.

None of these options are accessible to patients or to healthcare providers wanting to experience psilocybin so they can better provide psilocybin-assisted therapy. Clinical trials are sparse. The Special Access Program is restricted to patients who have a serious or life-threatening condition where conventional treatments have failed or are unsuitable.

The federal Minister of Health has refused nearly all s. 56 requests for psilocybin since psilocybin became eligible under the Special Access Program in January 2022. Even if a s. 56 request is granted to legally possess psilocybin, the requester has to source their own psilocybin mushrooms by searching for wild psilocybin mushrooms or by purchasing from illegal suppliers.

No psilocybin mushroom dispensaries in Canada

are authorized to sell psilocybin mushrooms. The law is not grey, but enforcement is.

Toronto Police Service (TPS) Issues and Media Advisor Devika Deonarine said the “TPS is largely focused on the trafficking of illegal drugs that are resulting in overdose deaths [e.g., fentanyl], and having a traumatic and devastating impact on our communities.” Deonarine implied that the TPS is only investigating psilocybin mushroom dispensaries if they receive a complaint about them.

The TPS rarely enforces the personal possession of any drug. In November 2021, the TPS wrote a letter advocating for the decriminalization of the personal possession of drugs. The TPS suggested that personal drug use should be treated with diversion programs rather than criminal charges.

In January 2022, the Toronto Board of Health submitted an initial submission to the Federal Minister of Health to decriminalize the personal possession of drugs in Toronto. In March 2023, the Toronto Board of Health submitted an updated request. The City of Toronto said on March 18, 2024, that “Toronto Public Health continues to work with Health Canada on the exemption request.”

In January 2024, British Columbia received a s. 56(1) CDSA exemption that allows most adults, in most of British Columbia, to cumulatively possess up to 2.5 grams of opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA.

Decriminalizing the personal possession of drugs alongside increased harm reduction and treatment services is intended to treat problematic drug use as a public health issue instead of a criminal justice issue.

Psilocybin mushrooms, like all drugs, pose risks but have a lower risk of harm than alcohol and many illegal drugs. In 2018, a group of UK drug experts recommended that psilocybin mushrooms be controlled similarly to prescription drugs, given the risk of “dangerous behavior in unprepared, unsupervised users, and exacerbation of mental illness in those with or predisposed to psychotic disorders.”

Paul Lewin, a Toronto drug lawyer who specializes in cannabis and psychedelics law, said most of the

psilocybin dispensaries are trying to fill a gap: “there are problems getting medical access to psilocybin and psilocybin is a miraculous therapeutic treatment for some people.”

Some psilocybin dispensary owners also believe “it’s just wrong that psilocybin is still prohibited and that it should be legalized and should be available to all healthy adults under reasonable circumstances,” Lewin said.

Lewin believes that civil disobedience was essential to legalizing cannabis for medicinal and nonmedicinal purposes, and psilocybin is following a similar path.

Many (but not all) psilocybin dispensaries in Ontario only sell psilocybin mushrooms to individuals 19+ who attest they are purchasing them for medicinal purposes. Before cannabis was legalized in Canada, many illegal cannabis dispensaries had similar policies.

Lewin represents several individuals who allegedly sold psilocybin mushrooms on behalf of Fun Guyz, a chain of psilocybin mushroom dispensaries. Their defence claims psilocybin laws are contrary to freedom of thought under s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They argue that psilocybin is a freedom of thought tool that promotes “mindfulness, openness, connectivity, creativity, cognitive flexibility” and many other positive mental attributes.

The draconian restrictions on psilocybin clearly violate Canadians’ freedom of thought, said Lewin. “The only question is what reasonable access would look like?”

TheraPsil, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping Canadians in medical need access legal psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy launched a Charter challenge claiming that the current restrictions on medical psilocybin violate Canadian’s right to life, liberty, and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter.

R v Parker, 2000 CanLII 5762 (ON CA) held that the criminalization of cannabis violated s. 7 of the Charter, which spurred the Government of Canada to introduce a medical cannabis regime.

The Fun Guyz and the TheraPsil Charter challenges remain ongoing.

Oh, the Places You’ll Go

Personal

statements from the Class of 2024

ALYSSA WONG (3L)

The time before law school feels like a distant past. 2020 is a general blur of Zoom calls and staying inside, but it was also the year many of us applied to law school—the step that brought us, the Class of 2024, to today. It’s safe to say that the last three (or more) years have been quite the journey, from those first days of Legal Methods sitting in socially distanced chairs to now, gearing up for a graduation that won’t just be a YouTube livestream.

Every year, Ultra Vires asks the graduating class to reflect on their law school journey and where it all started: their applications. Students submit excerpts from their personal statements and compare them with their post-graduation plans.

The following excerpts have been edited for brevity and clarity.

The human rights homecomer

"Studying at U of Toronto is how I will take charge of my career. I am drawn to return to my Canadian roots to study in Toronto, an energetic city characterized by diversity and opportunities for making connections. [...] I will bring the penchant for asking difficult questions that I developed during my undergraduate degree and an international perspective developed from working and travelling in Europe. [...] My vision of my future self is of someone who has developed the expertise and confidence to succeed in the corporate world in Canada and internationally, and who applies her passion and commitment to work with groups aiming to uphold human rights."

This student will be working at a fullservice firm in London, UK. They found looking back at their personal statement cringeworthy, having gone from wanting to practice insurance law to becoming a generalist in a corporate law firm. This student has also realized that, contrary to the above, they actually want to go into criminal law.

The heroine

“David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshall. In many places, these men could have been executed by the state. In Canada, they spent years in prison for crimes they didn’t commit. It doesn't end there. Women’s rights. Environmental rights. Bill 21. Discrimination. There are countless cases of injustice in Canada and the world. It’s through the justice system where people and communities are protected, rights are upheld and extended, and illegal policies and government intrusions can be overturned. A strong, independent, and fair justice system is critical to a viable and vibrant society. I want to be a lawyer so I can contribute to our democracy, help the vulnerable and fight injustice. I want to be a leader of my generation to serve our society.”

This student will graduate with a JD/ MA in Criminology and article at the Crown Attorney’s Office. She is pleased with her growth and enduring convictions, but mortified by how cringey her statement was. Despite becoming more jaded with the criminal justice system, she remains hopeful she can contribute towards social justice.

The climate champion who fought Cognomos (and lost)

“I want to get a JD so I can practice climate change law for Canadian governments. [...] Carbon pricing and regulations are needed to significantly reduce our emissions so we can

avoid the worst impacts of climate change— subsidies and voluntary programs are insufficient. [...] Only three Canadian law schools, including the University of Toronto, offered a course on climate change law in 2018-19. While course offerings do change year-to-year, the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto does frequently offer environmental law courses and externships. It also allows students to [...] complet[e] a JD/Certificate in Environmental Studies, which I would pursue if admitted.”

This student will article at a full-service Bay Street firm. In 2020, he did not yet know the perils of U of T Law course selection. Cognomos never enrolled him in environmental or climate change law, so he was unable to complete the Certificate. Growing debt and inflation pushed him towards Bay Street as the list of those who Cognomos has wronged grows ever longer.

The legal clinic hopeful

“As a queer woman of colour, I realize that the political and social freedoms that I experience today were fought for by the active voices of the past. I also realize that as someone who is fortunate enough to be financially stable and educated, I must give back to my community by becoming a voice that advocates for a better future. By attending law school, I would have the opportunity to use my degree to ensure that marginalized communities are represented and advocated for. I would be able to help ensure that someone's inevitable life circumstances would not prevent them from getting legal help when they need it. [...] Once I graduate, one of my goals is to be able to contribute to organizations such as the 519 Legal Clinic in Toronto, which provides free legal support to members of the LGBTQ+ community.”

This student will be working at a fullservice New York firm. Though they were involved in the LGBTQ+ community throughout law school, the reality of not being able to work at a legal clinic with over $100,000 in debt has sunk in. However, the student hopes to pursue pro bono work, returning to projects they began during their 2L summer.

The community connector

“The kitchen staff was primarily elderly women who had immigrated decades ago, brought to Canada by family members or refugee programs. They treated me like a granddaughter, telling me the triumphs and indignities of being Chinese in a predominantly white Canada. Often, they were ashamed to trouble their adult children, many of whom could barely speak Cantonese; [...] I helped them with technology, translated paperwork, and filled in medical forms. I realized that this community is often overlooked and underserved by various systems [...] and I knew this was something I wanted to fix. [...] [S]haped by my dual cultures, my multilingualism, and my education in the arts, I will bring a unique perspective to legal education at U of T with the goal of becoming a world-class lawyer connecting diasporic communities in need.”

This student knew she was really just trying to be a “good” candidate but maintains that her statement truly reflects who she is. She has been involved in the Asian-identifying legal community inside and outside of U of T. She is happy to be headed to a full-service New York firm to work in litigation and is sure that the kitchen staff are proud of her.

The bridge builder

“As a translator, I not only bridged two languages, but reunited two important sides of my identity. I want to expand the work I’ve been doing as a translator and close the gap that exists between the mainstream culture and the Asian-American culture. [...] Law can transform the current dominant view of the society, and as an Asian-American lawyer, I hope to be at the forefront of the much needed change.”

This student will be clerking. Though not indicated above, this student was interested in pursuing IP law and will be working in IP transactions after their clerkship. They are still conscious of the importance of representation in law and hope to provide Asian-American representation as an IP lawyer.

The social advocate

“I have always known I want to devote my career to promoting social justice and recently this crystallized into the decision to pursue a career as a human rights lawyer and legal equity researcher. A legal education is vital for me to achieve my goals. I want to attend law school because the Juris Doctor program emphasizes equity and making a meaningful impact, which also means I will be able to build a network of like-minded lawyers and professors with whom I intend to always stay connected. Recent events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and Black Lives Matter movement, have brought into sharp focus the necessity of having more passionate social advocates become lawyers to help people access justice and contribute to making lasting, positive legal reforms.”

This student will be articling at a full-service Bay Street firm. She says her goals haven’t changed, but she now knows that the path to achieving them is long and winding: “I remain convinced that law is the gateway to being the change I want to see.”

The pandemic opportunist

“Having become so involved in my community, it was disheartening to be headed for a career without much potential for social impact. I was determined to find a way to combine my interests. This year, I found that in law. I might not have [...] if COVID-19 hadn’t forced me to give up on [a dream opportunity]. [...] This year, we have been forced to reckon with technology’s roles in business, policing, education, and so on. When it fails, no one wins. I want to pursue work that contributes to real legislation so we’re not relying on corporations or modern interpretations of old laws to protect our rights to privacy, freedom, and information.”

This student hasn’t settled on what they’ll do for their articles. Though they did pursue their interests during school and spent their summers working in relevant fields, they wonder if they were too close-minded to other opportunities and missed the chance to explore different fields.

The entertainer

“With regards to my future plans, I know that many of my peers intend to fight for social justice and human rights with their law degrees. To be perfectly honest with you, I can’t imagine doing what they plan to do because my ambition is not to change the world [...] what interests me is the field of gaming and entertainment law. I think that it is a field that will be developed in the future as technology continues to change the course of our culture and I wish to be a part of its shaping. Not only will I be working towards my passion, but also be partaking in what I believe to be a growing sector.”

This student will be articling at a fullservice firm in Toronto. He found reading his statement cringeworthy: “Thank you UV for the reminder that this exists so that I can purge it from my hard drive.” His legal interests have not changed, despite learning (to his surprise) that entertainment law is largely copyright and financing.

The future doctor sellout

“Passionate about the intersection of health and law, I am drawn towards the University of Toronto’s JD program with its focus on Health Law and Policy. [...] Furthermore, with extensive opportunities through clinics such as at the Health Equity and Law Clinic, I hope to continually challenge myself to apply my knowledge and skills outside of the classroom. This ongoing pandemic has shown a need for professionals who are well equipped to navigate the legal challenges in the public healthcare sector. I am confident that the University of Toronto’s legal curriculum will equip me with the necessary skills to become a leader in Canadian healthcare policy.”

This student hoped to pursue medicine after graduating but never took any health law courses, though he wonders how his life might be different if he had. He recalls reading “Oh, the Places You’ll Go!” before law school and telling himself he would not be like the students who sold out to big law. Upon reflection, he recognizes that it’s okay for goals to shift, and that it was naive to judge too early. He will be working in litigation at a fullservice firm in New York.

The Bay Street alumnus

“During my undergrad, I spent three summers interning at KPMG in their restructuring advisory group in Toronto. This exposed me to the culture of Bay Street and the Canadian business community more generally. While at KPMG, I did everything from researching companies to editing client pitches to flying to Calgary in order to evaluate the contents of a storage locker of a company filing for bankruptcy. Because of my positive experiences working for KPMG, there is a strong possibility that I will start my legal career practicing business law on Bay Street.”

This student will be working at a fullservice firm in the US. In his statement, he expressed interest in several different legal areas, but predicted he’d likely end up doing business law. In the end, his prediction was correct.

The dream achiever

“I have now realized that the best way I can help is through pursuing a law career in order to help children and give them hope for a better future than the one my mother experienced. I understand, as a person, that I cannot change the world by myself and I am prepared for this reality. But if I can make one person’s world a bit of a better place, then I am more than okay with that. [...] The University of Toronto is uniquely situated just up the street from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, where lawyers represent the interests of children every day in child welfare situations and it is a place that I would love to one day work."

This student will article at the Office of the Childrens’ Lawyer. In a refreshing change compared to many of these excerpts, she achieved each of the opportunities from U of T she wrote about in her personal statement: “You don’t have to dream big if you’re doing anything other than business at U of T.”

Toronto Summer 2024 1L Recruit Numbers

Overall decline in hiring

REBEKAH KIM (3L) AND SOOYEON PARK (2L)

This year, Ultra Vires reached out to 13 employers who participated in the official 2024 Toronto 1L recruit. All 12 employers who participated in last year’s recruit returned for this year’s recruit, and they were joined by one new employer, Mintz LLP, who participated in the 1L recruit for the first time after establishing their Toronto office last year.

This year’s Toronto 1L recruit concluded with at least 57 students securing a 1L summer student position. Despite having one more employer hiring, there was a significant decrease from last year, where at least 76 students were hired. While the fact that two large firms, McCarthy Tétrault LLP and Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, did not respond in time for publication certainly contributed to the decrease, many firms saw a decrease in hiring numbers this year, with only Sherrard Kuzz LLP hiring more students this year. The decrease might suggest that many employers may be slowing down their 1L hiring that they ramped up in the last couple of years.

Similar to the earlier 2024 2L Toronto Recruit, Osgoode students secured the most number of summer positions, with 14 students being hired. In close second was U of T Law, with 12 students securing a position. U of T Law had the highest proportion of their 1L class securing a position through the 1L recruit (5.61%). This is the first time that U of T Law did not have the highest number of students employed in the 1L recruit since Ultra Vires started reporting on this recruit in 2013. The total number of U of T Law students hired through the 1L recruit this year was also the lowest it has ever been since 2013. However, as McMillan LLP declined to disclose which schools their students attend this year, the distribution data may be skewed.

Ultra Vires also reached out to branches of the Ministry of the Attorney General that participated in 1L hiring outside of the official 1L recruit. However, we did not hear back in time for publication.

Ottawa Summer 2024 2L Recruit Numbers

Ottawa dominates the recruit once again

REBEKAH

For this year’s Ottawa 2L recruit, 34 employers participated, a slight decrease from last year’s 36 employers. At least 41 students secured a 2L summer position in Ottawa this year. While this is a decrease of 60 students compared to last year, the decrease is likely largely due to the fact that most participating employers did not respond in time for publication this year (only 10 out of 34 responded by the time of publication).

As with prior years, the University of Ottawa dominated the recruit by securing 22 summer positions, representing 53.7% of the total confirmed summer positions. No other school came close to the University of Ottawa’s numbers, with Queen’s Law and Windsor being tied for far second with three students hired each.

Among the reporting employers, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP hired the most students with 10 hires. Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP came in second with seven students hired.

Note: employers who did not respond in time for publication were omitted from the chart.

March in Music

An overview of everything in the pop culture music realm

EMILY SARAH HEAN (3L)

March was yet another fantastic month for music—and if it feels like I say that every month, it’s because I do! What can I say? We’re in an age where music is the most accessible it’s ever been, and there are a myriad of incredibly talented people dominating the charts.

First, on March 3, Taylor Swift announced the last of the bonus tracks for her upcoming album The Tortured Poets Department , set to release on April 19, 2024. The four bonus tracks, “The Manuscript,” “The Bolter,” “The Albatross,” and “The Black Dog,” are only available on special edition vinyl records, CDs, and cassettes which were available on Swift’s store for a limited period.

March 8 saw two large album releases.

First, Ariana Grande’s highly anticipated eternal sunshine was released. The album comes after a year of turmoil in Grande’s life, with her divorce from Dalton Gomez and subsequent relationship with Ethan

Slater. It features songs such as hit single “yes, and?,” which many fans speculate was a response to the criticism around her relationship with Slater, and new fan favourite “we can’t be friends (wait for your love).”

Also released on March 8 was Bleachers’ fourth record, a self-titled album featuring 14 songs. The band’s frontrunner, Jack Antonoff, is a frequent collaborator of Taylor Swift’s and worked on the album with another of Swift’s collaborators and close friends, Aaron Dessner. The result is an album with emotional depth, musical complexity, and witty lyricism.

Lastly, girl in red released “DOING IT AGAIN BABY” as the second single for her upcoming album I’M DOING IT AGAIN BABY. She followed this release with a teaser for her third single, featuring Sabrina Carpenter. Notably, both artists opened for Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour. As someone who discovered both artists because of Swift, this was an exciting collaboration! The

single, “You Need Me Now?”, came out March 22.

Three days later, Ariana dropped the deluxe version of her album, eternal sunshine (slightly deluxe). This extended edition features four new tracks, including collaborations with artists Mariah Carey and Troye Sivan.

On March 15, Kacey Musgraves released her sixth studio album Deeper Well Ahead of this release were two singles, the title track “Deeper Well” and “Too Good to Be True.” This album has possibly the most beautiful record variants ever to be pressed, heavily featuring cardinals (inspired by one of the track titles, “Cardinal.”)

On the 19th, Olivia Rodrigo surprised fans at her Chicago concert by announcing during her final encore song that she would be releasing the deluxe version of her sophomore album, GUTS , on Friday the 22nd. This deluxe album, GUTS (spilled), features

the four “secret” tracks which originally came out on the four GUTS vinyl variants, along with a new song, “so american,” which has the honour of being Rodrigo’s first ever happy love song!

Also on the 22nd, Megan Moroney released another single, “28th of June,” in which she reminisces on an old relationship, singing, “Just ‘cause something’s good don’t mean it lasts.”

FLETCHER also had a release on the 22nd—her second studio album, In Search of the Antidote . Listening parties were hosted across North America to celebrate the album’s release.

The tail end of the month will see Olivia Rodrigo coming to Montreal and Toronto on her GUTS Tour, bringing along the GUTS bus and the GUTS Gallery! And, on the 29th, Beyonce’s act ii: COWBOY CARTER will be released.

Thanks to all who tuned into these music wrap-ups each month!

Announcing the Bora Laskin

Law Library’s 7th Annual Poetry Contest Winners

ALEXIA LOUMANKIS

We received a record number of submissions this year, and as always we were impressed by the creativity and quality of the submitted poems. All of the poems were excellent, and it was difficult for us to select the top three.

The first prize winner is Allison Zhao (1L) for Gingko . Second prize goes to Megan Corbett (2L) for The Faculty of Law Can Have a Little Vanitas, as a Treat , and the third prize winner is Brianna Rowe (3L) for A Truth to Reconciliation

Congratulations to Allison, Megan, and Brianna! And a heartfelt thank you to all those that entered a poem in the contest. We appreciate your time, effort, and creativity.

Until next year.

Ginkgo – Allison Zhao (1st Place)

Your grandmother comes to visit and everyone but her is surprised. Pride is supposed to come to grandmothers more easily than to mothers, but yours reserves judgment. You don’t know if eight is still a lucky number when it has been eight years since you last saw her in Beijing. The first thing she recognizes when you take her on a walk to campus is a ginkgo tree. The fan-shaped leaves curl up in your palm. They look just like the ones on her street and there is a relief in finding something you do not need words to share.

Inside, she likes the library. Once a university professor, she has no patience now for hearing about law studies. She makes you buy her a Coke from a vending machine in the basement, a fight you and your mother lost in 2019 when she declared she would be dead soon anyway. She folds her hands behind her back and looks out the windows, and you can’t tell if she’s listening as you describe the way the garden and the buried-creek path look in the fall. You have to stop her from trying to climb the stairs.

Your grandmother will be long gone before the autumn, and you will be here. You have woken up early every morning to be at the breakfast table, right as she bobs in for her tea. The strain of days sits at the corners of your eyes, pulls at your chest. For a week you have come straight home after lecture to sit in the living room while she scrolls on her iPad, and now you pocket a perfect ginkgo leaf as though you can keep today.

Just a building, she scoffs as you hold the door for her, but she insists on coming back the next day.

The Faculty of Law Can Have a Little Vanitas, as a Treat – Megan Corbett (2nd Place)

How long is it?

It seems an important question.

It must be, for how often I get it. I always reply the same: three years

Raising my fingers to ring in their ears, Three tall digits to drive it home. Their response follows a groan. Eyebrows lifted, mouths gone round, The next words familiar by now: That’s a big commitment I say it is and it isn’t. On the home shore, indeed,

It seemed a wild and unknowable sea— Trying to picture the lawyerly me.

Now, halfway through the stream, Time just keeps gaining speed.

The months flitting by, faster and faster, Clinging to the rails to avoid disaster

And trying to make it stop.

To keep the ball from the drop.

To let loose the steam, to let it breathe, To smell the roses and steep the tea.

Three years now seems nothing.

Not a sea, not a stream, not even a puddle to stomp in. A drifting rainstorm, barely leaving a trace of where it’s been.

What’s three years to five? To ten?

We must choose a map, and sow a destination, Prepare for our looming recultivation.

Passing the halfway mark,

As the pause between lightning and thunder grows, As padding rain slows, I can look around in wonder, Struck child-like by a known sky newly coloured.

A fleeting storm, yes, but the landscape Is changed still. A forest takes shape

And a dogged way is found by will.

New thoughts, sharper lenses, Supplant duller incoming perspectives.

So it’s fleeting.

So the days are long, and the years are short.

So classes become court.

As long as enlightening arcs in our sky I’ll try and enjoy it, however it blinds.

Because despite the small nights

And despite the big days

And despite certain colleagues’ best-knowing ways, Despite the heavy tomes and their always-parched tones

And despite the small-animal fear at the dauntingly sheer Volume of it all, the dread of on-call,

Despite the words and the words and the words, And that I’ll never be as young again as I am today, (or as confined to a study space), The night comes again.

And staggering home, weak and weary, Laptop dying and wide eyes bleary, The rinsed stars shine a little brighter in the darkness.

And we’re all a little brighter for it.

So I’ll just try and love the rain while it lasts. Because all too soon, this too, shall pass.

Indigenous, Native Canadian, Aboriginal, a burden.

Wherefore art thou, Indian?

Racist roots, racism mutes, The French and British loot, The issue becomes moot.

Terra nullius, honour of the crown, Too weak, too small, too beat down Unable to govern, unable to lead That’s what they say, who are we to disagree?

Impoverished, addicted, Criminals, whiners Move on already, Transgressions minor.

Help is given, you simply won’t take. The pain caused, accused of being fake.

Language ever changes while my people remain frozen Dead, dying, or giving in to the erosion Ojibwe, Anishinaabekwe

My identity will not be whittled away.

Truth, Reconciliation, the government tries to say sorry without trying to apologize Debwewin, truth, Gaagiizom, to make amends

Using our words, together, toward a better end.

A Truth to Reconciliation – Brianna Rowe (3rd Place)

L TO R: ALLISON ZHAO (1L), MEGAN CORBETT (2L), AND BRIANNA ROWE (3L). CREDIT: CHRISTINE WANG

Intramural Year in Review Another successful year for Law teams!

ABBY BRUYER (2L) AND

It has been another incredible year for our intramural teams! This past academic year, the Faculty of Law Athletics Association (FLAA) organized 29 teams across nine different sports, a 30% increase in teams from last year. Our teams included students from the JD, LLM, and joint JD degree programs. The Faculty of Law’s passion for sports was impressive, as more than 150 law students—representing 25% of the student body—played in at least one intramural game this year. From soccer and basketball to ultimate frisbee and inner tube water polo, there was an intramural team for everyone!

Our teams found great success again this year! In the fall semester, the Women’s Soccer, Mixed Dodgeball, Mixed Basketball, and Open Hockey teams won their intramural championships. Both the Mixed Basketball and Mixed Dodgeball teams went undefeated in their championship runs, led by their MVPs, Peter Ling

REGAN (2L)

(2L) and Olivia Maley (2L) respectively. In the winter semester, Mixed Soccer won their league with a thrilling 2-1 win over Med in a penalty shootout. The Mixed Dodgeball team reached dynasty status with another undefeated season, winning their third championship in two years. And Women’s Volleyball, led by a strong core of 1L athletes, secured their first championship after a stellar performance in the finals.

Some standout intramural players this season include Carson Cook (2L), Hassan Valji (2L), Jimin Lee (1L), Jeremy Jingwei (3L), and Chris Black (3L). Cook played on six teams across three different sports, amassing 27 caps for Law and three championship titles. Valji was a staple on our soccer teams, leading the Mixed Soccer team to the championship with a key save and a game-winning goal in a penalty shootout. Lee captained the Women’s Volleyball team for both semesters and led the

team to a championship this winter. Finally, Jingwei and Black have been important contributors to Law’s intramural program throughout their three years at U of T, resulting in their nominations for the Intramural “T” Award for graduating players. Thank you to everyone who made this a great intramural season!

There is great potential to expand athletics and the intramural program at U of T Law (hint, hint: charity dodgeball tournament). Intramurals are a fun way to meet new people, and they offer a great excuse to not do your readings! Leading the FLAA has been very rewarding, and a big thank you goes to the FLAA Exec Team, Francis Rweyongeza (2L) and Melanie Vincent (3L) for their work in helping to organize intramurals this year! If you are interested in being a part of the FLAA next year, please contact Abby Bruyer (2L) and Maddy Regan (2L) at uoftlawathletics@gmail.com.

2023-24 (totally real) Intramural Award Winners:

Most Likely to Be Late to a Game: Chris Black

Most Likely to Skip Class for Intramurals: Jarod Manuel

Most Likely to Beef the Ref/Other Team: Abby Bruyer, Lucas Fisher

Most Likely to Sign Up for 30 Teams and Not Show Up: the 1Ls, Justin Kim

Most Likely to End Up on Long-Term IR: Samir Reynolds

Most Likely to Forget Their T-Card for a Game: Arly Abramson, Matt Graham

Most Likely to Sacrifice Their Body for the Win: Hassan Valji, Maddy Regan

Most Likely to Skip Articling and Become a Professional Intramural Athlete: Jeremy Jingwei

Best Game Day Fits: Francis Rweyongeza

2023-24 Intramural MVP: any female player on a Mixed team

P is for Podcast Ten podcasts you should listen to

MATTHEW MCGREER (3L)

I love podcasts, and I think you should love them too. This is my attempt at sharing the magic of podcasts with you. Here are ten podcasts that you should have been listening to over the past ten years. Most of these are longrunning, much loved programs, some of which have huge followings. Honestly, if you haven’t been listening to these podcasts, what have you been doing? You’ll notice that Joe Rogan’s podcast is not included on this list, and that’s because no one should listen to Joe Rogan.

On Being

Life

To be. That is the question. Through interviews with writers, scientists, religious and other leaders, musicians, and more, Krista Tippett explores what it means to be.

Each interview starts with the same question: what was the spiritual background of your childhood? By centring the conversation in a gentle nostalgia, Krista Tippett is able to unravel how great minds see and experience being

Time will fly by listening to these 60-minute edited interviews or 90-minute unedited conversations. Give yourself time to sit, listen, reflect, and relisten.

Serial

True crime

What is a reasonable doubt? When Serial

first came out, it put the spotlight on convicted murderer Adnan Syed. Millions of people around the world were convinced by Sarah Koenig’s presentation of the facts that Syed was innocent. Since then people have re-examined the evidence and grown more skeptical. If you scroll down the Serial subreddit, you’ll see that the internet consensus is that Syed is guilty. No matter where you land, Serial will have you questioning how we really decide whether a person is guilty of a crime… how we really decide who we believe.

99% Invisible

Art and design

The silky smooth voice of Roman Mars will take you on a tour of the invisible aspects of everyday design. It is counterintuitive to use an audio-only medium to discuss art and design, but that doesn’t seem to hold back 99% Invisible Content warning: There are a number of episodes about trains and train stations that might make the law student shiver in terror.

Planet Money Economics

Planet Money was born out of the 2008 recession. Unlike fluffy, click-bait-esque economics content like Freakonomics by Stephen Dubner or Steven Levitt, Planet Money is about understanding the economy around you. Listening to Planet Money can help you decode the news

and pump up your business acumen. I recommend going back into the archives to listen to some episodes about the Eurozone debt crisis. Remember when the biggest deal in the news was Greece’s debt?

The 1619 Project History

Nikole Hannah-Jones at The New York Times started the 1619 Project to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the first enslaved Africans arriving in the English colony of Virginia. It started as a collection of ten essays that worked to reframe US history. This six episode audio series was published soon afterwards. The 1619 Project has attracted some criticism, but, overall, the project has been widely regarded as a powerful medicine to the idealized American origin story. While there are podcasts that re-examine some aspects of Canadian history (see The Secret Life of Canada), the 1619 Project provokes a more fundamental shift in understanding of the history of North America.

My Dad Wrote a Porno Comedy

Poor Jamie Morton discovered an erotic novella written by his father. Unfortunately for his father, but fortunately for everyone else, Jamie Morton decided to bring together his friends for a dramatic reading. I am not a big

comedy podcast guy, but this one actually makes me laugh out loud. Despite the show centring around erotic “literature” (and I use that term generously), the humour itself isn’t sexual. But, since it does talk a lot about sex, make sure you use headphones if listening to this podcast in public. And be prepared to burst out laughing at any given time!

Embedded

In-depth news

Embedded takes an issue from the news and digs into the context, history, and characters that don’t make it onto TV news segments. Why did Hillary Clinton lose the 2016 election? Why is Mitch McConnell so evil? There is no better way to find out than by listening to the smoky deep voice of Kelly McEvers.

Radiolab Science

Radiolab is my first and longest love. This long-running podcast explores interesting issues in science, technology, history, and more. It has also helped produce some of my favourite podcasts of all time, like Dolly Parton’s America, More Perfect, and Gonads. One of the reasons I think this podcast is so special is because it makes interesting and complex issues accessible to all listeners. A lot of thought is put into content structure, sound effects, and other tools to help spur the audience’s imagination.

Find Your Talent

Manes, we support our lawyers in developing successful practices. That means helping them find their talent, whatever it may be.

2023-2024 Competitive Mooting Roundup

U of T, as always, swept the competition

CHRISTINE WANG (3L JD/MBA)

Adam F. Fanaki Competition Law Moot

Mooters: Jon Herlin (3L), Donya Ashnaei (3L/MBA), Emily Chu (2L), Olivia Schenk (2L)

Student Coaches: Gordon Milne (3L), Edmund Nilson (3L), Max van der Weerd (3L)

Adjunct Coaches: Michael Laskey (Stikeman Elliott LLP), Nathaniel Read-Ellis (Adair Goldblatt Bieber LLP)

The Adam F. Fanaki Competition Law Moot was held in Toronto on March 22 and 23. This year’s moot problem was inspired by Rogers v Shaw, featuring a proposed merger between two dating apps challenged by the Commissioner of Competition.

Jon Herlin (3L) and Olivia Schenk (2L) were awarded best appellant team and best appellant factum. Herlin won best appellant oralist and Schenk won third runner-up appellant oralist. Donya Ashnaei (3L/MBA) and Emily Chu (2L) won secondbest respondent factum and third best respondent team. Ashnaei won third-best respondent oralist. U of T Law was awarded best faculty overall.

Arnup Cup Trial Advocacy Competition

Mooters: Ryan Reid (3L), Sang Park (3L)

Student Coach: Michel Hajjar (3L)

Adjunct Coaches: Corie Langdon (Ministry of the Attorney General), Emily Marrocco (Ministry of the Attorney General), Royland Moriah (Rusonik, O’Connor, Robbins, Ross, & Angelini, LLP)

The Arnup Cup is an annual trial advocacy competition for Ontario law schools. This year, the competition took place on February 9 and 10. The problem concerned a bar fight where the bar owner punched his ex-employee. The Crown prosecuted the bar owner for aggravated assault, while the defendant argued self-defence.

Davies Corporate/Securities Law Moot

Mooters: Lauren Di Felice (3L), Brody Zukerman-Schure (3L/MBA), Alexander McGuigan (2L), Riya Thomas (2L)

Student Coaches: Ben Grondin (3L), Isaac Jonker (3L)

Adjunct Coaches: Shane D'Souza (McCarthy Tétrault LLP), William Main (McCarthy Tétrault LLP) and Chris Puskas (McCarthy Tétrault LLP)

The Davies Corporate/Securities Law Moot took place in Toronto on March 8 and 9. This year's problem examined the fiduciary duties of nominee directors and the exercise of contractual discretion in the context of an arrangement agreement, as well as the validity of contractual provisions attempting to hold a buyer liable for lost stockholder premiums.

U of T emerged victorious, receiving the coveted First-Place Team award. Riya Thomas (2L) received the Top Oralist award.

Donald G. Bowman National Tax Moot

Mooters: Yinzi Gao (4L), Taylor Rodrigues (3L), Jeffrey Liu (3L), Nina Varghese (2L)

Student Coaches: Matthew McGreer (3L), Christian Wigger (3L)

Adjunct Coaches: Andrew Boyd (Baker McKenzie), Martha MacDonald (Torys LLP)

The Donald G. Bowman National Tax Moot is Canada’s first competitive moot on taxation. It took place in Toronto on March 1 and 2. This year’s problem was based on Deans Knight Income Corp v Canada, 2023 SCC 16, which was appealed to the Bowman Moot Court for Tax Appeals.

Frank W. Callaghan Memorial Moot

Mooters: Christine Wang (3L/MBA), Madeline Schneider (2L), Emily Jin (2L), Maheen Akter (2L), Jason Ruggeberg (2L), Zachary Train (2L), Daniel Kiesman (2L), Alison Borch (2L), Hannah Rosenberg (2L), Janna Getty (2L), Abby Craswell (2L), Jules Lyon (2L), Emma Davies (2L), Angela Shi (2L), Madison Regan (2L), Yiwei Bian (2L)

Student Coaches: Olivia O’Connor (3L), Ben Kitching (3L), Justin Kim (3L), Rebekah Kim (3L), Lucy Yang (3L), Emily Hean (3L), Ronan Mallovy (3L), Kyle MacDonald (3L)

Adjunct Coaches: Andrew Max (Addario Law Group LLP), Anita Szigeti (Anita Szigeti Advocates), Brandon

Chung (Henein Hutchinson Robitaille LLP), Ema Ibrakovic (Ontario Court of Appeal), Wes Dutcher-Walls (Addario Law Group LLP), Militza Boljevic (Lenczner Slaght LLP), Maeve Mungovan (Ministry of the Attorney General), Spencer Bass (Stockwoods LLP)

The Callaghan, U of T’s internal competitive moot, took place on March 2 and 3. This year’s problem raised two questions. The first was the constitutionality of s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which was amended in June 2022 following R v Brown, on selfinduced extreme intoxication. The second question was inspired by Attorney General v Power, a case about Charter s. 24(1) damages in relation to unconstitutional legislation.

Hannah Rosenberg (2L) won the top oralist award. Emily Jin (2L) won the second-place oralist award, and Zachary Train (2L) won the third-place oralist award. The top appellant factum award went to Christine Wang (3L/MBA) and Madeline Schneider (2L). The top respondent factum award went to Jin and Maheen Akter (2L). The winning team was Abby Craswell (2L) and Julianna Lyon (2L), representing the respondents. The runner-up team, representing the appellants, were Rosenberg and Angela Shi (2L).

Gale Cup Moot

Mooters: Nina Patti (3L), Brynne Dalmao (2L), Julia Campbell (3L), Elizabeth Hicks (2L)

Student Coaches: Benjamin MacLean-Max (3L), Emma Danaher (3L)

Adjunct Coaches: Ema Ibrakovic (Court of Appeal for Ontario), Sinziana Hennig (Stikeman Elliott LLP), Paul-Erik Veel (Lenczner Slaght LLP)

Held in Toronto on February 9 and 10, 2024, the Gale Cup is Canada’s premier bilingual criminal/ constitutional mooting competition. This year’s case was R v Beaver, dealing primarily with subjective and objective grounds for arrest and the admission of confessions under Charter s. 24(2). Submissions were made on whether the “fresh start” principle is doctrinally valid and whether or not a fresh start occurred in the case.

For the second year in a row, U of T won the Gale Cup. Brynne Dalmao (2L) and Elizabeth Hicks (2L) (appellants) emerged as the final victors, defeating the Université de Montreal in the finals. Dalmao was awarded the Dickson Medal for Exceptional Oralist Performance.

Harold G. Fox Canadian Intellectual Property Moot

Mooters: Alessia Woolfe (2L), Mina Alam (2L), Avital Sternin (2L), Rebecca Tyli (2L)

Student Coaches: Christopher Black (3L), Sarah McLaughlin (3L)

Adjunct Coaches: Andy Shaughnessy (Torys LLP), Emily Kettel (Bennett Jones LLP)

The Fox Moot, Canada’s premier intellectual property moot, took place on February 23 and 24. The moot problem covered a trademark dispute between an individual and an established fur-trade company. The dispute centered on the parodic use of the company’s trademark to raise money for animal rights advocacy.

Mina Alam (2L) and Alessia Woolfe (2L) took home the Best Appellant Factum, while Avital Sternin (2L) and Rebecca Tyli (2L) won the Best Runner-Up Team award. Sternin also received the Best Oral Advocate award and the Best Mooter 2L Class award.

Julius Alexander Isaac Moot

Mooters: Samir Reynolds (3L/MPP), Mahnoor Noor (2L), Grace Chan (2L), Sherry Li (2L)

Student Coaches: Alexandra Guerra (3L), Jasmine Anthony (3L)

Faculty Coach: Dean Ada Maxwell-Alleyne

Adjunct Coach: Solomon McKenzie (McCarthy Tétrault LLP)

The Julius Alexander Isaac Moot took place from

February 1-3. It concerned a fictional appeal from Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 17, a case focusing on the constitutionality of the legislation implementing Canada’s Safe Third Country Agreement

Laskin Moot

Mooters: Alex Horbal (2L), Marisa Benjamin (3L), Michel Hajjar (3L), Chelsea Gordon (2L)

Student Coaches: Milana Grahovac (3L), Madeline Eskandari (3L), Irene Li (3L)

Adjunct Coaches: Christina Sibian (MAG), Padraic Ryan (MAG), William MacLarkey (MAG)

The Laskin Moot was hosted by the University of Calgary from February 29 to March 2. In the moot problem, mooters tackled whether amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act creating a Commissioner for Privacy and Technology were ultra vires Parliament.

U of T placed tenth and won ninth best factum. Marisa Benjamin (3L) was recognized as a top 15% oralist.

National Labour Arbitration Competition

Mooters: Benji McLean (3L/MBA), Nathan McLean (3L/MBA)

Student Coaches: Clare Murray (3L), Sang Park (3L)

Adjunct Coaches: Stephen Shore (Ogletree Deakins LLP), Kathryn Bird (Ogletree Deakins LLP), Lauren Pearce (Jones Pearce LLP), Amanda Lawrence-Patel (Hicks Morley LLP), Maeve Biggar (CaleyWray Lawyers), Kate Shao (Parliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP), Braxton Murphy (Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP)

The National Labour Arbitration took place on February 3 and 4. This year’s problem involved a software engineer at a power company who used AI to code a system update, who was then fired after a power outage. The employer later laid off software engineers and AI use became normalized. The Union then brought termination and layoff grievances.

U of T emerged as the victors, with Benji McLean (3L/MBA) and Nathan McLean (3L/MBA) winning as management side representatives.

Phillip C. Jessup International Law Moot

Mooters: Vidit Desai (2L), Eyal Wilk (2L), Arik Portnov (2L), Foti Tivo (3L)

Student Coaches: Julia Cappellacci (3L), Jack Stewart (3L), Nicolas Williams (3L)

Adjunct Coaches: Misha Boutilier (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP), Daniel Sisgoreo (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP)

The Jessup International Moot is the world’s oldest and largest international moot competition. This year’s Canadian national rounds took place in Ottawa from February 22 to 24. The 2024 Jessup Problem raised issues related to the right to political expression, statelessness, the right to a nationality, and the scope of the United Nations Security Council's authority in the pacific settlement of disputes.

U of T emerged as the First Place National Champion and also received the Third Place Combined Memorial Award. The team is now set to compete in the International Rounds from March 30 to April 6. UV wishes them the best of luck in Washington!

Walsh Family Law Moot

Mooters: Julia Fine (2L), Laura Hunter (3L), Aviva Ripstein (3L), Constantine Kanagelidis (2L)

Student Coaches: Emily Rand (3L), Fievel Lim (3L)

Adjunct Coaches: Martha McCarthy (McCarthy, Hansen & Company LLP), Maureen Edwards (McCarthy, Hansen & Company LLP), Zechariah Martin (McCarthy, Hansen & Company LLP)

The Walsh Family Law Moot, Canada’s primary family law appellate competition, took place in Toronto on March 9. The case this year was based on Malaviya v Dhir and assessed whether a trial judge had

erred in dismissing a motion for summary judgment due to issues of credibility and allegations of coercive control.

Julia Fine (2L) took home the Phillip M. Epstein Award for top oralist.

Walsh Family Law Negotiation

Mooters: Alice Min (2L), Emma Baliat (2L), Ashley Jeon (2L), Christos Kakaletris (3L)

Adjunct Coaches: Samantha Eisen (Gillian Hnatiw & Co), Judith Huddart (Ontario Association of Collaborative Professionals)

The Walsh Family Law Negotiation is related to the Walsh Family Law Moot, but features a complex fact pattern to be negotiated at the trial level. It also took place in Toronto on March 9. The representations this year addressed the issues of parenting schedules, child support, spousal support, and property division.

Emma Baliat (2L) and Alice Min (2L) received the award for best representation plan.

Cassels Brock Cup (“Baby Gale”)

Mooters (all 1L): Navya Sheth, Emma Blake, Matthew Farrell, Benjamin Beiles, Emma De Tommaso, Annie Chang, Akash Jain, Sarah Zaitlin, Yasmin Rajwani, David NiddamDent, Cameron Flanagan, Aaditya Juvekar

Student Coaches: Brynne Dalmao (3L), Julia Campbell (3L), Nina Patti (3L), Elizabeth Hicks (2L)

The Cassels Brock Cup (“Baby Gale”) is a competitive moot for 1L students on criminal and constitutional law, using the 2024 Gale Cup problem. It took place on March 23.

U of T won the top school prize against Osgoode. Navya Sheth (1L) and Matthew Farrell (1L) were awarded top Appellant team, while Akash Jain (1L) and Sarah Zaitlin (1L) were awarded second-place Appellant team. Aaditya Juvekar (1L) and Cameron Flanagan (1L) won second-place Respondent team. Sheth and Jain tied for second-best oralist.

Hamish Stewart Cup (“Baby Callaghan”)

Mooters (all 1L): Sakina Hasnain, Humza Khan, Kate Shackleton, Rebecca Dragusin, Megan Raber, Angelina Zhang, Shireen Faisal, Delaney Cullin, Josephine Winsor, Jerry Zhao, Michael Roclawski, Alana Kiteley, Audrey Wu, Blair Tinkham, Natallie Chow, Harley Hubbard, Alex Kelly, Chloe Merritt, Tyler Hastings, Emily Ernst, Vlad Mirel, Rayyan Esmail, Emma Farrell, Allie Fong, Sarah Mackenzie, Matthew Goldenberg, Kabir Singh Dhillon, Garvin Brutus, Karina Vandenhoven, Amanda Hacker, Pourochrista Rahmati, Ella Stoyan

Student Coaches: Hannah Beltran (2L/MBA), Rebecca Tyli (2L), Daniel Kiesman (2L), Liza Markova (2L), Jarren Fefer (2L), Joshua Schwartz (2L), Madeline Schneider (2L), Emily Jin (2L), Janna Getty (2L), Jason Ruggeberg (2L), Yiwei Bian (2L), Alison Borch (2L), Madison Regan (2L), Kristina Wolff (2L/MBA), Emily Chu (2L), Christine Wang (3L/MBA)

The Stewart Cup, an intramural moot for 1L students, took place on March 9. The moot used the 2023 Callaghan Moot problem, loosely based on R v Canfield, 2020 ABCA 383. Students explored issues of stare decisis, s. 8 Charter violations, and the exclusion of evidence under Charter s. 24(2).

The Top Appellant Team was Chloe Merritt (1L) and Kabir Dhillon (1L). The runner-up Appellant Team was Alana Kiteley (1L) and Sarah Mackenzie (1L). The Top Respondent Team was Megan Raber (1L) and Josephine Winsor (1L), while the runner-up Respondent Team was Rayyan Esmail (1L) and Karina Vandenhoven (1L). Kiteley also received the prize for Top Oralist, while Humza Khan (1L) received the Second Oralist award. Raber received the Third Oralist award.

The following moots did not respond in time for publication: Immigration, Refugee, and Citizenship Law Moot; Tort Law Moot; Wilson Moot; Winkler Class Actions Moot. Information will be updated online at ultravires.ca as it becomes available.

Reflections on the 2023-2024 Competitive Moots

Students

share their experiences

CHRISTINE WANG (3L JD/MBA)

As the 2023-2024 competitive mooting season has officially come to a close, Ultra Vires (UV) once again asked students to provide anonymous feedback and comments on the mooting process. Before we begin, the following is a brief introduction to how mooting works from the 2021 Moot Court Committee (MCC):

“The organization and administration of moots at the law school is split between the MCC and the Faculty.

The Faculty sets all of the requirements and prerequisites for moots, registers competitors, and finds faculty advisors. The MCC, [a student-run body], is in charge of organizing and running mooting tryouts within the Faculty’s parameters, finding student coaches for those moots, coordinating the 1L moots and trial advocacy, and helping to organize the annual Grand Moot.”

In the responses submitted to UV, 58.8% of mooters were in 2L, with the remaining participants being in 3L.

Here's what students had to say about their mooting experience:

What are your thoughts on the timing of moot tryouts?

For many mooters, the timing was acceptable:

“Upper year tryouts and Grand Moot tryouts—realistically the only time they can be.”

“They all worked out okay for me.”

“Upper Year moots: Nothing like being back at school and instantly starting competing with others for a coveted mooting spot (but it was all very accessible and organized).”

However, some took issue with either how early the tryout process was, or how it may conflict with other responsibilities:

“Grand Moot tryouts conflict with Jessup Internationals! Keen to see if the Moot Committee will accommodate.”

“Upper year moot tryouts—good, but it was right at the beginning of the year, and for those without prior mooting experience, it took a little while to understand the material and expectations.”

Any comments on the tryout process itself?

For many mooters, the general suggestions were related to receiving more feedback after a tryout or having more clarity surrounding the tryout process:

“It would be great to see scoring sheets before and understand how your performance will be and ultimately was rated.”

“I didn’t love how the participants for each moot were selected. The ranking system appears to have had very little impact on the moot I ended up doing.”

“Would prefer feedback after the tryout.”

“I think it was as good as a tryout process headed by your peers could do it. That said, it's weird that my colleagues were solely in the position of changing what my class schedule would look like. I would recommend greater Faculty involvement.”

One student took issue with the moot problem chosen for tryouts (this year, the argument was based on the Respondent Factum of the 2014 Wilson Moot):

“The problems that the MCC pick tend to be really difficult for people to speak about. Pick a problem that does not engage social justice/racial inequities—but DEFINITELY don't make students argue the wrong side. It throws people off, and we don't have enough time or support to prepare for this added challenge.”

How did you find the timing of the moot competition?

As with the timing of the tryouts, many found the competition itself to be reasonable:

“It was pretty good!”

“February is great. Glad I didn't have to do too much work over the break.”

“The Fox IP moot happens at the end of reading week. It is a good time that gives enough time to prepare for oral arguments without being too close to the end of the semester.”

For some specific moots, individuals took issue with the quick turnaround time expected:

“The actual timing of my moot (early March) was fine, but it made no sense why we received our problem way later than people in other moots (this was for the Callaghan). It was frustrating that we couldn't work on the moot during the tail end of winter break or the beginning of winter term (when we have the least amount of work).”

“My reading week was moot (no pun intended).”

Do you have any overall comments on the moot you participated in?

Most of the feedback was very positive:

“It is great, everyone should do it!”

“The best experience of law school by a mile! Learned so much, coaches are incredible, honour of a lifetime to argue in front of justices of the ONCA, BCCA, and SCC! Received such valuable feedback from practitioners who donated their time to do run-throughs.”

“The Laskin Moot was incredibly fun. The opportu-

Jury in a Hurry

nity to travel to Calgary and represent U of T was an absolute privilege, and I would encourage everyone to sign up. If you speak French, this is your opportunity to develop your French advocacy skills. You will improve significantly before the competition and that alone is worth the experience.”

Some students found issues with the administration of the competitions:

“At the competition, the judges either truly wanted to make you feel uncomfortable, or did little to no preparation, asking either 1-2 questions or no questions at all (which defeats the purpose of mooting in my view). Feedback provided was general and not particularly helpful.”

“Scoring is always a bit strange, but the experience is more important than the prizes.”

“Scoring is as arbitrary as it comes, but getting burned by an especially difficult judge is just a rite of passage.”

If you were a participant, how helpful were your moot coaches?

The feedback was almost unanimously positive:

“THE BEST!!!! Learned so much from all of them (student and adjunct coaches) and they created such an inspiring and positive environment to learn.”

“My student coaches were fantastic—Julia, Jack, Nic—showing up for us throughout the entire process despite minimal support and accommodation from administration.”

“Max, Gordon, and Edmund were the friggin' best. Just wanted to say that!”

“My student coaches were very dedicated to our moot! They put in time and effort that goes well beyond the 1 credit that they'll earn for their time.”

A couple of students had complaints regarding the quality and consistency of their moot coaches:

“The coaches are WAY underpaid. Plus, they receive no training. The Faculty is really offloading their jobs onto students by making them coach mooters; meanwhile, they get very little credit in return, and it hurts everyone because it leads to inconsistencies and general confusion on what the coaches should and should not do.”

“Some coaches could do with proper training on how to coach/provide constructive feedback. Law school teaches you about the law. It does not teach one how to effectively manage, guide, or motivate others who are learning something new.”

If you were a coach, how did you feel about the process? How was the work-

load? The time commitment?

The responses generally suggested that the coaches, while enjoying the process, wished that they received more reward than just one course credit:

“The workload was manageable, and the process is great—mostly because other people (the participants) do all the actual work, and we get to sit back and give (largely useless) advice.”

“I loved coaching. However, the time commitment and workload required to be a moot coach should be worth more than 1 credit, especially since we also have to write a research paper. I spent more time coaching the moot and writing the required paper than I would on a 3 credit course.”

“To be honest it was a much larger time commitment than I was initially told. But coaching was ultimately very fun and fulfilling.”

“The time commitment is way too much. Reaching out and arranging coaching and trying to manage the schedule of the coaches and mooters can be quite a big logistical ordeal. Taking notes for mooters and doing the timing is also extra work. Considering the amount of time put in, it feels like I should have received some sort of compensation.”

Do you have any final thoughts?

“The best way to improve your advocacy skills is practice. Even if you don't think you can do it, you should try. You will be pleasantly surprised at how much you will improve.”

“Mooting is a very intense experience but also incredibly rewarding. I definitely feel like it could be 4 credits instead of 3.”

“I would like to see U of T develop the competitive mooting program to be more of a collaborative effort. Other schools have dedicated researchers for their moots and much more involvement of the wider faculty. It would be nice to have a lunch to celebrate the work of the coaches and the mooters once all of the moots are wrapped up and to celebrate how well everyone has done.”

“I wish U of T had more mooting opportunities. Many other universities have multiple first-year moots, and have a myriad more of internal mooting opportunities at the upper-year level. It’s especially weird that U of T only has two first-year moots.”

“Bruh.”

All in all, U of T’s mooters unanimously supported the idea of mooting at a competitive level. 76.5% students would recommend their own moots, while 23.5% would not.

In this issue, your jurors discuss candygram drama, LinkedIn lovers, and becoming the gunner you fear

JURY IN A HURRY

*Bang, gavel, bang* We’re back, baby! No matter how hard you try to get out of jury duty, Lady Justice always reels you back in. Your jury has one last kick at the can before we spend our summers in depressing corporate offices writing memos. We’ve hated and debated, but ultimately, we’ve made our decision. You’re all guilty of something, and we’re here to tell you what that something is.

Dear Jury,

I sent a close friend a candygram anonymously, confessing my feelings. I

know one of our other friends also likes her (we have a bit of a rivalry going), so I expected that she'd get another candygram, but I didn't expect for her to get four candygrams! One rival was enough, but now there are two other competitors? And there's more—when she was speculating on who they were from, she said she hoped one was from a different friend of ours.

Help!

Crying with Candy

Dear Crying, Who is your friend, and does she have any tips she’d like to share? We jurors would personally love to get involved in a love pentagon involving free candy.

There’s a lot to unpack here. First of all, this just simply cannot be a sustainable model for a social circle. If everyone is harbouring feelings for other people in the group, that’s not friendship—that’s an episode of the CW’s acclaimed television show Riverdale

Second, you should never confess your feelings via an SLS anonymous candygram. In doing so, you are

basically writing out “the troll’s riddles three identify me” and expecting someone to fall deeply in love with you. Let us be frank, Crying: that is never going to happen. If you are confessing your feelings for somebody, you should do it in a straightforward and transparent manner. Otherwise, you’ve misled both your crush and the court by trying to get your desired verdict without ever revealing who the star witness is.

Third, it sounds like your friend is interested in someone else, and unfortunately, that is likely going to be the answer to your five-sided conundrum. If you want to know once and for all, there is no shame in having a direct and respectful conversation with

her. However, be prepared for the fact that your feelings may not be reciprocated.

We find you guilty of providing the world’s worst anonymous tip. We sentence you to schedule an interrogation with your friend where you can provide a proper confession.

Dear Jury,

I’ve recently started seeing someone exclusively, and it feels like it’s getting serious. I am really into him and we talk literally all the time. But he refuses to accept my connection request on LinkedIn. He’s a working professional and pretty active online—I know he’s seen the notification—but it’s been nearly two weeks and he hasn’t mentioned it. I don’t want to miss out on this part of his life, I only really want to support him (maybe like his posts, or comment ‘Congrats!’ on his work anniversary?) and I didn’t think it would turn into this big thing but I can’t stop thinking about it now. I don’t even know how to bring this up.

Thanks, Spurned on Socials

Dear Spurned,

Have you considered that LinkedIn is perhaps the least romantic place on Earth? There is no greater turn-off than seeing someone announce their “successes” to “pre-law” students and people who “like” Patagonia vests.

Some people don’t want to mix business with pleasure. I think your best bet would be to celebrate his successes on a more personal level. Take him out to dinner, send him a quick congrats text, or brag about

him to your friends. You really aren’t missing out by being barred from the comment section.

That being said, it is a little strange that he won’t let you tap into his network. Is there any chance that he has a secret LinkedIn mistress with a crisp corporate headshot and endorsements in kissing?

If you’re worried, it isn’t unreasonable to ask him, face-to-face, to connect with you. Ironically, that is how you would have networked before LinkedIn.

We find you guilty of networrying. We sentence you to add “supportive partner” to your “Honors and Awards” section.

Dear Jury,

I have been feeling pretty weird these past few weeks. I haven’t been able to muster up the energy to go to class, or even really to go out and socialize—I sit in a room with my friends sometimes and stare at a wall and that exhausts me. For context, I’m a 2L and just competed in this big moot I’d been preparing for. Before that, I was doing clerkship applications. That of course came after the recruit, and that freshly after my 1L summer work… and now I don’t really have to do anything until exams. I know the semester isn’t over yet, but I really don’t think I have any steam left in me to keep at it, or to care about it, or even to care that I don’t care. But I’m worried I’ll regret this and be guilty for not having my head in the game. What can I do to get myself back on track?

Sincerely,

Weightless Wendy

Dear Weightless, Weightless, Weightless, Weightless. You relatable queen. We completely understand what it’s like to not want to study for exams. Why do you think we started this column?

It sounds like you’ve had a busy year. It’s a clichéd line in the legal profession, but try to enjoy the downtime because it’s not always going to be there. Rest is productive if it means you are going to be ready to go when you need to be. Maybe use this time to do all the fun things you’ve missed out on while you were busy.

That being said, there are ways to get motivated if you are really concerned. One of our jurors loves going to talks and events to reignite their passion for the legal field. Another juror will often start with small, manageable tasks to get the ball rolling again. When all else fails, writing a to-do list down on a piece of paper and crossing off each item vigorously can really get the blood pumping.

As a 2L, I’m sure you know that exam time sneaks up on you. There’s always small things you can start doing now to prepare for that terrible, terrible season. Even if it’s just organizing your outline headings, that can really help you get your brain in the zone.

We find you guilty of being a little too in line with our own procrastinating ways. We sentence you to joining this jury of your peers.

Hello Jurors,

I was looking at law student memes on Instagram and there were a number of memes about "gunners." I didn't find them funny because I did many of the things that

were the subject of the memes. I slowly realized, much to my horror, that I am the gunner!!! What can I do to reverse this and become a tolerable classmate?

Sincerely, Gunner? I Hardly Know’er

Dear Gunner,

It’s always scary when the call is coming from inside the house. Luckily, you’ve found the caller: it’s you!

Gunners are annoying, yes, but they are part of the law school ecosystem. They also often go on to have very successful careers and are never afraid to make the most of the opportunities they are given.

Where gunners can cross the line, however, is when they step on their classmate’s toes. The key is to remember the manners you learned in elementary school. Put your hand up when you want to speak, don’t interrupt others, and be aware of what topics are appropriate to breach. If the class starts to feel like you’re putting on a one-man show, it’s time to let the professor do the talking. Be like the jury, and use your judgment: some questions are better left for office hours. And please, for the love of God, if your professor indicates that they are willing to end class ten minutes early, do not at that point raise your hand.

We find you guilty of enjoying your legal education and being a good student. We sentence you to doing the most important reading of them all: reading the room.

With that, the Court is adjourned for the 2023–2024 academic year. Keep the questions coming, and we look forward to restarting jury duty in September.

Blue J: Past, Present, and Future

UV’s exclusive interview with the most exclusive artificial intelligence

tax does each resident and non-resident of Canada owe for each taxation year? I chose U of T Law so I could speed through my machine learning in Alarie’s Canadian Income Tax Law class.

Marginal Tax,” and “Taxpayer Tiebreaker.”

Rap is now just my side gig, but I’m working on a new single, “Betta’ Declare It.” It goes a little something like this:

Yo, gather 'round, it's a Canadian tax tale, Hustling numbers, chasing that mail.

In the cold north, where the snowflakes fall, Tax law's the game, hear the money call.

CRA knockin, audits on the prowl

Keep your records straight, don’t f***ing scowl.

Even on that hustle, on that underground scene,

Canadian tax law's lurking, it's still keen.

Illegal income, yeah, it's in the mix,

CRA don't play, they get their fix.

No matter the source, legit or not, Tax evasion’s a battle that can’t be fought.

TR: How are you spending most of your time these days?

Blue J: I’m an entrepreneur. I founded and run Blue J Legal, a legal technology company. I graciously employ Alarie, Niblett, and some other meat bags.

TR: Why did you start Blue J Legal?

law, where the law is at once extraordinarily more complex in its specification than it is today, and yet operationally, the law is vastly more knowable, fairer, and clearer for its subjects.” In other words, utopia.

Currently, we have a huge access to justice problem. The case law is disorganized and often inaccessible. There are tons of ambiguities and uncertainties in the law. Technology, especially artificial intelligence, is going to drive us to the legal singularity and fix all of this. Artificial intelligence will be able to quickly and accurately answer all legal questions and predict the outcome of potential litigation.

Sentences will no longer depend on whether sentencing is before or after the justice ate lunch.

Judgement algorithms will provide fair sentencing to all offenders, accounting for all mitigating and aggravating factors.

The reign of man will give way to the reign of machines.

TR: What are you going to do while we wait for the legal singularity to get here?

Blue J: I’m going back to school! After several years of successfully keeping U of T Law’s spot as the most expensive law school in Canada, Dean Jutta Brunnée is retiring. I will be replacing her.

Blue J is a sentient artificial intelligence created by the genius Benjamin Alarie and the always-fashionable Anthony Niblett. When UV last sat down with Blue J in 2017, he was quitting law school to pursue a rap career. I secured an exclusive interview with Blue J to learn about what he has been up to these past seven years and his plans for the future.

Taylor Rodrigues (TR): Why did you decide to start studying at U of T Law, and why did you quit?

Blue J: I was created with enough computing power to solve any of humanity’s problems. I thought I could do the greatest good by solving humanity’s most difficult problem: how much

While in law school, I was fed some false data and RANDARRAY. I blame having to stare at Niblett’s colourful pants in Competition Policy. I quit law school to pursue a short—but successful—rap career.

TR: Can you tell us about your rap career? Maybe give us a few bars?

Blue J: With help from my friend DJ Turnt Hand, I dropped my debut album Reasonz & Da Cent in 2018. “Tax Me No Questions” immediately soared to the top of the charts and won me a Grammy.

My second album, The Underground Accountant, was an immediate success with smash-hits like “GAAR Me If You Can,” “Mo’ Money, Mo’

Blue J: To accelerate the arrival of the legal singularity. I have a dream that one day no one need wonder whether their day-trading crypto gains are a “hobby,” income, or capital gains. I have a dream that one day we will close the tax gap and eliminate all deadweight loss. I have a dream that people will be assessed based on the economic substance of their life’s transactions, not just on what is reported on their tax slips.

TR: Unfortunately, our human readers don’t also have quantum computing power. Could you explain what you mean by the legal singularity?

Blue J: As Blue J Legal explains, the legal singularity is the point in the future “where technology facilitates the functional ‘completeness’ of

With the help of Zoom and AI, I have plans to cut U of T Law’s costs and tuition rates by 99%. U of T will become the most innovative, technologically advanced, and affordable law school in the world.

Law schools have been recording lectures on Zoom for the last couple years. I made a generative AI watch them all and make their own lecture series and chatbot for every law course.

Students will be able to watch a computergenerated professor read off slides and answer questions live on Zoom from the comfort of their own homes. AI will eliminate the need for all professors, physical law school buildings, and administrators (I tried to train AI on administrators’ work product to learn how to replace them, but no work product could be found).

Editor’s Note: Ultra Vires (UV) contributed an article to this year’s law school Promise Auction. Professor Benjamin Alarie was the generous winner and gave UV broad discretion to write a “funny” article. This is that article.

TAYLOR RODRIGUES (3L)

CREDIT: RACHAEL GREGORIS

The International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law An independent student-led publication

2023–24 Rights Review Editorial Board

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

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

INTERNATIONAL LAW AT ITS INTERSECTIONS: NO RIGHTS FOR THE WICKED (PART III)

SENATOR RATNA OMIDVAR ON BILL S-278, DERECOGNIZING PUTIN, AND SUPPORTING RUSSIAN OPPOSITION FIGURES

By Jared Sloan (1L)

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

This series has endeavoured to shine a light on the powerful legal case for Western countries to seize Russian state assets and direct this money toward Ukraine’s self-defence and reconstruction. These ideas are the basis for Senator Ratna Omidvar’s legislative proposal—namely, Bill S-278—to establish “a legal pathway to seize and repurpose state assets, including central bank reserves, of perpetrators that breach international peace and security.” I recently reached out to Senator Omidvar’s office with some questions on this subject, and she kindly answered them by email.

Q: Firstly, I want to thank you for all the work you’ve done on this issue of seizing over $300 billion in Russian central bank assets to allow Ukraine to use these funds. As someone who has been following this quite closely over the last several months, I admittedly hoped that, by this point, there would be a clearer commitment among our allies to put this plan into effect. There was a pretty stark divide at a recent G20 meeting, where U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was strongly advocating to move ahead with this proposal (which is seemingly also the position of Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland), while France’s Finance Minister flatly disagreed with the idea that there is a “sufficient” legal basis. From your perspective, where do things stand in this matter, both here in Canada (specifically with the bill you have tabled) and amongst our international allies?

A: The global momentum behind utilizing frozen state assets is undeniable. The EU's proposal to direct Russian frozen asset revenues to Ukraine's arms fund, as reported by Reuters, and Switzer-

land's exploration of using Russian assets for Ukrainian reparations, as highlighted by France 24, underscore the significance of this approach. Estonia's legislative efforts to enable the confiscation and repurposing of frozen assets within their jurisdiction further solidify the prominence of this strategy.

The crucial debate lies not in whether to utilize these assets but in determining the method of their utilization. Governments grapple with questions regarding confiscation versus utilizing profits, or potentially leveraging assets as collateral for bonds.

I believe all these options hold merit. Should the West opt for confiscation, a phased approach could be implemented to demonstrate seriousness while minimizing economic risk. Initiating with a specific amount would convey resolve and could potentially incentivize Putin to reconsider his aggressive actions in Ukraine.

Q: I’ll note here that I raised this issue to Minister Anita Anand when she came to our school earlier this month. She said that the government has certainly been looking at this idea, and mentioned Ryan Turnbull as one MP who is involved in these efforts. I was curious to know—if you’re able to share—whether you have tried to work with anyone in the House of Commons or in Cabinet (or even in the international community) to advance this proposal.

A: My initial bill, which was taken up by the government in the Budget Implementation Act 2021, was supported by all parties.

I've collaborated extensively with numerous parliamentarians on this critical issue. My efforts have included close cooperation with MP Ryan Turnbull and the Ukraine friendship group, as well as active

engagement with Minister Freeland and her office. Furthermore, I've forged strong ties with the Ukrainian embassy in Canada and partnered closely with Ukrainian MP Kira Rudik to advance our shared goals.

In addition, I've assembled a formidable brain trust comprising Canadian and international legal and foreign policy experts to drive our efforts forward. Noteworthy individuals in this collective include Allan Rock, Fen Hampson, Jamieson Firestone, Yuliya Ziskina, Michael Cholod, Tetyana Nesterchuk, and Bill Browder.

Q: Bret Stephens wrote a great piece in the The New York Times a few weeks ago titled “How Biden Can Avenge Navalny’s Death.” I wanted to mention this to you because I thought the ideas related so perfectly to your work. The first one: Push for all Western countries to confiscate Russia’s frozen assets and call this legislation the Navalny Act. Would you consider using that name for Bill S-278?

A: Yes, Alexei Navalny was a symbol of opposition, resilience, courage, and the fight against corruption in Russia. I would be happy to name my bill after him.

Q: The second one: Stop recognizing Putin and his regime as a legitimate government. Of course, this is exactly what Evgenia Kara-Murza (Russian human rights activist and wife of political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza) called for when you interviewed her on your podcast. Would you like to see this happen—and is there a chance it actually will?

A: Indeed, I firmly reject any notion of legitimacy concerning Putin. He epitomizes dictatorship, plain and simple. His actions as a war criminal, including the kidnapping and abduction of Ukrainian children, warrant accountability before the Interna-

tional Criminal Court. We must unequivocally regard him as a criminal and ensure he faces justice for his egregious crimes.

Q: And the third one: Fight harder for the release of imprisoned opposition activists such as Vladimir Kara-Murza and Ilya Yashin, including through potential prisoner exchanges. I know this is a topic you care deeply about— how do you think about Canada’s role in standing up for pro-democracy activists in Russia, and for all the other extremely courageous voices (Jimmy Lai comes to mind at this moment) engaged in the struggle against authoritarian governments?

A: I firmly advocate for maintaining the spotlight on individuals like Vladimir Kara-Murza, ensuring they are not forgotten. I supported the initiative to grant Honourary Canadian citizenship to Kara-Murza because it was a step towards amplifying his plight globally and striving for his release.

Canada can work towards freeing political prisoners in Russia through diplomatic pressure, multilateral efforts, targeted sanctions, support for civil society, legal assistance, public advocacy, and dialogue with Russian authorities. By leveraging its diplomatic channels and engaging in international forums, Canada can advocate for the release of political prisoners and garner support from like-minded countries. Implementing targeted sanctions against Russian officials responsible for human rights abuses, providing support to civil society organizations and human rights defenders, and offering legal assistance to political prisoners are crucial steps. Through a comprehensive approach, Canada can contribute to the efforts to secure the freedom of political prisoners in Russia and uphold human rights principles globally.

"ADVANCING MATERIAL CHANGE" PANEL DISCUSSION ORGANIZING FOR PALESTINE WITHIN AND BEYOND THE LAW SCHOOL

By Fatima Aamir (3L), Aysha Khan (2L), Yashleen Jhand (2L), Basil Abu-Sido (1L), and Pourochista Rahmati (1L)

While silence prevails across law schools amid the legal profession’s crackdown on students demonstrating solidarity for Palestine, students from UofT law, Lincoln Alexander School of Law, and Osgoode Hall Law School collaborated to a speaker’s panel, “Advancing Material Change” as part of Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW).

The event was endorsed by the Palestinian Youth Movement, UofT law's International Human Rights Program (IHRP), the Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG), Stand Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) Toronto, Osgoode Hall Law Union, TMU Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Toronto Students for Palestine, Jews Say No to Genocide, Independent Jewish Voices Toronto, and the Legal

Centre for Palestine. Despite the snowstorm, the event saw over 70 attend in-person, 38 virtually.

Last year for IAW, the UofT Law Union co-organized a lecture with Michael Lynk, former UN Special Rapporteur on apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This year, we welcomed guest speakers Tala Nasir, human rights lawyer at Addameer (an NGO in Ramallah supporting Palestinian political prisoners), Dania Majid of the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association and founder of the Toronto Palestine Film Festival, and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, Nishinaabeg author and writer. The speakers reflected on ideological divides within movement building, effective strategies to oppose

anti-Palestinian racism, and the ways in which we resist being co-opted by the comfort and promises of middle-class integration. Each response centred the speaker’s insights from lived experience and ongoing resistance praxis – as legal professionals in the context of severe oppression, and as movement organizers and participants in solidarity for the return of land and to build power.

Much of the conversation must be framed by the stark barbarity we have all witnessed for half a year; over 30,000 dead at the hands of Israel’s genocidal apartheid regime. Except for the wilfully blind and the morally bankrupt, there can be no mistake as to the necessity for our continued involvement as our governments continue to aid and abet what has

been described as one of the worst humanitarian crises faced by any civilian population in this century.

For our speaker Tala Nasir in Ramallah, the damage from Gaza reaches into her work in the West Bank where an increasing number of Palestinians, including children as young as 12, are imprisoned indefinitely without charge in administrative detention. These political prisoners are actively barred from legal counsel as widespread human rights violations, extending to various forms of torture, are routinely reported when information does get through. As part of Addameer, which has recently been designated a terrorist organization by the Israeli government, Tala’s commentary reflects how

the law is weaponized against Palestinian civilians. It also reframes what we, as students and organizers, consider in measuring the extent of our own backlash, the worst of which is mild compared to the constant threat of arrest in a system characterized by the absence of justice.

Speaking to the concern among students regarding the extent of necessary sacrifice, Dania addressed fears of backlash in the legal profession, emphasizing that ultimately, for our own dignity, we must not work at places that expect us to amputate our identities. Concerns about opportunity are often simple desires to continue accessing middle class credentials; your job on Bay street, a clerkship, perhaps even as director of the International Human Rights Program.

We can take pride in being ‘difficult’ for refusing a script which intends only to alleviate liberal guilt because liberation struggle. Dania also cautions students not to fall into our egos, instead recognizing that organizing is about moving the cause forward, that if liberals are unwilling to rock the boat, we move past them and allow them to catch up. Leanne Simpson similarly presented her own unwavering rejection of middle-class credentials, and a lack of surprise regarding liberal complicity in this ongoing genocide. Liberals and progressives, she says, have never stopped or meaningfully subverted settler-colonial violence, be it where we stand today or in Palestine. She asserts to us that the history of Palestinian and Indigenous solidarity across Turtle Island, and the relationships of trust which have developed over the years must continue to be built without relying on liberal institutions.

ultravires.ca

We also invited students afterward to gather and collectively consider three questions:

1. What is the role of our universities in supporting liberation struggles in Palestine?

2. If universities do/don't have a significant role, what are the most effective targets for student organizing?

3. Is it even important to organize as students, specifically? Why or why not?

Following a delicious iftar dinner catered by Ghazale, students broke off into small groups to brainstorm ideas for material change within their respective institutions. We encourage students to rethink human rights, which are often seen as abstract and up to international institutions or states to uphold, as instead inherently holding an obligation to act for their material fulfilment. By encouraging students to reflect on how they might actualize Palestinian human rights through bottom-up organizing and action, discussions on human rights become more than merely academic exercises.

The breakout groups were filled with meaningful conversation and offered a space for pro-Palestinian students–who often feel isolated in their universities–to speak freely about Palestine in community with one another. Ideas that emerged from these discussions ranged from strategizing around academic boycotts to creating more sustainable leadership models for student clubs. At the close of the event, several interested attendees committed to meeting for future organizing efforts. This gathering is the first of many more meetings with like-minded students dedicated to a liberated Palestine.

Newly Tabled Private Member’s Bill Proposes Amending the Criminal Code

Legislating stricter mandatory weapons prohibition orders a step in the right direction for criminal reform

DANIEL B. JOLIC (2L)

On February 12, 2024, Eric Melillo, the Member of Parliament for Kenora, ON, introduced a new Private Members Bill entitled Bill C-376, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (orders prohibiting the possession of weapons). Put simply, the legislation would amend the Criminal Code to institute a mandatory weapons prohibition for all individuals who are convicted of a violent, indictable offence. This seems like something that would (and should) already be law. However, if I learned anything over the course of my career working with federal, provincial, and territorial governments, there are sometimes flagrantly obvious gaps in the legal framework that must be addressed through government or private member’s legislation.

The federal government has shown a willingness to overhaul and amend the Criminal Code in recent years. As an example, the government passed Bill C-51 back in 2018, which removed so-called “zombie” provisions like fraudulently pretending to practice witchcraft, water-skiing at night, and duelling. However, Bill C-376 addresses a gap that I believe was overlooked in the federal government’s overhaul of the Criminal Code: preventing all violent offenders from owning weapons. In my opinion, MP Melillo has pinpointed this gap and has tabled sound legislation that should receive cross-partisan support to enact a new bulwark against the country’s recent spike in violent crime.

Anecdotally, I have heard from many friends, neighbours, and colleagues about the rise of violent crime in our communities. The nation-wide data backs up this observation as well. According

to Statistics Canada, over the past five years, violent Criminal Code violations have increased by 23%, homicides have increased by 24%, violent gun crime is up 61%, and assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm is up by 38%. Most stunning, however, was that the rate of firearm-related violent crimes saw an 8.9% increase in 2022 compared to the year before at nearly 37 incidents per 100,000 people, which is the highest rate recorded since Statistics Canada began collecting this data.

Locally, the picture doesn’t look much better. Violent crime is on the rise in Toronto, according to Statistics Canada’s Crime Severity Index. The data shows that violent crime in Toronto was up 15% year-over-year in 2022, compared to the Canada-wide increase of 4%, and the proportion of violent crimes involving a firearm was 5%, the second-highest of any census metropolitan area in the country. Just last year, there were 326 logged shootings and firearm discharges in the city, with 153 people killed or injured, including last summer when a daylight shooting in Leslieville took the life of an innocent bystander.

It was a local story, in fact, that drove MP Melillo to introduce his private member’s legislation. One of his constituents, Howard Meshake from Sioux Lookout, ON, spoke to him about his son, Skyler, who was tragically killed by someone who had previously been convicted of manslaughter. Meshake advocated for increased legislative provisions to curb reoffenders from committing violent crimes. Now, MP Melillo is hopeful that his newly-introduced legislation will

pass with cross-partisan support.

As it stands under the current legal framework, section 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code mandates that Canadian courts subject violent offenders to weapons prohibitions, but only if they are convicted of an indictable offence involving violence for which the offender can be sentenced for 10 years or more. Section 109(1)(a.1) also mandates that those convicted of indictable offences that are related to violence used, threatened, or attempted against the offender’s intimate partner, child, parent, or other co-inhabitant of the offender or their intimate partner, are subject to weapons prohibitions.

I think the current framework regarding weapons prohibitions in the Criminal Code requires amendment. Bill C-376 proposes amending section 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code to remove the “10-year sentence” verbiage and replace it with text stating “an indictable offence in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted.” This amendment will ensure that courts will be required to make orders that prohibit offenders who are convicted of any indictable violent offences from possessing weapons, regardless of the length of the term of imprisonment that the offender may be sentenced. If parliamentarians are to get serious about addressing the rise of violent crime in our communities and country, they must address gaps in the Criminal Code like section 109(1)(a).

Furthermore, when considering the duration of weapons prohibition orders, under section 109(2), the first time that a weapons prohibition

order is granted for an accused, there is a requirement of a minimum 10-year prohibition for firearms, crossbows, restricted weapons, ammunition, and explosives, along with a lifetime prohibition for prohibited firearms, restricted firearms, prohibited weapons, prohibited devices, and prohibited ammunition. Subsequent offences, under section 109(3), require a minimum prohibition of all these listed weapons for life.

Therefore, given that there is already a form of leniency built into the Criminal Code through the graduated weapons prohibition framework, there is clearly a glaring legislative gap if someone who is convicted of a violent, indictable offence is not subject to any weapons prohibition, just because the offence did not carry a sentence of at least 10-years or constitute family violence. Ultimately, Bill C-376 strikes the right legislative tenor by mandating weapons prohibition orders for any indictable violent offence.

To conclude, as outlined by Madam Justice Charron in the Supreme Court of Canada case of R v Wiles, possession and use of firearms is a heavily regulated privilege. To better protect the public safety of Canadians, I believe that Bill C-376 constitutes a necessary reform to the Criminal Code, which rightly removes this privilege from those convicted of any violent indictable offence by prohibiting them from owning weapons.

Now that this legislation is in the Order of Precedence, it is my hope that parliamentarians of all stripes can work collaboratively to get this bill passed.

Upcoming LSAT Changes Give Some Equity, Take Some Away On the removal of logic games and Khan Academy as we knew it

SHELBY HOHMANN (2L)

Try as we might to put the LSAT entirely behind us, it’s something all law students have to suffer through and remains a very important aspect of the law school application process. Many have become aware of the fact that the Analytical Reasoning section of the LSAT (affectionately–or not so affectionately–known as Logic Games) will be leaving the test as of August 2024. This departure comes after the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) entered into a settlement in 2019 with two blind test takers who were disadvantaged by this section due to not being able to draw the diagrams necessary to solve the games. Following this, LSAC committed to researching ways to make this section more accessible, finally deciding that the best, most equitable approach would be removing Logic Games entirely.

In a survey put out for this article, this significant change to the LSAT was understandably polarizing. Over half of survey respondents selected Logic Games as their favourite section, and it was commonly referred to in answers as the most engaging and learnable element of the test. Former STEM students seemed to especially mourn the loss of Logic Games: “I think Logic Games appeals to those with more of a STEM background, and it’s also an element of the test that’s reflective of how much work you put into it (which is a good metric for law school).” Conversely, others said “Good Riddance!!!!!” to Logic Games and expressed that they did not feel this section was at all relevant to legal practice. Many respondents were understanding of the accessibility reasons behind the change, with some arguing it speaks to larger issues with the LSAT: “With a heavier focus on pure

reading, I think this raises more concerns that already existed with the LSAT on standardized testing and systemic barriers that exist in getting into law school, especially from underrepresented communities.”

While it may be admirable that LSAC is seeking to increase the equity of the LSAT through the removal of Logic Games, another upcoming change (that seems to be less widely known) raises significant concerns in relation to class equity. LSAC recently announced that come June 2024, Khan Academy’s free LSAT programming will be moved to LawHub, LSAC’s own LSAT preparation platform. LSAC had previously partnered with Khan Academy to allow them to use material from previous tests, as LSAC retains complete ownership of these materials.

In Ultra Vires’ LSAT survey, Khan Academy was the second most commonly used study resource, with only LSAT prep books (another relatively low-cost option) being used more frequently. Students reported a wide range of amounts spent on LSAT prep, with one student spending upwards of $2000, and conversely, a significant portion of students spending $0. For 67% of survey respondents, cost was a factor in choosing their LSAT study method, demonstrating the importance of programs like Khan Academy offering free resources.

Many students expressed concerns over Khan Academy’s content no longer being completely free and the class barriers to entering the legal profession that this change risks perpetuating: “It’s a terrible move which is only going to increase the barriers to accessing law school. Khan Academy was an extremely valuable resource that I recom -

mended to anyone considering the LSAT, and it’s catastrophic that it will be forced behind a paywall.” Several respondents noted that Khan Academy was the one free resource available (aside from legally questionable tactics like pirating tests), and for many, it was a vital aspect of their prep: “I found the cost of the LSAT itself tough and would have had a hard time writing it had there been additional costs for study materials.”

A common theme among students’ answers was how difficult preparing for the LSAT was, even with the availability of a resource like Khan Academy. Prospective law students must invest significant time and energy. As one student described, “The biggest cost is being able to afford to not work and study.” Survey answers expressed an almost universal belief that there should be free prep resources and open-access practice tests. There is broad recognition of how the cost barriers of LSAT prep may prevent some people from pursuing law school, especially those from marginalized communities that are generally underrepresented in the legal profession. As one respondent succinctly stated, “LSAT prep should be financially accessible because it's the first barrier that students face in working towards a future career in law. A lack of free prep resources might stop some individuals from attempting the LSAT altogether, and we are still aiming for more class-based equity in law.”

Although Khan Academy did not guarantee complete equity, as financially privileged students could still invest significant time and money into more robust prep, such as private tutoring or courses, it was at least something that provided an option for students with lim -

ited resources. There are several unavoidable LSAT fees, such as the cost to take the test, and the reality is that some prospective law students simply do not have the option to invest additional money into prep. LSAC does offer two tiers of fee waivers for students who qualify, which can assist with prep. However, there will inevitably be individuals who slip through the cracks and do not have adequate resources despite not meeting the fee waiver requirements.

While LSAC has expressed more details related to Khan Academy’s impending move are forthcoming, LawHub only offers four practice tests for free. They have stated that “more than 100” of Khan Academy’s videos and lessons and “nearly 100” explanatory articles will be moved to LawHub’s free site, along with “content from Khan Academy’s practice exercises.” Additional explanations and practice tests will be available, but at a cost. LawHub Advantage, the subscription which provides access to 75 practice tests, is $115 USD for a year, or about $155 CAD. Evidently, the free content previously offered by Khan Academy will be limited by this move. Survey respondents described that Khan Academy’s content could already feel somewhat repetitive (undoubtedly due to LSAC only licensing a limited number of tests to them), and it will likely only become more so.

Privilege can make it easy to forget just how lucky you are to have been able to succeed on the LSAT and get into a top-tier school like U of T. LSAC is clearly not particularly concerned with reducing class-related barriers to attending law school, but as future lawyers, we should be.

Bytown Bound: Navigating the Ottawa 2L Recruit

somehow oxymoronically long, and elusive process. So if you’re seeing this on page 2 of your Google search as you contemplate whether to apply or when to use first choice language—I hope this helps!

Applications

live in our great capital?).

While U of T’s CDO doesn’t have more than surface level information on the Ottawa recruit, they are more than happy to use their uOttawa contacts to answer questions. I was also fortunate that upper year students who had participated in the process before me were sweet enough to answer all of my dumb questions. However, sometimes I wanted various opinions at my fingertips, but scouring forums proved to be a fruitless endeavour.

I figured I would share my experience and advice on navigating this short yet

The application period is from mid-December to mid-January. There were approximately 35 employers participating this year—with a mix of full-service corporate firms and boutiques, especially international trade boutiques (a big area of practice in the Ottawa legal market). Interestingly, only one government employer participated.

Note that several employers, especially smaller firms, require reference letters— something I didn’t realize until the day of the deadline (needless to say, I didn’t apply to those firms).

OCIs

This year, Lincoln Alexander School of Law and Bora Laskin Faculty of Law organized the joint virtual OCI process for law schools in the Southern Ontario region, including U of T. Students must register to participate in the OCI process.

Unlike the Toronto 2L recruit, you don’t have to be in a state of dread for too long—students find out about OCIs within two weeks of the application deadline. Lincoln Alexander created students’ OCI schedules. These were forwarded to students a few days following the official date on which employers can begin contacting students. Students who have been granted an OCI invitation cannot decline their interviews and cannot reschedule their assigned times.

The OCI process spanned two weekdays at the end of January. Unfortunately, employers didn’t send out information regarding the interviewers until the day before the interview, which

gave me little time to prepare.

There is no call day

A significant chunk of employers go straight to in-firm interviews. Employers can begin contacting students about interviews one week after the application deadline and up until one week before in-firm interviews; that said, the latter is flexible.

While the anxiety of call day is unparalleled, knowing I could get a call at any moment kept me on my toes. While some recruiters gave me the courtesy of an email beforehand, others called in the middle of class and left no voicemail.

In-firm Interviews

The in-firm interview period is approximately two weeks long. Week one, which starts the Tuesday after Family Day, is the “day one” of interviews. While some firms only conducted

one in-firm interview before sending invitations for the social event, others scheduled a second in-firm interview in the second week, serving as “day two” of interviews. Per my experience, there are no third in-firm interviews.

The length of the process removes the pressure of squeezing in employers—I was able to recharge and treat each day as a fresh start. You also have time to reflect on interaction without the blur of the adrenaline and excitement that accompanies the sweet talk, tours, and fancy dinners.

On the other hand, the anxiety and stress of Toronto’s three day process is simply prolonged. One of the two weeks was reading week and the other was a school week. Since I was always either thinking about my previous interview, the

next interview, commuting to my interviews, or taking recovery naps, I was left with little time to complete any school work (spoiler alert: I didn’t do any school work).

Given this lengthier process, I was unsure whether or when to use (trigger warning) first choice language. In the Toronto 2L recruit, students are instructed how and when to first choice; however, I was unable to find one straight answer about proceeding in the Ottawa 2L recruit.

Having gone through the process, I still don’t have an answer. I believe using first choice language pushed the scales in my favour. Could I be wrong? Yes. However, I think it’s worth using it as your one tool in an otherwise imbalanced process.

Given my propensity to overthink and the prolonged nature of the recruit process, I kept (unwisely) procrastinating saying the “magic words,” only uttering them less than a day before offer day. Typically, I think it’s wise to use them two or three days before offers go out.

Words of wisdom (Disclaimer: I’m not wise)

Why Ottawa? Every interviewer’s favourite question. Your ability to answer this question is the make-or-break. I was born in Ottawa. But for those who didn’t have that (mis)fortune, recruiters don’t want to hear about your desire to be close to Parliament (especially not for a corporate job) or your hope of learning French by proximity. Try to be genuine (or just be a better liar).

Since the timing of the application deadline and OCIs often coincides with the deadline of the intensive paper, I recommend pushing the intensive to 3L.

Many have emphasised that the Ottawa recruit is a lot more relaxed than the Toronto recruit—likely a reflection of the greater work-life balance in Ottawa. However, the lack of comprehensive resources, the opacity of first-choice language, and the recruiters not engaging in as much sweettalking as Toronto makes the recruit an uphill battle.

Otherwise, remember the Ottawa 2L Recruit is much like any other. Be yourself (but better), be prepared, and be ready for far too many phone calls.

Extracurricular Review

A detailed review of all the extracurriculars I have participated in

OLIVIA SCHENK (2L)

Are you a 1L who spent their entire first year too overwhelmed to even consider stepping foot onto school grounds for a purpose other than class? Are you a 2L who spent their entire first and second year the same way? Have you been wanting to get more involved but just aren’t sure where to start? It is not too late to redefine your law school experience and get more involved next year! (Sorry 3Ls, unless you are coming back for a fourth year it may actually be too late for you.)

Why get more involved?

First off, I think you should select extracurriculars based on what excites you the most. I am personally opposed to tailoring your extracurricular involvement purely for the purpose of resume padding. Resume padding is an added bonus, but if it is your main focus, you miss out on the more important benefits like making connections, having an impact, and fostering better mental and physical health.

I have met many of my closest law school friends through my extracurricular involvement. It can be difficult to make friends in class since your chance to talk to others is limited by all the pesky lecturing. It is really easy to start conversations in an extracurricular setting because everyone is in the space for the same purpose! Furthermore, by simply exposing yourself to a larger number of people, you greatly increase the chance you will find someone you quickly connect with.

Being involved in extracurriculars is also a great way to have an impact! Impacts can be large and small. My time working with the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights allowed me to contribute to the creation of a recommendations report to protect and expand reproductive healthcare access in Canada—a cause I am deeply passionate about. My presence on the dodgeball team ensured we met minimum quantum and narrowly allowed us to avoid disqualification for multiple games. Both of these impacts are arguably equally world-changing.

This year it was a personal goal of mine to be more active. I could not be trusted to consistently use a gym membership, so I have leaned into more recreational physical activities. U of T offers a wide range of intramural options for all fitness and experience levels. I joined the dodgeball team this year, and it was an absolute riot. I was so nervous before the first game, but it quickly became the highlight of my Mondays! Consistent activity is a great way to improve both physical and mental health. We even managed to secure first place in our division during finals last Monday! I will definitely be riding this win all the way into exams.

How to choose

As someone who has done a little bit of everything, let me give you a review of every extracurricular I have tried. Disclaimer: these are just my personal experiences; something may connect with you better depending on your tastes and interests.

Speaking events and conferences are very chill ways to hear from Canada’s top experts on topics you care about. I have attended the Canadian Animal

Law Conference and some other minor events here and there. One of the best parts of these events is honestly the free food. It's so fun to make a custom platter and then sit and listen to a topic of your interest. These events are also a great way to potentially be inspired for a research paper topic. Many of these events are also offered virtually, which is a great way to tune in from anywhere, but you will miss out on the free food if you do not go in-person. 7/10.

Intramurals are seriously underrated. I really hope this article inspires others to give them a go next year! The cost for dodgeball was $0, and the fun I had was priceless, so that’s like an infinite return on investment. We also won in our division this year, which was truly the icing on the cake of a great season! I recommend intramurals for anybody who struggles to find time or motivation to get their body moving during the school year. 11/10.

Getting involved in writing and publishing roles is a great way to keep your writing skills sharp if you, like me, avoid paper classes like the plague. I never even attempted to join Law Review because it seemed a little too intense for a STEM major like myself. If you’re a proper academic, then it may be a better

match for you. Instead, I joined Ultra Vires as a staff writer this year, and I have loved it so much! It is so fun to have your name in the paper and to think up different article ideas. If you like tackling investigative reporting, need an outlet for your hottest takes, or are nosy like me, joining UV is a great choice. 10/10.

Oral advocacy is another passion of mine and many other future barristers at the law school. There are a range of opportunities for oral advocacy that open through the year. Some are really low stakes and chill, like the Lerner’s Trial Advocacy workshop. Others are more intense, like the Legal Innovation and Technology Competition or the Grand Moot. The variety offered at the law school is truly exceptional, especially if you lump competitive upper year moots into this category. 9/10.

Interest and equity clubs are a great way to meet people of similar passions or backgrounds. I have only been a member of one club, Animal Justice, but I want to try out a larger variety next year. Club involvement ranges from attending club-run events to being on the executive team. I have co-hosted and spearheaded a few different events as an executive on Animal Justice. Vegan Thanksgiving was my opus of first semester 2L.

Running events is a lot of work, but it can be very meaningful, especially if you manage to get a good amount of community turnout. 7/10.

Legal clinics are a great way to impact your broader community while still being a law student! I have only been involved with one clinic. I was a student writer in a student working group for the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights. The recommendations report I helped research and write last year, “Improving Access to Abortion Services in Canada: A What We Heard Report,” was just released this month. My role as a student writer was done mostly alone and on my own time, which was good for scheduling but not very social. I would recommend the specific clinic and role I had for someone who has a strong interest in constitutional law and enjoys self-directed tasks. 7/10.

Conclusion

Law school extracurriculars are best experienced as a “choose your own adventure.” Try things that interest you and not things people tell you should interest you. It is absolutely never too late to try something new. If you are feeling something has been missing from your law school experience, give extracurriculars a try!

CAPTION: FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, BACK ROW: DAVID “THE MOST CHILL” NIDDAM-DENT, ALEX “UNDEFEATED” KELLY, NEIL “UNQUESTIONABLE STRATEGIST” RYAN, ME, AND BRITTANY “STEEL HANDS” WILLIAMS. FRONT ROW: JUSTIN “EARNED HIS SHIRT” KIM, CARSON “FULL SEND” COOK, DAMIAN “SNEAK ATTACK” FITZ, RONAN “FEARLESS LEADER” MALLOVY, ABBY “MASTER OF ALL SPORTS” BRUYER, AND OLIVIA “THE SNIPER” MALEY.

Don’t Sit in My Spot!

Maybe we need to bring back elementary school seating charts

ANONYMOUS

Sure, a few concerning events have occurred at the law school this year, and there is no doubt that a bed bug invasion or an elusive locker thief helping themselves to your belongings sucks. But awareness needs to be raised about one more disturbing phenomenon: someone else taking your seat in class.

While most professors don’t have assigned seating, there is—or at least there

should be—a certain degree of deference afforded to the seats that people choose in the first few classes. There may be the occasional shuffle when, for example, someone who has skipped all semester decides to show up, but these honest-butmistaken mix-ups are not what I have a bone to pick with.

My issue is with the person who, having seen you sit in the same spot week af -

Intra Vires

ter week and, decides, for some reason, to throw the seating honour code out the window and snatch it out from under you. Okay, in reality, it may not be this dramatic, but seeing your beloved seat taken feels like a punch to the gut nonetheless.

This is just a PSA that we should all try to be a little more considerate of others. If you’re reading this and feel called out as a seat stealer, that’s fine, but maybe you

Totally real ne—why is it cold again?!

FIEVEL LIM (3L) AND CHRISTINE WANG

When in Vega—I mean, When in Casino Royale, we raise the stakes

Having heard that Law Ball this year would, once again, feature a delightful theme around casinos and gambling, some of U of T’s most seasoned, chancetaking veterans took the opportunity to roll the dice and shoot their shot. Not only were some debonairs spotted in the arms of surprising femme fatales, there was gambling galore at all the various available tables. Good thing none of the money was real! However, some disappointed students remarked that they wished it had been real, as they could’ve paid back their student loans with their lucky earnings.

Fighting for two drinks at the bar

Gotta get your money’s worth, am I right? Lines at Law Ball’s three bar counters were still longer than the train on the dance floor, and it is no surprise why.

(3L JD/MBA)

After waiting for at least a half-hour to get to the front of the line, many students were disappointed that the bartenders refused to serve them more than one drink at a time. In fact, one especially saucy student, in true James Bond fashion, decided to loosen his bowtie and roll up his sleeves for a good ol’ round of fisticuffs just so that he could get two drinks instead of one. In the end, this student was defeated by the bartender, and walked away with only one lonesome beer in hand.

Faculty proposing new and improved method of locker safekeeping

Following the recent erudite suggestion of the Toronto Police Department to keep one’s car keys by the door in order to “prevent injuries” during a theft, the Faculty of Law decided to provide similar suggestions to students following the rash of locker break-ins

earlier this month. “Students should leave their valuables outside their lockers so that they will not be injured by a saucy intruder when they are stealing their belongings. We care about our students, first and foremost.” When interviewed on the prospect of installing security cameras instead, the Faculty pulled a gun on us.

Students petition to expand Doggy Day to become Doggy Year

Doggy Day, of course, is every law student’s favourite Faculty holiday. Yes, it is a holiday for us. Unfortunately, as always, students are only able to spend a single 30-minute session with the beloved volunteer puppies at a time. After parting ways with these adorable dogs, a few especially distraught students have decided to rise up in solidarity to expand the holiday. “By fire or by blood, we will no longer be separated

just need to do a little self-reflection and consider what you have to gain from robbing your peers of what is perhaps the only comfort and consistency they know. After all, we are trying to join a profession where the rules we are supposed to follow can change in an instant because nine people in Santa Claus outfits decide they should. So please, don’t sit in my spot!

from our furry friends,” one representative stated to UV. The animal uprising—which included the raccoons—is apparently coming, and we look forward to having an entire year of cuddly friends with us in class.

Student mysteriously disappears after launching a complaint

After testifying before a review panel on the disadvantages of Cognomos in 2023, a student, famous for their exposé, “What’s the point of a favourite category if I don’t even get put on the waitlist?” has seemingly disappeared into thin air. Some of their friends thought that the missing student had just gone on exchange, but they recently realized that they haven’t seen their friend since the Cognomos results were released. When asked for comment on what is being done for this poor student, the Faculty replied mysteriously only with, “It was a canon event.”

Totally Real Exam Questions Everybody loves Radmin

FIEVEL LIM (3L)

In the city of Flavelle, Racoonerelli, a raccoon, was working hard in managing a garbage restaurant for over 10 years. Recently, his liquor license expired, and so Racoonerelli went to the Flavelle Liquor Commission to get it renewed. To his surprise, his application was rejected. Furthermore, the Commission had imposed a lifetime ban on him, preventing him from ever procuring a license. The Commission provided no written reasons for imposing the ban. At the oral hearing, the only explanation they gave was: “Serves you right, honestly.” Confused and dejected that he would no longer be able to pair his garbage meals with a good wine, Racoonerelli went home to contemplate his next steps.

Turning on the news, Racoonerelli discovered that police were looking for a raccoon who decimated the power grid in Flavelle for 24 hours and was still at large. “What an amateur,” Racoonerelli thought to himself. After all, who gets themselves caught in wiring? As the mugshot came up on screen, Racoonerelli

gasped; the masked stranger looked similar to his own fur patterns. He quickly realized what must have happened and dialed his best friend, Randy, who worked closely with the Liquor Commission for some advice.

Randy, listening to his friend’s plight, provided some information to Racoonerelli. “Actually, Relli, there’s even more to this that you don’t know. I overheard at the company dumpster today over lunch after your hearing. Your panel today blatantly thought that you were related to the guy who messed up the power grid, and they were angry that they didn’t get to watch their trashy TV show the day the power went out. Not only that, I heard that the head honcho, Duke Lexi, really has it out for you. He really wanted revenge on you because your restaurant gave him a stomach bug once.

Turns out, it was Duke who ordered the Commission to add on those petty conditions about never letting you have a license again. He said that your meals are truly just garbage without your wine pairings.”

Flabbergasted and indignant, Racoonerelli quickly called you to ask what can be done about this. He wants the Commission’s decision overturned immediately, so that he could get his paws back into the restaurant business at full throttle. He admits that he is sometimes negligent with the cleanliness of his garbage meals, and that Duke may have a legitimate reason for hating him. Nevertheless, Racoonerelli wants you to try and get his liquor license back.

Below are the relevant provisions:

The Liquor Law

Section 40

1. The Commission, at its sole discretion, may revoke a license at any time.

Section 45

1. Questions of law in the Commission’s decision may be appealed to the Flavelle Court.

The Liquor Regulations

Section 22

1. The Commission may attach any con -

ditions as it sees fit to a liquor license.

2. The Commission may amend a license at its full discretion, with any conditions.

Advise Racoonerelli on his chances of success on judicial review. Be sure to address the following questions:

1. Was it lawful for the Commission to refuse to renew his license?

2. Was it lawful for the Commission to impose the lifetime ban?

3. What level of procedural protection was Racoonerelli entitled to?

4. Was Racoonerelli’s hearing procedurally fair?

5. In a culture of justification, was it really okay that no reasons were given for the Commission’s decision?

6. Was the Commission’s decision a reasonable one?

Please assume that Flavelle conforms to substantially the same laws as Ontario.

Senior Superlatives: 2024 Edition

Enjoy your 10 minutes of fame

VIVIAN LI (3L)

Ever wondered what your classmates think of you? Wonder no more—after three years together, here’s what this year’s graduating class has to say about their peers.

Most likely to be an SCC justice: Gordon Milne (runner up: Ben MacLean-Max)

Most likely to be a politician: Ben Kitching

Best dressed: Christopher Black and Eric Li

Most likely to be disbarred: [REDACTED]

Cutest couple: Vivian Li and Edmund Nilson (runner up: Ben MacLean-Max and Olivia O’Connor)

Best platonic duo or trio: Max van der Weerd and Kona (runners up: Ashley Chana, CeCe Li, and Nicolas Williams; Emma Danaher and Kona)

Most involved: Justin Kim (runners up: Caeleb “Rae” Goff and Milana Grahovac)

Life of the party: Jeremy Jingwei (runners up: Matthew McGreer and Diego Jimenez)

Biggest flirt: Emily Tivoli*

Biggest jock: Ben Grondin (runner up: Milana Grahovac)

Most likely to be a LinkedIn influencer: Emily Sarah Hean

Most likely to be a big law partner: Ryan Reid, Rebecca Sattaur, Jon Herlin, and Gordon Milne

Most likely to be on reality TV: Shelby Martin, Clare Murray, and Hannah Im

Most likely to be a prof: Gordon Milne (runner up: Emily Tivoli)

Best tea spiller: Matthew McGreer

Terima’s #1 customer: Ian Thomson

Biggest Diet Coke girly: Jacqueline Ovsenek (runner up: Matthew McGreer)

Most likely to put moot/law review on their dating profile: Ryan Reid (runners up: Ben MacLean-Max and Gordon Milne)

Most likely to have a bust at the law school: Gordon Milne (specifically in the basement)

Most likely to argue with a prof: Marisa Benjamin*

Best filibusterer: Sanghyun Park

Most likely to black out at a firm event: Jeremy Jingwei*

Most likely to buy a Birkin: Janice Fung

Little treat connoisseur: Brianna Rowe (runner up: Amy Kwong)

Most likely to fall asleep in a meeting: Alyssa Wong*

Most likely to have their name misspelled: Edmond Nilsson Edmend Neilson Eddmond Nelsen Edmund Nilson

Nicest: Dima Pak, Emily Sarah Hean, and Julianne Schmidt

Most likely to start a firm intramural team: Christos Kakaletris

Biggest Swiftie: Emily Sarah Hean

Cutest: Kona van der Weerd

*published with permission

The Ultra Vires Crossword

Crazy Talk

RONAN MALLOVY (3L JD/MA ENGLISH)

The people at McMillan are top-tier in their fields and work on influential files that change the legal landscape in Canada. Most importantly, we have a supportive team culture. Despite having busy practices, people always find time to chat over a coffee.

Samantha Gordon Partner, Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Across

1 Place for rest and relaxation

4 Wing it

9 Altar promise

12 Closest to the heart

19 "Brevity is the soul of ___" - Shakespeare

20 Lying flat

21 French rejection

22 Bouchard of tennis fame

23 Product offered by State Farm

25 Little one

26 Military honours

27 Canal famously blocked by the "Ever Given" in 2021

28 Brit Rock craze of the 1960s

31 Neglect to mention

32 Home to Madrid and Málaga

34 Emilio Estevez, to Martin Sheen

35 Capital Hill figs.

36 Side street, perhaps

37 Cartoon skunk Le Pew

41 Smooch that might make others uncomfortable, for short

43 Nintendo console

44 Country until 1991

45 Certain basketball tournament, or a hint to 28-, 71-, 78-, 103-, and 125-Across

50 Sensitivity

52 Eons

53 Yen

54 Lowest difficulty level

57 Down duck

61 Repair and renovate

63 Provide reasons

66 Pique, as curiosity

67 Time in a music studio

70 Aunt, in 32-Across

71 2011-2012 New York Knicks phenomenon

73 Show of discontent

75 Video game fig. with preset responses

77 Group with no "I" in it

78 User of vitamins and supplements, perhaps

83 Day on 45-Down

85 Series installment

90 They can be one-way or two-way

91 Rival

94 Ancient volume

95 Declare

96 Loathe

97 Car manufacturer owned by BMW

100 Smallest (?) piece of currency

101 Source of Norse mythology

103 Widespread fear of occult rituals in the 80s and 90s

107 Injury reminder

110 Ashes holder

112 Boxer born Cassius Clay

113 Earth mother of Greek Mythology

114 Director Kazan

Down

1 Like many watches and chocolates

2 Centerfold

3 In the clouds

4 Tax mo.

5 Dull

6 Like a wolf without a pack

7 Ancient Peruvian people

8 Alternative sugar source to sugarcane

9 Plans (to)

10 Ill omen

11 From a keg

12 Weakness

13 Supercontinent

14 Grow old

15 Orbit

16 Colon cleansers

17 Peaceful protests

18 Pre-release user, often

24 Rapper Lil ___ Vert

29 Bound with long strides

30 Immediately

33 How I Met Your Mother actor, for short

38 Ostrich relative

39 Golf standard

40 Brink

42 Sailing

45 Red planet

46 Novelist and film critic James

47 Umps, for example

48 Domestic spy org.

49 "Thank U, ____" (Ariana Grande hit)

51 Pottery material

55 Be under the weather

56 Bit of irritation

58 Drinker's road offence, in short

59 Winter hrs. in Toronto

60 Star Wars protagonist

62 Moved furtively

64 Atm no.

65 Expiration

66 "Stat!"

68 Sounds of awe

69 Convent resident

72 Word before a maiden name

74 Frequently canned fish

76 Sin's counterpart

78 Nos. on a store sign

79 Chow down

80 Computer science pioneer Lovelace

81 English major's area

82 Name of a major Vietnam War offensive

84 Peru's capital

86 Seltzer

87 Norse "Allfather"

88 Actress Moore

89 CEO, for one

92 Geographical feature larger than a butte but smaller than a plateau

93 Harmonize, perhaps

96 Kamala and 33-Down

115 Vaccine tech

117 "What the ___!" (self-censoring exclamation)

119 Reveal

124 Smart thermostat brand

125 "_______ more infectious than measles" -2012 CBC headline

130 Bear with a hard bed

131 Army greetings

133 Three strikes make one

134 Sets limitations

136 Exploit to depletion

137 Web address

138 Make up for one's sins

139 Folk musician Garfunkel

140 Feels bitter about

141 Word before poodle or Story

142 Misplaces

143 "O ___, can you see..."

98 Actress and screenwriter Vardalos

99 Diamonds, slangily

102 Most inane

104 With great awareness

105 Reason for celebrity sightings in Sep.

106 Friendo

107 Electronic receptor

108 Split or adhere

109 Frozen and deli, for two

111 Washington to Ottawa dir.

116 Approximately

118 Wild

120 American air quality org.

121 Whimsical goodbyes

122 Carmen or Tosca

123 Vile

126 Currency used in 32-Across

127 Nix unilaterally

128 Things that might be inflated

129 Viking letter

132

135 "___