Ultra Vires Volume 25, Issue 2 - October 2023 by Ultra Vires

ULTRAVIRES.CA

October 26, 2023

VOL. 25 ISS. 2

Ultra Vires

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

Grand Moot 2023 Recap

Mooters addressed how artificial intelligence impacts privacy rights and administrative decision-making AMY KWONG (3L)

BACK ROW (L-R): SANGHYUN PARK (3L), DEAN JUTTA BRUNNÉE, BEN GRONDIN (3L). MIDDLE ROW (L-R): THE HON. JUSTICE JILL COPELAND, THE HON. JUSTICE ANDREW PINTO, THE HON. JUSTICE NICHOLAS KASIRER. FRONT ROW (L-R): RYAN REID (3L), EMMA DANAHER (3L), JULIA CAPPELLACCI (3L), OLIVIA O’CONNOR (3L). CREDIT: FACULTY OF LAW

On Thursday, October 5, this year’s Grand Mooters took to the podium in the Moot Court Room to make their submissions on legal issues around new artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. This year’s problem was twofold: Mooters addressed if AI used to proctor athome exams violated the Charter’s Section 8 protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and they addressed if a decision, in part informed by an AI decisionmaker, to expel a student for cheating violated the principles of procedural fairness. Olivia O’Connor (3L) and Julia Cappellacci (3L) represented the appellant, a student who was accused of cheating and subsequently expelled from the fictional Flavelle College (College). Emma Danaher (3L) and Ryan Reid (3L) represented the respondent, the College. The justices on the bench were the Honourable Justice Nicholas Kasirer from the Supreme Court of Canada, the Honourable Justice Jill Copeland from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and the Honourable Justice Andrew Pinto from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Over 100 people attended the Grand Moot in person, with more audience members watching the livestream. The Grand Moot opened with a speech from Dean Brunnée, who remarked that the Grand Moot is the “highlight of the academic year.” She thanked the many parties involved in organizing and preparing for the Grand Moot: event sponsor McCarthy Tétrault LLP; the Moot Court Committee Co-Chief Justices, Ben Grondin (3L) and Sanghyun Park (3L); and the various Faculty members who helped prepare for the Grand Moot. Grondin and Park summarized this year’s problem as one that explored the “emerging relationship between AI and the law by asking two questions: how does the use of AI affect our privacy interests, and how does the use of AI as a decision-making tool affect the fairness of institutions?”

This problem was “the right combination of novel, challenging, and fun,” said Reid. “Without the benefit of a lot of jurisprudence on artificial intelligence, I thought it was a great opportunity to test out interesting arguments and really think about how technology impacts more established legal principles. More than one judge said that they would not be surprised to see similar issues in their courtrooms in the next few years.” The appellants started by submitting that the AI proctoring software violated Section 8 Charter protections against unreasonable search and seizure and were not saved by Section 1 justification. O’Connor faced questions from Justice Pinto about the difference between the indignity that students endure when writing supervised exams in-person and the surveillance of the AI proctoring software. She distinguished the AI proctor from human proctors to illustrate how the AI violated the privacy interests of students writing exams at home in ways that humans proctoring students on-campus did not. Cappellacci then submitted that the decision to expel the student was procedurally unfair and substantively unreasonable. She drew on the landmark administrative law case Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) to examine the process behind the College’s decision and the reasons provided. She drew a fine distinction between a human decisionmaker following an AI decision and a human decisionmaker making a decision supported by an AI’s report, concluding that the decision to expel the student could not stand. The bench then turned to the respondents for their submissions. The respondents submitted that the proctoring software did not breach Section 8 of the Charter, and if it did, the breach was justified under Section 1. After asking Danaher some questions about the respondents’ Section 8 arguments, Justice Pinto said that the

panel thought Section 8 was violated and asked the respondents to focus on the Section 1 analysis. Danaher argued that there was an important public interest in knowing that the College produced qualified students who did not cheat, as the justices asked questions about the respondent’s arguments relating to the proportionality step of the Section 1 analysis. Finally, Reid submitted that the process of expelling the student was procedurally fair and that the reasons for the decision to expel, written by the dean of the College, did not have any fatal flaws. He pointed to the various opportunities that the student had to make submissions to explain his suspect behaviour before his expulsion. Applying Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, Reid argued that the reasons had to be read as a whole, pointing to specific parts of the written reasons to show that the dean considered the AI’s recommendation as required by statute, without being unduly influenced by the recommendation. After these riveting oral arguments, the audience gave the mooters a standing ovation as the justices left the room for deliberation. The justices were all smiles as they gave comments on the mooters’ performance. As the Grand Moot is a showcase, not a competition, there were no winners, and the justices all lauded the mooters for their excellent work. Justice Pinto complimented the mooters for their “substantive responses to the material” and their “genuine communication with the bench.” He also enjoyed the “effective use of humour and real-life situations” that kept the justices engaged with the arguments and showed off the mooters’ mastery of the material. Justice Copeland, who participated in the Grand Moot herself in 1991, complimented the mooters’ written submissions. Noting that written advocacy did not always get talked about much in mooting, she said both the appellant’s factum and the respondent’s factum were “of the highest caliber.” “I recognize as a McGill grad that the Grand Moot is a major glamour moment for law students in Canada,” said Justice Kasirer. He praised the “superb advocacy on everyone’s account,” concluding that the mooters were “all naturals who did U of T proud tonight.” After the moot, the audience was invited to join a reception in the Rowell Room and the Fireplace Lounge to celebrate the great work of the mooters. Attendees had the opportunity to mingle over light refreshments and chat about the excellent oral advocacy they had just witnessed. “It is through this event that I realized that law school is not just about textbooks and exams,” commented Ziyan Huang (1L). This was his first time watching the Grand Moot. “The competition showcased the practical application of the knowledge we acquire during lectures.” He added, “Seeing my senior fellow students debate with confidence on complex legal issues was truly inspiring.” The many 1Ls in the audience did not go unnoticed by the Grand Mooters. O’Connor said, “It was very meaningful to participate in a tradition that generates so much interest and excitement at the Faculty, especially among first-year students. I hope that all the 1Ls who came out to watch will take advantage of the mooting opportunities we have here at U of T, and I look forward to watching some of them in the Grand Moot in the coming years!”

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE

Faculty Council Meeting Reveals Impending Budgetary Concerns The first Faculty Council meeting of the year centred around the University Budget Presentation OLIVIA SCHENK (2L) On Wednesday, October 11, the Faculty Council held its f irst meeting for the 2023-2024 academic year. The University Budget Presentation was the focal point of the meeting. The meeting kicked of f with Dean Jutta Brunnée summarizing recent events impacting the law school. Dean Brunnee began by acknowledging Stephen Waddams’ passing. She then reiterated the school’s statement on the escalating Israel-Palestine conf lict and the importance of maintaining respectful dialogue. The Dean concluded with comments about the recent Grand Moot held on Thursday, October 5. Students’ Law Society (SLS) president Justin Kim then spoke. Kim expressed pride in the success of the 2023 1L Orientation. The 1L Orientation activities included a baseball game and a visit to the Toronto Islands. He then advertised the regularly hosted SLS lunchtime trivia. Kim noted that in early October, the SLS hosted OCI Chats for 2Ls to ask questions in an informal setting with free pizza. Kim thanked the Career Development Of f ice (CDO) for their hard work helping students prepare for OCIs, which took place earlier this year than in past years. Kim stated that on October 27, the SLS will be hosting a Halloween event with student and guest tickets available. They also plan to host a scary movie night in the following weeks. Upcoming SLS committee meetings will discuss tuition increase concerns, although Kim acknowledged that the Faculty has limited say on this issue. The Graduate Law Student AssociaContinued on page 3

RIGHTS REVIEW

ARTICLING AND NYC RECRUIT RESULTS

HALLOWEEN COSTUME IDEAS

PAGE 7

PAGE 10

PAGE 19

2 | October 26, 2023

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

Ultra Vires is the independent student newspaper of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. We provide a forum for diverse viewpoints on topics of interest to our readers. We aim to foster dialogue on academic and social issues between students, the faculty, and the broader legal community in Toronto, Ontario, and Canada. Our content does not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board. We print six issues per year. Ultra Vires is printed by Master Web Inc. EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Amy Kwong and Alyssa Wong BUSINESS MANAGER Manreet Brar ASSOCIATE BUSINESS MANAGER Jamie Oneschuk NEWS EDITORS Nicolas Williams and Abby Sasitharan ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITORS Leon Xu and Evan Squire FEATURES EDITORS Erin Lee and Julia Allen ASSOCIATE FEATURES EDITORS Asra Areej and Rachel Chen

ultravires.ca

UV INDEX NEWS Grand Moot 2023 Recap

Faculty Council Meeting Reveals Impending Budgetary Concerns

Students’ Law Society Update

The 2023 Canadian Animal Law Conference

Introducing the Korean Law Students’ Association

Can We Trust Big Tech with AI?

Saskatchewan: The Notwithstanding Clause Used to Protect Controversial Pronoun Policy

Letters From Abroad: The Craft Beer Club’s Toast to Oktoberfest

OPINIONS Tasting My Way Through the Terima Coffee Menu

OCI Debrief

Why I Did Not Participate in the 2L Recruit

Faculty Fails in Response to Anti-LGBTQ2S+ Protests

Australia’s Referendum Votes “No” on Indigenous Voice to Parliament

DIVERSIONS

RIGHTS REVIEW Some Much-Needed Optimism for the International Legal Order

Intimidated, Coerced, Silenced

A Generous Interpretation of the Presumption of Innocence

Examining the United Nation Security Council’s Veto Powers 8 in the Context of Human Rights Violations

FEATURES

Intra Vires

The Tribe Has Spoken: You Should Watch Survivor

Last Minutes Ha-Law-ween Costume Ideas

Advice Column: The Saucy Intruder

Horror Movies Are a Ghoul’s Best Friend

A Statistical Analysis of Soju Flavours

Comic Strip

Ultra Vires Presents: It’s Fall, Folks!

Torts Illustrated: A Fantasy Hockey Column

OPINIONS EDITORS Brianna Rowe and Jacqueline Ovsenek

October in Music

PUZZLES

Toronto 2024-2025 Articling Recruit Results

Sudoku

ASSOCIATE OPINIONS EDITORS Albert Cheng and Rosemary Fang

New York Summer 2024 Recruit Results

The Morose Codex

Letter From the CDO

The Ultra Vires Crossword

DIVERSIONS EDITORS Fievel Lim and Christine Wang

PUZZLES EDITOR Ronan Mallovy

EDITOR-AT-LARGE Vivian Li

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

Amy Kwong & Alyssa Wong Co-Editors-in-Chief Ultra Vires Vol. 25

GENUINE . HONEST. AUTHENTIC . At Cassels, we don’t hire students hoping to mold them in our image. Our students are smart, diverse, accomplished individuals who bring their unique attributes to our ﬁrm and make us all better. Your success is our priority.

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.

cassels.com

CREDIT: RACHAEL GREGORIS

CALGARY

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

ONLINE EDITOR Michael Chen

VANCOUVER

RECRUIT EDITOR Rebekah Kim

ASSOCIATE PUZZLES EDITOR Mahnoor Noor

Dear Readers, Welcome back! We are nearing the end of the scariest month of the year, f illed with rapidly dropping temperatures, creepy crawlies (in the law school and apparently on the TTC), and recruit timelines (the spookiest of them all). To our dear 2Ls participating in the Toronto recruit—you got this! If you don’t want to hear recruit takes from us, check out articles written by some of your fellow 2Ls and our beloved CDO Director, Theresa Chan. In this issue, you’ll also f ind some last-minute Halloween costume and movie ideas, a recap of Saskatchewan’s proposed use of the notwithstanding clause, and a full review of the new Terima Café. This issue also has coverage of the Toronto articling recruit and the New York 2L recruit. As always, you can reach us at editor@ultravires.ca or @ultravires.ca on Instagram if you have any comments, want to get involved with UV, or just want to say hi! We’d love to hear from you. Thank you so much for reading, and we hope you enjoy this month’s issue!

TORONTO

ASSOCIATE DIVERSIONS EDITOR Allie Silcoff

LETTER FROM THE EDITORS

NEWS

ultravires.ca

October 26, 2023 | 3

Faculty Council Meeting Reveals Impending Budgetary Concerns Continued from page 1 OLIVIA SCHENK (2L) tion (GLSA) president was abroad and could not attend the meeting. The Dean then introduced the University Budget Presentation. She clarif ied that the budget is not within the Faculty Council’s authority to decide, and that the Faculty and University’s budgets are deeply interconnected. In 2022, Dean Brunnée held a tuition roundtable to discuss matters such as the connection between provincial policy and the University budget, as well as other relevant factors such as the f inancial aid program. She plans to reconvene the round table again this year. The f irst presenter was University expert Scott Maybury, Vice-President of Operations and Real Estate Partnerships and Vice-Provost of Academic Operations. Maybury began by stating how the budget has grown from one billion to 3.4 billion dollars since the current budget model was introduced in 2006. Maybury discussed the connection between the increase in budget, greater law school inf luence, and the ability to attract more impactful faculty members in recent years. Maybury attributes one bil-

lion of the budget increase to the University’s unique budget model. The University’s revenue sources are as follows: 68 percent from tuition and fees; 20 percent from provincial government; and 12 percent from other sources. Expenditure sources are as follows: 60 percent to faculty and staf f; 12 percent to other expenses; 11 percent to student aid; 7 percent to occupancy costs; 7 percent to capital and equipment; and 3 percent to pension contingency. Maybury shared that before 2006, the majority of the budget’s revenue came from the government. Today, international student tuition is the University’s greatest source of revenue. The fact that the University’s student aid expenditure is ref lexive is very unique among post-secondary schools. The expenditure of student aid varies every year based on the unique needs of students in a given year. In 2019, the government mandated a 10 percent slash to tuition prices and a subsequent freeze that has been projected to reduce the school’s budget by 195 million over the next few years. The University's revenue is projected to grow an

average of 4 percent year-over-year for the next few years, assuming tuition stays capped at 3 percent increases. During this time, inf lation will almost certainly outpace the budget. The next presenter was Jef f Lennon, the University’s Assistant Vice President of Planning and Budget. Lennon shared concerns about the Faculty of Law’s challenge with a structural def icit. Lennon believes a solution for increasing the budget, given the tuition cap, may be to enroll more students. However, Lennon noted there are many risks and challenges with growing the student body to over 100,000. Compensation is projected to increase more than revenue this year, which will lead to tough conversations across faculties. Lennon then shared some statistics from 2014 -2022. The domestic fees have increased an average of 1.1 percent annually. Financial aid has increased an average of 6.3 percent annually and 63 percent in total. While total tuition has increased, the average net tuition has decreased. The meeting concluded with a question-

and-answer session. Kim asked when the government will conf irm their numbers for this year. Maybury responded that conf irmation will likely occur in the fall because the government has already delivered the numbers. Assistant Dean Sara Faherty asked about international student enrollment increases. The experts replied that international enrollment was up 8 percent with 9,100 international students enrolled at the University, and 100 international students enrolled at the Faculty of Law. The meeting was adjourned after the questionand-answer session. 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 Legal Faculty Council page.

Students’ Law Society Update October edition JUSTIN KIM (3L) Congratulations on making it through the second month of the semester! The Students’ Law Society (SLS) would like to provide the following updates: 2L Recruit Chats This event was held on October 2 and was designed to help 2Ls connect with upper-year students to ask specif ic questions about various employers in an informal and student-only setting. We had over 20 3Ls who worked at various employers—including large and midsize full-service f irms, government, public interest, and labour and employment f irms— volunteer their time and expertise. The SLS would like to thank all the 3L volunteers who made this event successful. The SLS would also like to thank the Career Development Off ice for making students feel well-supported through mock interviews, student panels, and the Leadership Skills Program series. Good luck to all the 2Ls who are participating in the recruit!

Accessibility Roundtable Late last academic year, Dean Jutta Brunnée agreed to establish an Accessibility Roundtable, which would meet regularly during the 2023-24 academic year and advocate for improved accessibility at the law school. On October 2, the Accessibility Roundtable had its f irst meeting. They decided that it would be best to release a survey to collect student opinions on various topics, including the accommodations and considerations process, accessing disability resources, physical spaces, and how to better integrate accessibility into campus culture. The survey was released on October 16, in collaboration with the Disabled Law Students’ Association. Responses will be collected until November 3 and will help guide the agenda planning for future meetings. Clothing Sale Our very own law school-branded merch was released October 3, and our hats sold out

on the f irst day! As for what is left, we have only a few quarter zips (embroidered with class years) and sweatpants available in the larger sizes. A special thank you to Chris Kozak (2L), VP Social, who worked hard throughout the summer preparing the clothing order so it would be ready for fall. Once we sell out, the SLS will organize another clothing sale. Don’t fret, we will have more hats next time! Club Funding Every semester, the Social and Finance Committee (SFC) allocates $5,000 to support club events. In prior years, the SFC required clubs to request funding 14 days before their proposed event. However, this year, the SFC changed its policy and now requires that all clubs submit funding requests for their Fall semester events by October 1. This change was driven by the fact that in prior years, the SFC was quite conservative in granting funding requests due to the concern that there might be

requests later in the semester that required signif icant funding. Thus, this semester the SFC experimented with a hard deadline in order to allocate club funding more appropriately and to have a better idea of the events being planned. That being said, club leaders have expressed dissatisfaction with this new system, as it requires them to prepare many of the logistics for events early in the semester. The SFC has not yet made a decision on whether we will have a similar deadline for the Winter semester. If you are a club leader and have an opinion, please contact us! Halloween Finally, the SLS is hosting a Halloween party at the law school on Friday, October 27! This is the SLS’s f lagship event in the Fall semester, and we cannot wait for students to experience this event. Moreover, we will have a scary movie night, a pumpkin carving event, Halloween trivia, and more throughout the week leading up to the party!

NEWS

4 | October 26, 2023

ultravires.ca

The 2023 Canadian Animal Law Conference Return of conference saw a variety of intriguing speakers and panellists EMILY HEAN (3L) This year, the University of Toronto Faculty of Law once again hosted the annual Canadian Animal Law Conference (CALC). The conference was held from September 29 to October 1. The Scholars’ Track, a set of keynote presentations from prominent scholars across North America, took place on September 29. The other two days contained regular panels. The content of the panels covered a wide variety of topics, ranging from teaching animal law to practicing animal law, and

included some of the more niche aspects of the f ield. Speakers came from across Canada, the United States, and further to speak about the importance and value of animal law. Among these presenters was U of T Law professor Angela Fernandez, who presented in a panel titled “Building a More Compassionate and Sustainable Food System.” Just like last year, the vegan food served at this conference was absolutely something to write home about—all of the food

options were healthy, delicious, and 100% animal-friendly. My personal favourite was the yogurt parfait station, which featured coconut yogurt, fresh berries, and a gluten-free granola. Students volunteers staffed the information desk, which also sold Animal Justice merchandise and books written by animal law scholars. One such book was Defending Animals: Finding Hope on the Front Lines of Animal Protection, written by Dr. Kendra Coulter, a professor at the University of

Western Ontario who spoke at the conference. The conference is hosted each year in partnership with Animal Justice and the University of Toronto. This year, the platinum sponsor was the Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law & Policy. The U of T Animal Justice Club will be hosting events and meetings throughout the school year. Contact us at ajstudents6@gmail.com to be added to the mailing list.

Introducing the Korean Law Students' Association Fostering equity and support at the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law SEAN KIM (2L) AND ALICE MIN (2L) Alice Min: The f irst time I met other law students was at the Indigenous reading circle in August. Elder Constance asked us to share our cultural backgrounds as we introduced ourselves, and to my surprise, the three girls who spoke before me were all Korean! We soon realized that our year was an anomaly with over 20 incoming Korean students. The upper-years were shocked and mentioned that they’ve never seen more than 3-5 Koreans per year at U of T Law. Many of us don’t have lawyers in our immediate families or circles, so it was incredibly helpful to have the few Korean upper years mentor us, answer questions, and share resources. This year, we hope to do the same and act as a supportive platform for all students, especially the f irstyear class. A big shout-out to Sang Park (3L) for taking the initiative to gather an executive team and pioneer our new Korean Law Students’ Association (KLSA). As co-presidents, Sean and I envision an association that will help bridge the gap between students and professionals while advocating for an inclusive legal landscape. Sean K im: Growing up as a f irst-generation immigrant, my home life was f illed with Korean culture because my parents wanted me to retain a strong sense of my Korean identity. As such, I’ve always been proud to say that I’m Korean. When the South Korean soccer team upset Germany in the 2018 FIFA World Cup, I felt no reservations about driving

around Niagara Falls with the Korean f lag f lying high out of my windows. Being Korean is an integral part of my identity, and it’s something that I want to share, not just with other Koreans but also with the world at large. This is why the Korean Law Students’ Association is important to me. As someone aspiring to be a lawyer in a profession that has traditionally not been the most diverse, I both value my individuality and understand that I can’t succeed on my own. One of the KLSA’s primary objectives is to provide a supportive platform for the Korean student body to come together and push each other forward on the path to success in the legal profession. Our other objective, to promote diversity and equity in the law school community, will be satisf ied by our commitment to proudly sharing our Korean identity with students from all walks of life. So if you see someone with kimbap for lunch, or spot some fanatic with red and blue face paint and a “Go Reds!” jersey in the hallways, you’ll know that’s the KLSA working its magic. I look forward to furthering these two goals with my co-president A lice this year! K LSA Welcome Event On September 22, we hosted our f irst off icial event to welcome the 1L students. The warm and welcoming atmosphere served as a precursor to the inclusive culture that the KLSA aims to cultivate within the law school. We took this opportunity to introduce our executive team to

the new students, notifying them of who we are and what we hope to achieve during this school year. We also announced our 1L Representatives: Jimin Lee (1L), YeYoung Lee (1L), and Rachel Park (1L), who will help plan upcoming events. The vast majority of the Korean student body attended. Our 3Ls, who took the initiative last year to form relationships with us and lay the club’s groundwork, were excited to attend and meet the new 1Ls. We felt great pride as we looked out at the group and had fun as we learned more about each other over food, drinks, and an exciting game of mingle bingo. Thank you to Emma Baliat (2L) and Julia Kim (2L) for planning a great event! K LSA Alumni Panel On October 16, we hosted our second event: an alumni panel with Korean lawyers who are currently working in Toronto. The KLSA is dedicated to fostering a culture of mentorship and support, which includes building a strong alumni network of Korean Canadian lawyers. We had four alumni join us: Clara Ryu (Class of 2019), SuJung Lee (Class of 2019), Jae Won Hur (Class of 2021), and Min Oh (Class of 2022). They shared a snippet of what it is like to work in government, corporate law, and criminal law, all while giving advice to the students. It was insightful to hear them speak about how they personally witnessed and experienced equity, diversity, and inclusion in their workplaces, and refreshing to hear honest stories of what it was like for them when they were in

our shoes. Special thanks to Emily Jin (2L) and Erin Lee (2L) for organizing and ordering delicious fried chicken! Q&A with the K LSA Q: Are non-Korean students welcome at K LSA events? A: Of course! One of our objectives is to increase awareness about Korean culture and identity within the legal community, and we wouldn’t be able to do that without opening our events up to all members of the community in the Faculty of Law. We had non-Koreans attend our last alumni panel, and they said it was insightful to hear real answers without any sugarcoating. But please register so that we have enough food for everyone! Q: What are some new Korean Netf lix shows to watch? A: The Glory (K-drama with two seasons), Devil’s Plan (reality competition show with a small simulation of society), and Love After Divorce (reality show for divorcees) Q: Where can you f ind the best Korean food? A: Apologies to people who live downtown, but the real Koreatown is in North York, not Christie. • Cho Sun Ok ( Yonge & Clark)— must try their cold noodles (hot take: it’s better than the cold noodles in Korea & LA) • Buk Chang Dong Soon Tofu ( Yonge & Finch)—delicious and hearty soft tofu stew

ultravires.ca

NEWS

October 26, 2023 | 5

Can We Trust Big Tech With AI? Experts weigh in at trial

SONALI RAVI (1L) Can Big Tech be trusted with artificial intelligence (AI)? It’s a deceptively simple question with no easy answer. This was the issue that ignited a battle of ideas in a mock trial co-presented by U of T’s Future of Law Lab, Canadian news outlet The Logic, and the Rotman School of Management. On September 27, some 200 “jury members” gathered to witness Big Tech on trial. During the proceedings, it became clear that the question was not whether governments should risk leaving AI in the hands of Big Tech. Instead, the real headscratcher was instead how to precisely regulate these tech titans and their work with AI. Is it time for an all-out rulebook or a gentler hand? Dany H. Assaf (Co-Chair of the Competition & Foreign Investment Group at Torys LLP) captivated the audience with his opening statements. As lead prosecutor, he demonstrated the paradoxes of AI: it can deceive and displace, but it simultaneously has the potential to solve humanity’s most pressing problems. Taking a practical and utilitarian view that he echoed throughout the trial, he argued that AI is just too instrumental not to trust. The prosecution, led by Fiona A. Schaeffer (partner at Milbank LLP and Chair of the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Law section),

launched a fiery attack against Big Tech’s trustworthiness in relation to AI. She argued that since AI runs on biased, untested data, it magnifies untruths and therefore cannot be left to its own devices and needs safeguards. Joshua Morrison, director of the Future of Law Lab, whose efforts played a pivotal role in bringing this event to life, summed up the remarkable scope of the proceedings:. "It was the first event I've ever been a part of that successfully linked healthcare legislation, the plight of immigrants, military drones, and the development of the radio. We covered unbelievable ground, and I imagine that everyone who attended, including the expert witnesses, was exposed to a huge amount of information they had never considered before." The highlight of the trial was its roster of expert witnesses, a star-studded cast who elucidated the problem from a diverse set of angles. Simon Kennedy (Deputy Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada), was frank about the government’s limitations, admitting that developing prescriptive rules would be impossible, as it is difficult to predict where AI is headed. U of T’s own Professor Gillian Hadfield

underscored the importance of democratically-set regulations to offset the problem of AI usage by a small number of powerful tech giants. Armughan Ahmad (CEO of Appen) argued that AI management requires a human touch. He powerfully demonstrated AI’s potential to facilitate “radical abundance,” allowing societies across the globe to benefit from this technology. However, the expert witnesses unanimously agreed that stringent regulations could stifle innovation. Avi Goldfarb (Professor of Marketing at the Rotman School of Business and Rotman Chair in Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare) warned against AI’s “death by a million regulatory cuts.” As Daniel Araya (Senior Partner of the World Legal Summit and Senior Fellow of the Centre for International Governance Innovation) explained, AI regulation is an international problem that demands an international solution. Perhaps as compelling as the content was the format. Morrison explained why he chose a mock trial format to debate the issue: “It feels like half of all events these days are panels around the impact of AI in a particular profession. We wanted an idea that would stand out amidst a crowded field

[…] We were worried the witnesses (our guest experts) would object to being cross-examined, but everyone was a great sport.” Indeed, David Skok (CEO and Editor-in-Chief of The Logic) acted as judge, keeping things fair, but not without witty commentary to keep the mood lighthearted. How did this pan out in the “courtroom”? Acting as an avatar for the jury, along with Sara Maqsood (2L) and Samir Reynolds (3L), I explained to the “court” where I stood after the trial. I, for one, was convinced by the prosecution and its resounding warning against too much regulation. However, Maqsood was persuaded by the need for “checks and balances designed by democratically elected representatives.” In the end, the numbers spoke for themselves. Initial audience polls showed that 72 percent distrusted Big Tech with Al. At the culmination of the trial, this number rose even more, to 77 percent. So, can we trust Big Tech with AI? Only time will tell for certain, but as future lawyers, we are in a unique position to not only watch the situation unfold, but also play a part in shaping it. Editor’s Note: Sonali Ravi is an executive in U of T Law’s Privacy and Cybersecurity Law Group.

Saskatchewan: The Notwithstanding Clause Used to Protect Controversial Pronoun Policy How Saskatchewan’s invocation of Section 33 sets a dangerous precedent for upholding (or infringing) Charter rights MINA ALAM (2L) When the Saskatchewan government introduced a provincial policy requiring parental consent to adopt students’ preferred first name and pronouns in late August, controversy quickly followed. Amidst a backdrop of fierce public interest debate between activists backing parental rights and children’s rights advocates, a Regina-based non-profit organization—UR Pride—brought a constitutional challenge against the policy, claiming that it infringed the rights rights of gender-diverse children under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). Justice Michael Megaw of the Regina Court of King’s Bench agreed to grant an injunction preventing the implementation of the policy until a decision was reached as to its constitutionality. However, rather than continuing to engage with the legal process, the Saskatchewan government opted to step out of the reach of the judiciary entirely: Premier Scott Moe announced that the province would pass legislation that implemented the policy using Section 33(1) of the Charter: the notwithstanding clause.

Charter Rights and Section 33 As Canada was working towards patriating its Constitution in the 1980s, efforts to include an entrenched bill of rights were met with resistance; critics were concerned that the proposed Charter would grant the unelected judiciary excessive power over the legislature. A compromise was reached with the addition of Section 33—the notwithstanding clause. 33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature … that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. … (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration. (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1). Essentially, Section 33(1) functions as a temporary override that empowers the federal and provincial governments to pass laws infringing on certain Charter rights. In effect, the legislation is exempt from ju-

dicial review for up to five years (note that Section 33(4) enables the legislature to re-enact the legislation for another five-term period). Section 33 does not apply to democratic rights. Indeed, the democratic process was championed to be a check for the power granted by the clause: the five-year limit means that if the electorate disagrees with the government’s use of the notwithstanding clause, the “court of public opinion” is able to hold the government accountable in the next election cycle. In theory, highly contested social and political matters would be settled at the polls. This argument becomes more tenuous when the Charter rights at stake belong to a minority group, or to individuals who are unable to vote. Where protection of minority rights does not align with the “collective will” of the majority, the political risk in invoking the notwithstanding clause greatly diminishes. In those instances, Section 33 gives the legislature the final say as to which interest will be prioritized, without any avenue for review by the judiciary.

Saskatchewan’s Use of the Notwithstanding Clause In granting UR Pride’s petition for an injunction, the Court found that the policy had the potential to cause “irreparable harm” to gender-diverse children. As the policy had yet to be implemented, the government’s position was that it was premature to hear the case on its merits, but the protection of “a marginalized and particularly vulnerable group in society” was held to be in the public interest. For critics of the policy, the injunction was a hopeful first step. They argue that the policy threatens students’ privacy and risks exposing them to harmful environments in school or at home. Gender-diverse children face disproportionately high mental health risks, and research has demonstrated that support such as use of their chosen name reduces these risks. The Saskatchewan government’s stance is that the policy is inclusive, as it protects parents’ rights to be included in their child’s education. Moe claimed to be responding to the requests of a majority of CanaContinued on page 6

NEWS

6 | October 26, 2023

ultravires.ca

Saskatchewan: The Notwithstanding Clause Used to Protect Controversial Pronoun Policy Continued from page 5 MINA ALAM (2L) dians who supported informing parents and requiring their consent when their child wished to change the way they were identified. Ultimately, neither side will be making constitutional arguments before the Court. The government’s announcement that it intended to enact legislation using Section 33 was met with a great deal of criticism. While Section 33 can be used either before or after a court ruling on constitutionality has been issued, the clause was intended to be used only in exceptional circumstances “as a last resort after careful consideration” rather than as a means of skirting judicial review. 6 | October 26, 2023

Federal Justice Minister Arif Virani issued a statement on X (formerly Twitter) condemning the Saskatchewan government’s decision to supersede the injunction, and stated that the court’s ruling “should have given them pause.” Adam Goldenberg, the lead counsel on behalf of UR Pride, stated that it was “unconscionable” and “unforgivable” for the Saskatchewan government to pass legislation that it acknowledged would infringe childrens’ Charter rights. Moe was also rebuked by the Canadian Bar Association for calling the Court’s decision an

example of “judicial overreach.” CBA President John Stefaniuk emphasized the importance of the role of the judicial branch of government to democracy and highlighted that it is a legitimate exercise of the courts’ power to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Though some condemn the use of Section 33 to infringe minority rights, others note that where highly contentious, reasonable disagreement takes place, the notwithstanding clause is the appropriate avenue to pass legislation that interprets and rules on the competing rights at stake.

R IGHTS R EVIEW

What to Expect From the New Bill Bill 137, the Parental Bill of Rights, was introduced on October 12 in the Saskatchewan legislature by Minister of Education Jeremy Cockrill. When questioned, Cockrill asserted that the Government was justified in invoking the notwithstanding clause to protect parents’ rights. As the Saskatchewan Party holds a majority government, Bill 137 is ultimately set to pass at the end of the debate period. Editor’s Note: Special thanks to Caitlin Salvino (3L), who provided background information about the use of the notwithstanding clause in Canada.

ultravires.ca

The International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law An independent student-led publication 2023–24 Rights Review Editorial Board Editors-in-Chief: Fatima Aamir (3L) and Duncan Crabtree (3L) Senior Editors: Hannah Beltran (2L), Jason Quinn (2L), and Vidit Desai (2L) Junior Editors: Manreet Brar (2L) and Daniel Edmeades (2L) Online Editor: Cassie Heward (1L)

SOME MUCH-NEEDED OPTIMISM FOR THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER REFLECTIONS FROM THE 2023 CECIL A. WRIGHT MEMORIAL LECTURE By Cassie Heward (1L) This past year, we have witnessed some of the most devastating world conflicts in recent decades. Remaining optimistic has proven difficult. Peace and stability across war-torn regions seem unattainable. The legitimacy of international institutions is currently under siege. Yet, some international legal experts remain hopeful. Professor Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School provided the University of Toronto Faculty of Law community some much-needed optimism during this year’s Cecil A. Wright Memorial Lecture, "The Past, Present, and Future of the Global Legal Order." Her lecture focussed mainly on the War in Ukraine and its implications, while she recognised the devastating developments in the Israel-Palestine conflict and its rapidly evolving nature. A Comparison of the Old and the New To contextualise her discussion about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Professor Hathaway provided an overview of the Old and New World Order, which she discusses in depth in her book The Internationalist: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. The use of force was at the core of the Old World Order, encompassing colonial history until the end of World War I. During this time, war was the legal norm to right wrongs. Professor Hathaway presented research about the top reasons states gave for going to war at the time: self-defence (72 percent), compensation for tortious injuries (42 percent), and enforcing treaty obligations (41 percent). The laws of war meant conquest, gunboat diplomacy, and crimes of aggression were also legal.

@utrightsreview

The rules governing war drastically changed at the end of World War I with the Kellogg-Briand Pact. The Pact set the groundwork for a New World Order, with the prohibition of force as its central principle. States could no longer legitimately conquer land or declare war against countries that threatened the balance of power. The Pact paved the way for Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations: “All Members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the UN." War in Ukraine - A Threat to the New World Order Hathaway shared her reflections about the War in Ukraine as the greatest challenge to the New World Order since World War II. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has made no resolutions on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with Russia as a permanent member of the UNSC, prompting even greater criticism of international governance bodies. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war manifesto is an ode to Old World principles and could only be responded to by New World mechanisms. Hathaway was pleased with the strong global condemnation of Russia’s invasion; 140 states voted in favour of a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution about Russia’s violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations. How does the New World respond to violations of international law without the use of war? “Out-

casting,” Hathaway said, “denying the disobedient with the benefits of social cooperation and membership.” She coined the term “outcasting” to encompass the elements of an effective response to global aggressors.This is the strategy linked to imposing sanctions and suspending Russia from international bodies, like the Council of Europe. In addition to outcasting, the global community’s support for Ukraine has also proven fundamental in thwarting Russian aggression. Global Trends - Challenges and Opportunities The War in Ukraine reveals challenges and opportunities for the international legal order. Outcasting by removing Russia’s access to capital and limiting its ability to engage in international forums has proven effective to counter Russia’s offensive, but pariah countries are working to safeguard Russia from the full effect of this outcasting. More so than ever before, economics and military intervention are intertwined. While Europe and the West have cut back on oil from Russia, India and China have increased their spending on it. At the United Nations, many countries in Africa and Asia have abstained from voting in favour of punishing Russia. Why do these countries think it is not within their self-interest to do so? Hathaway emphasized the importance of understanding the underpinnings of the Global South’s response. There is a growing concern that the world is moving towards fractionalizing into two. Will the idea of the West versus the rest prevail and shift the world order? Hathaway shared some optimistic reflec-

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/rights-review-homepage

tions. In these times of uncertainty, global leadership is looking towards international institutions to provide a forum for discussion and collective action. Hathaway has noticed a shift of energy towards UNGA with the incapacitation of the UNSC—this encourages countries from the Global North and South to work toward common objectives. Hathaway spoke to the need for the Global South to be valued and included in the discussions that will inevitably shape how the world responds to these threats to peace and stability. Impact on Global Human Rights In recent news, Russia’s bid to return to the United Nations Human Rights Council failed, which is a significant win for human rights and the Council’s legitimacy. The International Criminal Court (ICC) received referrals from 39 states prompting an investigation into Russian war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide committed in Ukraine. The ICC has also issued arrest warrants for Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, the Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation. There are active discussions around creating a new international tribunal to prosecute aggression against Ukraine, which would be a powerful step towards prosecuting human rights violators and promoting greater global accountability. Hathaway notes that the US has finally acknowledged the ICC’s value and positive contributions to maintaining the rules-based international order—a long-awaited recognition that will further legitimize the international legal system.

uoftrightsreview

RIGHTS REVIEW

ultravires.ca

October 26, 2023 | 7

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

INTIMIDATED, COERCED, SILENCED

THE GROWING THREAT OF TRANSNATIONAL REPRESSION IN CANADA By Jared Sloan (1L) and Yasmin Rajwani (1L) The Canadian government has revealed very little so far about its intelligence on the role of the Indian government in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent Canadian Sikh leader who was murdered in June by masked gunmen outside of a temple in Surrey, B.C.. Nijjar had been designated a terrorist in New Delhi for his leadership of a separatist movement in India. However, if there is indeed credible evidence behind this allegation, India has not just committed an egregious wrong against Canada, but threatened the very concept of a rules-based international system. And while today’s geopolitical realities are likely to moderate the way in which Canada and its allies respond to this incident, there can surely be no room for our government to compromise when it comes to keeping Canadians safe within our own borders. This is, after all, far from the first high-profile instance of foreign attacks on Canadian citizens. We learned earlier this year that MP Michael Chong and his family were among those targeted in intimidation operations by the Chinese government in 2021, following a parliamentary motion which condemned Beijing’s oppressive activities in Xinjiang as a genocide. When Mr. Chong appeared before U.S. Congress last month to provide testimony on the growing threat of Chinese foreign interference, he aptly laid out just how much is at stake for Canadians: These various tactics are a serious and concerted effort to interfere with democratic activity in Canada, and leave millions of Canadians at risk of being intimidated, coerced, silenced and unable to enjoy the basic democratic rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These tactics cannot be tolerated in a free and sovereign country. The tactics he was speaking of fit into a larger trend of transnational repression, which is the subject of a new report written by international human rights lawyers Sarah Teich, David Matas and Hannah Taylor for Rights Action Group. This report coincides with Canada’s public inquiry into “foreign interference by China, Russia and other foreign state or

non-state actors,” with an interim report to be released in February 2024. Much of the Rights Action Group report looks at international and domestic legal frameworks and mechanisms which would allow Canada to better respond to occurrences of transnational repression. We will cover these matters at length in a subsequent article. For now, we will focus on the report’s key findings as to the nature of the threat—who is affected, how, and by whom? The report is meticulously researched, and we would urge everyone to read it in full and draw their own conclusions. In our view, however, there is little doubt as to what the main takeaway is: China’s efforts to interfere in our domestic affairs, specifically in diaspora communities, are incredibly alarming in their scale and brazenness. There are a handful of other countries which appear in the report (Russia and Iran chief among them), but for the purposes of this article, we will restrict our focus to what is, according to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the “greatest strategic threat to national security” in Canada—that of Chinese interference. According to the report, the gravity of the threat arises from three particular features of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP): First, [the CCP’s] campaign targets many groups, including ethnic and religious minorities, political dissidents, human rights activists, journalists, and former insiders accused of corruption. [...] Second, their campaign spans the full spectrum of tactics, including espionage, renditions, physical assaults, cyber threats, and coercion-by-proxy. Third, the sheer breadth and global scale of their campaign is unparalleled. The pervasiveness of these threats, both in the nature of the repressive acts and the various spheres in which they operate, has functioned to create an environment of fear within affected communities. Individuals have been targeted even when performing ordinary tasks outside the public or activist realm, facing attacks for the mere practice of their religion, or for their political and social associations. One of the victims interviewed for the report was Rachel, a member of the Falun Gong spiritual movement which has been banned in China. She relayed several inci-

dents of alleged interference, which included being filmed outside the CN Tower by a man who said he was from the Chinese Consulate in Toronto, having nails hammered into the tires of a vehicle in which she had been travelling with other Falun Gong practitioners, and having suspected CCP spies attempt to join her group.

firmly set international legal principles such as nonrefoulement. The report quotes Safeguard Defenders, who note that China establishing its own alternative policing and judicial system in Canada and other countries allows them to circumvent conventional bilateral mechanisms of policy and judicial cooperation to extralegally target Chinese residents abroad.

Victims of transnational repression experience the threat in various ways. Harassment, threats, and intimidation take place in-person, by phone, or through elaborate cyber espionage schemes. For instance, many Uyghurs have reported receiving robocalls with instructions to immediately present themselves at the Chinese Embassy to pick up documents, which serve to remind them that “even in Canada, the Chinese state is keeping an eye on them and expecting them to remain silent.” Those who refuse may face devastating consequences. Earlier this year, Mehmet Tohti, the Executive Director of the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project, helped to push forward legislation allowing 10,000 Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim refugees to enter Canada. According to the report, shortly before it passed, he received a phone call from Chinese police telling him that “his mother and two sisters were dead, his three brothers were disappeared, and all their children and spouses have disappeared as well. They said they took his uncle and cousin hostage. They told him that if he continues with his activism, they will suffer a terrible fate.”

The CCP’s creation of the National Supervision Commission in 2018 comprises a major setback for the rule of law. As a state organ with investigatory powers over the police, prosecutors’ offices, and courts, the Commission has been at the forefront of China’s growing overseas reach. China also employs a “network of proxy entities” in undertaking its transnational repression activities, including cultural associations, diaspora groups, student groups, and scholarly bodies. The report points to the pressing nature of such threats: “As diaspora communities grow, so does the CCP’s desire to control them.”

Such long-distance threats, including coercion-byproxy, are a common tactic of the CCP. Through surveillance, harassment, and direct confrontation of family or friends residing in China, the CCP seeks to stifle public advocacy and further its involuntary returns campaign. As part of this broader campaign, China often refuses to issue passport renewals or travel visas to Uyghurs out of its embassies or consulates, providing one-way travel documents with the aim of luring these individuals back inside China’s borders. The scale and nature of these activities alone give sufficient cause for concern. But why is this of particular legal worry? Actions such as these represent clear violations of

According to the report, Freedom House has warned that China’s use of transnational repression poses a long-term threat to rule of law systems, as Beijing’s actions permeate beyond just individual violations. As China has sought to expand its overseas reach, it has simultaneously tried to legitimize its actions by reshaping legal systems and international norms in line with its national interests. It is obvious that every Canadian should be deeply concerned by what we have laid out in this piece. All the more appalling is how little the Canadian government has done to combat these growing threats, despite its repeated assurances that it “will never tolerate foreign actors threatening Canada’s national security or the safety of our citizens and residents.” As one victim shared in the report: “We are kind of powerless in fighting transnational repression in our country [Canada]. We have to fight ourselves, but our resources and means are limited.” Fortunately, there is legal recourse available. One need only have a look at this report to find a host of potential solutions to better protect targets of transnational repression under Canadian and international law. We will have much more to say on this point in the next edition of Rights Review.

A GENEROUS INTERPRETATION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE THE HONG KONG COURT OF FINAL APPEAL’S DECISION IN HKSAR V LAI CHEE YING

By Luke Yan (1L) Background

tional security” contrary to Article 29(4) of the NSL.

Between 2019 and 2020, Hong Kong experienced a prolonged period of social unrest caused by an antigovernment movement that evolved into increasingly violent conflicts. Concerned about the growing political instability in Hong Kong, on June 30, 2020, the National People’s Congress of China passed the National Security Law (NSL) with the aims of “safeguarding national security,” “administering Hong Kong in accordance with the law,” and “resolutely opposing external interference.” Amongst the first people to be arrested and charged under this new law was media mogul Mr. Lai Chee Ying. Lai was alleged to have colluded with foreign countries or institutions to impose sanctions against the Hong Kong or Chinese government. On December 12, 2020, he was charged with “collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger na-

The Question of Bail

@utrightsreview

The charges against Lai were serious, and it could be many years before he stands trial. It was therefore important for the courts to consider whether Lai should be granted bail. Previously, Hong Kong courts have affirmed that the constitutionally entrenched right to the presumption of innocence means that “an accused must not be deprived of his liberty pending trial without good, valid and sufficient reasons and bail pending trial should be the normal rather than exception.” Accordingly, as in Canada, there is a presumption in favour of bail in Hong Kong. Under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, a court “shall order an accused person to be admitted to bail” unless there are “substantial grounds for believing … that the accused person

would (a) fail to surrender to custody as the court may appoint; (b) commit an offence while on bail; or (c) interfere with a witness or pervert or obstruct the course of justice.” However, Art. 42(2) of the NSL appears to displace the presumption of bail: No bail shall be granted to a criminal suspect or defendant unless the judge has sufficient grounds for believing that the criminal suspect or defendant will not continue to commit acts endangering national security. Taking into account Art. 42(2), the Chief Magistrate refused bail to Lai as he considered that there were substantial grounds to believe that Lai would fail to surrender to custody or commit an offence while on bail. The High Court reversed this decision, observing that the defence case was “arguable” and that

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/rights-review-homepage

Lai’s flight risk can be ameliorated with stringent bail conditions. Thus, it granted Lai bail subject to an undertaking that Lai would not meet with foreign officials, attend any interviews, publish any articles, or make any posts on social media. The prosecution appealed the decision to grant bail to the highest court in Hong Kong, the Court of Final Appeal. The Court of Final Appeal’s Analysis of Art. 42(2) In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Final Appeal held that the High Court judge had erred in granting bail to Lai because he failed to recognize that there is no presumption in favour of bail under Art. 42(2). The court interpreted Art. 42(2) as providing a twostage approach to the granting of bail. First, following the language of Art. 42(2), the judge must decide

Continued on page 8

uoftrightsreview

RIGHTS REVIEW

8 | October 26, 2023

ultravires.ca

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

A GENEROUS INTERPRETATION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE CONTINUED FROM PAGE 7

By Luke Yan (1L) whether there are “sufficient grounds for believing that the criminal suspect or defendant will not continue to commit acts endangering national security.” This is a “stringent threshold,” and there is no presumption in favour of bail at this stage of the analysis. The court must take all relevant factors into consideration, including whether the imposition of bail conditions could be successful to ensure that the accused will not commit acts that endanger national security. Bail should be denied unless sufficient grounds can be shown to persuade the judge that the accused would not commit acts that endanger national security. Second, if the judge concludes that the accused would not commit acts that endanger national security, then the courts should go on to consider the other grounds under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, including whether the accused would fail to surrender to custody, commit an offence while on bail, interfere with witnesses, or pervert or obstruct the course of justice. Only in this second stage of analysis does the presumption in favour of bail apply. A Generous Interpretation of the Presumption of Innocence The presumption of innocence is a principle of fundamental justice under the common law. The Su-

preme Court of Canada has described it as a right which “protects the fundamental liberty and human dignity of any and every person accused by the state of criminal conduct.” This right is intimately connected with the presumption in favour of bail. Lai, like others charged with offences under the National Security Law, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Thus, the starting point for the state to convict individuals charged with, or suspected of, an offense is to rebut the presumption that the accused is innocent. Prior to the National Security Law and Lai Chee Ying, this appeared to be the approach taken by the Hong Kong courts: see HKSAR v Wong Chi Fung (quoted above). Under the common law, the principle of legality means that “fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words.” Thus, where legislation appears on its face to shift the starting point towards a position where bail is denied and individual liberty is restricted, the courts should be careful to examine whether the language of the statute clearly supports such an interpretation. The language of Art. 42(2) does not require the courts to reject the presumption in favour of bail. Another way of interpreting Art. 42(2) is that it requires the courts, in assessing bail, to

take into account whether the criminal suspect or defendant will continue to commit acts endangering national security. This interpretation, which was adopted by the High Court previously in HKSAR v Tong Ying Kit, would consider the accused’s likelihood of committing an act endangering national security as one of many risk factors in the bail assessment without shifting in the presumption in favour of bail. This approach would favour a generous interpretation of the presumption of innocence because any reasonable doubt would be resolved in favour of the accused person. It is true that some common law jurisdictions have delineated “a narrow set of circumstances” where the presumption in favour of bail can be reversed. In R v Pearson, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a reverse onus for an accused charged with trafficking in narcotics with respect to bail could be justified due to the unique characteristics of the offence. Trafficking in dangerous drugs, according to the Supreme Court, is highly lucrative and creates huge incentives for criminal behaviour after arrest and on bail. Drug trafficking often occurs in a highly sophisticated commercial setting which allows traffickers access to funds and the means to abscond. In comparison, national

security offences are a very different type of offence. There is no doubt that they can be potentially serious offences, but the court’s analysis must not stop there. It should analyze why these offences create a special risk that the accused will continue to commit further offences on bail or abscond from trial. The courts should be especially vigilant where national security offences or political offences are involved because they are especially vulnerable to manipulation by governments seeking to suppress dissent. Unfortunately, the court in Lai Chee Ying failed to scrutinize Art. 42(2) rigorously: it was simply satisfied without elaboration that stringent conditions for the grant of bail were justified by the “cardinal importance” of safeguarding national security. Conclusion September 26, 2023 marked 1,000 days since Lai has been deprived of his liberty in a maximum-security prison. Whatever the outcome of his trial, he has yet to be convicted of the national security offence with which he is charged. If the Court wishes to take the right to the presumption of innocence seriously, it should reconsider whether the approach it has taken is a generous interpretation of an accused’s rights.

EXAMINING THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL'S VETO POWERS IN THE CONTEXT OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS By Vlad Mirel (1L) international law.

MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL SIT DURING A MEETING AT THE UN HEADQUARTERS IN NEW YORK. CREDIT: REUTERS

The veto power afforded to the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, Russia, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom) has long been criticized for frustrating the organ’s task of ensuring international peace and security. Article 27(3) of the United Nations Charter enables any of the permanent members (the P5) to instantly void a non-procedural resolution by casting a negative vote. This ability for a single state to overturn calls for action against even the most heinous human rights violations has made it difficult for the Security Council to properly handle such abuses. This article will examine how veto powers and human rights violations intersect, the legality of this veto power, and current initiatives working to repair the veto’s shortcomings. Permanent members routinely use their veto power to stop resolutions concerning human rights violations that conflict with their national interests. For instance, Russia regularly uses its veto to defend its Syrian ally against attempted UN action. By February of 2017, Russia had used its veto for the seventh

@utrightsreview

time on the matter. While invoking a veto is simple, the consequences can be devastating. Just a month after Russia’s veto, Syria launched a new chemical attack that killed 80 people. Veto powers also make human rights issues less visible. The mere threat of a veto can hinder a resolution before it is even drafted, as international lawyers and ambassadors are hesitant to deploy resources towards a “futile” action. Such is the case for the Rohingya genocide, which has yet to be discussed by the Security Council due to anticipated Chinese and Russian vetos. Issues of human rights breaches must be internationally broadcasted to ensure an adequate response. Instead, the veto forces such abuses to be swept under the rug. The problem is not just Russia. Other P5 states also veto questions surrounding human rights violations. The United States ranks second in total veto uses, having used the tool 82 times. Although the Security Council has a clear ability to act as a powerful force in upholding global human rights, the usage of the veto complicates its ability to deal with violations of

In the context of these shortcomings, the veto power seems to walk a thin line of legality within international law. Firstly, vetoing resolutions against human rights abuses may be contrary to the UN’s charter, as Article 24 directly tasks the Security Council with “maintaining international peace and security” with “prompt and effective action.” Since the prevention of human rights violations (particularly in cases as grave as genocide) often concern “international security,” the usage of a veto threatens the P5’s Charter mandate and prevents “prompt and effective” response. Furthermore, although Article 2(1) sets out that all states are “sovereign equals,” Article 27(3) effectively acknowledges that some states are superior to others by bestowing just five nations with veto powers. While denying the superior economic or political influence of certain states would be denying abject reality, it is questionable whether this power should allow these states to single-handedly halt an international call for action. Secondly, when resolutions concerning human rights violations are vetoed, it can directly breach international treaty obligations. For instance, Article 1 of the Genocide Convention calls upon all signatory states to prevent genocide. The International Court of Justice’s judgment also clarified in Bosnia v Serbia that states have an obligation to prevent genocide. As a result, vetoing a resolution dealing with genocide violates a P5 state's legal mandate to prevent these crimes. In addition, one member's veto may push other Security Council nations into an indirect breach of their own obligations, as they are forced to remain inactive in preventing such injustices by the veto. Lastly, veto powers can act contrary to jus cogens, which refers to an established norm within international law prohibiting certain behaviours. Article 41(2) of the International Law Commission's Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts makes it illegal for states to support or deem lawful any actions that are against such peremptory

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/rights-review-homepage

norms. Importantly, the severe violation of human rights, such as in the context of genocide, is viewed by the international community as being prohibited by such norms. Therefore, when a resolution dealing with a state’s abuses of human rights is vetoed, the veto is essentially aiding the continuation of jus cogens violations. It is of course questionable whether individual vetoes do indeed reflect a nation's support of legal human rights abuses. However, at minimum, it does demonstrate that the respective state is not doing everything in its power to halt violations of jus cogens. Due to these issues, an increasing number of UN states are calling for the veto power to be reexamined. Mexico and France have been leading an initiative, supported by most UN states, calling for the P5 to voluntarily withhold their veto usage in resolutions dealing with mass atrocities. However, this is not a legally binding tool. The code calls for voluntary withholding in order to make such vetoes more politically costly, rather than adding any real restrictions. Many other initiatives, such as the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s Code of Conduct, face the same issue: they create “soft law” rather than making the necessary inroads to legally restrict the misuse of veto powers. Underlying these shortcomings is the international order's insistence on maintaining state sovereignty. Legally mandating governments to act in a certain way infringes upon this fundamental ideal of the modern state. However, the very participation of states in the UN should theoretically form a sort of social contract, where they relinquish some of their rights in order to enjoy the benefits of the global institution. As a result, obstructing actions to tackle human rights abuses, for whatever reason the P5 states deem important, are arguably "rights" that must be “sacrificed.” Otherwise, the UN will be unlikely to find a means of balancing sovereignty with the Security Council’s need to maintain global security.

uoftrightsreview

ultravires.ca

FEATURES

October 26, 2023 | 9

Torts Illustrated: A Fantasy Hockey Column Fantasy hockey sleeper picks JEREMY JINGWEI (3L) Disclaimer: Any reliance you place on the information below is strictly at your own risk. Economic (and emotional) losses suffered while managing your fantasy hockey team are therefore yours to bear (please don’t sue me). Has your fantasy hockey team gotten of f to a poor start? Are your friends continuously mocking your draft choices? Are you eager to f iddle with your lineup for no reason whatsoever? In this inaugural “Torts Illustrated” column, we’ll explore some sleeper waiver wire adds that may help your team get back on track. Note: All statistics are dated as of October 18, 2023 and therefore will not ref lect players’ totals at the time of publishing.

ing option. It’s no secret that Teravainen had a not-so-great 2022-23 fantasy season, scoring at the lowest rate (0.54 points per game) since his f irst season with the Canes. However, this season has seen him embark on a red-hot journey, tallying four goals and one assist in Carolina’s f irst four games. Teravainen also solidif ied a role on their PP1 and PK1 units for the foreseeable future (at least until teammate Andrei Svechnikov returns). Teravainen is not, and will not become, a superstar for your fantasy team. But he’ll be reliable scoring depth, should you need it. Tomas Hertl (C) Rostered in 44 percent of Yahoo Fantasy Leagues

Teuvo Teravainen (LW/RW ) Rostered in 61 percent of Yahoo Fantasy Leagues

Yeah, yeah, I get it. Teravainen is probably already on someone’s roster in your league. But in the 39 percent of leagues where Teravainen is sitting on the waiver wire, it would be wise to consider him as a viable stream-

The San Jose Sharks are in for a rough season, a real tough one this year. (Hello, Macklin Celebrini?) But even terrible hockey teams need top line players. With Logan Couture injured for the foreseeable future, the Sharks will lean heavily on Hertl. The 29-year-old Czech centre leads Sharks skaters with 20.45 TOI/G and is the only real source of of fense on the team. While the

Sharks may not light up the scoreboard often throughout the year, when they do, you can bet that Hertl will play a signif icant role. Evan Rodrigues (C/LW ) Rostered in 39 percent of Yahoo Fantasy Leagues

Rodrigues made his way to the Sunshine State this season and has landed on the Panthers’ top line with Sasha Barkov and Sam Reinhart. Notably, he has also secured a position on the Panthers’ dangerous PP1 unit. In just three games, he’s totaled an impressive stat line: two goals, three assists, thirteen shots on goal, and three hits. Whether he can keep up this pace is another question, but I think it’s pretty obvious that a skilled player on a dangerous offense may be a great pickup. K asperi K apanen Rostered in 1 percent of Yahoo Fantasy Leagues

You might be wondering, “Kapanen? W hat is this, 2018?” Well, a lot has changed since that season— which marked the last time Kapanen scored 20 goals and 40 points. In the interim, his thencoach Mike Babcock was fired, banished to USports, re-hired by the Blue Jackets, and refired. Pete Davidson has dated every eligible bachelorette in Hollywood. Kids aren’t eating Tide pods anymore, thankfully. Of course, some things really haven’t changed at all. Connor McDavid is still superhuman. I’m still a delusional Leafs fan. Increased opportunity is often a wise move in fantasy hockey. Kapanen may not have had a blazing start to the season, but he may have a place in super deep leagues. Yes, I know zero points in two games is not what any fantasy manager hopes for. Nevertheless, Kapanen now finds himself in the Blues’ top-six and has a role on the team’s power play and penalty kill units. He is averaging over 17 minutes of ice time per game, ranking fifth among Blues forwards. Undoubtedly, there are likely dozens of players on the waiver wire who should take precedence over Kapanen on your list But, if your waiver wire is particularly thin (or you simply want to relive some nostalgic memories of #24 flying down in the blue and white), Kapanen’s your guy.

October in Music A highlight of musical releases from October 2023 EMILY HEAN (3L) October 2023 has been another big month in terms of releases in the music industry, with many anticipated albums, some exciting announcements, and a few surprises. The month kicked off with a big announcement from superstar singer Beyoncé Knowles, who announced the film for her acclaimed Renaissance Tour, arriving in theatres on December 1, 2023. The trailer was quick to follow on the heels of this announcement. Knowles surprised fans later this month by attending Taylor Swift’s red carpet film premiere on October 11. This interaction between the two mega-artists has left fans eagerly anticipating the possibility of Swift reciprocating the action when the Renaissance film makes its debut. Following this, Ed Sheeran fans received a huge surprise. After dropping his new album, Autumn Variations, on September 29, Sheeran surprised fans with Autumn Variations (Fan Living Room Sessions). This special edition features not

only the original tracks, but also live versions, each uniquely recorded in a different fan’s living room. Fans who were included in this project took their excitement to Twitter and shared their experiences with meeting their musical hero and being part of these unique recording sessions. October 6 was a big Friday for rap music lovers! Drake released his latest album, which fans had originally anticipated in September. For All The Dogs is a 23-song album featuring artists J. Cole, SZA, 21 Savage, and Bad Bunny, among others. On the same day, Pitbull released Trackhouse, marking his 12th studio album and his first release in four years. Spanning nearly 40 minutes, the 12-track album contains features from TPain, El Micha, Lil Jon, and more. Unfortunately, the album has faced criticism, with many fans saying that his lyricism and sound have not changed or evolved, but have instead remained stagnant.

The depressed girlies got their time to shine on October 13, with boygenius releasing EP the rest, containing 4 tracks. That same day, Troye Sivan released 10-track album Something To Give Each Other, and TOMORROW X TOGETHER released The Name Chapter: FREEFALL, which is also ten tracks long and features the Jonas Brothers. October 13 was also the official opening of the Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour concert film. While the official event took place on that day, Swift walked the red carpet at the film's LA premiere two days earlier. During this pre-event, she snapped selfies with fans and took a photo with Beyoncé, who was in attendance to support the artist. Fans flooded the theatres wearing merch, trading friendship bracelets, and singing and dancing. Less than a week after the movie's release, Swift surprised fans on October 19, randomly dropping “The Cruelest Summer,” featuring

single Cruel Summer, the song live from the Eras Tour performance, and an LP Giobbi Remix of the song. The following day was another big one for music. My most anticipated album was Christina Perri’s Songs for Pixie, a 12-song collection of lullabies. This is her third lullaby album: her first two, Songs for Carmella and Songs for Rosie, were each released on her daughters’ first birthdays. This album features original song pixie dust, in which Perri reflects on the loss of Rosie and the birth of Pixie. Looking forward to the end of this month, the day after the publication of this article is yet another Friday full of music, with Taylor Swift releasing her much-anticipated re-recording, 1989 (Taylor’s Version), Maisie Peters releasing The Good Witch (Deluxe Edition) after hinting about it all September and October, Duran Duran releasing Danse Macabre, and James Blunt releasing Who We Used To Be.

FEATURES

10 | October 26, 2023

ultravires.ca

Toronto 2024-2025 Articling Recruit Results

At least 149 students hired across law schools SOOYEON PARK (2L), AMMAR THAVER (2L), AND REBEKAH KIM (3L) At least 149 students secured articling positions at 51 employers participating in this year’s Toronto Articling Recruit, a slight increase from the 139 students hired by 65 participating employers reported last year. Similar to last year, Osgoode Hall Law School once again led the pack with 36 students securing articling positions. U of T Law came in second with 21 hires, and Western Law came in third with 15 hires. Editor’s Note: T he 51 participating employers represented a 50.5 percent response rate. In total, Ultra Vires reached out to 101 employers, and the remaining 50 employers either did not wish to participate in the survey or did not respond in time for publication.

Total

U of T

Ministry of the Attorney General - Crown Law Office - Civil

Organization

Osgoode Western Queen's Ottawa Windsor 3

Others 6

Ministry of the Attorney General - Crown Law Office - Criminal

Ministry of the Attorney General - Toronto Crown Attorney's Office

Rosen & Associates Tax Law

Dentons Canada LLP

Beard Winter LLP

Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP

Goldblatt Partners

Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP

Lerners LLP

Ministry of the Attorney General - Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery, and Ministry of Infrastructure

Ministry of the Attorney General - Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL)

Ministry of the Attorney General - Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT)

Rogers Partners LLP

De Bousquet Professional Corporation

Dutton Brock LLP

Ministry of the Attorney General - Family Responsibility Office

Ministry of the Attorney General - Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks

Ministry of the Attorney General - Treasury Board Secretariat

Torkin Manes LLP

Others

Total

149

Did not disclose

FOR THE FULL TABLE, VISIT WWW.ULTRAVIRES.CA.

New York Summer 2024 Recruit Results At least 28 U of T students secured work in New York and Boston REBEKAH KIM (3L) Each year, a signif icant number of U of T Law students secure work positions in New York. Despite the chilly legal hiring market, this year was no exception, with at least 28 U of T Law students heading to the States. 34 students responded to Ultra Vires’ informal survey this year. 28 secured a 2024 summer associate position in the U.S.. Most of the successful candidates reported that they will be working in New York, but one student indicated that they will be working in Boston. Out of 28 successful candidates, 16 were 2L JD students, 11 were 3L JD/ MBA students, and one was a 3L JD/ MI student. Compared to last year’s New York recruit results, there was a signif icant increase in the number of JD/MBA students who secured a New York position. This rise could be attributed to the larger size of the 3L JD/MBA class this year. This year, Ultra Vires also collected information on whether the successful candidates secured their of fer through U of T’s of f icial OCI process or via other means (e.g., “pre-OCI” process, the Loyola Patent Law Interview Pro-

gram, etc.). Only 10 students—35.7 percent of the successful candidates— reported to have secured their position through the OCI process. The remaining 18 students— 64.3 percent of the successful candidates—secured their positions via other means. The majority of the students secured their position through the “pre-OCI” process (applying directly to law f irms before the OCI period). Considering the increasing emphasis New York employers place on the pre-OCI recruiting process, the results are perhaps unsurprising, and the trends we see here are projected to continue into future New York recruits.

ultravires.ca

FEATURES

October 26, 2023 | 11

Letter From the CDO A note of reassurance to 2Ls CAREER DEVELOPMENT OFFICE Dear 2Ls,

CREDIT: CAREER DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

We were asked by Ultra Vires to write a little something in support of you as we reach a milestone in the 2L Toronto recruit period, and we are delighted to do so. Over the last year, it has been such a pleasure to get to know you. We are amazed every day by how far you have come and how motivated you are to keep growing. We are impressed by how you are able to cut through the noise of law school to develop individual and intrinsic interests. We are in awe of how you f ind the time to dedicate yourselves to your academics…and mooting…and recruits…and clinics… and intramurals…and all of your other extracurriculars. We don’t know how you do it, but you make it work, and you do it beautifully. In conversations with employers following OCIs, they frequently spoke about your polish, your preparedness, your intelligence—and we agree. But most of all, we admire your individual strengths and unique qualities. Over the course of interacting with you this past year, we have seen so much kindness, so much care for your communities, and so much humour and perspective and personality. We have shared deep belly laughs during mock interviews, and we have heard stories that move us to tears. This is why we cannot wait for you to get into the in-f irm period and show these employers that—on top of being polished, prepared, and intelligent, you are each

Explore | Engage | Learn Developing Future Leaders in Law

incredibly wonderful in your own unique way. And we know that they will be just as amazed as we are! Remember to be yourself, and that you should be thoughtful about which employer you choose. Remember your agency in this process—that you too are looking for which employer “f its” with your personality, passions, goals, and values. When you feel like you need help, reach out for it—from the CDO, the Faculty’s wellness support team, or from your friends and colleagues. We are here for you, and we have witnessed how meaningful it is when you are here for each other. I know that you will continue to show up for one another —past law school and well into your legal careers—and what a dif ference it will make! For those of you not participating in this recruit, please rest assured that there are many more 2L summer opportunities to come! The 2L Toronto recruit is but one recruit among many other opportunities. We will continue to inform you about upcoming positions and recruits that may be of interest to you and are here to support you both through our programming and through one-on-one appointments. Don’t hesitate to connect with us about any questions you may have. Warmly, Your CDO Team

FEATURES

12 | October 26, 2023

ultravires.ca

Letters From Abroad: The Craft Beer Club’s Toast to Oktoberfest Raising a stein to Munich’s most anticipated festival ANDREW PARKER (3L) AND ALEX FOULGER-FORT (3L) Lager is the comfort food of cold beer, often reserved for occasions when one desires something familiar rather than navigating the uncharted waters of experimental brews. Time and time again, the vagaries of law school have led us back to lager: it's what we reached for after blistering exams, disappointing recruit results, and locking down ever-elusive articling positions. For the two of us, both limping our way through our final year of law school, the call of lager was undeniable. Naturally, this led us straight to the heart of beer culture: Munich. The city is renowned for its deeprooted beer traditions, with lager having long been the vocation of Munich’s thirsty monks. Augustiner beer, for example, was first brewed by the Augustinian monastery in 1328. The city also hosts the world's premier celebration of lager—or “helles,” as it’s locally known—with millions of visitors descending upon Munich’s Oktoberfest fairgrounds every fall. The attire is part of the festival's charm, with men donning lederhosen and women slipping into dirndls. Self-conscious tourists don’t need to worry about fitting in, as many shops in Munich offer rental services to ensure everyone can partake in the traditional dress-up. We were outfitted with the help of a local rental shop whose charming employees assured us that we needn’t worry about our lederhosen being many sizes too large—according to them, we would

ARE YOU READY FOR

THE BAR EXAMS?

surely drink enough beer that they’d fit snugly by the end of the night. Oktoberfest, of course, isn't only about beer. The fairgrounds offer all-ages entertainment in the form of rollercoasters, funhouses, bumper cars, and a ferris wheel. That said, for most, the highlight remains the beer. As afternoon drifts into evening, many find their way into one of Oktoberfest’s many beer tents—massive halls filled with bench seating and packed to the brim with clamouring partiers—to enjoy the celebration. Served in iconic one-litre steins, the helles flows freely. However, a word to the wise: after a few steins, the rich flavours might start to die on the tongue. Likewise, as loyal Canucks, we were accustomed to the usual Canadian safeguards against excessive drinking—namely, vigilant bartenders and waitstaff, eager to avoid incurring any commercial host liability for whatever drunken misadventures a visibly drunk patron might engage in after their visit. None of these familiar practices exist at Oktoberfest. In fact, the staff seemed to observe only one rule: don’t stand on the tables—doing so earns one a swift boot from any of Oktoberfest’s more than two dozen beer halls. Yet, we repeatedly witnessed daring drinkers climbing onto their tables, hoping to chug an entire stein as onlookers applauded, before security swiftly escorted them to the door. Our nights ended unpredictably, as they often do

when one drinks a little too much. Alex found himself sleeping very soundly in his bed in our hotel room, snug in his lederhosen and with the lights on. Having left later than him and without a room key, Andrew found himself sleeping in the hotel lobby. Ultimately,

Oktoberfest is more than just a festival—it's a tribute to tradition, culture, and the timeless appeal of a good lager. So, here's to the comfort of old favourites and the allure of Munich's grandest celebration. Prost!

THE STATUE OF BAVARIA. CREDIT: ANDREW PARKER & ALEX FOULGER-FORT

DON’T PANIc. Prepare with Emond’s Bar Exam Preparation Manual. Download it for free at

u.emond.ca/EBP-Manual

save 10% on Preparation Courses.

ONE OF MANY BEER TENTS. CREDIT: ANDREW PARKER & ALEX FOULGER-FORT

Online and live-webinar classes this fall in Toronto. Register at u.emond.ca/O23-EBP and use discount code 10UofT23 Online classes are available year-round. Promotion ends January 30, 2024 at 11:59 p.m.

TEST YOURSELF WITH ONLINE PRACTICE EXAMS Full-length practice exams with realistic questions & a timer

Detailed answer explanations & performance review

Continuous access from purchase until next exam date

u.emond.ca/O23-EBP Emond Exam Prep • 1 Eglinton Ave E, Suite 600, Toronto ON emond.ca • emondexamprep@emond.ca • 1-888-837-0815 ANDREW PARKER (3L) AND ALEX FOULGER-FORT (3L) AT OKTOBERFEST. CREDIT: ANDREW PARKER & ALEX FOULGER-FORT

ultravires.ca

OPINIONS

October 26, 2023 | 13

Tasting My Way Through the Terima Coffee Menu Just kidding, I obviously can’t afford that SHELBY HOHMANN (2L) Terima Coffee Bar (Terima) opened in the Jackman Law building on September 27. For most caffeine-starved law students, the new café was anticipated as an exciting addition to the school. Current 2Ls and 3Ls knew nothing could top last fall semester’s supply of free coffee but still looked forward to the prospect of not having to walk multiple blocks to get a midday pick-me-up from Starbucks, McDonald’s, or Tim Hortons. Unfortunately, we may have gotten our hopes up too much. While Terima’s incredibly friendly staff are an upside, they may be the café’s only one. Prices are incredibly high. A frozen frappé will run you around $8 (and you’ll have to drink it without a straw because there are none), while more substantive meals can cost upwards of $15. The food and drink quality does not mitigate sticker-shock, as many offerings are bland and basic. I have not personally tasted every menu item—mostly because this would necessitate me taking out another student line of credit—but I have sampled the opinions of other students to supplement my own. A Short History of U of T Law’s Ill-Fated Cafés In my (short) time at U of T Law, I have seen several iterations of the Goodmans LLP café. During my 1L fall semester last year, there wasn’t really a café at all, just the aforementioned and still-missed free coffee. Then, for the winter semes-

ter, we got a relatively bare-bones Goodmans that offered primarily coffee, tea, and baked goods. Now, we have Terima. Goodmans LLP Café first opened in late November 2016. Students initially liked the café’s offerings, and it received the high law student praise of “the coffee doesn’t suck.” It seems the newness soon wore off, however, as UV articles with a more critical tone began around late 2017. Writers questioned the integrity of the law school hosting a presumably for-profit café (with a Bay Street namesake) when the majority of the “customer base is literally living off credit cards for three years,” and critiqued the café’s “overpriced and mediocre” offerings. After its post-pandemic, long-awaited reopening last winter, students noted high prices of $6.99+ for a sandwich and $8.99+ for a salad.. Hindsight is 20/20—although these prices were definitely “particularly high,” they are basically half of what Terima is now charging. Put simply, the Jackman Law Building cafés seem to exist in a cycle of anticipation and disappointment. At least in my personal experience, an air of impermanency also surrounds them. With all of the changes to the Goodmans LLP café corner I have witnessed and read about, it feels almost inevitable that each iteration of the café will eventually die off and be replaced by another.

Is the Faculty to Blame? The constant change begs the question of whether U of T Law is adequately supporting the cafés it has welcomed into its space. It must be remembered that the café turnover not only affects students, but also the workers these businesses employ. The Faculty could support the success of its café in a variety of non-monetary and monetary ways, but it is unclear whether they have done so. For example, have they advised Terima of class times so they can structure their operating hours accordingly? Terima is open 8:00am-5:00pm Monday to Friday, despite the majority of law students (presumably their main customer base) not having class on Fridays. Many students with late classes have also expressed disappointment over the relatively early closing time, which leaves them without any options for a late-night caffeine boost that they can quickly grab during a class break. The Faculty also could have issued surveys to gauge law students’ interest in different aspects of the café and what they actually want out of it. This collection of data would’ve enabled Terima to tailor its offerings to student preferences, which may have increased its success as a business. In terms of monetary support, it seems entirely possible that the school is simply charging these cafés too much rent for them to be sustainable. They already have a limited customer base, relatively low visibility, and remain closed for signifi-

cant periods of time (summer break, weekends, and holidays). Terima’s high prices may not be an indicator of greed—they could just be a symptom of high rent and relatively low demand. Presuming they truly do need to maintain high prices to succeed financially, why is the law school allowing this to be the situation in the first place? I am just a concerned student, not an economist, but surely there could be some way for the Faculty to subsidize the café prices so students actually have affordable, quality options in-house? Overall, the Faculty’s lack of action does not demonstrate a genuine concern or care for the success of its café, which seems to be a real missed opportunity to improve law students’ experiences. The concerns Aladdin Diakun’s 2017 article raised regarding the ethics of the Faculty hosting a for-profit café to serve its financially-strapped students remain extremely valid in 2023. The cost of living in Canada is continually rising, and while many law students are undoubtedly in privileged financial positions, many of us are also feeling the pinch. As I have previously alluded to, my intent is not to criticize Terima for its high prices without any context. I know inflation has similarly impacted almost all sectors of the economy (including U of T Law’s tuition), but it would still be nice to grab a quick drink or bite between classes without feeling seriously guilty about the cost of doing so. The Continued on page 14

OPINIONS

14 | October 26, 2023

ultravires.ca

Tasting My Way Through the Terima Coffee Menu Continued from page 13 SHELBY HOHMANN (2L) Faculty could’ve made this dream a reality by adequately supporting Terima, but thus far, it seems they have not done so. The Actual Taste Testing Part My limited personal experience with Terima began with one (very pricy) coffee frappé. They didn’t offer paper straws, resulting in me awkwardly trying to slurp this frozen drink up in a quiet library. The few sips I managed to get did not make the experience particularly worthwhile, and I soon decided to throw in the towel (i.e., throw the remainder of the frappé in the garbage) and drink my free water instead. It hurt to throw away such an expensive drink, but it just wasn’t good. A few weeks later, when the horror of this initial experience had mostly worn off, I tried again out of desperation and got a yogurt parfait and coffee before a 4-6pm class. The yogurt parfait was incredibly small for its $6.50 price tag and less-than-fresh granola, but still much better than the stale coffee I received. In what is apparently a running theme for my Terima experiences, I threw away the coffee because of how undrinkable it was. A law student being willing to sacrifice caffeine has to be a red flag about the quality of the coffee Terima serves (arguably the most important part of a café). Olivia Schenk, a fellow UV staff writer and 2L, also provided a review of the items she tried from Terima: Service at the cafe is really good, the people there are super nice. Line moves quickly. Big smiles. Friendly and warm. The layout is a little weird, not really anywhere to stand to wait for your order. I ordered an egg cheese sandwich and a smoothie. The egg and cheese sandwich (forgot cost) was REALLY GOOD?? Maybe I'm just starving but the muffin was soft, the egg was fluffy, and the cheese tasted like cheddar proper not a kraft single. Egg Cheese Muffin 8.5/10. The smoothie was mid. It cost 6 dollars and was strawberry banana flavour. It was pretty icy. Not super creamy or sweet. There are no straws, paper or otherwise. Taste is a bit like a hand cream smell. 4/10. But I am a bit of a smoothie connoisseur. It is totally edible but sparks no joy. Final rating of experience 6.5/10. While Schenk says Terima sandwiches aren’t bad, they still require forking over enough to cover a McDonald’s combo or Pi Co. pizza. The quick

snacks Terima offers would be a welcome supplement to the Faculty vending machines containing only candy, chips, and chocolate, but again, the prices are just absurd. For example, Good to Go protein bars, which I have personally purchased from Dollarama in the past, are almost $4 each. If the free water fountains around the school aren’t cutting it for you, there is now also the option to purchase a fancy water subscription from Terima. Putting aside how dystopian the phrase “water subscription” feels, the service is, like almost everything else at the café, overpriced and underwhelming. For $80 ($100 if you want a Terima water bottle), you can purchase a Bevi subscription that lasts until December 31, 2023, and receive unlimited use of the café’s water dispenser. To be clear, water is the only actual beverage offered by this machine, but you can add a variety of fruit flavours and other enhancements like vitamins, electrolytes, and caffeine. Even looking at this service generously and accepting that there may be a real demand for enhanced water at the law school, $80 seems like a lot. Realistically, there aren’t even that many days between now and December 31. Excluding weekends and public holidays, there are only 66 days where one could use their subscription. This number also includes Fridays, when most students stay home. Conclusion I was excited for Terima when it was announced. I wish I didn’t have to write this article and criticize it, as the staff are genuinely kind and pleasant. Still, we, as U of T law students, arguably deserve to have a positive café experience. That doesn’t seem like too much to ask for. Most people at the law school seem to accept the turbulent character of our cafés without much second thought, but I think there is room for a larger discussion to be had concerning the Faculty’s role in this predicament and whether they ought to do more. On a more lighthearted note—if anyone feels compelled to purchase a Bevi subscription, would you be willing to let me have some peach mango water with electrolytes and caffeine? I just want the experience of trying it. In exchange, I promise not to judge you for spending that much on special water. Thanks in advance!

SOME OF TERIMA’S MORE SUBSTANTIVE OFFERINGS. CREDIT: TAYLOR RODRIGUES

MINDFUL SNACKS, INCLUDING INSTANT NOODLES AND CAFFEINATED CHOCOLATE ARE AVAILABLE AT TERIMA. CREDIT: TAYLOR RODRIGUES

YOGURT PARFAIT. HAND FOR SCALE. CREDIT: SHELBY HOHMANN

OLIVIA AND A FRIEND’S TERIMA GOODIES. CREDIT: OLIVIA SCHENK

OCI Debrief

Reflections on my OCI experience OLIVIA SCHENK (2L) Congratulations 2L recruit participants! Electing to participate in the 2L recruit is extremely brave. The recruit is a very timeintensive and emotionally exhausting process. The fact you were brave enough to put yourself out there is incredible! No matter the outcome, you will have learned many new skills in networking, resumé and cover letter drafting, and interviewing. These skills are highly applicable, no matter what career path you ultimately decide to pursue. The bestcase scenario in the recruit is you land a dream job. The worst-case scenario in the recruit is you hone key skills and have application materials pre-prepped that will bring you closer to your dream job in the future. In this article I hope to inform 1L students about the OCI process, foster comradery

among my fellow 2Ls going through the recruit alongside me, and not retraumatize any 3Ls who have blocked out most of their memories of recruit stress. Helpful Preparation Preparation techniques are unique to everyone, so take any advice with a grain of salt. With that said, I found the most useful resources to be my recruit buddy, an organized Word document for research and progress tracking, and lots of practice. Recruit buddies are an incredible resource. Thank you to all the 3Ls who took the time to volunteer to help us 2Ls get through the recruit! Special shout out to my recruit buddy Ayushi—you are the best! It is so useful to have someone who understands the process

to ask advice from, celebrate your successes with, and vent frustrations to. I highly recommend signing up for a recruit buddy if you plan on participating in the 2L recruit next year. I cannot wait to volunteer to be a recruit buddy myself! I find setting timelines and making lists of tasks extremely useful for staying on track. At the top of my “Recruit Survival Guide” document, I created lists of goals and timelines. The recruit is about selling yourself, but it is also about figuring out what you want. I created subheadings for all the firms that interested me and took notes under each as I learned about them. I have been adjusting their preference ranking accordingly throughout the process. This was useful for deciding which firms to devote energy to and

gaining a deeper understanding of why I wanted each firm. This both helped to keep firm identities straight and led to a better interviewing experience later on. Finally, practicing for the OCIs was indispensable. A lot of practice is just dedicating time to reflect on your experiences and journey so far. I did this by writing common questions and my resumé experiences into a list and jotting a few key points I would want to share about each underneath. To track my progress, I participated in several mock OCIs. These were very helpful to evaluate my interviewing strengths and weaknesses. I learned that my greatest strength was that I naturally come across as very genuine. I also learned my weakness was that I can be a little too genuine by oversharing non-flattering de-

ultravires.ca tails. This focused my practice, and it was great to see my strengths grow and weaknesses shrink with each mock! My Experience I was incredibly anxious the first day of OCIs. I spent the morning pacing the apartment and could not bring myself to eat breakfast. I asked myself over and over if I had practised enough, researched enough, lived enough—if I was enough. Thankfully, the process was not nearly as scary as I had anticipated. Once the process began, it became easier and easier with each passing zoom meeting. I interviewed with a variety of full-service firms and litigation boutiques. Most interviewers were incredibly kind and skilled at fostering interesting conversations. Some interviews were highly structured questionand-answers, some were extremely conversational, and some were clear attempts to throw me curveballs to see how I would react. Personally, these curveball firms immediately dropped in my preference lists—thanks, but no thanks. I was lucky to have twenty-minute detox sessions between each 17-minute OCI. It was important to enter each new interview with a clear head. You will not always say the right

OPINIONS things in every interview, and that is okay. During one interview I was asked, “When have you received criticism that was difficult to hear and how did you handle it?” At that moment the only story I could think of was my chicken barn story. I had already attempted the chicken barn story in multiple mock OCIs and quickly learned it never landed. In my head I kept telling myself, “Do not tell the chicken barn story Olivia, DO NOT tell the chicken barn story.” After a pause that was way too long, I opened my mouth and told the chicken barn story. It did not land. Each interview is discrete, so you must shake off your blunders and approach each interview afresh. After the first day, I completely crashed. I felt like I had run a marathon. My body hurt, and my head could not hold any thoughts. I had no idea I had been in fight or flight the entire day. I took the evening off and went to bed early. Luckily, the next day I was able to bounce back and enter each interview with a smile and mostly authentic enthusiasm. Finishing the recruit felt amazing. It was a challenging two days, but I had survived! What I Learned First, do not put your cat in your resumé if

he is unhinged like my cat, Pringles. I love Pringles, but he is a lot of work. Interviewers use your interest section to start on a high note. Responding to a question about your cat with, “Well, he attacks if you look at him funny, only poops once a week, and keeps eating all my clothes,” is NOT a good way to start an interview. I started instead referring to him as a special needs rescue and this worked a bit better. My advice is only put things in your interest section that will bring exclusively positive vibes. Second, have a clear narrative about your whole life you want to get across figured out in advance. I had a narrative for my story since starting law school, but people questioned further back. I did not expect people to ask how I ended up in law with my agricultural degree. By the end of the OCIs, I was able to succinctly explain my pivot from biology to law, but I wish I had ironed it out in advance. Finally, practice lots of self-care in the process. The OCIs are a marathon. Drink lots of water and have lots of snacks on hand. Between interviews I debriefed with my boyfriend, and he helped gas me up for the next one. If you live alone, maybe schedule a call with a friend not participating in the recruit who can help you vent out the first day to re-

October 26, 2023 | 15 focus for the second. Be kind to your own physical limits, and only accept as many interviews as you can confidently handle. Declining interviews feels stressful, but you will perform best with your favourite firms anyway—it is okay to focus on them. Conclusion Recruit pressure is instilled in us early on. We enter U of T hearing false promises that everyone will want to hire us. I personally felt a bit blindsided when I learned in 1L that summer jobs were far from certain and that the 2L recruit only secured jobs for a fraction of the participating U of T student body. An unfortunate consequence of being in the most competitive law school in the country is that your greatest competition for jobs is literally all around you. This obviously fosters an incredibly competitive environment, but it does not have to be this way. I think the best way to approach the recruit is to stay focused on your own personal growth rather than comparing yourself to others, to support and encourage your fellow classmates through the process, and, most importantly, to stay kind to yourself. Good luck to everyone participating in in-firms next month! Do your best! Your best is enough!

Why I Did Not Participate in the 2L Recruit There is no neutrality in the law, and every single lawyer plays an essential role in upholding or combatting this oppressive system PEEHA LUTHRA (2L) My decision to not participate in the 2L recruit was a political choice in the same way that every decision we—as law students and lawyers—make is a political choice. Everyone has dif ferent reasons for coming to law school. Maybe it was a goal you strived for over years while f inishing a political science degree, or maybe it was an idea that arose later in your life after you felt unfulf illed in other professions. Maybe you hoped to reach long-sought f inancial stability, or maybe you wanted to please your parents. Maybe it was a decision that “ just made sense” after years of hearing from others that you liked to argue a little too much. Regardless of our motivations, from the moment we set foot in this institution, we all became political actors. We may have held diminished amounts of power in our previous positions (as workers, tenants, and students), and it may still be hard to consider ourselves as people with inf luence when we spend our days at the whims of professors or stressing about spending money we don’t have. But the reality is that our system is designed to mediate class relations in favor of the oppressor. By practicing law, we are either mitigating the harms of the legal apparatus or pushing for outcomes favouring the capitalist elite. Law school classes, especially in 1L , would have us believe that the law is a neutral set of rules developed by parties

with, by and large, equal bargaining power. Justice, therefore, depends on putting the rules together correctly in order to prove to judges that one party has been unfairly disadvantaged (as if one side owning a mansion and the other sleeping on the streets wasn’t enough of a clue). In reality, our legal system does not deliver justice: all legal decisions, even the ones that are more sympathetic to marginalized people, uphold class hierarchy. Our legal system is oppressive because it allows evictions that leave tenants homeless in order for landlords to obtain passive income on multiple properties. It is oppressive because it jails poor people for shoplifting much-needed necessities while corporations can obtain record prof its by raising prices out of reach of the majority of the population. It is oppressive because even unionized workers with collective bargaining rights will never receive a deal that will redistribute the vast and obscene wealth in the hands of their CEOs. It is oppressive because it allows employers to repatriate migrant farmworkers as soon as they are injured due to their appalling working conditions, with no hope of return. It is oppressive because it prevents Indigenous land defenders from blockading oil companies who drill on stolen land. It is oppressive because it still claims a right to determine what any individual can choose to do with their own body, whether that be obtaining an abortion or receiving a sur-

gery to live as their true gender. Our legal system will not be able to eliminate these injustices, because these injustices must exist in order for capitalist elites to maintain their wealth. If the legal system prevented dominant classes from hoarding houses, land, and resources—at the expense of lower classes—we would not be living under capitalism. Unfortunately, even the most well-intentioned judges in our legal system are not prepared to dismantle capitalism. They rose to their high position by working within the system, which has left them unprepared to consider options outside of it. We will never receive a Supreme Court ruling that says we must eradicate wealth inequality or class hierarchy, but that is the revolutionary change our society desperately requires. While the law’s ability to enact meaningful social change is limited, I do believe that lawyering can be an important tool for harm reduction. While lawyers, on their own, will never be able to convince our traditional, risk-averse judges to end deportations, evictions, prisons, and other oppressive practices, public interest lawyers can help reduce the suf fering of poor people. These legal remedies are short-term solutions to systemic problems, but they allow marginalized people to survive another day and continue leading the collective f ight for transformative change and true justice. Unfortunately, law schools have ef fec-

tively convinced students that we must accept and remain complicit in the injustices of the legal system. One part of this indoctrination is making it extremely diff icult for law students to work in support of marginalized communities. Law schools deploy numerous strategies to ensure that most students choose to work for either the state or capitalist elites. First, law schools demand high tuition rates that compel students to take on large levels of debt, which increases the pressure to work for high-paying corporate law f irms on Bay Street. Second, law schools structure their entire education around students’ participation in corporate recruits; their career development resources suggest that forgoing participation in these recruits will have catastrophic career consequences. This system incorrectly convinces students that there are no legitimate career options outside of corporate law. Finally, law schools tell students who possess some f inancial f lexibility that they can achieve social justice by working in government, even though departments like the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice primarily litigate cases that enable the state’s oppression of the working class. While law schools convince many students that it is not possible to practice public interest law without living on the Continued on page 16

16 | October 26, 2023

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

Why I Did Not Participate in the 2L Recruit Continued from page 15 PEEHA LUTHRA (2L) poverty line, many people may be surprised to learn that a starting salary at a legal clinic after articling can be $70,000 per year, which is far from destitute. If a Legal A id job is f inancially out of reach, there are other employment options that are more ethical than corporate law, including working for a union, a union-side labour f irm, or other f irms that practice

criminal defense, family, or immigration law. Capitalism prevents people from making ethically pure choices. I am not writing this article to suggest I possess a moral high ground over my peers who take a corporate job to pay of f mountains of student loan debt or to support a family. People, f irst and foremost, must survive.

That being said, I am asking every law student to recognize that where they work is a political choice. There is no neutrality in the law, and every single lawyer plays an essential role in upholding or combatting this oppressive system. It is our duty, as law students and future lawyers, to recognize this power. I did not participate in the 2L recruit

because I do not want to use my legal career to uphold our systems of domination. If you have the abilit y to make the same choice, I would implore you to do so. Editor’s Note: Peeha Luthra is a member of the University of Toronto Law Union Steering Committee.

Faculty Fails in Response to Anti-LGBTQ2S+ Protests

University policies and Faculty communications fail to protect and support students CARSON COOK (2L) On September 20, the One Million March 4 Children movement (1MM) held a protest at Queen’s Park. The march was part of a series of protests held across Canada, spouting bigotry towards LGBTQ2S+ communities under the guise of “protecting children” and “parental rights.” This movement has clear ties to far-right, fascist groups. Assistant Dean Maxwell-Alleyne, Assistant Dean of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI), sent an email to law students on September 19, forwarding the University’s Sexual & Gender Diversity statement identifying the protest as anti-LGBTQ2S+ and promoting “Queer Orientation 2023.” Asst. Dean Maxwell-Alleyne sent a second email to law students at 11:43am on September 20, after hundreds, if not thousands, of people were already in Queen’s Park and the surrounding areas. This email identified the law school’s counsellor and a peer-based support group for peer-accompanied walks on campus, and it forwarded a statement from the University of Toronto. This action only came after the Students’ Law Society (SLS) emailed a statement to all law students—the delay in response from the Faculty was clearly not due to a lack of awareness of the situation. On September 25, the Ontario Health Coalition (OHC) organized a large protest against the Ford government’s privatization of healthcare. The OHC has no history of violent action and uses peaceful advocacy as its main driver for change. On September 22, the Friday preceding the protest, law students were notified the school would be fobaccess only due to the OHC demonstration.

On September 26, law students were notified at 9:23am that the building would be fob-access only for the day. Administration provided no reason for heightening security. This response coincided with a rumoured “Save the Children Convoy,” which planned to arrive on the same day at Queen’s Park. The Convoy allegedly planned to shut down the streets with vehicle blockades as an antiLGBTQ2S+ demonstration. These rumours prompted Toronto Police Services to preemptively block road access around Queen’s Park. The above events clearly deserved different reactions—yet the University’s and Faculty of Law’s chosen responses were wholly inadequate. To summarize, the University and Faculty chose to allow an overtly bigoted protest access to the building and the students inside. The very next week, they decided to lock the school’s doors to a march supporting public healthcare. Throughout, the decision-making processes remained opaque. The Faculty declined to inform students until the day before each protest and did not deem it necessary to undertake any further response. The Faculty decided not to notify students of the 1MM and Convoy protests before they happened. While Asst. Dean Maxwell-Alleyne did forward an email that mentioned the 1MM protest, any relevant information was buried in the body text. This email was also from the wider University of Toronto—it was not tailored to law students. With respect to the protests, there are two critical differences between law students and the broader University stu-

dent body: the law building’s proximity to the protests and the protests’ target of gender and equity within our legal systems. We are a distinct entity within the University of Toronto and, considering Asst. Dean Maxwell-Alleyne’s portfolio on EDI, should have received a tailored response. While Asst. Dean Maxwell-Alleyne did note on the morning of the 1MM protest that there is a law school-specific counsellor, the message from the Faculty heavily relied on a community walk-safe response. It is disappointing that the law school relied on external communities to respond to the protest instead of investing in protecting its students— particularly so when the Faculty preaches the importance of equity in its recruitment and first-year curriculum and in light of the fact that a gender studies class at the University of Waterloo was recently attacked. It was a gross oversight by the Faculty to allow a Gender Equality in Transnational Legal Perspective class to see these hateful protesters directly outside and know that protesters could access their classrooms. Students in that class reported feeling unsafe, clearly demonstrating the failure of the Faculty’s response. Asst. Dean Maxwell-Alleyne is not the only member of the Faculty or the administration. Addressing protests that threaten law students’ wellbeing and existence is not only an EDI issue, it is a faculty-wide issue. The Faculty and University leaving the EDI offices isolated in developing a response demonstrates an overall lack of commitment to the principles of EDI and dooms their responses to failure. Ultimately, the Faculty made virtually no response to the 1MM pro-

test and simply relied on the University’s actions. It is disappointing to see a lack of support tailored to law students and our unique circumstances and school community. Furthermore, it is entirely incoherent for the University of Toronto to have deemed the OHC protest an event warranting locking the building and not the 1MM protest. This discrepancy is further confounded by the decision to lock the building for the rumoured Convoy. Perhaps this decision was informed by the fact that at least one participant of the 1MM protest carried a weapon, but the University’s reasons are ultimately unknown. Any guiding procedures are also a mystery because the University has not made any policies governing when to lock buildings public. Students deserve to understand how the University will respond to events that threaten their identities and pose a real threat to their safety. In particular, when a response is made, students should know why so they are fully informed of any risks of being present on campus. However, the University and Faculty declined to provide any further information on the locking of the building on September 26, the day of the rumoured Convoy. The Faculty and University need to explain why a building is locked and must make guidelines on the decision-making process available to students. To do otherwise is to deprioritize student safety in exchange for the political convenience of avoiding engaging in a meaningful, important issue. The 1MM protest was publicly known and its content was clearly hateful. While the OHC protest was larger, the content of a

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca protest cannot be separated from a risk analysis, regardless of any possible desire to be politically “neutral.” It is important to acknowledge the reality of the 1MM and Save the Children movements. They are anti-LGBTQ2S+, hateful, brew violence, and are deeply tied to fascist alt-right movements that have sprung into focus on the Canadian stage since the convoy protests in February 2022.

University criteria for locking the building or Faculty decision-making on notifications and accommodations must take protest content into consideration. A protest is inherently political, and therefore any response is as well. To be clear, no response is a response. To fail to respond is to either deem the protest as not dangerous— which is demonstrably incorrect—or to prioritize political convenience at the cost of

student wellbeing. While the University made a statement denouncing the anti-LGBTQ2S+ nature of the September 20 protest and the statement was forwarded by Asst. Dean Maxwell-Alleyne, words are worth little when they are not backed by real action. Editor’s note: Carson Cook is a 2L Representative on the SLS’s Student Life and Academic Com-

October 26, 2023 | 17 mittee. Asst. Dean Alleyne-Maxwell provided the following comment in response to a draft of this article: “The Faculty of Law, including the leadership team, is deeply committed to equity, inclusion and student well-being. Students are always encouraged to meet with me to talk about how we can ensure a safe and welcoming environment.”

Australia’s Referendum Votes “No” on Indigenous Voice to Parliament What can that tell us about our country’s treatment of Indigenous peoples? CAELEB “RAE” GOFF (3L)

CREDIT: TINA TILHARD/CENTRAL LAND COUNCIL/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Uluru Statement From the Heart: “This is the torment of our powerlessness.” On October 14, 2023, Australians voted”‘no” on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum. The Referendum, which stemmed from statements of reconciliation and recognition of Indigenous peoples, was an attempt to constitutionally recognize Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people, and to provide a “committee of Indigenous Australians, chosen by Indigenous Australians, giving advice to government so that we can get a better result for Indigenous Australians,” as simply described by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. In order to pass, the referendum needed both a majority nationally and to pass in

four of Australia’s six states. None of the states ended with a majority, and 60.8% of voters responded “No” to the initiative. However, in areas where the population was majority Indigenous, such as Momington Island, the “Yes” vote had high numbers. Similarly, many inner metropolitan areas had higher voting percentages of “Yes” than outer metropolitan and rural areas. Uluru Statement From the Heart and the Voice to Parliament The Voice to Parliament (Voice) was one of two calls stemming from the Uluru Statement From the Heart, a statement created in 2017 by 250 Aboriginal and Torres Islander people at the First Nations National Constitutional Convention. The

12-paragraph statement details the sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples stemming from ancestral connections to the land of Australia for over 60,000 years. It further describes the systemic discrimination and disparities faced by Indigenous Australians: We are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are alienated from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future. These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness. The statement thus calls for constitutional reform to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through the Voice initiative and for the establishment of a Makarrata Commission, a supervisory body for agreement-making and truth-telling. The Voice was ultimately a simple, middle ground that would give Indigenous Australians the opportunity to speak on issues that impact them. In this way, it is not unlike business councils and mining groups, which already have representation through advisory bodies when legislation could impact the people they represent. As for Indigenous peoples f inding greater participation through national law, Australia would be following the recognition of Indigenous peoples in the Canadian constitution in 1982 (see s.35 of the Constitution Act) and New Zealand’s treaties with the Maori peoples in 1840. “If you don’t know, vote no.” The mechanisms by which the “No” vote gained traction follow a disturbing trend in voter apathy rationalized through universalizing anti-division arguments. Overarching the vote’s entirety were the power dynamics present in the systemic discrimination of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There were two simple slogans used by supporters of the “No”’ vote: “If you don’t know, vote no” and “One together, not two

divided. Vote No to the Voice of Division.” The anti-education stance on voting plays to the overall avoidance tactic used by dominant societies to disengage with the discussions around movements towards equality. This avoidance is marked by denial of the realities of colonialism. In an open letter from over 70 constitutional and public law teachers, they note that “it is wrong to frame the Voice as introducing a racial divide into the constitution… the racial divide has always been there.” The messages of racial divide are arguably a distraction to the real fears that voters acted upon—that providing an Indigenous voice to Parliament would damage the rights of other Australians, particularly land rights. This is a similar argument to what we see frequently in Canada, especially in questions of private landholders versus title claims. This false dichotomy and belief of scarcity of rights is frequently utilized in colonial nations to deny the rights and self-determination of Indigenous populations. Dean Parkin, who led the campaign in support of the referendum, addressed this concept directly after the vote was called: “I want to speak very directly to those Australians who voted no with hardness in your hearts. Please understand that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have never wanted to take anything from you. We have never and will never mean you harm.” Apathy as an Excuse for Discriminatory Practice As colonial nations, both Australia and Canada have to grapple with motions towards reconciliation with Indigenous people and address the vast systemic inequalities plaguing our societies. Such reconciliation can never be accomplished through willful blindness to the realities of colonial damage or the continuous denial of self-determination of Indigenous people, even if these denials are covered with innocuous ideologies of avoiding discord and division. As our nations continue our reconciliatory processes, non-Indigenous persons must engage with, learn about, and truly listen to the voices of Indigenous people. There is no excuse for not knowing.

DIVERSIONS

18 | October 26, 2023

ultravires.ca

Intra Vires

Totally real news from a spooky and cold Faculty of Law FIEVEL LIM (3L) AND CHRISTINE WANG (3L JD/MBA)

Professors deeply disappointed that 2Ls did not want to come to class during OCIs Earlier this month, professors at the Faculty of Law were aghast at the idea that 2Ls did not want to come to their 5 to 7pm course on the evening of their OCIs. Anonymous professors interviewed by the UV stated that they were “disappointed at how ‘weak sauce’” these upper-year students were, and asked if “they even lift, bro.” When requested for comment, a 2L student simply said “please,” and “I am so tired.” SLS proposes even more exciting Faculty of Law merch Following the startling success of the Faculty of Law merch sale this month, the Students’ Law Society is now seeking to generate additional funding by selling even more bussin’ merch. An interview with the president of the SLS, Justin Kim, revealed plans to introduce the following merch: (Brackets indicate totally real comments from Mr. Kim) • Energy drinks (it’s just Red Bull with a Faculty of Law logo slapped on it) • Stress balls (to match the U of T bookstore ones! Cheaper than therapy!) • Thong (for when you’re feeling like a lil’ saucy intruder) • Birth control (to protect yourself from the lil’ saucy intruder)

• •

SLS Sparkling Water Subscription (Only $79.99, a real steal!) SLS x J’s Java cups (The most hype collaboration of the year! You can use it for sparkling water!!)

Terima? More like Teri-blah Terima is now open for business, and the polls currently suggest that while the service is amazing, almost everything else is just mid. One dissatisfied customer threw away an entire cup of coffee because “it was horrible.” Yet another customer “blacked out” after seeing the price of a salad. Rumour has it that one student had a good experience with the egg and cheese sandwich though. When asked about Terima, many students grew tearyeyed, saying that they missed the free coffee people, who “really came through for them” during tough weeks, particularly during exam season. Students remain hopeful that Terima will continue to improve and perhaps even become a bragging point for U of T Law. Annual SLS Halloween Party Canceled, Replaced with Spooky Networking Night If you were one of the lucky guests who attended the 2022 SLS Halloween Party, then you would be fortunate enough to recall how phenomenal a networking opportunity it was! With the bright, professional ambience of the Falconer lights shining all

night over the guests, one couldn’t ask for a better chance to network with your peers. Imagine it: more than 300 1Ls, 2Ls, and 3Ls all gathered in one brightly-lit place, ripe for the resume-pickings! Given its resounding success, the SLS has declared that this year’s SLS Halloween Party shall be formally reworked into a SLS Halloween Networking Night. So bring your scariest costume and your best handshake. Your LinkedIn growth is waiting for you! Helpful career advice from the Faculty Although that cute little townhouse on St. Clair Avenue may be forever out of your reach, Faculty would like to remind all of us that it is okay that we were not all born 35 years ago. More rest over extra hours? Never heard of her—no one wants to live in a house smaller than the one they grew up in. The only real sacrifice is working in Big Law and on Saturdays. After all, it’s a different world now; no one uses punctuation in emails anymore. But don’t worry. The Faculty assures us that as long as you treat your entire lives as a non-stop job interview, you will be sure to succeed! OCIs to be replaced next year in light of continually increasing wait times for responses The LSO has recently announced that OCIs are officially outdated, and they will be replaced

with something equally effective and way less stressful. Inspired by the latest Willy Wonka movie, 2L students will have a chance to receive job offers without the need for those pesky 17-minute dates and in-firm interviews. Bay Street firms will now gather in the Atrium on the first day of class and offer bottles of ginger beer, which 2Ls must open and finish under the watchful eye of the representatives. Only the most qualified students will subsequently find a semi-decomposed snail in their drink, which will be their golden ticket to a job offer at the firm that provided the ginger beer. Who knew law students would come to love snails? To the 2Ls: we wish you all the best, and may the odds be ever in your “flavour.” Update: Class of 2026 1Ls ejected from October OCIs, decide to hold own OCIs Last month, the class of 2026 1Ls were shocked and appalled to discover that the Bay Street firms did not, in fact, let them participate in the 2L OCIs. Instead, the 1L students were escorted out by building security. In light of these harrowing events, the keenest of the keen 1Ls have decided to hold their own 1L OCIs. It is unclear whether anyone has told them that there is already a 1L recruit, or what firms these keeners are sending successful students to. Rumours suggest that they will just be interviewing each other, in a circle.

The Tribe Has Spoken: You Should Watch Survivor An effort to get others to adopt my preferred method of escapism SHELBY HOHMANN (2L) Considering the people in my life seem to be getting a bit sick of hearing me talk endlessly about my favourite reality television show, I’ve decided to channel my passion into the written word. To be clear, when I say reality T V, I mean competition shows that involve social strateg y, not just those Real Housewives-types where you are basically just watching people go about their day-to-day lives. I want to of fer some quality recommendations here and keep everyone up-to-date on what’s going on in the bustling reality T V world. If you like and want more of this, don’t worry! There is plenty of reality T V knowledge left in my brain to go ‘round! Reality T V was a big part of my childhood, thanks to my grandma. We kept up with shows together and I always looked forward to visiting her house, knowing there would be a backlog of PVR’ed Big Brother or T he Amazing Race episodes ready for me to

binge. A lot of people tell me they used to watch my favourite shows but fell of f the horse as adults. This is fair, but I urge you to reconsider. Not only can reality T V be a great form of escapism, but it can also be a fun way of connecting with the community. It’s nice being able to f ind common ground with people, despite their varying backgrounds, and bond over the “television tea.” Watching reality T V also gives me something to look forward to each week, which can mean a lot when you’re in the trenches at U of T Law! If any of the above sparked your interest, or you are curious whether your childhood show is even still running, here’s a bit more on my favourite show currently airing: Survivor. Survivor Survivor is a social strateg y game in which regular people (and sometimes minor celebrities) are marooned in the jungles of Fiji

and have to vote out a tribemate each week. The show has been around almost as long as I have been alive and recently premiered its 45th season, and for good reason! Survivor continually casts dynamic characters who are highly entertaining and easy to root for. The show also features stunning nature shots and fun editing. In fact, true Survivor nerds (myself included) enjoy a whole pastime of over-analyzing what they call “the edit.” If you aren’t sure exactly how Survivor works, here is the basic premise: a group of people (castaways) head of f to Fiji, where they are divided into (typically) three tribes living on separate beaches. The tribes must compete in challenges to earn rewards and immunity. Each week, the tribe that f inishes last in the challenges must go to tribal council and vote one member of f the island. The game also features several hidden immunity idols dispersed throughout the tribe camps.

Immunity idols can be used by the f inder to invalidate any votes cast against them and secure safety. In Season 45, f inding the immunity idols has proven to be far from simple. One featured on last week’s episode, for example, was found encased in wax, and as such, had to be melted in the tribal council f ire (in front of everyone, because the tribe had not yet even received f lint to make f ire). Don’t worry though, the holder of that idol was promptly voted out. Other advantages will undoubtedly come up this season, but we can hope the producers did not cook up anything too crazy this time (trust me, they have in the past)! As the tribes continue to vote members out, the game shifts to its individual component. The tribes merge and, instead of competing for tribe safety, castaways are in it for themselves, each seeking the individual immunity necklace. Tribal councils continue, and those who are voted out post-merge

ultravires.ca join the jury. When four players remain, the holder of individual immunity gets a ticket to the f inale, alongside one other person of their choosing. The remaining two players compete in a f ire-making competition, the winner of which also earns a spot in the f inale. Then, at the f inal tribal council, the f inal castaways f ield questions (from the jury) as to why they should be crowned the “Sole Survivor” and win the grand prize.

DIVERSIONS The jury then votes for who they want to win. There is no overarching theme this season of Survivor, as has been the case since the beginning of the “New Era” in Season 41. It may be of interest to law students, however, that there are three attorneys on this season, as well as one singer who turned down an of fer to Harvard Law! We are cur rent ly on ly four week s into it

(st i l l in t he pre-merge stage) and t he episodes are on ly going to get more exciting…so t he t ime to star t watch ing is now! A lter nat ively, you can a lso watch seasons 30 - 4 4 w it h Paramount+. Not sure where to star t? Some beg inner seasons I’d suggest are Season 37 ( Dav id vs. Gol iat h t hemed) and Season 41 (t he f irst season in t he “New Era”…sor r y for spoi l ing t he w inner below).

October 26, 2023 | 19 E xc it i ng new s! Post- S ea son 39, Ca nad ia ns a re a l so el ig ible to apply to be on S u r vi vor. A ny t a ker s? S o fa r, Ca nad ia ns have fa red ex t remely wel l on t he show, w it h Toronton ia n E r i k a Ca supa na n t a ki ng home t he one m i l l ion dol la r g r a nd pr i ze i n S ea son 41 a nd M a r ya n na Oketch, f rom Aja x , subsequent ly w i nn i ng S ea son 42. I f law school doesn’t work out…

Last Minute Ha-Law-ween Costume Ideas 13 easy law-inspired Halloween costumes TAYLOR RODRIGUES (3L) Halloween is days away, and you still don’t have a costume? Have no fear, Ultra Vires is back with its annual list of Halloween costumes that are guaranteed to kill the curve at even the spookiest of Halloween parties. 1. Law yer Barbie Be the real star of the Barbie movie. Dress up as Law yer Barbie ( played by Sharon Rooney in the f ilm). Who, other than a lawyer, could have devised the plan to solve Barbie Land’s constitutional crisis? Simply straighten your hair and put on a blue blouse, as well as a matching pastel blue blazer and skirt, to get Law yer Barbie’s signature look. Bonus points if you wear a DI Y life-sized, Barbie Doll box over your judiciously well-styled outf it. 2. Charlie Kelly (or any other licensed or “unlicensed” law yer from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia) Bird law in this country is not governed by reason, but you’re taking Animals and the Law and you’re going to f ix it! Grab some khakis, a yellow checkered dress shirt, a green and brown tie, and some reading glasses—you're ready for your legal career to soar! 3. A micus (ICYMI: he’s the of f icial mascot of the Supreme Court of Canada) Dress up as an owl that thinks they are Santa Claus. The only people who are going to get this costume are the real legal eagles. Maybe save a photo of Amicus on your camera roll in the inevitable event that you are asked “what are you supposed to be?” After all, free Socratic dialogue is just one beak perk of this costume.

4. Elle Woods You’re already a student at the Harvard of the North (like it’s hard?), so you’re halfway there. First, choose your Elle Woods era. Are you a young K-JD just like Elle Woods in Legally Blonde? Or are you more of a mature student who relates to Elle Woods in the upcoming Legally Blonde 3, balancing your legal career and family responsibilities? Either way, wear some pink, accessorize with more pink, and borrow your friend’s chihuahua. 5. The Lincoln Law yer Are your car and money your whole personality? Do you own a suit? Are you willing to take “any case, anytime, anywhere?” If you answered yes to any or all of the above, this is the costume for you! Suit up, grab your business cards, and hire a private driver for a night of “ghoulish client development.” Budget option: Uber between your various Halloween parties and just tell other partygoers your “car is in the shop.” 6. Lady Justice Don a f lowing robe, a blindfold, a scale, and a sword. Some will say you are a platonic ideal or a bourgeois myth to keep the proletariat in their place. But who has the sword? Still you. 7. President Zelenskyy The CDO wasn’t kidding when they said getting a JD opens countless doors. President Zelensky y went on to be a successful comedian, actor, and wartime president after getting his law degree. You can choose his signature dark green t-shirt and fatigue pants, or a suit. It’s okay to pay tribute to a politician f ighting real authoritarianism, but please remember to be respectful.

8. Cognomos Dress up as a robot and tell all your friends you’re going to plan a Halloween night that will maximize the group’s collective happiness. Ask your friends what they want to do on Halloween and if they have any scheduling constraints. I mmed iately ig nore your fr iends’ schedu l ing const ra ints. Double-book ha l f of your fr iends to mu lt iple, simu ltaneous Ha l loween par t ies. L eave huge gaps in t he ot her ha l f of your fr iends’ Ha l loween schedu les. Your 3L friend will complain that you planned nothing for them and this is the last time they can celebrate Halloween on a weekday because they will soon head to Bay Street. Tell them the best you can do is put them on the waitlists for multiple Halloween club events that they have no interest in attending. 9. TaxGPT Another robot costume. This time though, of fer to answer anyone’s tax questions at the party but deny you are giving out any legal advice. Don’t bother to do any legal analysis. Just scrape the internet and regurgitate the most common answers found online to the questions your partygoers pose. The most common answers must be the most authoritative, right? It’s not like tax myths circulate online anyway. 10. A mazon It’s easy to dress up as the largest company in the world. If you’re a U of T student, you’re already enrolled in an intensive course on conf licts of interest. If you’re not, perhaps you’re a strong “supporter” of competition law research. You can grab an oversized Amazon box and cut out holes for your head, arms, and legs. Or, if you want to show of f your assets,

you can stitch a bunch of Amazon bubble mailers into a slim-f itting dress. Whatever you wear, the important thing is that you stick to your talking points at the Halloween cocktail parties. You love ef f iciencies, the free market, and “freedom to contract.” Quickly change the subject if “un-fun” topics like monopolies, worker classif ication, or privacy come up. 11. Law Review Print of f various statutes or common law rules and give them a review out of f ive stars in red sharpie. Add comments if desired. Wear an all-white base layer and tape or safety pin your reviewed documents onto you. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t make the U of T Faculty of Law Review—you now are Law Review! After all, if you can’t join ‘em, beat ‘em (that is the expression, right?). 12. The Reasonable Person Exercise ordinary diligence and prudence in choosing your costume and Halloween plans. Perhaps a cricket outf it or a railway guard uniform. Dial down your intelligence to an ordinary level, suppress your idiosyncrasies and familiarize yourself with the standards of Halloween revelers. 13. Mark (or any innie from Severance) You dream of work-life balance. You wish you could undergo Lumon Industries’ (f ictional) severance procedure and sever your work life from your personal life. Unfortunately though, the science isn’t there yet. But put on some business clothes and a Lumon Industries lanyard to live out that dream. Need more spooky inspiration? Visit ultravires.ca for more lists of Halloween costumes ideas!

DIVERSIONS

20 | October 26, 2023

ultravires.ca

Advice Column: The Saucy Intruder SAUCY INTRUDER Saucy Intruder is an advice column for law students by law students. If you need advice, please direct your questions to leavemealone@mail.utoronto. ca. Hi Saucy Intruder, After my OCIs, I sent a three-paragraph thank you email to my interviewers. One of the interviewers emailed back and signed off with “Talk soon.” I figured I’m guaranteed to get an in-firm interview, so I bought a brand new $7000 suit. If they don’t give me an in-firm interview, can I complain to the LSO? Warmest regards, DeLusion Al Dear Mr. Al, “Talk soon” means more than just an in-firm interview. It means not only do you have the job, you’re also being considered for partnership. It’s time to update everyone on LinkedIn, including people with whom you’ve only ever made awkward eye contact at school.

Forget about complaining to the LSO. If that firm doesn’t give you the job, you would be well within your legal rights to sue that firm for negligent misrepresentation resulting in economic loss. Not so sure about working at this particular firm? That’s okay! It’s still a great opportunity to let fellow 2Ls know that you’re better than them. Hi Saucy, I’m in 1L. Every time I meet an upper-year student they give me unsolicited advice, tell me not to worry about anything, and that everything will turn out fine. They then go on to talk about how they landed in New York the moment they stepped foot into Jackman. On the other hand, being around other 1Ls is stress-inducing. As I try to work through my LRW assignment, I’m starting to feel like I’m just average. How do I get rid of imposter syndrome and get my inflated ego back? Sincerely, PPP

Dear PPP, You probably feel like you’re average because you are average. And maybe you don’t have imposter syndrome, you might actually just be an imposter. Have you considered that your inflated ego may have actually made you quite unlikeable and given you unrealistic expectations? If you come to terms with this, then maybe you’ll be able to focus on finally understanding promissory estoppel. Any time law school begins to stress you out, just walk it off. If you find that too awkward to do but still want to avoid the inevitable stress-inducing conversations, I suggest simply not coming to class (tuition is sunk cost anyways). Dear Denning, I know that the new café sucks, but it’s sooo convenient so I took my crush there last week. I got a smoothie from there. They didn’t have any straws, so I popped open the lid to sip on my smoothie. But I spilled it all over myself in front of my crush!

Can I sue Terima for negligence? Thanks, Thirsty for Love Hi Thirsty, First, I am not Denning. And this is no tort. Second, even before you spilled the smoothie (who gets a smoothie from a café??), your crush was most definitely not interested. You know that the law school has gone through more cafés than you have exes. You know that it is notoriously overpriced. In fact, your crush may have a torts case against you for the distress that you put them through. Next time (not that there will be a next time), try walking 10 minutes in any direction of your choosing, and you’ll find a better place with straws! Stay saucy!

Horror Movies Are a Ghoul’s Best Friend Horror movie recommendations for the season BRIANNA ROWE (3L) It’s that time of year again: the stores that have been empty all year suddenly have storefronts, and the dollar stores have rolled out their Christmas decorations, so it must be Halloween. If you’re looking for a way to decompress amidst the law school stress, here are some seasonal spooks to turn on at night (or in the middle of the day, with all the lights on). If You Want To Take Up The Entire Weekend Some horror movies are basically legends, and many of them get that way by continually releasing more and more sequels. My favourite example is the Friday the 13th movie franchise. The first is an all-time classic with teens, a summer camp, a killer that slowly picks them off one by one, and a plot twist ending. The sequels are campy slasher flicks where you know the bad guy, you know what he’s capable of (everything), what can kill him (nothing), and that he’ll invariably come back in the sequel to finish off the singular survivor from the previous film. My personal favourite of these films is the 10th, Jason X, where the serial killer Jason Vorhees is cryogenically frozen aboard a spaceship. Preceding Friday the 13th by two years is another classic, Halloween. An escaped mental patient killer returns to his hometown on the 15th anniversary of when he murdered his parents. Jamie Lee Curtis’ debut in this film is a prime example of the archetypical “Final Girl.” We have remakes and sequels and two or three retconned timelines in this franchise, so spending a weekend watching all 13 of these movies would be a fun festive activity. A more modern franchise takes us away from the world of campy 80s slashers and into the world of the paranormal. Producers of The Conjuring film franchise have made it Marvel Cinematic Universe-esque, with currently three different franchises in the universe. The Conjuring, which explores the world of a couple who were paranormal investigators, spawned two sequels. Then, there’s the Annabelle trilogy, which tells the tale of the creation, existence, and entrapment of a haunted vintage doll. Finally, The Nun tells the story of a demon who takes the appearance of a nun, and its recent sequel The Nun II, which I won’t spoil, brings the total up to eight movies so far. They are less gory than the previous franchises, fo-

cusing more on jump scares and suspense, so these movies may not be for the faint of heart. If You Don’t Want to be THAT Scared Gore and slashers and paranormal aren’t for everyone. Lawyers can see a lot in their day— sometimes they just want to curl up with a good, aesthetic film that fits the Halloween vibe without being scary. And that’s okay! Halloweentown has to be one of the greatest Disney Channel Original Movies ever and the best Halloween film they’ve released. It tells the classic tale of a family where the children are witches (and a warlock), but they just haven’t come into their powers yet. Marnie, the eldest, bravest, and most magical; Dylan, the smart, cynical one; and Sophie, the young, chaotic one, allow every viewer to see themselves in the dynamic and find someone to root for. It spawned three sequels, even if everyone chooses to ignore the last one where they recast the lead. Then, on the edgier side is Beetlejuice, the story of a couple who dies immediately when the movie opens and then go on to haunt their house with the help of the otherworldly entity of Beetlejuice. The most terrifying things in this movie are the weird puppet sandworms and the implications of Beetlejuice wanting to marry an extremely young Winona Rider. This movie has so many small details that it has significant rewatch potential, and, while no sequels exist, there is a Broadway adaptation of it that pays great respect to the original. Of the movies in this section, Monster House by far scared me the worst. The eerie early 3D animation, the fact that it’s mostly children dying, and a whole house being possessed scared me far more than any slasher ever could. This movie follows three children, none of whom were particularly easy to root for—even when I was as insufferable as they are—and leaves you guessing what will happen next. A love story, a happy ending, and character growth allow this movie to be feel-good while at the same time giving you a scary aesthetic that will fulfill the Halloween fun you are looking for. Saving the best non-scary movie for last, the live action Scooby-Doo tops us off. It has a star-studded cast, the background of everyone already knowing and loving these characters, and a unique story. I encourage everyone, regardless of what kind of movie you are looking for, to watch the live action Scooby-Doo movies immediately.

Everyone watched these movies as a child, or they should have. Regardless of if you’ve seen it or not, everyone will feel the nostalgia. Scooby-Doo is the perfect suspenseful mystery that’s also light and funny and will give the perfect amount of Halloween vibes to any night. If You Want to Laugh While You’re Scared The black comedy horror movie is something of an art. It mixes the light tones we find in comedy with the heavy materials we see in horror, like gore, violence, and death, in order to make light of and draw attention to serious issues. These types of movies are not for everyone.Some find them distasteful, and lots of movies that try to claim this title are. Heathers, however, is one that I think does this genre justice. It depicts a high school popular girl and her newto-town love interest murdering three of their classmates and covering it up as suicides. In doing so, this movie draws attention to things such as the sexualization of teenage girls, the pressures that adults and high school can put on children, and the glorification of suicide in modern media. All of these things are tied together with comedy as the characters come to terms with what is happening. Heathers is not for the faint of heart and does deal with issues like sexual assault, but it is a movie that I would recommend to many. The Cabin in the Woods is basically a modern classic horror comedy. It attempts to subvert and draw attention to the ridiculous nature of horror movies and their tropes from the decades preceding it. Starring the likes of Chris Hemsworth, this movie twists and turns in places the audience least expects. While this film features many deaths, the audience does laugh at the ridiculousness of what is happening and at the humour that is sometimes used. If you are going to see one horror comedy, it should be this one. Finally, and most recently, Totally Killer tells the story of a girl who time travels back in time to when her mother’s friends were brutally murdered by a masked man. The humour in this horror comedy primarily comes from the main character interacting with younger versions of her parents and attempting to hide her background. This movie, having received fairly good overall reviews, seems to be a modern gem of this genre and will have people of all ages (who are above 18) terrified and laughing.

Modern Movies to See Many of the movies on this list are a decade or more old. But, there are some good ones from recent memory. For starters, Jordan Peele’s Get Out, Us, and Nope have been groundbreaking for modern horror. Get Out focuses on a cult-like society kidnapping young black men, with the main character as the next potential victim. It embraces tropes that bring Invasion of the Body Snatchers into a modern, advanced society. Us, however, focuses on government conspiracies and blends science fiction with the paranormal. Focusing on an entire family, Jordan Peele embraces themes of family and loyalty above the binds of those wanting to keep us down. Finally, Nope is an alien feature that relies primarily on suspense. In my opinion it is the weakest of the three, as it relies on the intertwining of a vast array of characters and suspense in order to captivate its audience. The Menu was released late last year and was my favourite film of 2022. At points verging into humour, it tells the tale of what happens when upperclass people go to a luxury restaurant experience. It relies on suspense and sound, with dazzling food imagery. The film starts slow, but as the film continues, the terror becomes more frequent until you’re in a constant state of “what’s going to happen next?” The ensemble cast carries the movie with amazing chemistry and excellent timing. I would highly recommend it. And, of course, there continue to be up-and-coming horror movies. Five Nights at Freddy’s, based on the games of the same name, starring Josh Hutcherson as he is terrorized by Chuck E. Cheese-esque animatronics, is coming out later this month. And, similar to other holiday-themed horror movies, Thanksgiving, which tells the tale of a slasher that kills people around American Thanksgiving, comes out next month. Next year, you can expect more too: Night Swim, which features a mysterious creature in someone’s pool, and Imaginary, which showcases what happens when a woman returns to her childhood home and realizes her imaginary friend has never left. Regardless of what type of Halloween movies you prefer, I hope you sit down with a mug of hot chocolate and Halloween candy and put on whatever fits the vibe of your night.

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

October 26, 2023 | 21

A Statistical Analysis of Soju Flavours Trying every flavour so you don’t have to (you’re welcome!) VIVIAN LI (3L), REBEKAH KIM (3L), CHRISTINE WANG (3L JD/MBA), AND AMY KWONG (3L) that it’s the middle tiers, but the flavours were all quite close in score. Despite it being ranked 4th, 5th, and 6th respectively, peach (8.050), green apple (7.725), and strawberry (7.575) were each perfectly adequate flavours—albeit maybe with something a little less yummy about them. One participant, for instance, found peach to be “weirdly sour.” Green apple felt a little too astringent with not quite enough sweetness, and strawberry was good but…just not as standout as the medallers, you know? Maybe if they were mixed into cocktails, their scores would improve. Recipes to follow in a further study. Alright, now we’re getting into the spicy part: the three bad flavours. Here, our science-o-meter indicated bad vibes with each of the following flavours, yogurt being the least serious offender. It’s like Yakult, but a little too sweet, perhaps? Still, points for bringing our favourite Asian childhood beverage alive to fit our current degen needs. Blueberry, however, is where the real drop in ratings happened. Whatever this blueberry flavour was, it did not taste real. It did taste kind of blue, but we would not characterize it as being a berry, per se. It was just a sweet…blue…thing? It very much tasted like it was cooked up in a lab somewhere, and the person who made it clearly had not really tasted blueberries before. Definitely not a flavour that we would repurchase or even recommend to anyone. Unsurprisingly, apple mango came in dead last in the flavour-profile rankings. One participant noted to the group that apple mango tastes like “that one cough syrup” prior to cracking open the bottle, so expectations were already low. But it was truly an unfortunate surprise when another participant noted, upon trying the flavour, that it actually tasted like celery. It was at that moment that everyone could only taste celery. Why does apple mango taste like celery? This may be a pertinent topic for future study.

MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR THE EXPERIMENT. CREDIT: AMY KWONG

Abstract Among the pantheon of traditional alcoholic beverages that hail from the Korean peninsula, soju occupies a singularly eminent position, often eliciting appreciative sentiments from connoisseurs and casual drinkers alike. The objective of this study was to try every single flavour of soju available in LCBO and determine the best flavour of soju based on subjective and objective criteria. We sampled nine different flavors of soju, including peach, green grape, plum, strawberry, yogurt, green apple, apple mango, blueberry, and citron. We rated each flavour on a scale of 1 to 10 for aroma, taste, sweetness, bitterness, good vibes, and bad vibes. We also measured the alcohol and sugar content of each flavor using a hydrometer and a refractometer. (That was a lie, we didn’t do that.) We then performed statistical analysis to compare the standardized mean ratings of each flavour on a 10-point scale. The results showed that citron soju had the highest overall rating (8.425), followed by plum soju (8.375) and green grape soju (8.125). The three lowest rated flavors were yogurt soju (7.525), followed by blueberry soju (5.000) and apple mango soju (1.000). Hypothesis We postulate that the consumption of soju, especially when ingested in considerable volumes, possesses the inherent capability to precipitate pronounced states of inebriation in individuals, manifesting as perceptual alterations and discernible cognitive impairments. We further postulate that soju is yummy. Methodology 1. Participants purchased every flavour of soju available at the LCBO: apple mango, citron, grape, apple, yogurt, peach, plum, blueberry,

2. 3.

5. 6.

and strawberry. Unfortunately, grapefruit was out of stock, but nevertheless, we persevered. Also, we forgot about the original (no added flavour) until after the experiment, but we can confidently say that it’s gross anyways. Participants played a round of cards with a control group. Participants determined the order in which they would try the flavours. To avoid bias in later samples (assuming that drunkenness would influence participants’ enjoyment), every participant was assigned a different order. Participants tried flavours according to their assigned order. To ensure safety of participants, tasting was limited to half a shot of each flavour (with exceptions for those with higher alcohol tolerance). Note: some participants later became overzealous and drank more than their allotted amount. After every shot, participants wrote down comments and scored the flavour out of 10. Comments and scores were collected and analyzed through statistical analysis. Raw scores were converted into individual z-scores, which were subsequently mapped onto a 10-point scale to ensure standardization and aesthetic presentation. Participants played another round of cards with the control group and compared their performance. Some participants did notably poorer, while others seemed to improve under the influence of alcohol. Performance of the control group varied. Actually, we’re not really sure what the card game had to do with ranking the flavour of the soju…

Analysis Soju is a really great drink, but trying so many flavours all at once is no easy feat. Maybe we’re just lightweights, but the experiment’s participants definitely felt the alcohol kick in somewhere throughout the process. Taking nine shots back to back is not recommended for the faint of heart. Throughout our labours, however, our study generated a few surprising results. Citron, for instance, is not typically a flavour that one thinks of as being especially good when it comes to soju. In fact, it might be one of the flavours that most people just forget about. Yet, it was a unanimous crowd pleaser; three out of four of the participants ranked it as being either the first or the second best flavour. It was light, refreshing, and delightfully lemon-y without being overly sour. This is definitely a must-try. Plum and green grape too turned out to be bussin’ flavours. Plum, in fact, is one of the new flavour offerings available at LCBO alongside grapefruit. It was sweet and fresh, though not particularly plum-tasting. Maybe it’s because all the plums that the authors have eaten recently have been quite sour? Regardless, it’s a fun new flavour to try amidst the range of classics. Speaking of classics, who can talk about soju without talking about green grape? It’s a wonder how the makers managed to create an alcoholic grape flavour that actually tastes like green grapes. Something about this flavour just doesn’t feel purple, from what our science tells us. Once again, it was the perfect amount of sweet without being cloying, and it tasted fresh enough to seem like adult grape juice. Green grape has been with you since the beginning, and it will be with you until the end. It promises you that. Here is where we enter the middle tiers. Well, we say

Possible sources of error • Despite the plethora of flavours now available at the LCBO, this “comprehensive” review was not truly comprehensive, as we were not able to get grapefruit flavour (our bag was too heavy already) and we straight up forgot about original. A quick Google search also informed us that there are more flavours available outside of Ontario, including pomegranate, pineapple, and melon, all of which sound pretty tasty. Curse the overly restrictive import policies of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario! • There were four esteemed scientists brought onto this study, each of whom had undoubtedly formed a number of preconceptions regarding each of the soju flavours based on their in-depth and repeated encounters with this alcoholic drink. Is there an administrative law remedy about fairness to be sought here? Maybe. Conclusion Our hypothesis was correct. We did get drunk. The top-ranked flavours included citron, plum, and green grape. The most unpopular flavour, by a unanimous vote, was apple mango. One participant was both shocked and appalled that yogurt and strawberry placed so low on the rankings, but this is unfortunately a democracy, so it is what it is. Nonetheless, this experiment was a fun way to spend a Friday evening. If you and your friends are looking for an excuse to consume copious amounts of alcohol (as if law school alone weren’t enough to warrant copious consumption), we recommend trying this rigorous scientific experiment yourselves—consider it peer review. Cheers!

DIVERSIONS

22 | October 26, 2023

Comic Strip RACHAEL GREGORIS (3L)

Ultra Vires Presents: It’s Fall, Folks! Acoustic tracks for when fall weather calls for cozy vibes SARA ESAYAS (1L) It’s finally fall, folks! As temperatures start to drop, so too does the BPM for this month’s playlist. Although I cannot promise an entirely Spooktober vibe or that this is officially Caitlin Covington— queen of fall—approved, I can offer a playlist of (mostly acoustic) folk music to help romanticize this fall season. This playlist features classics, both old and new, as well as songs from wonderful artists not typically spotlighted in the folk genre. Since it would not feel like fall without them, Phoebe Bridgers, Taylor Swift, Bon Iver, Sufjan Stevens and Big Thief are featured on the playlist, alongside artists like Jensen McRae, Joy Oladokun, Fancy Hagood, and Amythyst Kiah! Hit shuffle and give it a spin.

ultravires.ca

PUZZLES

ultravires.ca

October 26, 2023 | 23

Sudoku Complete the 9x9 square with no repeated numbers in each box or line ISABELLA PAPALIA (2L)

The Morose Codex A spooky puzzle for spooky season! REBEKAH KIM (3L)

The old vampire exacts her revenge The werewolf examines the locked window twice The exhausted man wielding an axe f ixes his grip The ghost excitedly whispers as it exits the shrine The scream rings out twice, then there is silence

The witch af f ixes her gaze on me as she mumbles unintelligibly Instructions: Try to f ind the word that is the answer to this puzzle! Turn upside-down for additional hint:

Start with the title - something seems off about it…

The skeleton hops on our grave

I initially chose McMillan because of its team-oriented culture and its commitment to training and mentorship. I know I made the right choice because I have received the support required to help me build a career that I am passionate about with people I admire and respect.

Caroline Samara

Partner, Business Law Group

PUZZLES

24 | October 26, 2023

The Ultra Vires Crossword Not-so-scary movies RONAN MALLOVY (3L JD/MA ENGLISH)

U OF T LAW’S JESSUP TEAM. PICTURED (LEFT-RIGHT) MISHAIL ADEEL (2L), SEEMA SIDHU (3L), AND JONATHAN HOU (3L). CREDIT: MAUREEN WHELTON

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

highlight of my time in law school. The Jessup simulates a dispute between two f ictional countries before the International Court of Justice. This year, the problem concerned an independence referendum taking place in the Sutha province of Antara. A pro-independence group, allegedly supported by Ravaria, operated a botnet that facilitated the spread of misinformation. Being able to explore the application of international law in cyberspace was very exciting, as there were many novel questions that did not have concrete answers. I was responsible for the issues concerning Antara’s order to ban a prominent pro-independence professor from a popular social media platform, as well as Antara’s intrusion into Ravarian computer

Across

ultravires.ca

5 Word derived from a Polynesian word meaning "mark made on skin" 1 English cheese with White and Blue varieties 6 Light switch options 8 Cleaning gadget, for short 7 Improper action 11 "Your point is?" 8 Irk 14 White fish frequently described as "the world's most 9 Home to Lawren Harris' "Lake and edible" Mountains", for short 15 Surname of the restaurant critic in Ratatouille 10 Colourful paper bits 16 Knight's honorific 11 Hubble and Kepler, for two 17 2008 Sheen/Langella political drama 12 Actress and screenwriter Vardalos 19 ___ Mahal 13 Nickname for the NBA's Julius Erving 20 Something put under the pillow, in baby-talk 18 Conditional abbv., in logical notation 21 In support of 22 Symbol for 6-Down 23 _____ ribs 23 ___ Titanic 27 1997 Travolta/Cage high-concept action 24 Totally fine 32 _____ the same 25 Soothsaying implement 33 Daytime performance 26 Boat stabilizer 34 Scottish Isle 28 "_____ usque ad mare" (Canada’s national 35 Biblical verb motto) 37 Number of female former Canadian Prime Ministers 29 Baby cow 38 Gory horror, or a hint to 17-, 27- and 60-Across 30 Bog 42 Place 44 Pope with the shortest pontificate in history (less than a 31 Levy 35 Poor locale for a seashell business? month) 36 Witch's curse 45 Usher hit featuring Lil John and Ludacris 39 Permit 48 Fishing vessel dragging a net 40 Hide go-with 50 Opposed (to) 41 Soap ingredients 52 Bystander 42 Compensated out-of-office time, for short 54 Altima or Rogue 43 Ashes receptacle 55 Formal show of respect 46 Former Arkansas governor Hutchinson 56 Shoppe descriptor 47 Egg-layer 58 It might have feathers or scales 49 Seduce 60 2011 Gordon-Levitt/Rogen cancer comedy 50 Flexible conjunction 67 Web address 51 Compete to win, as a prize 68 Boston Bruins hockey legend 53 Turn to mush 69 More spacious 57 Stringed instrument of old 70 Hair product 58 Irk 71 Bit of sunshine 59 Metal to be refined 72 Things often run on the weekend 61 "This American Life" host Glass 62 Cook in oil Down 63 "____ Believer" (Monkees hit) 1 Sunscreen meas. 64 Stereotypical word at the end of a French film 2 Leafs, on a scoreboard 65 Non-profit with the motto "Ideas Worth 3 Text acronym given before sharing one's thoughts Spreading" 4 Records played at 33 1/3 rpm 66 They have twelve mos.