Ultra Vires Volume 22, Issue 6 - April 2021

ULTRAVIRES.CA

April 7, 2021

VOL. 22, ISS. 6

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

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE POSTHUMOUS CALL TO THE BAR FOR JAMAL AKIM HOWLADER PAGE 3

ILLUSTRATION BY JENNIFER SUN

LAW FOLLIES 2021 REVIEW

RIGHTS REVIEW

PAGE 30

PAGE 38

2 | April 7, 2021

ultravires.ca

UV INDEX

EDITORS' NOTE 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 Vivian Cheng & Angela Gu NEWS EDITOR Alexa Cheung ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITOR Ivy Xu FEATURES EDITOR Alisha Li ASSOCIATE FEATURES EDITORS Angela Feng & Jacqueline Huang OPINIONS EDITOR Annecy Pang

Dear Readers,

NEWS

Drumroll, please! It’s what you’ve been waiting for — the one, the only — the Recruit Special is finally here! We’re excited for you to read the recruitment data, examine the correlation between OCIs and grades, and see what people had to say about the strange, virtual hiring process.

DIVERSIONS EDITOR

3

Posthumous Call to the Bar for Jamal Akim Howlader

3

Independent Review of the IHRP Hiring Controversy Concludes No 4 Wrongdoing 2021-2022 SLS Election Results

4

On top of the recruit-related stories, you’ll find a recap of the Promise Auction, some updates on financial aid from Faculty Council, a review of our beloved Law Follies. A little sneak peak, we reference Professor Niblett reading thirst tweets. And of course, you’ll have your regular dose of diversions.

SLS Petitions the Dean on Rising Tuition

6

From Stage to Screen: Law Follies Goes Virtual

7

A Week of Indigenous Law and Legal Ethics Teachings

7

Faculty Council Discusses Financial Aid and Employment Prospects

8

The 2021 Chief Justice Richard Wagner Awards

10

Finally, it’s with a bittersweet heart that we sign off on our last issue of the year. It’s been a privilege to serve as your Volume 22 Editors-in-Chief. We hoped you had as much fun as we did reading the stories.

The Promise Auction’s 10th Anniversary

12

Faculty Council Discusses Mental Health and Equity Concerns

13

With that, we would like to pass the baton to our incoming Editors-in-Chief: Sabrina Macklai (1L JD/MI) and Annecy Pang (2L). We look forward to seeing Ultra Vires led by this very capable duo.

Toronto 2021 2L Summer Recruitment Numbers

14

Reflections from the 2L Recruit

16

Correlations Between Grades and Recruit Success

18

As always, if you have comments or stories to pitch, you can get in touch at editor@ultravires.ca.

Toronto 2L Recruit Demographic Survey Results

20

Additional Supports Offered During the Virtual Recruit

23

We wish you all the best for the end of a very tough school year - hang in there! We see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Vancouver 2021 2L Summer Recruitment Numbers

24

Toronto 2021-2022 Articling Recruitment Numbers

25

Want to Summer in Crim?

26

What Not to Say to Someone Who Didn’t Get a Job in the Recruit

27

To Post or Not to Post Your Summer Job News

28

ASSOCIATE OPINIONS EDITORS Natasha Burman & Sabrina Macklai

A Cautiously Optimistic Plan Towards an In-Person Fall Semester

Vivian Cheng & Angela Gu Co-Editors-in-Chief, 2020-2021

Adrienne Ralph

RECRUIT SPECIAL

FEATURES

ASSOCIATE DIVERSIONS EDITOR

Oh, The Places You’ll Go

29

Harry Myles

Law Follies 2021 Review

30

EDITORS AT LARGE

A U of T Law Love Story

31

IIO and ILSA Create Podcast Entitled “28: A Call to Action”

32

The Big Issues in Big Tech

32

“What’s on TV?”: Faculty and Staff Edition

33

Ultra Vires Presents: A Work in Progress

33

Feeling Fortified

34

R v TJM: Examining Bail Applications in the Youth Criminal Justice System

35

Safa Bajwa & Graham Rotenberg LAYOUT EDITOR Alexandra Fox RECRUIT EDITOR Hussein E.E. Fawzy SOCIAL MEDIA TEAM Adrienne Ralph, Safa Bajwa, Elaine Cheng, & Jennifer Sun PHOTOGRAPHERS Katrina Keller & Jacqueline Huang

ADVERTISING If you are interested in advertising, please email us at business@ultravires.ca BUSINESS MANAGER Austin Ray

No matter how you fared this recruit season, we’re confident that great things are ahead!

Many individuals have non-linear careers and lucking out at the recruit is not in any way an indication of your future success in the profession and beyond.

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

UV Editorial Board, Volume 22

OPINIONS A Difficult Conversation

35

The Summer After Zoom Law School?

36

What Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism Can Look Like in Academic Settings

36

A Reflection on International Women’s Day Events

37

Anti-Asian Racism: This Ends Now

37

RIGHTS REVIEW Can the Anti-Asian Mass Shooting in Atlanta be the Tipping Point?

38

Rights not Rescue: An Interview with Elene Lam, Executive Director of Butterfly

38

Migrants, Know Your Rights

40

Painting History Green

41

From Al-Khatib to Koblenz

42

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.

DIVERSIONS Advice Column: The Sauciest Intruder

43

Diversions Presents: A Practice Hypothetical

43

NEWS

ultravires.ca

April 7, 2021 | 3

A Cautiously Optimistic Plan Towards an In-Person Fall 2021 Semester U of T Law plans for a return to an in-person fall term VIVIAN CHENG (2L) On March 4, Vice-President & Provost Cheryl Regehr and Vice-President of Human Resources & Equity Kelly HannahMoffat released a statement about the University of Toronto’s Fall 2021 Plans — one that looked forward to a Fall semester with a possibility of in-person classes.

“We are looking forward, with optimism, to fall 2021 when people can once more gather on our campuses, as permitted by public health guidelines,” the statement reads.

Although fall semester plans have not yet

been solidif ied, the statement encourages everyone to “continue planning towards the goal of in-person fall activities.”

Assistant Dean Alexis Archbold has echoed this statement, saying that the law school would follow the University’s direction on questions of in-person curricular and cocurricular plans.

While the law school is planning for a return to an in-person fall term, Dean Jutta Brunnée heeded caution. During the March 24 Faculty Council, Dean Brunnée said to

“expect the unexpected.”

A return to in-person learning, will be accompanied by the public health measures that U of T introduced this year. These measures include social distancing, mask mandates, and restrictions on international travel. U of T has also introduced a number of new protocols to prepare for a gradual, safe return to campus.

With the planned resumption of in-person learning, there are also hopes for greater inperson student advising, mental health ser-

vices, and co-curricular programs. These services are currently available online, with some limited services in person.

With a full year of intermittent lockdowns under the law community’s belts, these plans are a welcome symbol of hope. But as governments and health off icials have advised, continued vigilance is necessary.

You can f ind updates and more information about U of T’s COVID-19 response at UTogether: A Road Map.

Posthumous Call to the Bar for Jamal Akim Howlader Law Society of Ontario creates new policy on posthumous calls to the bar ALISHA LI (2L) AND SABRINA MACKLAI (1L JD/MI)

Jamal Akim Howlader, a 2020 JD graduate from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, will be posthumously called to the Ontario bar later this year.

Besides the honorary calls to the bar made in 2014 for the 60 Ontario law students who died in the First World War, this marks the first time in over 200 years of operating that the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) permitted posthumous calls to the bar for an individual.

Howlader passed away suddenly on November 5, 2020. Prior to his passing, he successfully passed the licensing examinations and was an articling student at Rotfleisch and Samulovitch P.C. Friends described him as incredibly humble, smart, and above all, kind.

In addition to organizing the fundraiser to create the Jamal Howlader Bursary at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Howlader’s family and friends, including his childhood friend Denna Pourmonazah Jalili (4L JD/

MBA), successfully advocated to the LSO to call Howlader to the Bar of Ontario. In doing so, they pushed the LSO to create a policy regarding posthumous calls to the bar.

“To assess the merits of posthumous call through the lens of By-Laws that don't even contemplate the premature death of an applicant doesn’t make any sense,” said Jalili.

Initial Pushback

Arguments for a Policy Change

The process to create this change took over four months and multiple exchanges between the LSO and Howlader’s family and friends.

Jalili first contacted the LSO at the request of Howlader’s mother on the day of Howlader’s funeral. Nearly three weeks later, and after multiple follow-ups, the LSO rejected Howlader’s friends and family’s request.

The rejection stated that there was nothing in the LSO’s By-Laws to permit posthumous calls to the bar. But Howlader’s family was undeterred, requesting the LSO review their decision. After two months of silence, they received another rejection.

They didn’t stop there. While Jalili noted the second rejection was convincing at first glance, Howlader’s mother felt it was discriminatory. The letter stated that By-Law 4 on licensing does not permit posthumous calls to the bar if the eligibility requirement is not met.

The letter described the posthumous call to the bar for the World War I soldiers as a “single and unprecedented event.”

“It’s contradictory. On one hand, they said they couldn’t circumvent By-Laws but on the other hand, there are 60 examples of exceptions to this rule that doesn’t even exist,” said Jalili.

With the support of Howlader’s family and friends, Jalili penned a letter to the LSO’s Executive Director of Professional Development & Competence, Priya Bhatia. They argued that the current By-Laws were ill-suited to deal with cases such as Howlader’s, for whom qualification was not a serious concern, and for whom certification would have been virtually guaranteed but for his untimely passing. ByLaw 4 stipulated certain exemptions to the articling requirements, but did not mention the ones listed were the only exceptions available.

Instead, Howlader’s family and friends argued that the Law Society has the discretion to call candidates to the bar posthumously, and if there was ever an appropriate time to exercise it, it would be now. They argued that the commemorative event to posthumously call the soldiers to the bar provided evidence that such discretion exists, either derived implicitly from By-Law 4 or from the broader discretionary power of the LSO. Bhatia responded within a week, requesting a meeting to discuss their request. During the meeting, she explained how their request was not the first of its kind. Among many, there was a woman who fully completed her articling requirement but passed away prior to her ceremony. Even though she discharged all the requirements, the LSO denied her posthumous call to the bar.

As Jalili recalled, the LSO was hesitant to allow posthumous calls to the bar since candidates could not swear or affirm the oath required to practice law in Ontario. Jalili didn’t view this as an impediment; the oath requirement didn’t prevent the soldiers from being posthumously called to the bar. Moreover, if the main purpose of the oath is to hold lawyers accountable for their actions while practicing, that is not a concern for deceased candidates.

There was also concern on how a posthumous policy for calls to the bar would be implemented. Do students have to complete their full articling requirement? 75 percent? 50 percent?

“The line should be drawn based on the logic that is underpinning the various requirements to be licensed,” remarked Jalili. As he explained, once a student finishes their schooling and passes the bar exam, they have proven they have a “mastery of intellectual requirements.” Articling, Jalili argued, has a “self-

contained, developmental purpose.” If a student has proven themselves academically worthy, demonstrated competence, but for no fault of their own, couldn’t complete their training requirement, they should still be called to the bar.

Moving Forward On March 23, Howlader’s family and friends received the news that not only will Jamal Howlader be called to the bar, but that the LSO created a new policy regarding posthumous calls to the bar.

Howlader’s friends and family were impressed by how well Bhatia approached the situation and pushed for change within the LSO. “She handled it with grace, without misleading us, and seemed like she genuinely cared,” said Jalili.

At the time of publication, Jalili has not received details on the new policy nor has the LSO publicized this policy on their site. Ultra Vires reached out to the LSO for a comment but they did not respond at the time of publication.

Jalili admires Howlader’s mother’s unwavering perseverance. After finding out that other families were denied the same request, she was driven to ensure that Howlader’s posthumous call to the bar doesn’t become the exception to the rule but the rule itself. “Jamal had a rich sense of right and wrong, a strong sense of justice. I can see where he got it from,” said Jalili.

The call to the bar ceremony is considered very meaningful and symbolic, not only to the candidates but to their close friends and families. As former Chief Justice Warren K. Winkler said in his June 2013 remarks to new calls, “your call to the Bar is a defining, proud and pivotal moment. It calls for celebration, excitement, and relief.”

The LSO’s new policy for posthumous calls to the bar will hopefully bring grieving families and friends some small comfort as they continue to honour their loved ones.

NEWS

4 | April 7, 2021

ultravires.ca

Independent Review of the IHRP Hiring Controversy Concludes No Wrongdoing The Honourable Thomas Cromwell conducts external review of the Faculty’s conduct VIVIAN CHENG (2L)

In the fall of 2020, there were allegations that the Faculty of Law allowed inappropriate external influence to interfere with the search process for an IHRP director. As a result, many were concerned that the Faculty had impinged on academic freedoms.

Justice David Spiro, a sitting judge of the Tax Court of Canada, alumnus of the law school, and significant donor to U of T, was alleged to have called the Faculty’s administration attempting to intervene in the hiring decision. Valentina Azarova was alleged to have accepted the job in August, 2020, only to have the offer rescinded in early September.

According to Vincent Wong, previous Associate Professor, IHRP Lawyer, and member of the Hiring Recommendations Committee, the university and Azarova were amicably discussing different options with respect to her work permit and employment contract, up until this point.

In light of these allegations, the Faculty asked former Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell to conduct a fact-finding investigation about the decision not to hire Azarova — the candidate a committee had unanimously recommended for the IHRP director position.

derstood in the public discussion as interference or ‘outside political pressure.”

A September 3 email to Justice Spiro from a staff member at an organization of which he had been a director wrote, “The hope is that through quiet discussions, top university officials will realize that this appointment is academically unworthy, and that a public protest campaign will do major damage to the university, including in fundraising.” The staff member also asked him to contact Edward Iacobucci — the then-dean of U of T Law. Justice Spiro declined the staff member’s request. Instead, Justice Spiro raised the issue at the end of a call with an Assistant Vice-President. In a later conversation with another administrator, the Assistant Vice-President, flagged “the importance of due diligence on the IHRP file,” and that administrator later briefed Iacobucci. Iacobucci said he had not heard the candidate's name before nor did he know why her appointment might be controversial.

The report also notes that the Assistant VicePresident characterized the phone call to Justice Spiro as part of normal outreach to donors.

After Iacobucci was informed of this issue, a number of calls among senior U of T administrators were made. The report, however, concludes that Iacobucci was concerned about the legality of hiring Azarova as a contractor and not, primarily, the issue raised by Justice Spiro. Cromwell found that Iacobucci had already had concerns about immigration issues — indeed, she was not a Canadian citizen — before the judge's attempted intervention. These obstacles were found to be material.

Findings of the report

Moving forward

The report explains that the key factors influencing this decision did include reasons pertaining to the challenges of immigration-related obstacles, cited publicly by former Dean Iacobucci and Vice President of Human Resources and Equity Kelly Hannah-Moffat.

Cromwell found that no offer “in the strictly legal sense” was extended to Azarova. He also found that Justice Spiro “simply shared the view that the appointment would be controversial with the Jewish community and cause reputational harm to the university,” but that these comments were “misun-

After reading and reflecting on the report, U of T President Meric Gertler believes it “provides the factual comprehensiveness and analysis needed to clarify and settle key aspects of this controversial matter.”

Cromwell expressed concern about the harm done to the preferred candidate, and explained the need to find a means of acknowledging this harm.

In an email to law school students, Dean Jutta Brunnée said she “fully embrace[s] the recommendations Cromwell offered” and aims to en-

On March 29, the University of Toronto’s Office of the President released the Honourable Thomas Cromwell’s Independent Review of the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) Hiring Controversy from earlier in the academic school year.

Initial Allegations

sure that the recommendations are implemented at the Faculty level.

These recommendations include: all requirements of the position should be made explicit; key decisions should be recorded; immigration advice should be obtained early in the process to avoid similar problems in the future and assist members in achieving reconciliation after this event. More recommendations are outlined in the report.

Dean Brunnée hopes that Cromwell’s review, along with the President’s response, will address questions that students and Faculty have towards last year’s events and allow the U of T Law community to move forward. She hosted a debrief session on March 31 to provide more information about this report, and allowed students to ask further questions and express their concerns. However, this session was scheduled during many students’ class-times, and many students could not attend.

Dean Brunnée also hosted a similar session for Faculty and staff, which discussed the IHRP’s future. Additionally, Professor Cook, the interim director of the IHRP, will write a report with recommendations to strengthen the program.

However, despite the conclusion of an independent review, not everyone had the same optimistic outlook.

In a comment to the Globe and Mail, Denise Réaume, a professor in the law faculty, described the events elucidated in the report "a scandal." She said it reveals the university’s troubling relationship to big donors.

"It's clear as day that people in alumni and development think their job is to pass on concerns from donors about hiring decisions, which they have no business weighing in on." said Réaume.

Wong felt disappointed by the report’s conclusions. Although he acknowledged that the report helped members of the public piece together more facts than before with respect to former Dean Iacobucci, the funding office, and the donor who raised the issue, he lamented the discrepancy between, what he considered, “the damning facts” and “Cromwell’s inference that external influence did not play a role.

“The inference that Cromwell makes — that external influence was part of the decision — con-

fuses external influence as a factor in the decision with external influence as the primary factor in the decision,” says Wong. “But all the contextual factors point to discriminatory treatment [of Azarova].”

Wong emphasized that Cromwell’s analysis failed to explore the implications of power. Wong argues that Cromwell did not consider how intersections of power and privilege — wealth and status (as a sitting judge) — may have influenced this decision. Nor did Cromwell consider how the generous interpretations could be applied to the conduct of these powerful individuals.

“Grossly inappropriate meddling by a sitting judge and high ranking university complicity in that meddling is described as ‘due diligence’,” argues Wong.

Lily Chapnik Rosenthal (4L JD/MSW) also felt disappointed by the report, but her disappointment is directed to the lack of acknowledgement of anti-Semitic comments prompted by this incident.

Although she is pleased that the Faculty initiated an external report, she expresses that “at both the Faculty and in the greater media tropes were utilized of wealthy, powerful Jews controlling institutions with money and power to sway internal hiring decisions.” These tropes, she said, were harmful stereotypes that could lead to a lack of safety, and even violence, for Jewish people.

“I urge the Faculty to explicitly address the anti-Semitic aspects of this incident, and to include training in anti-Semitism for all students to avoid these trends from re-occurring.”

President Gertler acknowledges the divisiveness of this issue and admits that certain things should have been done differently in the search process. However, he hopes that this report will allow individuals to move forward.

Ultra Vires has reached out to Professor Mohammad Fadel and Professor David Schneiderman for comment. Both faculty members have been vocal about the IHRP hiring controversy in an earlier Faculty Council meeting. At the time of publication, both professors have declined to comment.

This article is being updated as we learn more about this report. Find the most recent version on our website

2021-2022 SLS Election Results A hotly contested election brings exciting results VIVIAN CHENG (2L) Despite an entirely virtual 2021 Students’ Law Society (SLS) election season, there was nothing lackluster about the candidates or their campaign efforts. This year, the SLS expanded their team and offered multiple new positions.

SLS Chief Returning Officer Kristy Wong (3L) remarked that the expansion made this election a particularly exciting one, with multiple candidates going head to head for nearly every position. For the Executive Committee, three candidates vied for President, two for Vice-President Academic, one for Vice-President Finance, one for Vice-President Social, and three for Vice President Student Life.

For the Social and Finance Committee (SFC), six 3L candidates ran for a total of four positions.

Eight 2L candidates also vied for an equal number of class-specific representative positions.

For the Student Life and Academic Committee (SLAC), six 3L candidates were up for election for four positions. Nine 2L candidates ran for an equal number of positions.

One candidate ran for Law Director, University of Toronto Students' Union (UTSU).

The Spring General Election 2021 Results are as follows: Executive Committee • President: Willem Crispin-Frei • Vice-President Academic: Eloise Hirst • Vice-President Finance: Alexander Day • Vice-President Social: Thryn Irwin

• Vice-President Student Life: Vanshika Dhawan

• Law Director, UTSU: Sterling Mancuso

Social and Finance Representatives

• 3L:Chris Cook, Madeleine Carswell, Molly Campbell, Sabah Khokhar

Congratulations to the candidates elected and the candidates who ran. They put forth a truly valiant campaign effort. The next SLS election — The Fall General Election — will take place in September 2021. The positions available in that election will be:

Student Life and Academic Representatives

• 1L Student Life and Academic (SLAC) Reps (four positions)

• 2L: Apples Mastrogiacomo, Saskia De Vries, Alex Rego, Madison Frehlick

• 2L: John Metzger, Meaza Damte, Noa Rapaport, Paul Mohan

• 1L Social and Finance (SFC) Reps (four positions)

• 3L: Branden Cave, Dhriti Chakravarty, Ema Ibrakovic, Jamie Corbett

The next Spring General Election will take place in Spring 2022.

6 | April 7, 2021

NEWS

ultravires.ca

SLS Petitions the Dean on Rising Tuition

Open letter on tuition receives over 350 signatures of support IVY XU (1L)* A school year is incomplete without another round of discussion on the law school’s rising tuition costs. The Students’ Law Society (SLS) unveiled an open letter on March 8 to Dean Jutta Brunnée seeking a dialogue on the inaccessibility of legal education. The letter received over 350 signatures from the law school’s students, faculty members, student groups, and alumni.

According to Willem Crispin-Frei (2L), VicePresident of the Student Affairs and Governance Committee (StAG), who drafted the letter, Dean Brunnée has expressed her willingness to renew dialogue on the issue.

Domestic tuition has increased over twelvefold since 1996, a stark contrast to 58 percent in inflation over the same period. The 18 -page letter detailed the impact of such rising tuition on students: would-be students turn down offers from U of T Law or feel discouraged from applying in the first place. And those who take the offer face financial pressures and are dissuaded from pursuing lower-paying public interest careers. The letter points out that their high debt load “[reduces] the emotional and intellectual bandwidth [they] can give to their studies and early practice.”

Concerns about equity are evident throughout the letter. The SLS acknowledges the law school’s programming for potential applicants from marginalized backgrounds, such as See Yourself Here and Law in Action Within Schools. But the impacts of such outreach efforts are limited without lowering financial barriers.

The letter does not demand drastic redress.

Two out of the four requests outlined concern advocating on behalf of students to the University of Toronto’s Governing Council and to the provincial government. Recognizing that the law school does not control its operating budget, SLS hopes Simcoe Hall could commit to a tuition freeze or an increase that matches inflation.

Although packed with research, the letter does not propose a solution; it is focused on opening a dialogue. The third request seeks to establish an Advisory Committee to investigate potential solutions. Finally, the letter asks for more information to be collected to facilitate the search for solutions. This last request requires the public release of socioeconomic data of students and faculties, as well as salaries and debt levels upon graduation.

Concerns and advocacy regarding tuition are deeply rooted in the Faculty’s history. In March 2002, the Black Law Students’ Association together with other law schools in the province filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on the disproportionate impact of rising tuition fees on racialized minorities.

The graduating class of 2014 protested the conferral of an honorary degree to the former Dean Ron Daniel by wearing yellow buttons.

Dean Daniels was thought to have initiated the upward trend in tuition costs during his tenure.

As recently as August 2020, five equity-facing groups at the law school raised similar concerns in an open letter to former Dean Edward

HISTORICAL TREND OF DOMESTIC TUITION, COURTESY OF THE STUDENTS’ LAW SOCIETY

Iacobucci. It highlighted the lack of information on financial aid for racialized students. Ultra Vires has also published over 40 articles since 2012 that feature tuition as a major topic.

Almost every year in the last decade, after the Dean delivers the annual budget report at the Faculty Council, the SLS President gives a speech calling for action to reduce students’ financial burden. What is different about this year’s tuition advocacy is that all eight SLS Presidents since the 2013-2014 academic year worked together on the letter.

Crispin-Frei, also the upcoming SLS President for the 2021-2022 term, described their letter as taking a “multifaceted approach.” It provides a detailed account of students’ advocacy efforts throughout the years, as well as historical developments in financial aid programming and

government funding. The goal, according to Crispin-Frei, is to “[boost] the letter’s weight and legitimacy” and to show that “today’s high tuition is not natural or inevitable but rather the result of distinct decisions made by past Deans.”

The good news is that the Business Board of the University’s Governing Council has recommended a tuition freeze for all domestic students next year subject to approval by the Governing Council. The SLS remains hopeful that Dean Brunnée will continue to engage with students and seek meaningful solutions. The first step, as the 2018 “Barriers to Excellence” campaign pointed out, is to “build a more trusting and collaborative relationship on this issue.”

Editor’s Note: Ivy Xu, as well as members of Ultra Vires’ Editorial Board, are signatories to the open letter.

ultravires.ca

NEWS

April 7, 2021 | 7

From Stage to Screen: Law Follies Goes Virtual Annual comedy show is a hit among students, faculty, and alumni DANIEL GAO (3L)* For the f irst time in history, Law Follies was delivered virtually. On March 19, over 300 students, faculty, and alumni gathered for a livestream of the annual comedy show.

Instead of overpriced drinks and folding chairs at the Opera House, audience members gathered in front of their screens to view the show at home. Borden Ladner Gervais was again the generous sponsor of the event.

As expected, the preparation for this year’s event was very different from previous renditions. The entire show was f ilmed beforehand and the Follies executive team had to quickly learn the ins and outs of video editing. Showrunners Claudia Shek (3L) and Zac Kroll (3L) explained that to better understand how to move the show from a live to online format, the executive team researched online theatre and f ilming practices, which allowed for additional creativity in cinematography, sound effects, and f ilming locations.

Writing for the show concluded in December, and the bulk of f ilming started shortly after. In total, they estimate that each sketch

took two to three hours to f ilm. Editing, however, took the better part of a month.

Rendering the f inal video only took 35 minutes, but uploading it online took over 15 hours.

The event was held through YouTube Premiere to preserve the singular nature of the show (and cast members’ privacy) from past years. This link also provided students with access to a live chat to simulate the usual catcalls and rambunctiousness associated with Follies crowds. Sadly, missing were the loud shouts from an inebriated crowd with the ability to mask even the most well-timed punchline. A close substitute, however, were hosts Aaqib and Saqib Mahmood (4L JD/ MBAs), who led the crowd through the 90-minute set, setting wallets and hearts on f ire with their magic tricks in between sketches.

While there was no central theme to this year’s skits (perhaps invoking the uncertainty of 2020), highlights of the night included “The Last Deance,” “A Little Bit Lexis,” and “Without Dean.”

“The Last Deance” starred Olivier Bishop-Mercier (2L) as former Dean Ed Iacobucci. In this spoof of The Last Dance, BishopMercier’s croissant-throwing Dean ref lects on his time at the helm of the school. While sports parodies have typically struggled with Follies audiences, “The Last Deance” was a universal hit, thanks to its superb acting and editing.

“A Little Bit Lexis”, starring Venessa Sectakof (3L), was another surprising hit. Kroll credits sketch director Hannah Bourgeois (2L) for successfully executing this parody of the “A Little Bit Alexis” song from awardwinning show Schitt’s Creek.

Closing out the night was “Without Dean,” a parody of Eminem’s “Without Me.” Bishop-Mercier again donned the bald cap for his second Iacobucci skit of the night, and dropped verse upon verse of Yak-laden rhymes on the audience.

The virtual format also enabled one of the most star-studded Follies in memory. Professor Martha Shaffer cameoed in “The Last Deance,” successfully capturing the docu-

mentary style of the sketch. Dean Jutta Brunnée donned a green dinosaur costume and sang the Barney & Friends theme song to the delight of audiences. Professor Jim Phillips made a comeback with the hit song “I Am My Own Trustee.” Professor Ben Alarie put down the tax book and took up the mic as a featured rapper. And of course, few can forget “Thirst Tweets with Anthony Niblett”, where Professor Niblett read a series of “mildly disturbing” tweets of praise.

Unlike previous years, entrance was free, but attendees were encouraged to make a donation to the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic. In total, Follies raised $1850 to help the organization with their work with survivors of gender-based violence.

Moving forward, the show hopes to return to an in-person format, though Kroll adds that the online format greatly improved audio quality. Perhaps next year’s showrunners will incorporate the showbiz adage: “subtitles = success.” *Editor’s Note: Daniel Gao is a writer on the Law Follies team.

A Week of Indigenous Law and Legal Ethics Teachings The series of teachings provided U of T law students with concrete ways to engage with Indigenous law and legal ethics TOMAS JIROUSEK (1L)* University of Toronto Faculty of Law students were excited to welcome back the Indigenous Law and Legal Ethics Teaching Series, running from March 15-19. The teaching series, organized by the Indigenous Initiatives Off ice (IIO) with support and funding from the Law Foundation of Ontario, sought to explore and engage with Indigneous legal orders which operate across the continent.

While Indigenous laws are diverse, the teaching series highlighted a core set of shared ethical codes which guide Indigenous nations in their relationship with the land, in treaties, and in their engagement with the common and civil law. It was crucial that, in the execution of this teaching series, we encouraged students to not only learn about Indigneous law in the abstract, but to think about the concrete ways in which U of T law students could put Indigenous legal ethics into action as they continue in their legal practices.

The week began with a presentation by Rayanna Seymour-Hourie, who is an Anishnaabe (Ojibway) lawyer from Lake of the Woods in Treaty #3 territory. Rayanna kicked-off the week by presenting her work in the RELAW (Revitalizing Indigenous Law for Land, Air, and Water) program. Law students had the opportunity to engage with Indigneous legal methods, including learning how to brief traditional stories in order to de-

velop a summary of legal principles contained within a traditional medium like storytelling and ceremony. Rayanna then explained how this method of drawing legal principles from storytelling is put into action for implementing and enforcing Indigenous laws in British Columbia.

The Faculty then had the privilege of welcoming Elders Dan and Mary Lou Smoke for the second presentation of the week. Elder Dan is a member of the Seneca Nation of the Iroquois Confederacy, and serves as an adjunct professor at Western University. Elder Mary Lou is a member of the Ojibway nation, and is also an adjunct professor at Western University. Students had the privilege of learning about treaties, including the Dish With One Spoon Treaty, as well as the Grandfather Teachings and the Great Law of Peace.

Next was a presentation from Ira Provost of the Piikani nation and member of the Blackfoot confederacy. Ira’s talk presented a comprehensive overview of Blackfoot socio-legal structures, including the presence of traditional honour societies, the importance of ceremonies such as the Sun Dance, and how Blackfoot nations are using traditional knowledge and ethics to guide land development.

Ira also discussed the importance of Elders in reinforcing and protecting the legal and ethical lessons shared in storytelling.

Our f inal traditional teacher was Chief R. Stacey Laforme of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. Chief Laforme presented on Treaties, Indigneous Law, and Ethics. Law students had the privilege of listening to Chief Laforme’s personal poetry, which touched on topics such as integrity, generosity of spirit, and humility. Chief Laforme also explained his Nation's peacekeeping processes, and how he is leading the Mississaugas of the New Credit towards a nation-to-nation relationship with the Canadian state.

Together, the four speakers represented diverse Indigenous nations, each with its own unique legal code. The speakers also each taught law students ways in which they could engage with Indigenous law more broadly.

From Rayanna’s ability to “brief ” stories, to Elder Dan and Mary Lou’s engagement with treaties — there were plenty of opportunities to engage with legal techniques and principles which extend beyond any single Indigneous nation.

It was, and will continue to be, crucial to make space within the law school for Indigenous legal traditions. As noted by our speakers, Indigneous law is an intricate and complex system which shapes the way Indigneous peoples relate to Western legal practices. By learning about Indigenous law, and legal ethics in particular, law students can develop a

more complete vision of Canada’s legal landscape, and learn how to respectfully engage with Indigenous nations.

The Indigenous Law Students Association (ILSA) and the IIO have a number of initiatives which build on the success of the Indigneous Law and Legal Ethics Teaching Series.

The ILSA has continued to host events throughout the pandemic, including a solidarity event with Mi'kmaq f ishers last semester.

Further, students can engage with Indigenous legal traditions throughout the year by staying tuned in to IIO programming. Such programming includes the Teachings on the Bundle with the Faculty of Law’s Elder in Residence, Elder Constance, as well as the Reconciliation Reading Circles.

Beyond Zoom events, the IIO and ILSA have worked together to produce a podcast, 28: A Call to Action. Law students can access our podcast and learn more about Indigenous Law, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the ways we can collectively engage in reconciliation at the law school.

Editor’s Note: Tomas Jirousek is an Indigenous Law and Legal Ethics Research Assistant with the University of Toronto Faculty of Law and was involved in planning the 2021 Indigenous Law and Legal Ethics Teaching Week.

NEWS

8 | April 7, 2021

ultravires.ca

Faculty Council Discusses Financial Aid and Employment Prospects Meeting focuses on rising tuition and employment with updates from the Financial Aid Committee and the Career Development Office SABRINA MACKLAI (1L JD/MI) On March 24, the Faculty Council met for the fifth time this academic year.

Dean Brunnée’s Remarks SLS Tuition Letter

The Dean acknowledged the receipt of the Students’ Law Society (SLS) Tuition Letter.

While she plans to properly address the issues listed in the letter, Dean Brunnée reminded Council that the Faculty is “operating under significant budgetary constraints that have been exacerbated by the recent tuition cuts and freeze.”

Equity Groups’ Open Letter

The Dean commented on the open letter sent to the Dean’s office last summer by five equity-facing student groups at the law school.

This letter reminded the Faculty of its responsibilities to “recognize and dismantle systemic racism within the legal sphere” and offered a series of recommendations to the law school including improved equity training and modified curriculums. Dean Brunnée apologized for the delay in responding to the open letter but stated she intends to provide a response before the end of the school year.

Future Plans for the Law School

Dean Brunnée noted that the approaching convocation will be virtual but assured graduating students that the day will be memorable nonetheless.

In regard to the upcoming fall semester, she noted that the Vice-President and Provost of the university stated that the university is optimistically planning on a return to in-person activities for the 2021-2022 academic year. While the law school is also planning towards an in-person fall term, Dean Brunnée reminded the Council to “expect the unexpected.”

Students’ Law Society (SLS) Updates SLS President Robert Nanni (4L JD/MBA) announced that Jamal Howlader, a late member of the JD class of 2020, will be posthumously called to the Ontario bar following advocacy efforts by Howlader’s family and close friends. Nanni also noted the SLS Tuition Letter, co-written by this year’s SLS executives and the past seven SLS presidents,

has since amassed 349 endorsements from students, alumni, student groups, and faculty members.

Financial Aid Updates and Numbers Professor Anthony Niblett and Assistant Dean Alexis Archbold presented the Financial Aid Committee Report.

As in previous years, they received a number of student requests for reconsideration of financial aid awards. Professor Niblett noted that they devoted more time than usual this year to deliberations of these requests. In total, they reviewed and determined eight appeals for reconsideration.

Changes to the Financial Aid Program Policies

The Dean asked the Committee to review and revise the Faculty’s policy documents relating to the front end financial aid program.

Based on student recommendations concerning how parental income is factored into financial aid assessments, the Financial Aid Committee approved a change whereby “material drops in parental income will be considered.”

Professor Niblett noted a “small but significant change” in the language of the policy.

Rather than refer to “deemed parental contributions,” the Financial Aid Committee is interested in tracking students’ “socio-economic index.” The revised policy will reflect this interest.

On the question of whether the law school should exempt equity-based scholarships and external awards given to all equity-seeking groups during financial aid assessments, the Committee determined they require more information and have asked for the inquiry to continue next year.

The Dean also requested the Committee continue the process of creating a Post-Graduation Debt Repayment Assistance Program (PDRAP) calculator. PDRAP is a low income assistance program for U of T Law graduates with lower incomes. Professor Niblett noted that while Senior Financial Aid Advisor Mohaghegh and Senior Recruitment, Admissions and Diversity Outreach Officer Jerome Poon-Ting have been working with a developer to create the calculator, the pandemic caused a delay.

Funding from Operating Funding from Non-Operating Sources Total Faculty Financial Aid Budget Percent Increase Total Financial Aid Budget

Assistant Dean Archbold presented the total budget for the financial aid program, including the front end and the PDRAP. For the 2020-2021 year, there was $3,209,605 funding from operating and $1,520,077 funding from non-operating sources (restricted fund bursaries, entrance scholarships and annual donation, and PDRAP repayments) with a total budget of $4,729,682. This was a two percent increase from last year.

Assistant Dean Archbold attributed the larger increase seen in 2018-2019 to the Boundless Prom-

Total Front End Budget Average First Year Bursary Average Second Year Bursary Average Third Year Bursary Average Faculty Assistance (all three years) Maximum Bursary Minimum Bursary Average Interest-Free Loan (all three years) Aggregate amount of external grants/scholarships and government grants for students who applied for Faculty aid Average amount of external grants/scholarships and government grants for students who applied for Faculty aid Number of students who applied for Faculty financial aid Number of students who received Faculty bursary/grants/scholarships Number of students who received Faculty interest-free loans Percentage of all students who received a Faculty bursary/grant/scholarship Percentage of all students who received Faculty aid (including interest-free loans) Number of applicants who did not receive Faculty bursaries Average parental income for applicants who did not receive Faculty assistance

2018-2019 $3,209,605 $1,097,000 $4,306,605 13%

2019-2020 $3,209,605 $1,438,610 $4,648,215 8%

2020-2021 $3,209,605 $1,520,077 $4,729,682 2%

ise matching program for donations implemented by the University of Toronto. She explained it was an “unusual year” and the increases in subsequent years are more reflective going forward.

Professor Edward Iacobucci clarified that while the donation matching program may have influenced the larger increase seen in 2018-2019, it is more likely due to the fact that the operating budget has been steady over the last two years. When tuition was cut, the Faculty did not reduce or increase the operating budget devoted to financial aid.

Front-End Financial Aid Budget

2018-2019 $4,021,605 $10,374 $10,540 $9,487

2019-2020 $4,363,215 $13,214 $12,445 $11,701

2020-2021 $4,444,682 $14,785 $19,153 $14,906

$11,065

$13,126

$17,050

$17,728 $1,000

$22,413 $1,000

$28,395 $1,232

$18,073

$15,397

$15,477

$2,689,016

$1,456,016

$1,931,302

$7,171

$4,220

$5,748

375

345

336

320

266

253

320

285

269

51%

43%

39%

51%

46%

42%

55

79

83

$227,470

$281,613

$184,108

NEWS

ultravires.ca The budget for the front end Financial Aid Program this year was $4,444,682. The average firstyear bursary was $14,785, second year bursary was $19,153, and third year bursary was $14,906.

The average faculty assistance for all three years including the bursaries and the interest subsidies that the Faculty pays on the approved interest-free loans students take was $17,050.

Assistant Dean Archbold noted two reasons for the average bursaries' significant increase in comparison to previous years. One, there was more money in the budget and fewer students in the program. Two, the Committee was conservative in their initial estimates of the bursary amounts since they were unsure if there would be increased need created by the pandemic. Since that was not the case, they were able to provide a second bursary payout in the fall. Going forward, Assistant Dean Archbold expects 60 to 65 percent of unmet need for students will be received in bursaries.

This year, the maximum bursary was $28,395 and the minimum bursary was $1,232. Assistant Dean Archbold emphasized that the number of high bursaries is increasing significantly from previous years. This year, over ten students were awarded bursaries of over $22,000, compared to last year where the highest bursary awarded was $22,413.

The aggregate amount of external awards, including government financial aid and OSAP, for students who applied for Faculty financial aid was $1,931,302. This is a marked decrease from 20182019. Assistant Dean Archbold explained this is caused by a decision by the Ford government, which stopped paying out the grant portion of the OSAP payment upfront and returned to a previous regime where that grant portion is paid out postgraduation.

336 students applied for Faculty financial aid this year, a decrease from previous years. 253 students received bursaries and 269 students received interest-free loans. Assistant Dean Archbold stated the decrease in applications and awards given is due to a change in the Financial Aid Policy approved last year by the Committee. Students who have an unmet need of $5000 or less now have that need met solely through an interest-free loan. This was one way to increase the amount of money available for students with the highest need.

This year, 42 percent of all JD students received Faculty of Law financial aid. The average parental income of students who applied and did not receive Faculty of Law financial aid assistance is $184,108.

SLS President Nanni added that average parental income is not a helpful metric. Instead, Nanni suggests providing median parental income that won’t be skewed by really high or really low parental incomes.

In total, funding from the law school’s front end financial aid program (including bursaries, interest payments, scholarships, and interest-free loans) was used to fund over 50 percent of tuition of the financial aid applicants. The remaining funds came from government loans, external bursaries and scholarships, and personal assets.

Back End Financial Aid (Post-Graduation Debt Repayment Assistance Program) Budget

The budget for this year’s back end financial relief program was $285,000 with 57 applicants and 42 participants. Assistant Dean Archbold explained that this was a “good news story,” indicating that it means the Faculty’s graduates are doing well and “not needing to avail themselves of the support.”

The salary cut-off this year was $61,407. The av-

Total PDRAP Budget Number of applicants Number of participants Average number of years of participation in PDRAP Average PDRAP benefit Average total eligible debt load Average participant salary Highest participant salary Maximum PDRAP benefit Minimum PDRAP benefit

erage PDRAP benefit was $3,281. The numbers in general reflect those of previous years.

In terms of the distribution of PDRAP participants, as expected, the last four graduating years have the highest percentage of students in the program with 21 percent being 2019 graduates, 14 percent being 2018 graduates, 16 percent being 2017 graduates, and 18 percent being 2016 graduates.

In the PDRAP, over 53 percent of participants are in private practice and 23 percent are employed by the government. Nine percent work in the nonprofit sector, three percent are students, and ten percent are unemployed.

Vote to Amend Faculty Council’s Constitution Next Week

Associate Dean Christopher Essert reminded the Council that the Faculty Council Documents Amendment Process Committee had proposed an amending formula for the Faculty Council’s Constitution.

The adoption of the amending formula will be voted on during the next Faculty Council on March 31.

Academic Freedom for Clinical and Experiential Education

Associate Professor Vincent Chiao stated in light of the IHRP controversy, the Clinical & Experiential Education Advisory Committee began consultations with present and former clinical staff and lawyers on academic freedom in the context of the law school’s clinics, externships, and other experiential educational opportunities. He noted U of T Law currently lacks a policy regarding academic freedom in such cases.

The Committee recommends Dean Brunnée empower a committee to consult with clinical staff, faculty, administration, students, alumni, other Canadian law schools, and other professional faculties, on academic freedom. The goal, Associate Professor Chiao states, is to devise concrete suggestions and best practices that could be implemented at the law school.

Associate Professor Chiao recognized that there “are constraints on what the law school can do unilaterally in this regard. We’re just trying to think of what might be possible within those constraints going forward.”

Dean Brunnée echoed these statements, citing university policies and HR matters as potentially falling outside the purview of the law school’s committees.

Employment Statistics

Director of the Career Development Office (CDO) Neil Dennis noted some of the challenges the CDO navigated this past year. This included cancelling their annual March career information sessions, helping students whose summer employment opportunities were cancelled due to the pandemic, petitioning the New York Court of Appeals to waive remote learning limitations for U of T Law students and alumni taking the New York bar exam, figuring out how to submit transcripts and get documents notarized for students who were registering for the Ontario bar exam, and working with other law schools and employers to revamp the recruit dates.

Dennis noted in hindsight, there weren’t too many students whose employment was cancelled last year due to the pandemic but “there was still enough to be worrying.”

Dennis also drew attention to the 2015-2020 em-

2018-2019 $285,000 74 63

2019-2020 $285,000 65 48

2020-2021 $285,000 57 42

2.7

3

3

$3,802 $59,036 $42,966 $92,000 $9,852 $140

$3,546 $54,558 $42,893 $96,000 $10,017 $90

$3,281 $56,767 $41,103 $87,002 $10,145 $270

ployment statistics. For 2020 graduation statistics, 97 percent of students seeking an articling position were able to secure these positions. 84 percent were in private practice settings which includes full-service firms, boutiques, smaller law firms, and general practice offices. 11 percent were working for government and public interest employers, mostly Ministry of Attorney General offices.

Dennis commented that “over 55-57 percent [of graduating students] end up in full-service law firms with 27 percent in smaller firms or boutiques.” He guesses that it is the latter who represent the PDRAP participants in private practice.

78.5 percent of the Class of 2020 graduates stay in Toronto while 9.5 percent work in New York.

The rest are scattered across other Ontario cities including Ottawa, British Columbia, and Alberta.

Dennis commented that the number of U of T Law graduates working in New York is growing, with an average of eight to ten percent of the graduating class working in New York each year. He expects that number will continue to grow.

For the 2020 summer employment statistics for 2Ls, Dennis noted that 97.5 percent secured employment, with 14 percent working in Faculty positions. This is an increase from previous years.

Dennis attributes the increase to the new project-based research assistant positions that were made available last year. In collaboration with faculty members and the Dean’s office, the CDO developed over 60 short-term research projects. Dean Brunnée noted this summer research assistant program would continue this year.

In terms of the recent 2L recruit, Dennis noted that based on “very raw numbers and quite incomplete data, U of T Law is still on-track to claim

April 7, 2021 | 9 roughly the same percentage of [OCI] positions as last year,” claiming approximately 22 percent of the total jobs available to all law students across Canada. 91 out of 179 U of T Law OCI participants got jobs through the OCI recruit, which is over 50 percent of participants.

The CDO did not see an impact on the number of jobs available due to the pandemic. “At most, some employers may have reduced their summer classes by two to five positions, but in other cases, employers increased their size by two to five positions. It is kind of balancing out.”

In terms of post-recruit jobs, Dennis notes that “they could be better.” The usual firms that tend to post on UTLC job boards after the OCI recruit are still posted, and Dennis notes he made a plea to all employers for more summer employment opportunities while also soliciting for next year’s articling positions.

Dennis was also pleased to announce that, so far, U of T Law students and alumni have secured over 20 clerkships.

Dennis also drew attention to U of T Law’s internal OCI program, the Law School Student Employment Program (LSSEP). He noted that the LSSEP grew this year with the inclusion of new employers like the Investor Protection Clinic and the Advocates for Injured Workers. While 1Ls tend to make up the majority of applicants, Dennis notes that it is an amazing program for 2Ls who are dedicated to public interest work.

The CDO is still in the process of collecting data for the 2021 articling statistics.

This article has been edited for print. Find the full article on ultravires.ca.

10 | April 7, 2021

NEWS

ultravires.ca

The 2021 Chief Justice Richard Wagner Awards First year law student Graeme Wyatt received the award for the University of Toronto’s Pro Bono Students Canada chapter SABRINA MACKLAI (1L JD/MI)* On Fr iday March 26, t he Pro Bono St udents Canada ( PBSC ) prog ram presented t he second annua l Ch ief Just ice R ichard Wag ner Awards and f irst Nat iona l Volunteer Appreciat ion Event. T he v ir t ua l event was hosted by PBSC’s nat iona l law f ir m par t ner, McCar t hy Tét rau lt L L P. Founded in 1996 at t he Un iversit y of Toronto, PBSC recr uits over 150 0 law st udent volunteers to prov ide free h igh- qua lit y lega l ser v ices to over 4 0 0 organ izat ions, cour ts, and t r ibuna ls across t he count r y.

T he Ch ief Just ice R ichard Wag ner Awards were int roduced last year to honour t he R ight Honourable R ichard Wagner and h is long stand ing comm it ment to access to just ice. T he awards recog n ize an outstand ing volunteer from each of t he 22 PBSC chapters across Canada.

PBSC’s Nat iona l Director Br ittany Tw iss opened t he event by ack nowledg ing t he d if f icu lt y of t h is past year, not ing t he recent r ise of ant i-A sian rhetor ic as wel l as cont inued xenophobia and wh ite supremacy wh ich af fect many PBSC members and t he commun it ies t hey ser ve.

“At PBSC , we bel ieve t hat as a commun it y of cur rent and fut ure lega l professiona ls, we must constant ly bui ld our understand ing of intersect iona l it y and equit y, and ref lect on t he pr iv i leges we hold,” sa id Tw iss. “ We a lso bel ieve t hat our pr ivi leges come w it h g reat responsibi l it y to ta ke act ion for just ice and to ensure t he colon ia l lega l system is acceptable to and act ua l ly work for a l l, and t hat I nd igenous lega l orders are respected. I nherent in t h is is a comm it ment to approach ing our work w it h hum i l it y.”

Dave L eonard, CEO of McCar t hy Tét rau lt, echoed Tw iss’ sent iments, t han k ing st udents for t heir work increasing access

to just ice in t heir loca l commun it ies for t he most v u lnerable of Canad ians. “ We may a l l be in t he m idd le of t he same stor m, but we are not a l l in t he same boat r id ing out t hat stor m. T here are many people in our commun it ies who need help.”

Ch ief Just ice Wag ner launched into a d iscussion of t he impor tance of pro bono work in t he lega l profession. He add ressed t he st udent volunteers, say ing, “you have l ived up to your organ izat iona l va lues of d ig n it y, equit y, and hum i l it y. I share t hose va lues. How can you meet t he needs of t he marg ina l ized people in our count r y if you don’t l isten and lear n from t heir l ived ex per iences? You are at t he forefront of demonst rat ing t hat law can be a car ing profession and a noble ca l l ing.”

T he Ch ief Just ice t hen d iscussed how t he just ice system was not prepared for t he COV I D -19 pandem ic and how he and t he Cour t quick ly lear ned t he impor tance of leverag ing technolog y and embracing change. He emphasized t hat wh i le t he pandem ic has worsened pre- ex ist ing prob lems l i ke int imate par t ner v iolence and int roduced immed iate lega l issues for hea lt hcare workers and sma l l businesses, law yers and lega l a id cl in ics have r isen to meet t hese needs.

“Pro Bono St udents Canada has been, and rema ins on t he lega l front l ines of t he pandem ic,” sa id t he Ch ief Just ice.

Ch ief Just ice Wag ner proud ly int ro duced t he recipients of t he 2021 Ch ief Just ice R ichard Wag ner Awards. O ver 10 0 law st udent volunteers were nom inated across Canada. Graeme Wyatt (1L) received t he award for t he U of T chapter in recog n it ion of h is work w it h Cit izens Wit h Disabi l it ies – Ontar io (C W DO). H is project centered on d iscover ing if people w it h

d isabi l it ies have a lega l r ight under Ontar ian and Canad ian law to receive gover nment fund ing t hat enables t hem to l ive independent ly in t he commun it y as op posed to in long-ter m care homes, where t hey have l itt le persona l autonomy and l ive w it h people far older t han t hem.

I n a comment for U ltra V ires, Wyatt expla ined, “I joined PBSC t h in k ing it wou ld be an oppor t un it y to do somet h ing meaning fu l t h is year, but not k now ing exact ly what I was interested in pursuing. A s a sibl ing of an adu lt w it h a d isabi l it y, I t hought Cit izens w it h Disabi l it ies – Ontar io wou ld be an oppor t un it y to help a commun it y t hat I k now st r uggles to access just ice w it h in t he ex ist ing system, and is often ig nored and ost racized. T he ex per ience was better t han I cou ld have ant icipated. I ta l ked to advocates and law yers in t hree d if ferent prov inces, and I got to work w it h some t r u ly inspir ing ind iv idua ls t hat have persevered in t he face of innumerable societa l cha l lenges. I got to do lega l research and w r it ing t hat I act ua l ly felt wou ld ma ke a d if ference somewhere.

It was t he h igh l ight of my 1L year.”

Access to just ice was a cent ra l t heme of t he event. W hen asked what access to jus t ice means to h im, Wyatt elaborated t hat it “ is a recog n it ion t hat a one-size-f its-a l l approach to desig n ing any system w i l l not produce equitable outcomes for a l l people.

I get t he sense t hat t he lega l system l i kes enforcing standards on people because if it forces ever yone to abide by t he same r u les, t hat w i l l be fa irer for ever yone. I n rea l it y, a l l it does is prevent people who can't meet t hose standards from accessing t he just ice t hat our va lues say t hey shou ld be ent it led to. Access to just ice is an attempt to cor rect t hat outcome by meet ing people where t heir needs require t hem to

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD WAGNER.

GRAEME WYATT (1L), RECIPIENT OF THE 2021 CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD WAGNER AWARD FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO.

be met. I t h in k t hat can on ly have good outcomes for t he lega l system as a whole.”

Ch ief Just ice Wag ner a lso d iscussed Ontar io’s Access to Just ice Act, 20 0 6 wh ich enabled Ontar io to become t he f irst Nor t h A mer ican jur isd ict ion to l icense non-law yer lega l professiona ls. Tra ined para lega ls may represent cl ients in sma l l cla ims and t ra f f ic cour ts, hand le some cr im ina l matters, do t r ibuna l work, and may one day a lso prov ide some ser v ices in fam i ly law.

T he Ch ief Just ice notes t hat, “t hese lega l professiona ls prov ide cit izens w it h unbund led lega l ser v ices at pr ices more peo ple can af ford. Canad ians outside Ontar io wou ld benef it from t h is k ind of st r uct ura l refor m. Yet, to t h is day, I have not heard a compel l ing ex planat ion why no ot her jur isd ict ion has fol lowed suit.”

Ch ief Just ice Wag ner d iscussed t he possibi l it y of t reat ing pro bono work as an essent ia l par t of ongoing bar membersh ip, much l i ke cont inuing lega l educat ion. He commented t hat mandator y pro bono work cont inues to be a cont roversia l topic.

“T he bar r iers to access are system ic,” stated t he Ch ief Just ice. “T here are no quick f i xes. But t he pandem ic has proven to be a power fu l change agent. Out of necessit y, t he just ice system has ta ken t he shears to its ow n red tape.”

“Cour ts are adopt ing new technolo g ies,” he cont inued. “T hey accept t hat inperson appearances are not a lways required. Cour ts are no longer dependent on ly on paper. W ho cou ld have imag ined, just 18 mont hs ago, Cour ts per m itt ing t he subm ission of unswor n af f idav its by ema i l?”

A lt hough he ad m its t hat t hese are not sig n if icant lega l refor ms, t hey are clear sig na ls t hat t he just ice system is open to becom ing more ef f icient and moder n. “ You are leaders in g row ing t he pro bono cu lt ure,” concluded Ch ief Just ice Wag ner. “ More t han t hat, you are ta k ing act ion for just ice, to improve access to just ice. T h is is your t ime.”

Editor’s Note: Sabr ina Macklai i s a PBSC volunteer in the U of T chapter.

NEWS

emondexamprep.ca @EmondExamPrep

CANBARPREP Prep for your Ontario Bar Exams with Emond’s bestselling CanBarPrep Course and online practice exams.

Full-length practice exams with realistic questions, a timer, and detailed answer explanations.

Live webinar format for in-class sessions delivered by leading Canadian lawyers, judges, and professors, containing detailed substantive review of subject matter.

SAVE 10% on the CanBarPrep Course with code 10uoftsls2021. Register at:

http://bit.ly/canbar-ultra Discount code expires June 30, 2021. Applicable to the purchase of Emond Exam Prep’s Online, Live, and Premium CanBarPrep Courses. Discount cannot be combined with any additional offers.

NEWS

12 | April 7, 2021

ultravires.ca

The Promise Auction’s 10th Anniversary

Promise Auction’s Trivia Night raises over $6,000 for local Indigenous organizations ANGELA FENG (1L) AND BRIAN HUANG (3L)* The Promise Auction is an annual fundraising event that raises money for Indigenous organizations. In the past, law students, staf f, faculty, and alumni would bid on photo sessions, bike tours, and baked goods of fered by professors and students alike.

With the ongoing pandemic and stay-athome orders, however, the tenth Annual Promise Auction took place on March 11 in the form of a virtual trivia night with Professor Anthony Niblett — former Jeopardy champion — as quizmaster. The event was organized by the Promise Auction Committee, comprising Lilly Gates (3L), Brian Huang (3L), Molly Campbell (2L), Hannah Bourgeois (2L), Stephanie Rei (1L), Adam Kouri (1L), and Jane Fallis-Cooper (1L).

The event brought in participation from 32 teams and a total of 120 participants, including Dean Jutta Brunnée, Professor

James Phillips, Professor Chris Essert, the library staf f, and alumni from graduating classes ranging from 1976 to 2019. Each team answered seven rounds of questions on a variety of topics, from Greek and Roman mytholog y to movie titles, classical versions of pop songs, and world leaders.

After each team wagered double-or-nothing in the f inal round, the Arcane Femmes — comprising Kerri Salata, June Ip, Judy Dobbs, and Leslie Madden (GPLLM candidates) — came out on top.

Second and third came down to a nailbiting tiebreaker between Les Quizerables (Saskia De Vries, Jane Fallis Cooper, Haya Sardar, and Stephanie Rei, 1Ls) and Brudner’s Brooders (Claudia Shek, Daniel Gao, Kelsey Chisamore, and William Mazurek, 3Ls), with the former winning second place.

The f irst place team took home a swag package from Students’ Law Society and the

University of Toronto Bookstore, valued at $85. Members of the second and third place teams won $40 and $20 gift cards from small businesses.

The event raised a record breaking $6,208 for Aboriginal Legal Services, Native Women’s Resource Center of Toronto, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, and Centre for Indigenous Theatre.

“I’m in awe at the generosity of the law school community who came together to support the incredible work of these Indigenous organizations at such a dif f icult time,” Gates said.

In a year where we’re all staying socially distant, the Promise Auction Committee is glad to have been a part of an event that brought the law school community a little closer together.

Amanda Carling, Manager of the Indigenous Initiatives Of f ice, shared her ref lec-

Explore | Engage | Learn Developing Future Leaders in Law

tions on this event.

“Brian, Lilly and the rest of the planning committee went above and beyond this year to raise more money than ever for Indigenous organizations in need.” Carling expressed how this was a shining example of allyship and appreciates the time, ef fort, and knowledge Professor Niblett put into preparing the quiz and hosting the evening.

“I’m [also] really grateful to all the alumni — especially my class of 2012 friends! — who participated and made generous donations to the organizations,” said Carling.

Given a challenging and isolating school year, the tenth Promise Auction was a bright spot that reconnected the law school community for a great cause.

Editor’s Note: Brain Huang was involved in planning the Promise Auction

NEWS

ultravires.ca

April 7, 2021 | 13

Faculty Council Discusses Mental Health Consultations and Equity Concerns Final meeting focuses on mooting, clerkships, and more ANNECY PANG (2L) In response to the Cromwell report, Dean Jutta Brunnée had a series of debrief meetings for stakeholders to ask questions. She recognized that the issue was divisive and difficult to many, and reminded everyone that the channels of communications are open to offer input. She explained that U of T Human Resources team members Erin Jackson, Sean Suleman, and Kelly Hannah-Moffat were present at the debrief because many of the report’s recommendations would have to be implemented at the university level. Key takeaways from the report include: that outside interference has no place in hiring decisions, and that everyone in the community is open to take on challenging and controversial issues.

Students’ Law Society (SLS) President’s Remarks Robert Nanni (4L JD/MBA) began his final SLS President’s Remarks by noting that many of the Committee reports on the agenda engage with issues that stemmed from student advocacy. He reiterated SLS’ support for recorded lectures, a mandatory course on Aboriginal people and the law, and the equity groups’ open letter. He appreciated how the Faculty has meaningfully engaged with the issues over the past year and looks forward to watching the future of SLS and the Faculty as an alumnus.

Graduate Law Students’ Association (GLSA) President’s Remarks Anil Nair (GPLLM candidate) remarked how strange it is that his entire Faculty Council, and U of T experience, has been online. He looks forward to continue supporting the Faculty after graduating.

Mental Health & Wellness Committee Assistant Dean Alexis Archbold presented the Mental Health and Wellness Committee’s final report. The Committee’s mandate this year was twofold: review the Faculty’s accommodations policy with a view to increase clarity, and undertake a consultation process regarding students’ mental health experiences in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, the Committee formed an accommodation policy subcommittee and a student consultation subcommittee.

The accommodation policy subcommittee significantly restructured the existing accommodation policy to improve readability.

The student consultation subcommittee invited students to provide input on their mental health experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic through three avenues: an anonymous survey, two Zoom listening sessions, and emails sent directly to the student representatives on the Committee.

The Committee received rich and detailed information with over 200 students responding to the survey. Assistant Dean Archbold thanked the students for participating in the process “and for sharing sometimes very difficult experiences that they have had over the course of the year.”

The Committee noted that several individuals shared concerns about the process of obtaining accommodations through Accessibility Services and the Faculty. It recommended liaising with Accessibility Services and exploring potential improvements.

The Committee also noted several concerns regarding a lack of recorded lectures and recommends the Faculty review their policy.

In response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Faculty implemented an extraordinary policy this year in which students

may elect to defer one final exam or request an extension on a paper “no questions asked” to May 7.

Gender, Accessibility & Diversity Committee Assistant Dean Archbold also presented the Gender, Accessibility and Diversity Committee report.

In September, the Committee was tasked with completing last year’s work in updating the Faculty’s Equity, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) statement, developing an employer/recruitment student complaint process, and making recommendations on how to prioritize and implement the ideas outlined in the equity groups’ open letter on anti-Black racism.

In January, Dean Brunnée modified the mandate to pause the work on the EDI statement, focus on a broader consultation process around EDI at the Faculty, and consult with the authors of the open letter to determine how to prioritize the letter’s calls to action.

Assistant Dean Archbold stated that the new employer/recruitment student complaint process is completed and posted on the law school’s website.

The Committee met with representatives from the equity-facing groups who penned the letter in February. The Committee did not formulate any specific recommendations because it understood the law school to be heading into a broader consultation exercise and did not wish to prejudge what those consultations may yield. The Committee does recommend that, where appropriate, the Faculty “start work immediately on the open letter’s short- and medium-term recommendations, while a broader EDI consultation and planning process is underway.”

Asha Gordon (2L) noted that the issues highlighted in the letter were urgent and encouraged the Faculty to commit to smaller actions that are capable of being implemented in addition to the broader consultation process. She pointed out that while U of T prides itself on its Black Future Lawyers program, it is behind all other law schools in addressing antiBlack racism and white supremacy specifically.

Dean Brunnée stated in response that, “Some things are in motion already [to address the shortand medium-term calls to action] and it’s also important to have a process that engages our broader teaching and learning environment.”

Court: British Columbia Superior Court British Columbia Court of Appeal Federal Court of Canada Federal Court of Appeal Ontario Superior Court Ontario Divisional Court Ontario Court of Appeal Supreme Court of Canada Tax Court of Canada

Mooting & Advocacy Committee

highlighting the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the competitive mooting program: remote preparation, writing, and run-throughs. Judges, student coaches, and faculty advisors were all impressed with the students’ “calm eloquence” in handling these challenges.

The Committee was tasked with evaluating new competitive mooting opportunities that arose during 2020-2021. Of the six moots the Faculty was invited to join, three caught the Committee’s attention. First, the Committee recommends the Faculty join the Federal Court Immigration and Refugee Law Moot, because it is an area of law that has significant curricular support and high student interest. Second, while the Committee is intrigued by the Jewish Law moot court competition, the moot would not meet the writing requirements of the Faculty’s oral advocacy graduation requirement.

Third, the Committee recommends monitoring the development of the Child Protection Moot.

The Committee also recommends allowing, on a trial basis, students participating in exchange in Fall 2021 – or Fall 2022 if exchange does not resume this year – to be permitted to try out for a competitive moot and if successful, to allocate the moot’s three credits to the Winter 2022 term.

The recommendation is in response to a recent letter from SLS to the Committee. Currently, a student participating in a competitive moot allocates the three credits as follows: one credit in the Fall and two credits in the Winter, which roughly maps onto the amount of work. However, this means that students on exchange in the Fall semester cannot participate in moots, except the Callaghan Moot 一 an internal competition whose moot problem is only made available in January.

Professor Stewart notes that this recommendation still has pitfalls. It may compromise the integrity of the exchange experience, students may become disengaged from their commitments at the Faculty while abroad, and students may still try out for a Callaghan Moot in the same year, or for any moot in the year they are not on exchange.

Jean-Pierre D’Angelo (2L) understood the need for Dean Brunnée to consult with other stakeholders and emphasized the time-sensitive nature of the recommendation. Dean Brunnée assured members that she would “conduct the inquiries and consultations expeditiously so as to have an answer for you in good time.”

Willem Crispin-Frei (2L) asked the Committee to ensure that students who may be virtual for 20212022 are still able to participate in the moots. Professor Stewart replied that participation eligibility will depend on the particular moot’s organizers but he will take it under consideration as the Faculty advisor to the Callaghan Moot.

Professor Hamish Stewart presented the Mooting & Advocacy Committee’s report. He began by

Curriculum Committee

Faculty Council Documents Amendment Process Committee Associate Dean Christopher Essert thanked the members of the Committee for their work on developing a formal amendment process to the Faculty Council constitutional documents, in particular Branden Cave (2L). The motion to adopt the amending formula proposed on March 24th was carried.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Committee Professor Douglas Sanderson presented updates from the TRC Committee. It is currently working on developing a student survey to get a sense of students’ encounters with Indigenousness in the classroom. The work is still in its early stages.

The Committee is also determining what cultural competency is and what it means in the context of the law school. To that regard, they are considering creating a formal policy and a fund to reimburse Indigenous Elders for their time.

Incoming 2022-2023 clerks from U of T Law: 5 4 2 2 3 1 7 7 1 Associate Dean Essert presented the Curriculum Committee’s report.

The Committee is currently engaged in a consultation process with students and faculty members on the implementation of a mandatory Aboriginal law course that meets the TRC’s Call to Action #28. More consultations will follow next year.

Associate Dean Essert updated Faculty Council on the status of the intersession courses. The feedback from faculty and students suggests that the intersession went well this year, although the Committee hopes that a remote intersession will not be the model for the future.

Associate Dean Essert presented a motion to adopt the proposed 2021-2022 curriculum, which consists of the list of courses offered for upper-year students, and to delegate himself authority as an administrator to make minor tweaks to the curriculum — edits to the course descriptions and evaluation methods — as needed. The motion was carried.

Nanni asked about the status of small group courses in the 2021-2022 year, which were shortened this year on an emergency basis. Associate Dean Essert confirmed that small group will revert to its year-long format this Fall.

Clerkships Advisory Committee Professor Martha Shaffer announced that 28 students secured clerkships across the country this year, which is perhaps a record for the Faculty.

Professor Shaffer noted that there has been a shift in hiring at the Supreme Court to favour recent graduates. In addition, every student the Committee put forward this year had already secured an appellate-level clerkship. Of the seven students hired at the SCC in this clerkship cycle, one is a current student and the remaining six have already graduated.

Motion to Delegate Authority to Associate Dean of Graduate Studies Assistant Dean Emily Orchard introduced a motion for Faculty Council to delegate authority to Associate Dean Malcolm Thorburn to make minor changes to graduate courses, as necessary. She notes that generally, the curriculum is very stable.

Changes in the LLM courses mirror those of the JD program, except that they are under different course names. The motion was carried.

Concluding Remarks Dean Brunnée concluded the final Faculty Council meeting of the year by wishing students good luck on their final exams and papers. She bids farewell to the graduating students and hopes everyone has a safe summer.

RECRUIT SPECIAL

14 | April 7, 2021

ultravires.ca

Toronto 2021 2L Summer Recruitment Numbers Demand for summer students continues despite global pandemic DHRITI CHAKRAVARTY (2L), HUSSEIN E. E. FAWZY (1L), ALISHA LI (2L), ANNECY PANG (2L) Editor's Note: We will update our online spreadsheet at ultravires.ca to ref lect any f urther infor mation provided f rom e mployers af ter the time of publication .

Firm

Total Summer Students

Returning Summer Students

U of T

Osgoode

JD

JD/MBA

JD

JD/MBA

Queen's

Western

Ottawa

Windsor

McGill

Dalhousie

Other

Aird & Berlis LLP

15

4

2

-

5

-

-

2

3

3

-

-

-

Baker McKenzie

4

-

2

-

1

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Beard Winter LLP

Did not respond by date of publication

Bennett Jones LLP (Toronto)

25

1

2

-

4

-

3

4

5

4

-

2

1

Bereskin & Parr LLP

7

4

1

-

1

-

1

2

-

1

-

-

1

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

32

14

8

1

9

1

6

2

2

-

1

2

-

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

23

5

5

-

1

1

2

3

2

-

4

3

1 - U of A; 1 - UBC

Brauti Thorning LLP

3

-

1

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP

16

-

3

1

3

-

2

3

1

3

-

-

-

Cavalluzzo LLP

Did not respond by date of publication

Chaitons LLP

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

Crawford Chondon & Partners LLP (CCPartners)

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Dale & Lessmann LLP

2

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP

15

7

3

1

3

1

-

3

-

-

-

1

3

Deeth Williams Wall LLP

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Department of Justice

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

1

-

1 - Oxford

Dickinson Wright LLP

3

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

DLA Piper (Canada) LLP

8

-

1

-

1

-

-

1

3

-

1

-

1 - UNB

Downtown Crown Attorney

Did not respond by date of publication

Epstein Cole LLP

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

23

2

2

3

3

2

3

3

2

1

2

-

-

Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP

5

-

1

-

1

-

1

-

1

1

-

-

-

Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA)

2

-

-

-

1

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

6

-

1

-

1

-

1

1

-

2

-

-

-

Gardiner Roberts LLP

5

4

-

-

2

-

1

-

1

1

-

-

-

-

Gilbert’s LLP

Did not respond by date of publication

Goldblatt Partners LLP

4

-

1

-

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Goodmans LLP

10

1

1

1

2

-

1

1

2

2

-

-

-

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP

15

-

-

-

2

1

-

1

3

2

1

-

1UCalgary; 4 - NCA

Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP

8

-

2

-

1

-

1

2

1

1

-

-

-

Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA)

2

-

-

-

1

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

6

-

1

-

1

-

1

1

-

2

-

-

-

Gardiner Roberts LLP ultravires.ca Gilbert’s LLP

5

4

-

2 1 RECRUIT SPECIAL

-

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 Queen's -

1 Western 1

2 Ottawa 3

2 Windsor 2

McGill 1

Dalhousie -

Other 1UCalgary; 4 - NCA

1 1

2 2-

3 1-

3 1-

--

--

--

Goldblatt Partners LLP Goodmans LLP Firm Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP Hicks Aird &Morley Berlis LLP Hamilton Stewart Baker McKenzie Storie LLP Beard Winter LLP Kim Spencer McPhee Bennett BarristersJones P.C. LLP (Toronto) Koskie Minsky LLP Bereskin & Parr LLP KPMG Law LLP Blake, Cassels & Lenczner LLP Slaght Graydon Littler LLP Borden Ladner MAG, Crown Gervais LLP Law Office Criminal Brauti Thorning LLP MAG, Family Cassels Brock & Responsibility Blackwell LLP Office Other MAGLLP Offices (8) Cavalluzzo Mathews, Dinsdale & Chaitons LLP Clark LLP Crawford Chondon & Partners LLP McCarthy Tetrault LLP (CCPartners) Dale & Lessmann LLP McLeish Orlando LLP Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP McMillan LLP Deeth Williams Wall LLP Miller Thomson LLP Department of Justice North York Crown Dickinson Attorney Wright LLP

- 7, 2021 |- 15 April

Did not respond by date of publication

4

-

1

10 Total Summer Students 15

1 Returning Summer Students -

1

15 8 4

-

3

1

2 Osgoode 2 1 JD JD/MBA

U of T JD

JD/MBA

4 --

2 2 2

--

2 25 5 7

1 4

2 1

-

32 13

14 -

8 5

1-

23 6 3

5 -

5 1 1

-

2 16

--

3-

1-

-

-

5 1 1

--

Did not respond by date of publication 1 4 3 4 2 1 1 2 Did not respond by date of publication 9 16 2 3 1

1 5 2 -

4 1 1

-

2 -

1 1

2 1

-

1-

2 1

-

Did not respond by date of publication 1 1 2 3 1 1 -

2 1 1

1 -

4 2 -

3

1 - U of A; 1 - UBC

-

-

3-

1 1

3-

--

--

--

1 3

--

2-

Did not not respond respond by by date date of of publication publication Did 2 4

-

-

-

1-

-

2-

1-

2-

-

-

-

-

1 25

-

4

2

1 7

-

3

3

-

2

-

-

3 - UBC; 1Harvard

2 4

-

1

-

1 -

-

-

1 -

-

3

-

-

15 13

7 -

3 1

1 1

3 4

1 -

1

3 1

1

2

-

1 -

1 15 5

-

5 -

-

1 -

3 3

1

1 -

3

-

1

-

1 1 3 1 Did not -respond by date of publication 1 -

-

-

1

-

-

-

1 2

1-

1-

3 2

-

1 2

1-

1 - UNB NCA

-

1

-

Did not -respond by - date of publication -

-

-

-

-

-

2 -

2 1 8

3 3

1 2 1 2

1 1 1

2 -

1

1 - UBC

Returning Summer Students -

3

-

Ottawa 1 -

Windsor 21 -

McGill -

Dalhousie -

1 - UofT LLM/NCA Other -

DLA Piper (Canada) Norton Rose Fulbright 8 15 LLP Canada LLP Downtown Office of theCrown Ontario 1 Attorney Ombudsman Epstein LLP 1 OgletreeCole Deakins 1 International LLP Fasken Martineau 23 DuMoulin LLP and Ontario Lottery 2 Gaming Corp Filion Wakely Thorup 5 Angeletti LLP & Osler, Hoskin 34 Harcourt LLP Financial Services Regulatory Authority 2 Paliare Roland LLP 5 of Ontario (FSRA) Total Summer Firm Students Fogler, Rubinoff 6 Pallett Valo LLP LLP 2 Gardiner Roberts LLP 5 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton LLP & Garrison 3 Gilbert’s LLP Goldblatt Partners 43 Polley Faith LLP LLP Public Prosecution Goodmans LLP 10 4 Service of Canada Gowling WLGJeffries Rae Christen 15 (Canada) LLP LLP

U of T

2

1 4

-

3 1 9

2 -

2-

1 3 1 1 5

3 1 4

1 1 1 Osgoode Queen's Western 1 112 2 1 Did not respond by date of publication -

13Lakehead; 1 - NCA 1 - Oxford

4 -

11

--

12

--

3-

--

--

--

--

--

1-

--

--

1-

11

1-

21

--

11

1-

2-

21

--

--

-

-

-

1 Did not 2respond 1by date of publication

3

2

1

-

-

RidoutMorley & Maybee LLP Hicks Hamilton ShearmanStewart & Sterling Storie LLP LLP (Toronto)

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-1UCalgary; 4 - NCA -

8 2

-

2 -

-

1 2

-

1 -

2 -

1 -

1 -

-

-

-

Kim Spencer McPhee Singleton Urquhart Barristers P.C. LLP Reynolds Vogel

2

-

1-

-

1-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

5 1

-

-

-

2-

1-

1-

-

-

2 13 2

1

2 5 -

-

2Did not respond by date of publication 3 1 2 - date of publication 1 Did not 1respond by

1 -

-

-

1 -

-

2 6 26

-

1 4

-

-

1

2 3

-

2

1 1

-

2

1 2

1

1 - UVic

1 2 3

--

-1

--

11

--

--

--

--

1 4

--

--

--

1-

--

2-

1-

--

--

1-

--

--

Torys LLP McCarthy Tetrault LLP WeirFoulds LLP

20 25 7

-

5 4 -

1 2 -

3 7 1

-

4 3 -

3 3 1

1 2

2 2

1 1

1 -

UBC; 13 -- UdeM 1Harvard

Whitten & Lublin McLeish Orlando LLP Employment Lawyers

4 1

-

1-

-

1-

-

-

-

-

3-

-

-

-

Wildeboer Dellelce McMillan LLP LLP

13 7

-

1

1-

4 1

-

1

1 3

1

2-

-

-

2021 Total Miller Thomson LLP

478 15

43 -

5

-

1

-

55 3

59 1

50 1

41 3

23 -

14 1

1Lakehead; 1 - NCA 5 -

2

-

2

1

1 - NCA

Koskie SiskindsMinsky LLP LLP KPMG Law LLP Slate, Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom LLP Lenczner Slaght Smart LLP & Biggar Littler Stieber Berlach LLP MAG, Crown Law Office - Criminal Stikeman Elliott LLP MAG, Family LLP Thorsteinssons Responsibility Office Torkin Manes LLP Other MAG Offices (8) Toronto West Crown Mathews, Dinsdale Attorney's Office & Clark LLP (Etobicoke)

105

North York Crown Attorney Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP

1 3

2 6

1 ---1 1 Did not respond by date of publication

104

Did not respond by date of publication 15

-

2

1

4

-

2

-

16 | April 7, 2021 Returning Summer Total Summer Students Students

RECRUIT SPECIAL

ultravires.ca

Osgoode

Queen's

Western

Ottawa

Windsor

McGill

U of T

Osgoode

Western

Queens

Ottawa

Windsor

McGill

Dalhousie

Approximate class size

210

290

207

185

320

245

183

170

% of students with positions secured from recruit

50%

36%

27%

32%

16%

17%

13%

8%

Total participating employers

U of T

77 % employers responding

Dalhousie

79%

Year of Recruit

Total Summer Students

U of T

Osgoode

Western

Queens

Ottawa

Windsor

McGill

Dalhousie

2019

444

102

102

58

53

35

36

20

11

2018

433

95

93

62

52

37

41

20

11

2017

428

110

99

50

49

35

32

19

14

2016

375

93

83

44

42

30

33

20

14

2015

420

106

84

48

49

32

40

25

18

Reflections from the 2L Recruit

Students share stories of inappropriate behaviour, tips for networking, and feedback on the recruitment process ANNECY PANG (2L)* As part of Ultra Vires’s annual recruit survey, we asked students questions about their experience navigating the unprecedented virtual 2L recruit. Students offered tips for success, feedback on the process, and expressions of interest throughout the process.

These comments have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Do you have any comments on the virtual events?

Most students did not enjoy the virtual events, citing awkwardness and Zoom fatigue: • “I did not want to see which of my friends were competing for the same job.”

• “One f irm did a ‘social’ and it was literally a webinar.”

• “200 people shoved into a Zoom room will not get to make any meaningful connections with one another.”

• “A f irm rescinded an offer for a Day 2 callback that they gave me and sent me an email conf irmation for, right after I participated in their virtual event. I have no idea if the virtual event itself (which felt like a very awkward chat) had any role in the decision.”

• “The virtual event was terrible because I felt like I had to be this outgoing, charismatic, knowledgeable person that I’m not (especially in group settings).”

But others enjoyed the virtual events:

On pressure to say “f irst choice”: • “I was told ‘this is the time to tell us if we’re your f irst choice.’”

• “One f irm really pressured me. They called me on the last day of in-f irms to again try to push me to say they were my f irst choice. They ended up calling me at 5:00 p.m. just to tell me they would not offer me a position.”

• “I got sat down a few times where it felt like they really wanted me to provide f irst choice language.”

Miscellaneous comments: • “One f irm asked me if I had experience caring for children.”

• “An interviewer told me they were uninterested in interviewing me.”

• “One f irm asked me what my political leanings were and if I considered myself ‘left’.”

• “One employer insulted me and it really threw me off for the rest of my interview. She said it while laughing, as if it were a compliment, but the words were really mean.”

• “An OCI interviewer asked if I’d had “that smile plastered” on my face all day.”

• “One interviewer interrupted me and spoke over me throughout.”

• “The evening was an ask-me-anything but questions could be asked anonymously, which took pressure off of students.”

• “They asked me about political events from my home country and it made me extremely uncomfortable as it’s not something that I enjoy talking to employers about.”

• “[Attended] a cool trivia event [...] It was good to see the lawyers in a more natural environment.”

• “One f irm assumed an interest in a particular practice area based on my identity, even though I had expressed different interests in my cover letter.”

• “One f irm had a coffee chat over the phone, which was much more relaxed and informal since I didn’t have to dress up.”

Did any of the employers ask you inappropriate questions or make you feel uncomfortable?

What advice would you give to someone participating in the process next year?

On networking and preparation: • “Network as much as you can ahead of time. It was easier for me in this virtual setting, so I tried to make the most of it. It helped me distinguish between f irms.”

Other

ultravires.ca

RECRUIT SPECIAL

April 7, 2021 | 17

• “Go to events and try to connect with people. You may be surprised at just how friendly the lawyers are and how willing they are to speak with you.”

• “Most of it. With the amount of arbitrary net-casting and mind-games, I’d prefer if Cognomos simply assigned people to f irms.”

• “Prepare lots of questions.”

• “Scrap this system and institute one which incentivizes fewer applications and interviews.

This process is harmful and crushes so many deserving candidates and places an undue burden on people who already have to carry high debt-loads.”

• “Start writing your resume and cover letter as soon as you can.”

• “Do more mock interviews.”

Did you experience any employers not following LSO Procedures?

• “Demonstrating that you know what that f irm does is invaluable. Finding ways to insert the ‘why this f irm’ into your conversation is absolutely crucial, even if they don’t directly ask you the question.”

Some f irms hinted strongly at an offer. One student’s comments stood out:

On “playing the game”: • “Be aware that f irms will lead you on and make you feel like a top candidate only to not call you at 5:00 p.m. To the extent that you can, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.”

• “Remember that you are the only one who has your best interests at heart. Firms may make you feel bad for not saying ‘f irst choice’ but at the end of the day, they will be okay regardless of what happens.”

• “[A f irm] told us we’d all be getting offers at their lunch on Day 3 that was literally called ‘top candidate celebration lunch’. They also encouraged us to cancel interviews with other f irms, yet not everyone who was told this actually got an offer.”

Do you have any comments on the LSO Recruitment Procedures?

Many students commented on the power asymmetry between students and employers, and the resulting harms:

• “Demonstrate more interest than you feel.”

• “The whole thing was traumatizing. Having to make someone like you in 17 minutes? Inf irms were not much better and [...] waiting for emails, knowing you may never get a PFO [sic] email, was the worst part.”

• “Saying ‘f irst choice’ can be powerful. You should say it by mid to late Day 2 because this is often the difference between getting a third interview and not.”

• “The rules give f irms all the power. Students are not in a realistic position to enforce them.”

On staying positive: • “Go into it knowing the outcome doesn’t say anything about you.”

• “Breathe. It can be a very arbitrary process. Remember that at the end of the day you’re assessing them as well.”

• “Take it one step at a time and try not to compare yourself to anyone else.”

• “Have faith in yourself, Don’t be afraid of or discouraged from applying.”

On the importance of a supportive network: • “Have upper year friends on standby to be your guide on how to signal interest and to cheer you on. They are invaluable.”

• “Speak with a trusted upper-year student who has gone through the recruit for advice and guidance.”

• “Have someone to talk to, especially an upper year.”

But most of all: • “Make sure you drink lots of water.”

Alternatively: • “Don’t participate in recruit. If you don’t want to.”

• “In theory, it is nice they want to protect students; however, in practice they don’t make sense and are entirely unworkable. The largest issue is how offers are made.”

• “They hurt students. It gives employers the perfect excuse to play coy and give students the very strong impression that they’ll be getting an offer, with no obligation to actually follow through.”

• “Too stressful. The LSO needs to re-evaluate a process that has such a poor effect on mental health.”

• “This process is set up to cater to the egos of big f irms in a quasi-battle Royale.”

Are you satisf ied with the outcome of the recruitment process?

The responses were polarized: • “Yes, I got my top-choice. That said, the process leaves you feeling drained, exhausted, and messed with regardless of the outcome.”

• “Yes, I wanted a position at a large, full-service f irm and that’s what I got.”

• “No, I didn’t get a job after lots of interviews.”

• “No, somewhat paradoxically, I struck out entirely from the recruit but ended up getting an even more diff icult-to-land position.”

Did your f irst-choice employer change during the recruitment process? If yes, at what stage?

What did you not want your interviewers to know about you?

Responses varied: • “How strong my leftist politics are.”

• “How much I have struggled to be motivated during COVID. I have felt so much frustration over the “business as usual” approach the Faculty has maintained throughout this period but I felt like I had to put on a bright face and “sell” the pre-pandemic version of myself during the recruit.”

• “That I hate everything their off ice stands for.”

• “The employer that ended up making me an offer called me three times before call day to make sure that their competitors hadn’t poached me. They were the only f irm I had left.”

• “I was wearing sweatpants.”

What, if anything, would you change about the recruitment process?

Most suggestions involved removing using a student’s in-f irm schedule to signal interest.

Some also advocated for extending the in-f irm timeline, a consistent email policy, and introducing a ranking system:

Of the 92 students who answered this question, 54 students (59%) said their f irst-choice employer changed during the recruitment process.

• “All employers should send out rejection emails once they decide they don’t like you so you can spend your time elsewhere.”

• “All intent to call emails should happen at the same time so we don’t spend days watching our email.”

• “[Evening] events should be banned.”

• “There should be an online ranking system for f irms and students to save the awkwardness of being pressured to say f irst choice.”

• “Make it longer. There is no good reason why all in-f irms have to happen in three days.

Give us at least a full week, but cap the interviews at three per f irm.”

• “Cancel all classes. Going to class Monday evening before 9:00 a.m. interviews on Tuesday was hell. Going to an evening class on Tuesday after having a full day of interviews was worse.”

• “Let them send us food.”

Of the 54 students who said their f irst-choices changed, 50 specif ied when the change occurred during the recruitment process. 29 of the students (56%) said their f irst-choices

RECRUIT SPECIAL

18 | April 7, 2021

changed during the in-f irm stage. One student wrote that they reconsidered their f irst-choice f irm throughout the process, including up to accepting an offer.

How did your interest in a legal career change as a result of this process?

ultravires.ca

your heart sinks a little and you say ‘ugh shit’? Being a lawyer is just asking to get that letter every day.”

• “I did not like the people I spoke to. The emphasis was always on how much work there was and how prestigious it was, rather than the clients they supposedly should be helping.

I don’t like being so removed from reality.”

Do you have any closing thoughts?

Responses were across the board: • “Why do people think law students are superheroes? The fact that we get through this every year is not evidence that we get through it without giving up huge bits of ourselves in the process. It doesn't mean we didn't do it at the expense of our mental health, academic success, and general wellness. We're asked to continually cater to and appease f irms who end up treating us like statistics and make arbitrary choices. We can't really be honest or ask the questions we want to ask. We are asked to do a lot, and it continually feels unfair. It shouldn't have to be that way.”

• “Special shoutout to a f irm [...] who offered me a second interview in in-f irms, told me to reserve a time spot for it, conf irmed with me that time should be set aside for them, then ghosted me by never replying to my emails asking them to conf irm the time or send a link.

I always f igured the recruit was like The Bachelor, but now that it's virtual I suppose they thought it was time to make it more like Tinder."

Of the 104 students who responded to this question, the most common answer landed halfway between “much less interested” and “much more interested.”

Some students felt inspired: • “It was motivating to hear about how rewarding life could be post-law school. Corny but true.”

• “I was deeply touched by those whose dedication and passion for their job really shone through.”

• “I thought I wanted to be in a full-service f irm to be exposed to different practice areas, in particular to try transactional work. I will be working at a litigation boutique.”

Some became more jaded: • “Have you ever opened the mail and realized you got jury duty, and as you read the letter

• “Don't do 26 OCIs — it was very hectic and stressful.”

• “One of the partners joined a Zoom call late while I was chatting with the associate. I guess he didn’t realize his mic was on, because we heard something we shouldn’t have. He farted. LOUDLY.” • “As an international student who has been in Canada for only 1.5 years and has never studied in an English environment before, I want to tell my fellow international students that you can do it.”

• “Everyone who's been through or is in the process knows how diff icult and somewhat demoralizing the process can be, so they will be willing to help you. Take advantage of that — and pay it forward when it's your turn.”

Editor’s Note: Annecy Pang participated in the Toronto 2L Recruit this year. Survey respondents were permitted to opt out of answering any questions. The raw data was processed and aggregated by question before being given to the writers.

Correlations Between Grades and Recruit Success Grades matter in predicting the number of OCIs extended, but after that point, grades are generally no better at predicting success than non-academic factors HUSSEIN E. E. FAWZY (1L) Introduction The 2021 Toronto 2L Summer Recruit was unique, to say the least. Unlike Ultra Vires’ previous Recruitment Specials, where a full set of 1L grades were available for analysis, the majority of this year’s 2L applicants only had a single semester of 1L Fall grades because the Faculty implemented a mandatory Credit/No Credit system for all 1L Winter grades and full-year course grades. However, this year’s recruit participants had their Fall 2L grades available, which makes this analysis even more interesting. Unlike in 1L, students choose their classes in 2L. 1L Grades and Recruit Success This analysis included participants who responded to all questions asking about grades in all seven required 1L courses. Participants were excluded if they reported a blank number (i.e., not a positive integer nor zero) in the number of OCI applications sent, non-OCI applications sent, OCIs received, OCIs accepted, in-firms received, in-firms accepted, and offers received. Of 127 total participants, 91 qualified to be included in the analysis.1 Before we proceed, it is important to acknowledge the effect of self-selection bias. It is to be expected that students are more likely to participate in the survey and share their results if they performed better academically or were more satisfied with the outcome of the recruit. In the table below showing the distribution of 1L and 2L grades, this self-selection bias is supported by the overrepresentation of Hs at the expense of Ps. Of the total 91 qualified participants 60 secured at least one offer.

Scaled GPA Calculation Because students took the seven mandatory 1L courses in different orders (with the exception of LRW in the Fall), and only 1L Fall grades were available, most students had a limited number of graded (i.e., non-CR/NCR) courses.

Course No. of reported grades

Constitutional 34

Contracts 39

Criminal 46

LRW 90

An unweighted numeric GPA was assigned for each reported grade.2 Unlike in past surveys, the vast majority of students (85%) had only three non-CR/NCR grades. Eight students had a full set of 1L grades, likely because they were in a dual degree program. In previous years, we computed students’ total GPAs by adding their individual courses’ GPAs and ignoring the courses’ weights. Because we can no longer simply add the unweighted numeric GPA from each course like in previous years, we introduced the Scaled GPA. The Scaled GPA takes the average GPA of a student’s reported grades, regardless of how many, and scales that GPA to the desired equivalent number of courses.3 This accounts for the varying number of available grades for each student while capturing as many 1L grades as available.4 GPA was scaled to three courses because that was the most common reported number of grades (see table below).

Category Number of students with 7 reported grades Number of students with 4 reported grades Number of students with 3 reported grades Number of students with 2 reported grades

Distribution 8 5 77 1

Percent 9% 5% 85% 1%

Once a Scaled GPA was calculated for each student,5 we grouped students with similar.6 Scaled GPAs together, and compared each Scaled GPA group with three main variables of interest: average OCIs received, average in-firms received, and average offers received.

The Findings There was an overrepresentation of Hs and underrepresentation of Ps (see table below outlining the distribution of 1L grades). This could be the outcome of self-selection bias and/or a result of the limited number of grades available per course, given the mandatory CR/NCR policy in Winter 1L grades.

For the 1L grades, the average participant had a mean and median Scaled GPA of 10.9 and 11, respectively.

A Scaled GPA of 11 is equivalent to: P, H, H, or P, P, HH. Like previous years, there is a strong upward Legal Process Property Torts trend in the average number of OCIs received as 12 42 46 Scaled GPA increases. The trend is even more evi-

RECRUIT SPECIAL

ultravires.ca

dent when the grades are divided into more granular units. However, take these numbers with a grain of salt — especially at the extremes of the distribution, since their smaller sample sizes may not be representative.

The positive correlation was also evident in the average number of in-firm interviews received, although much less pronounced. The mean and median number of in-firm interviews received were 4.29 and 3, respectively.

Finally, with respect to the number of offers received, among all Scaled GPA groups, the number fluctuated around one. The mean and median were 1.36 and 1, respectively.

1L Scaled GPA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Average OCIs Received 4 No data 4 9.14 10.19 12.21 16.13 15

Distribution (%) 1 (1%) No data 13 (14%) 21 (23%) 26 (29%) 19 (21%) 8 (9%) 3 (3%)

Average In-Firms Received 2 No data 2.31 4.19 4.38 4.89 6.63 3.33

2L Grade HH H P LP CR/NCR

April 7, 2021 | 19

Expected 11 41 (15%) 82 (30%) 150 (55%) 0 (0%)

Distribution 45 (17%) 111 (41%) 115 (42%) 1 (0%) 12 (Excluded)

Difference 4 29 -35 1

Average Offers Received 1 No data 0.77 1 1.58 1.53 2.25 1.33

Combined 1L & 2L Grades and Recruit Success This is where it all comes together. Presumably, employers will have taken into account both 1L Fall and 2L Fall grades. For each of the 79 students that qualified for both 1L and 2L grades analyses,12 we added their 1L Scaled GPA to their 2L Scaled GPA. This addition (“1L & 2L Scaled GPA”) is automatically scaled to 7 courses. No further scaling was necessary.

Because the 1L & 2L Scaled GPA is representative of seven graded courses, there are even more possible configurations of grades than earlier analyses. Specifically, there are 14 different groups of grades, ranging from 20-33. Please use additional caution in interpreting the data given the smaller sample sizes in each group, especially in the extremes.

The Findings

1L Grade HH H P LP CR/NCR

Distribution (%) 40 (14%) 100 (36%) 134 (49%) 2 (1%) 328

Expected 7 41 (15%) 83 (30%) 152 (55%) 0 (0%)

Difference -1 17 -18 2

2L Grades and Recruit Success The same exclusion criteria used for analyzing 1L Fall grades were used for the 2L Fall grades. From the same pool of students who proceeded in the 1L grades analysis, 12 students were excluded from this analysis, for not reporting their 2L Fall grades.8 This left us with 79 responses.

Additionally, the same technique of Scaled GPA proved useful in analyzing Fall 2L grades. Because students took a different number of courses, we could not simply add the unweighted GPA grades of all courses for each student, as this would simply inflate the GPAs of students with more courses.9 All students’ GPAs were scaled to four courses because most students were enrolled in four graded courses. 10

Number of Graded Courses Taken 0 Courses (did not report) 1 Course 2 Course 3 Courses 4 Courses 5 Courses 6 Courses CR/NCR Courses

Distribution 12 0 4 36 39 0 0 12 courses among 10 students

Percent 13% 0% 4% 40% 43% 0% 0% Excluded

The Findings Because 2L GPAs were scaled to 4 courses, unlike 3 courses in 1L grades, there are more possible configurations of grades, which make up the 11 groups of distinct Scaled GPA that range from 10-20 (unlike the 8 distinct groups in 1L, ranging from 7-14). Please use additional caution when interpreting the data given the smaller sample sizes in each group, especially in the extremes.

There was an overrepresentation of Hs and HHs at the expense of Ps (see table below outlining the distribution of 2L grades), which was more heightened than in 1L grades. This outcome could be the result of the following two reasons: (i) self-selection bias favoring those who performed better academically; and (ii) students tended to do better in 2L courses because they had discretion to select the courses they were most interested in taking.

For the 2L grades, the average participant had a mean and median Scaled GPA of 14.9 and 14.67, respectively. A Scaled GPA of 15 is equivalent to: P, H, H, H or P, P, H, HH. As with the 1L grades, we see the same strong positive correlation between average OCIs received and Scaled GPA. Also similar to 1L grades, average in-firm interviews received increases slightly with grades. However, this trend is barely visible when we look at the number of offers received, which also fluctuates around 1.

2L Scaled GPA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Distribution (%) 1 (1%) No data 11 (14%) 8 (10%) 11 (14%) 21 (27%) 9 (11%) 11 (14%) 3 (4%) 3 (4%) 1 (1%)

Average OCIs Received 0 No data 4.45 7 7.64 11.71 10 15.73 15.67 20 11

Average In-Firms Received 0 No data 1.82 3.63 4.27 5.48 3 4.91 5.33 11.67 16

Average Offers Received 0 No data 0.73 1.13 1.09 1.86 1.11 2 1.33 2.67 4

For the combined 1L & 2L Scaled GPA, the average participant had a mean and median Scaled GPA of 25.78 and 26, respectively. A Scaled GPA of 26 is equivalent to: 2 Ps, 5 Hs or 3 Ps, 3 Hs, 1 HH or 4 Ps, 1 H, 2 HHs, etc. As with the 2L grades, we see the same strong positive correlation between OCIs received and Scaled GPA. The persistence of this trend, despite the presence of 14 different grade categories/intervals, supports the idea that grades are strongly tied with the number OCI received.13 In other words, had this gradesto-OCI association been weaker, one would expect to see external factors, such as resume and cover letter factors, disturb the increase in OCIs as grades increase. We see this phenomenon more clearly in the red bars representing average in-firm interviews received. There, a “U” shaped trend is visible starting at the GPA of 24 (which is equivalent to 4 Ps and 3 Hs). A similar trend is also evident in the number of offers received (blue bars), where at GPA of 24 and upwards, the average number of offers in each category fluctuates around 2.

Although the average number of offers fluctuated around 2 in most grade categories, when comparing the 1L & 2L Scaled GPA of those who ended up with at least one offer to those without any offers, there was a statistically significant difference: mean Scaled GPA for those with at least one offer was 26.33 while those with no offers was 24.60.14 Two years ago, grades between employment groups were not significantly different. It remains to be seen whether this finding is a one-off event or a start of a new trend.

With the exception of grades being statistically significantly different for those with offers and no offers, the three preceding trends mirror previous years and suggest a recurring theme: grades matter a great deal in predicting the number of OCIs extended, but after that point, grades are generally no better at predicting success than non-academic factors. Hopefully this offers some reassurance that grades are not everything.

1L & 2L Scaled GPA 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

1L & 2L Grades HH H P LP CR/NCR

Distribution (%) 1 (1%) 4 (5%) 6 (8%) 8 (10%) 7 (9%) 8 (10%) 13 (16%) 11 (14%) 10 (13%) 3 (4%) 5 (6%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%)

Distribution 85 (17%) 211 (21%) 249 (42%) 3 (0%) 12 (Excluded)

Average OCIs Received 4 1.25 4.83 3.13 11.29 8.75 11.54 12 13.9 14.67 17.4 22 19 11

Average In-Firms Received 2 0.75 2.5 1.25 5.86 5.38 4.62 4.91 4.6 6.33 7.4 3 10 16

Expected15 82 (15%) 164 (30%) 301 (55%) 0 (0%)

Average Offers Received 1 0.75 0.83 0 1.86 1.25 1.92 1.64 1.3 2.67 2 3 3 4

Difference 3 47 -52 3

RECRUIT SPECIAL

20 | April 7, 2021

25th Percentile Mean 50th Percentile 75th Percentile

1L Scaled GPA (to 3 courses) 10 10.9 11 12

Class Rank (1L & 2L Scaled GPA Top Quarter (28+) Upper Half (26-27) Lower Half (24-25) Bottom Quarter (20-23)

2L Scaled GPA 1L & 2L Scaled GPA (to 4 courses) (to 7 courses) 13.33 24 14.9 25.78 14.67 26 16 27.7

Expected Applications per Offer 7.53 11.05 11.13 51.12

OCIs Received 4 10.1 10 15

In-Firms Received 1 4.29 3 6

Offers Received 0 1.36 1 2

Offer Rate 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.02

ultravires.ca

1. This did not exclude them from analysis in the demographics and open-ended survey questions.

2. As given in the Academic Handbook: 5 for HH, 4 for H, 3 for P, 1 for LP, 0 for F. 3. For example: a student with 7 reported grades, all Ps, has a full GPA of 7*3 = 21; this is then scaled to three grades as follows: (21/7)*3 = 9. Note how a student with 3 grades, all Ps, will have an identical Scaled GPA: 3*3 = 9.

4. Scaling is not without limitations. Although for the 85% of students with 3 reported grades, scaling does not have any effect (since it is the same as adding the 3 GPAs). For the remaining 15%, it has the effect of ignoring employers’ reactions to more or less reported grades. For instance, it ignores the possibility that an employer may treat a student’s 7 reported Ps more favorably than a student’s 3 reported Ps. 5. Again, only 14 students required scaling. The total number of students is 91.

6. For the 14 students who required scaling, their Scaled GPA ended-up being a decimal number. So, to group them in their respective groups, Scaled GPAs were rounded to the nearest whole number accordingly (e.g., Scaled GPA 7 included those at or above 6.5 and those below 7.5).

7. Rounded to the nearest whole number.

8. Students who reported full-year courses in-progress and those with CR/NCR courses were included. Only those with no reported status on their courses were excluded (12 students). Also note that courses from other divisions were excluded because they do not follow the Faculty of Law's grading system (this only affected one grade for one student, and the course was ignored, so their remaining courses were still part of the analysis).

9. Additionally, unlike 1L grades, where the weights of each course were ignored and all courses were treated as equivalent in weight, 2L courses varied in weight. Since it was very impractical to weigh every reported 2L grade with its Faculty-listed weight, the technique of scaling overcame this challenge. Full-time students are required to take between 13-16 credits each term. Therefore, to satisfy this requirement, a lower number of courses taken must carry a higher weight per course taken, and vice versa. Hence, scaling 2L grades will, at least in theory, better reflect academic performance of the entire semester than 1L grades where only 3 out of 7 courses were available for 85% of the eligible students.

10. For instance, a student who took 3 courses with 3 Ps had a Scaled GPA of (3*3)/3*4 = 12, which is identical to a student who took 4 courses with 4 Ps: (3*4)/4*4 = 12. Like with the 1L grades, students’ 2L grades that required scaling (i.e., those who took more or less than 4 graded 2L courses) ended-up with a decimal Scaled GPA. So, to group them in their respective groups, Scaled GPAs were rounded to the nearest whole number accordingly (e.g., Scaled GPA 7 included those at or above 6.5 and those below 7.5).

11. Rounded to the nearest whole number.

12. 91 in the 1L grades analysis and 79 in the 2L grades analysis.

Class Rank (1L & 2L Scaled GPA) Top Quarter (28+) Upper Half (26-27) Lower Half (24-25) Bottom Quarter (20-23)

Distribution 20 20 20 19

Application Conversion Rate 68% 52% 45% 16%

OCI Conversion Rate 44% 38% 48% 38%

13. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for each of the following independent variables: 1L Scaled GPA, 2L Scaled GPA, and 1L & 2L Scaled GPA; where each variable was paired separately with each of the following dependent variables: number of OCIs In-Firm Employment Total received, in-firms received, and offers received. Only the following pairs had Conversion Rate Rate Applications a strong/large association (defined as r > 0.5): 2L Scaled GPA and OCIs re45% 75% 506 ceived (r = 0.54) and 1L & 2L Scaled GPA and OCIs received (r = 0.59).

46% 42% 32%

85% 80% 32%

498 522 468

14. p = 0.004422 on a one-tailed, two-sample t test (two-tailed also had p < 0.05).

15. Rounded to the nearest whole number.

Toronto 2L Recruit Demographic Survey Results Survey reveals the diversity among 2L recruit participants JACQUELINE HUANG (1L), GRAPHS BY ADRIENNE RALPH (2L) Over 60 students who participated in the anonymous Ultra Vires 2L recruit survey also completed an anonymous demographic survey. Although the sample size is relatively small, it is consistent with past sample sizes and the data still gives us a snapshot of the 2Ls who participated in the Toronto recruit.

Age, Gender, and Group Identities

The age distribution of the demographic survey respondents is the following, with an average age of 24.2 years old. The oldest reported student was over 28-years-old and the youngest reported students were 22-years-old.

68 students responded to the gender identity question. 46 students identified as female, and 22 students identified as male.

ultravires.ca

RECRUIT SPECIAL

April 7, 2021 | 21

Religion, Languages, and Personality

Of the 66 students who provided information about their group identity, 26 students identified as a visible minority.

We also asked students whether they held religious beliefs, and how important their religion is to them. 60 students gave responses to the religion question; the results are shown below. 64 students rated the importance of religion to them on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being least important and 5 being most important. The mean value was 2.03, while the 25th percentile was 1 and the 75th percentile was 3.

67 students provided information about their sexual orientations. 50 students percent of students identified as straight, and 17 percent of students identified as LGBTQ2+.

67 students responded to the language proficiency questions. 41 students knew two or more languages at conversational level, and the average number of proficient languages was 1.94. Apart from English, the most common language spoken was French (36.36%), followed by Mandarin (7.48%), Spanish (6.06%), and Korean (6.06%). Respondents speak 19 unique languages.

67 students also reported their country of birth. 48 students were born in Canada, and 19 students were born outside of Canada. 25 students’ parents were both born in Canada, while 42 students have one or both parents born outside of Canada.

68 students rated their personality type on an introverted/extroverted scale, with 1 being introverted and 5 being extroverted. The average number was 3.07, while the 25th percentile was 2 and the 75th percentile was 4. Overall, students who responded to this question fell more on the extroverted side of the scale. The average score of male-identifying respondents was 3.19, which is slightly higher than the average score of female-identifying respondents, 3.02.

22 | April 7, 2021

RECRUIT SPECIAL

ultravires.ca

Financial and Family Education History

63 of the 67 respondents responded to UV’s question about expected debt upon graduation. Nine students expect no debt upon graduation, while two students indicated they expect between $150,000 to $200,000 of debt upon graduation. There were 11 students each in the three middle categories: $25,001-$50,000, $50,001-$75,000, and $75,001-$100,000.

Academic Record, Work Experience, and Study Habits

The respondents' most used sources of funding was loans, followed by family contributions and grants, bursaries, or scholarships.

Of those who provided information on their pre-law academic records, the average undergraduate GPA was 3.83, and the average LSAT score was 166.57, with 164 being the 25th percentile and 168 being the 75th percentile.

The average number of work years before law school was 0.62. Around half of the students who responded to the work experience questions had no work experience prior to law school. 25 percent of students had one year of work experience, and 14 percent of students had two or three years of work experience. The maximum number of work years reported was three.

Finally, we asked students to provide information about their study habits in 1L on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being mostly independently and 5 being mostly in groups. The average number was 1.99.

While 36 percent of students studied mostly independently, 35 percent and 22 percent of students reported a score of 2 and 3 respectively, meaning they sometimes studied in groups.

Editor’s Note: Respondents were permitted to opt out of answering any questions. The raw data was processed and aggregated by question before being given to the writers.

77 percent of respondents were the first in their families to attend law school. The majority of students had one or more family members with university education, with only 12 percent of students being the first in their families to attend university.

ultravires.ca

RECRUIT SPECIAL

April 7, 2021 | 23

PHOTO CREDIT: JACQUELINE HUANG

Additional Supports Offered During the Virtual Recruit

Staff and students stepped up to offer additional support to 2Ls during the difficult virtual recruit this year ANNECY PANG (2L)* The annual 2L Toronto recruit occurred against the backdrop of an already isolating and stressful year. Despite the challenges, there were a series of new initiatives at the Faculty to support students before, during, and after OCIs and in-firms. Below, we shine a light on the additional supports, most of them student-led, and the motivations behind them.

Career Development Office (CDO) Temporarily Hired Anne-Marie Sorrenti The simultaneous 1L and 2L recruits in the Winter semester created more demand for CDO services while also requiring more time spent coordinating the OCI recruiting program. In response to the anticipated strain, the CDO brought on AnneMarie Sorrenti to review application materials and conduct mock interviews with students. Sorrenti is a coach and former corporate lawyer who works with professionals, executives, and executive teams to increase performance and engagement levels. In the past, Sorrenti has conducted student Emotional Intelligence counselling sessions at the Faculty.

Neil Dennis, the Director of the CDO, said “She was a welcome addition — without her, the CDO would have struggled to meet the added challenges that this year brought.”

Due to the virtual nature of the recruit, the CDO team was unable to cheer students on inperson during OCIs and students were unable to sit in their office during the black-out period. Dennis comments, “This was one of the experiences we missed the most this year as we have such a strong connection to our students. It’s one of the best parts of the job.”

In response, the CDO increased their accessibility. Emails were answered more quickly. In broadly defined emergency situations, the CDO made efforts to talk outside of their normal business hours.

“The main idea was not to leave anyone feeling like they were alone in this process,” said Dennis.

“Our passion for this work and our students drives us to persevere,” added Dennis. “We want

our students to succeed and feel supported, so whatever decisions we make, our guiding principle is always whether it is in the best interests of our students.”

Students’ Law Society (SLS) Introduced the Upper-Year Recruit Buddy Program The SLS matched 2L students participating in a recruit with a “recruit buddy,” a 3L who could provide guidance and support throughout the process.

Emma Brown (3L), Rachael Girolametto-Prosen (3L), and Zarin Zahra (3L) worked closely to organize the program. “I was informally mentoring a few 2Ls and it made me think back to the stress of recruiting and how the 2Ls have it even harder this year,” said Girolametto-Prosen. “I relied heavily on upper years that I met in the hallways of Jackman [Hall] and 2Ls this year didn’t have that option.”

The program aimed to provide students with a confidant throughout recruitment — someone the 2Ls could rely on for questions and support. “OCIs and in-firms are difficult to understand until you go through them, particularly the stress of in-firm strategy and “first-choice” language,” added Girolametto-Prosen.

About 65 2Ls and 40 3Ls participated in the program. For future iterations, SLS Social hopes to include questions on specific equity and contextual factors on the matching form and start the program earlier so it covers the application stage as well.

“My upper year buddy mimicked the actual interview process in his mock interviews with me,” said Will Hu (2L). “He pushed me beyond my comfort zone in a beneficial way; the program was extremely valuable in helping me navigate the virtual recruit.”

Asia Law Society (ALS) Hosted Mock OCI and Mock In-Firm Events ALS hosted mock interview events in February to help prepare students for the virtual interviewing process. Students had the opportunity to practice hopping between multiple Zoom links and answer-

ing similar questions multiple times in 90 minutes.

The events were open to all students.

“I attended a similar, albeit in-person, mock OCI event last year and found it really helpful,” said Andrew Gong (3L), one of the main organizers behind the events. “I was hoping to replicate that experience virtually and [...] to give back to the community.”

ALS crowdsourced a list of challenging interview questions. “Although the questions may not show up in the actual interview, students receive practice answering unexpected questions,” said Gong. “It may help adapt resume experiences to convey different stories, and [students] may be better prepared to answer a far wider range of questions as a result.”

Maija Fiorante (2L) recalled, “Doing mock interviews with ALS was an invaluable part of my preparation for the recruit. The feedback I received from [upper-year] interviewers was thoughtful and thorough, and helped me understand where I needed to improve.”

ALS facilitated over 200 interviews. “Our volunteers played a vital role in ensuring the event’s success,” added Gong. “The event would not have been possible but for the generosity of upper-year students who volunteered their Saturday afternoons to interview 2Ls.” 3L Students Hosted a Post-Offer Day Call A group of six 3L students, led by Carol Liu (3L) and Kristy Milland (3L), hosted a Zoom call on the evening of Offer Day for 2L students who struck out during the recruit. The call was a space for students who felt like they could use the company of empathetic, non-judgemental listeners who have been in similar situations.

“As 2Ls, both Kristy and I participated in infirm week and struck out during the recruit,” recalled Liu. “We know first-hand how difficult it is to be in that position and feeling utterly lost.” Liu and Milland expressed concern for the 2L students who may exit the process empty-handed, exhausted,

and disappointed, on top of the additional burdens brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A handful of 2Ls joined the Zoom meeting. Later that evening and over the weekend, Liu and Milland both received messages from 2Ls who wished to ask job-related questions in private. “Whether as a coordinated group effort on the eve of, or later in one-on-one messages, I hope [we were] able to make a positive difference through those conversations,” reflected Liu. 3L Students Organized a Post-Recruit Panel Hannah Johnson (3L) spearheaded a panel event on the Monday after Offer Day that provided information on post-recruit employment opportunities.

The CDO usually organizes a similar event, but decided against doing so this year given the tight recruit timeline. Johnson took the opposite view: there would be a lot of value in an event precisely because summer was rapidly approaching.

“The priority of the event was to provide information about how to find a 2L job,” said Johnson.

“Not getting a job in the recruit can be painful and embarrassing, [but] we wanted to [highlight] concrete next steps to take to secure employment.” The panelists discussed full-service Bay Street firms, clerkship opportunities, and getting hired by a firstchoice employer who rejected them in 2L. “We also wanted to identify ourselves as further resources and to connect the 2Ls with each other,” added Johnson. “I benefited greatly from knowing that people who I knew were brilliant and successful were in the same position as me.”

19 students attended the event. Afterwards, each panelist had multiple students reach out for further information. “Given that one of the goals was to connect students with additional resources, this is a very positive outcome,” concluded Johnson.

Editor’s Note: Annecy Pang is a co-president of Asia Law Society. She also participated in the Toronto 2L Recruit this year.

4

7

6

7

8

6

11

6

14

9

7

Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP

Clark Wilson LLP

Department of Justice

Dentons Canada

DLA Piper

Farris

Fasken

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP

Lawson Lundell LLP

McCarthy Tetault LLP

McMillan LLP

5

126

15

Stikeman Elliot LLP

2021 Total

Count of participating employers

Singleton Reynolds

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP

9

10

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Miller Thomson LLP

17

Blake, Cassels and Graydon LLP

7

-

1

1

-

1

1

-

-

1

-

-

1

-

1

-

53

4

5

3

4

3

2

3

5

3

4

3

3

3

1

7

16

-

1

1

3

1

-

2

-

2

1

1

2

-

1

1

UVic

13

1

1

1

-

3

-

2

1

-

1

1

1

-

-

1

TRU

3

-

1

-

-

-

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

U of Sask

U of T

Osgoode

Queen's

Ottawa

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

% employers responding

4

2

-

79%

2

-

-

-

9

Did not respond by date of publication

-

-

-

1

1

2

-

-

-

1

-

-

3

1

Did not respond by date of publication

-

1

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

2

-

Did not respond by date of publication

UBC

Bennett Jones LLP

U of A Did not respond by date of publication

Total*

Alexandrer Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP

Firm

3

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

Windsor

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

-

-

McGill

7

-

-

-

1

3

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

2

Dalhousie

4

-

-

-

-

1- UCalgary; 1 NCA

1 - UCalgary

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 - UCalgary

Other

24 | April 7, 2021

RECRUIT SPECIAL ultravires.ca

Vancouver 2021 2L Summer Recruitment Numbers

UBC dominates the Vancouver recruit ANGELA FENG (1L) & ALISHA LI (2L)

Editor's Note: We will update our online spreadsheet at ultravires.ca to ref lect any f urther infor mation provided f rom e mployers af ter the time of publication .

RECRUIT SPECIAL

ultravires.ca

April 7, 2021 | 25

Toronto 2021-2022 Articling Recruitment Numbers ALISHA LI (2L) Editor's Note: We will update our online spreadsheet at ultravires.ca to ref lect any f urther infor mation provided f rom e mployers af ter the time of publication .

Firm Addario Law Group LLP

Total Articling Students

Returning Summer Students

U of T

Osgoode

Queen's

Western

Ottawa

Windsor

McGill

Dalhousie

Other

1

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic Beard Winter LLP

Did not respond by date of publication 4

-

1

-

2

Bell Temple LLP Black Sutherland LLP

0

-

-

-

Caramanna Friedberg LLP Carters Professional Corporation

1 Not yet decided

-

-

Did not respond by date of publication 1

-

1

-

Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre & Cornish LLP

4

2

1

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

6

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

Canadian Environmental Law Association City of Toronto Legal Services

-

-

-

Did not respond by date of publication Did Not Disclose

Clyde & Co Canada LLP

Did not respond by date of publication

Cooper, Sandler, Shime & Bergman LLP

Did not respond by date of publication

Dentons Canada LLP

Did not respond by date of publication

Derstine Penman

Did not respond by date of publication

Devry Smith Frank LLP

3

2

-

2

Dutton Brock LLP Edward H. Royle & Partners LLP

-

-

-

Did not respond by date of publication 2

-

-

2

-

-

-

Flaherty McCarthy LLP

Did not respond by date of publication

Glaholt Bowles LLP

Did not respond by date of publication

Goldblatt Partners LLP

6

3

2

2

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

Hicks Adams LLP

4

4

-

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP

11

7

2

-

3

4

1

1

-

-

-

Innocence Canada

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

Lerners LLP

4

-

-

3

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Levitt LLP

2

-

-

-

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

Intact Insurance Co, Legal Department - Claims Interac Corp

Did not respond by date of publication

Kawaguchi Krajden LLP

-

-

-

Did not respond by date of publication

MAG - Agency and Tribunal Relations Division

Did not respond by date of publication

MAG - Court Services Division

Did not respond by date of publication

MAG - Civil Law Division

Did not respond by date of publication

MAG - Criminal Law Division, Downtown (Toronto) Crown Attorney’s Office

2

1

-

-

MAG - Criminal Law Division, Etobicoke (Toronto) Crown Attorney’s Office

1

1

-

-

MAG - Criminal Law Division - All Other Branches Ontario Nurses’ Association

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Did not respond by date of publication 1

-

-

1

Office of the Ontario Ombudsman

-

-

-

Did not respond by date of publication

Ontario Power Generation

3

-

1

-

1

-

1

-

-

-

-

Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP

4

1

1

1

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

Peacebuilders International (Canada)

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Rachlin & Wolfson LLP

Did not respond by date of publication

Ridout & Maybee LLP

Did not respond by date of publication

Samfiru Tumarkin LLP

3

1

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

2

Stevenson Whelton LLP

2

-

-

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

United Steelworkers

Did not respond by date of publication

Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP

2

-

-

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

Will Davidson LLP

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

U of T

Osgoode

Queen's

Western

Ottawa

Windsor

McGill

Dalhousie

Other

10

22

11

6

7

6

0

1

4

2021 Total Articling Students Hired 2021 Total Articling Students Hired

73

Count of participating employers

27

% employers responding

56%

RECRUIT SPECIAL

26 | April 7, 2021

ultravires.ca

Want to Summer in Crim?

How four 2L students navigated the LSO criminal law recruit ANNA ZHANG (2L) AND TEODORA PASCA (3L JD/MA) On top of a pandemic and an already-hectic second semester, March marked the end of yet another summer job recruit season. While some students were preparing to dazzle firms on Bay Street with their charming personalities and impressive extracurriculars, the preparation for interviews with Crown offices and criminal defence firms looked a bit different.

The CLSA spoke with four students at U of T Law about their experiences navigating the criminal law recruit.

Why criminal law?

All four students we spoke with had a passion for criminal law that stemmed from a genuine interest in the subject matter. This spurred their desire to work on compelling human-interest cases in the criminal bar.

Shannon Blaine (2L), who will be summering with the Downtown Toronto Crown Attorney’s Office, became interested in criminal law work after taking Criminal Law in 1L and spending her 1L summer as a research assistant for criminal law professors like Vincent Chiao and Martha Shaffer.

Jean-Pierre D’Angelo (2L), who will be at the Crown Law Office – Criminal, expressed similar sentiments, and was especially drawn to Crown work given its public interest mandate.

“I like having discretion based on a mandate, instead of complying to a client’s instructions,” Jean-Pierre said. “Crowns have a lot of discretion in helping accused people rehabilitate into society, and that’s very interesting to me.”

Sophie Zhao’s (2L) interest in public service came from a prior job in a different government branch, where many of her colleagues had long and satisfying careers in the public sector. She also developed a particular interest in criminal law through her experience working at Innocence Canada and Downtown Legal Services during law school. Sophie will be pursuing both these interests this summer at the Durham Crown Attorney’s Office, which does criminal trials exclusively.

Anna Zhang’s (2L) work with the Elizabeth Fry Society prior to law school inspired a passion for criminal defence work. Although she had a very rewarding experience working at a national firm during her 1L summer, working in a corporate setting also reminded her that criminal law was what she wanted to do long-term.

The LSO recruit can be challenging for students who are not drawn to corporate law. Compared to the many Bay Street firms that participate in the formal OCI and in-firm process, there are relatively few opportunities for students to obtain criminal law jobs. Some of the students we spoke with interviewed at other government branches, Bay Street firms, and litigation boutiques as well, to keep their options open.

However, Anna chose to focus exclusively on criminal law because that was where her heart laid, and landed a job at Hicks Adams LLP. Although she is grateful to have had the strong support of both her former firm and the U of T Career Development Office (CDO), Anna still found it challenging to be the only one of her friends who didn’t apply to Bay Street.

“It definitely felt like I was on my own,” Anna says.

Interviews and preparation For the students we interviewed, OCI and infirm interviews at criminal defence firms tended to be relatively similar to interviews in other areas of private practice. The style of interviews were conversational, and applicants were not asked many substantive questions or quizzed on their knowledge of criminal law.

In Anna’s experience, defence firms seem to be most interested in assessing whether their applicants had a true passion for criminal law. “One of

the questions they always ask is, why criminal law?”

Anna thinks it’s incredibly important to have a good answer to that question. Especially as there are so many other opportunities in full-service firms and more generalized practices, criminal defence firms will be able to tell if students don’t have a genuine interest in the field.

Crown OCIs also tend to be conversational, and interviewers are also interested in discerning whether an applicant has a genuine passion for criminal law. That said, unlike defence in-firms, the in-firms at Crown offices are largely substantive.

Interviews typically last between 30 and 45 minutes (though some GTA office interviews can range up to 2 hours), and are designed to test students’ knowledge, interpretation, and application of criminal law principles and procedure. A distinctive feature of government interviews is that all students are asked the same questions, given the same amount of time to respond, and graded on a standardized marking scheme.

Most Crown interviews required students to analyze hypothetical situations within an allotted amount of time. These scenarios focused on topics like bail, sentencing, and Charter issues dealing with search and seizure and arrest. Some Crown offices sent out a case or a fact pattern that students were expected to be familiar with before the interview.

Certain Crown interviews also included a written portion. After being asked substantive questions orally, one student was asked to draft a brief legal memo on a sentencing issue, while another student was given 15 minutes to respond to an essay question sent over email.

There are a number of things students can do to prepare for these interviews. The students we spoke with networked with upper-year and articling students who had gone through the process, reviewed summaries from criminal law courses they had taken, and became generally familiar with key sections of the Criminal Code or recent developments in the field.

Crown interviews in particular often require a substantial degree of preparation and studying. Every student we spoke to emphasized the importance of reading the Crown Policy Manual for these interviews, which gave students a clear sense of the Crown’s role and how a “minister of justice” might approach hypothetical situations. Many students also found it helpful to review the CDO’s “government guides,” which assemble sample questions from past years.

That being said, it is impossible to prepare for every single question — and students said the most difficult ones required them to think on their feet.

“Preparing in advance will help,” Sophie says, reflecting on a half-hour portion of one interview that was specifically allotted to oral advocacy. “But in the end, you only have 30 minutes and there’s a lot of information to synthesize.” Her experience in the Gale Cup moot, which often required her to answer hypothetical questions from judges and respond to policy concerns, helped her prepare for the oral portions of the interviews.

Thankfully, interviewers were not always looking for a “right” answer. Many questions were designed to assess the student’s reasoning process and how they would approach the problem instead. For example, when one student was asked to make a sentencing recommendation for a hypothetical accused, the actual sentence they suggested mattered less than their ability to demonstrate “what a responsible Crown would do.”

While substantive interviews can often seem daunting, Shannon, who also interviewed with litigation boutiques in Toronto, felt more grounded preparing for her Crown interviews. The behavioural-type questions she got from litigation firms, for example, were not the kinds of questions you

MANY STUDENTS STUDIED HARD TO LAND A JOB IN CRIMINAL LAW THIS YEAR. PHOTO COURTESY OF THE CLSA

could really study for in advance.

“In that sense, the substantive part of Crown interviews gave me more direction on how to prepare,” Shannon says.

Advice for future applicants All four of the students we interviewed successfully obtained jobs through the LSO criminal law recruit. We asked them to share advice for students who may want to apply to Crown or defence summer positions in the future.

Though factors like relationships and “fit” don’t hold much water in government settings, many of the students nevertheless found it helpful to network during the job application process. Sophie reached out to a number of Crowns in order to determine what it was like to work at each of the offices she applied to, and also to affirm her beliefs that the job was right for her.

“Networking is mostly important for getting a clear picture of the job, whether this is what you want to do, and to what extent you are willing and ready to commit to it,” Sophie explains. Given that the government assesses candidates substantively, however, networking is not required to land a job, nor will it help you succeed in the interview itself.

In Anna’s experience interviewing with defence firms, networking was helpful in figuring out whether she was a good “fit” at the places she applied to, as well as whether she could see herself working there. Speaking with lawyers of the firm other than your interviewers may be especially helpful for defence firms given that they tend to be very small and close-knit workplaces.

One challenge that law students often experience when job-hunting is assessing signals about how you performed in an interview and what your chances are like. This can be especially difficult for criminal law jobs, given that most criminal law employers do not do follow-up interviews, coffee chats, or networking events (all of which are common on Bay Street).

“It’s tough,” Jean-Pierre says. “In a Crown interview, you walk out and you have no idea how you

did. It would be inappropriate for an applicant to try and suss out [sic] their chances.”

Jean-Pierre encouraged students to find ways to cope internally with that uncertainty. Once he finished a Crown interview, instead of overthinking it, he channeled his energy into the social aspects of his Bay Street interviews.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the opportunities for 2L criminal law jobs are very limited within the formal LSO process. Students interested in criminal law often secure a job outside of the process by monitoring job postings or reaching out to employers and expressing interest. Although Shannon was ultimately successful in the formal 2L recruit, she had also planned on job-searching outside the process and had cold emailed a number of defence lawyers who were all very supportive in providing advice.

Many students also do both the formal Toronto LSO process concurrently with non-OCI interviews to maximize their options. Sophie found herself in the unique position of getting a job offer well in advance of the LSO Call Day from an employer outside the formal recruit, and ended up cancelling her Toronto in-firm interviews as a result.

Sophie’s advice to students thinking about criminal law is to be sure that the area is right for you. She found that much of the work throughout the job hunting process amounted to concerted self-reflection and research, which better informed her about what criminal law practice entailed and confirmed her belief that she wanted to work in this field.

She also encourages students who do have that genuine interest to wholeheartedly pursue it.

“If you know that criminal law is what you absolutely want to do, it would be good to resist the temptation to apply to full-service firms,” Sophie says. This can feel like a risky move when many other students are aiming for corporate jobs, and students may wish to keep their options open. However, if you are sure criminal law is what you are passionate about, Sophie feels it is a risk worth taking.

ultravires.ca

RECRUIT SPECIAL

April 7, 2021 | 27

What Not to Say to Someone Who Didn’t Get a Job in the Recruit Avoid the “everything happens for a reason” and instead, say you believe in them HANNAH JOHNSON (3L) Not getting a 2L job in the OCIs felt like imposter syndrome had caught up to me. I was caught. I was an imposter. Bay Street knew it, and soon my peers would know it, too. Hannah Johnson: not as smart as she thought. Not as personable, not as interesting, not as qualif ied as the rest of us. She must not have what it takes. How embarrassing.

To spoil the ending of what seems like a very sad story — I made it out the other side with an articling position at a full-service Bay Street f irm. It was not a straight line to get there, though, and I thought it might be helpful to f lag some things that were said to me by well-meaning friends or peers that made me want to poke them in the eye.

1. Everything happens for a reason Some people believe everything happens for a reason. I do not. I think that I have had an opportunity to practise resilience early in my career and I think that will serve me well.

I had to believe in myself when it seemed like a whole lot of very smart and powerful people did not believe in me. I am proud of how I

hustled, worked hard, and remained true to myself, but I do not think that ending up with the job that I wanted needed to be nearly this painful, time-consuming, embarrassing, or demoralizing.

2. Are you going to apply for X [ job that is significantly less prestigious or interesting or impressive than the job that the speaker has]?

As much as this question is intended to help, it really sounds like “Have you considered that you might only be qualif ied for this thing you have no interest in?” Before asking this question to your friend, ask yourself if you would apply for that job. Is this a job that will lead to the kind of career your friend wants, or is it so hard seeing your friend unhappy that you just want them to get a job and be done with it? It is very diff icult to see the people you care about in pain, but unless your recommendation is something that you think aligns in some way with your friend’s interests, you risk implying that they are just not cut out for the career they want.

3. You would be so qualified for that, how did they not hire/interview you?

If your friend knew that, they probably would not still be on the job hunt. This is meant as a conf idence boost, but it falls f lat because it really implies that your friend is the one doing something wrong. There is a surplus of qualif ied candidates, and any one person not getting a job does not mean necessarily that they could have done anything differently. Also, this question puts your friend in the position of explaining to you why they think they were passed on. Ouch.

What to say instead...

“You don’t have a job yet.” My dear friend Danya Firestone, 3L JD/MBA took my embarrassed self out for a coffee, where I explained my horrible OCI experience with my tail between my legs and made a self-deprecating comment about being unemployed.

“I don’t know why we all have to act like the formal recruit process is the only avenue to a fulf illing, interesting legal career. It’s not.

There are plenty of cool jobs coming out and this is truly one way to get them.”

Danya was not embarrassed for me, she was indignant on my behalf because she thought I would be an excellent candidate. She was not about to let me drown in self-pity when this was truly one blip on the way to whatever kind of legal career I wanted.

Your friend who did not get a job is a law student at the best law school in the country.

They are investing (so much!) into their legal education, presumably to create the kind of legal career that they want. Not getting a 2L summer job in the OCI process stings. It will be a stressful and frustrating time until they secure summer employment. The 2L summer is just that, though — May to August of 2021.

Your friend’s long-term goals do not have to change — their path to reach them does. If you are going to say anything, tell your friends you believe in them. Otherwise, just listen.

Hannah Johnson spent her 2L summer at the Ontario Ministry of Finance Legal Services Branch. She will be articling at Goodmans LLP in 2021-2022.

PHOTO CREDIT: ANGELA GU

28 | April 7, 2021

RECRUIT SPECIAL

ultravires.ca

To Post or Not to Post Your Summer Job News The unexpected moral dilemma of sharing recruit successes FAISAL BHABHA (1L) In the minutes after 5:00 p.m. on March 4, I, like a number of other fortunate law students, learned that I had secured a summer job through the Toronto recruit. I was overcome with joy. Naturally, I wanted to share the good news with the family, mentors, and close friends who had supported me throughout the process.

I also thought, “Hey, this is a major career development. People share major career developments on LinkedIn. Maybe I should post about this on LinkedIn.” I did just that. The post read, “Excited to begin my journey in law as a Summer Student at ______ in May!” At the time, I didn't have a care in the world. Since then, the burgeoning conversation about the merits of posting successful recruit results has forced me to (re)consider the ethics of this category of public speech more carefully.

Some LinkedIn users, their feeds inundated with recruit posts, have shared their concerns and dismay over this new trend. They say that there’s a custom against publicly sharing one’s recruit results, at least initially, to which previous cohorts of law students had adhered — and for good reason. The common thread in their arguments is that seeing these posts could be devastating for students who weren’t able to land a job through the recruit. This is a time for respecting others’ feelings, they say, not for (humble) bragging.

After the initial shock of realizing that there were people out there who disapproved of my conduct, some ref lection on their criticism led me to two competing intuitions.

On the one hand, I recoil at the prospect of

letting someone’s envy dictate my conduct.

Make no mistake, envy is the relevant culprit in these students’ suffering. It couldn’t be mere self-directed disappointment; for, if it were so, others’ success would be a non-factor.

While envy may have some productive value for the envier in terms of motivating her to do better, envy, per se, is not a valid basis for claims on others’ conduct. The envier thinks, “I am less successful than you, and I wish it were otherwise.” When asked why it ­should be otherwise, the envier qua envier has no answer other than “Because I wish it were so.” For the complaint to be reason-giving for others, i.e., to factor into their deliberations by moral necessity, it would have to be rooted in right.

Supporting this intuition is the more general principle that “raising the f loor” is preferable to “levelling down.” That is, even if we feel for our less fortunate peers, our response to the wellbeing gap shouldn’t be to keep those who are feeling good about themselves from continuing to feel good about themselves; rather, we should be doing whatever we can to ensure that the students who weren’t able to secure jobs feel like the valued, competent, and capable members of the legal community that they are.

My own (totally anecdotal) experience participating in processes similar to the recruit tell me that it’s possible to foster an environment in which students — even those who, themselves, have not yet found success — can revel in others’ success, yet also f ind in each other a network of support and encouragement for when they are feeling disappointed or inadequate. In particular, I’m thinking of graduate school admissions, which share with

the recruit several relevant features: simultaneous results following weeks of stress and hard work; the “next big step” mentality; and the prospect of years of occupational security.

Isn’t this the kind of environment that we would like to foster? The love, sympathy, and mutual admiration involved therein seem to be virtues much more worthy of cultivation than the envy apparently driving the custom against posting recruit results.

In response, some critics have pointed out that the days following hiring day, which caps a grueling week of interviews, are particularly ripe for stress. On top of having had their expectations crushed at the last minute, students may be mentally drained from being “on” for three days straight, behind on schoolwork (apparently for nought), worried about the law school debt they took on to get these jobs in the f irst place, or all of the above. I take this point. But the fact that envy may be an expected or ordinary reaction under these unusually stressful circumstances does not necessarily make it a justif ied reaction.

On the other hand, my outlook necessarily shifts when faced with the prospect that the envy resulting from my public speech has led beyond the temporary, relatively trivial suffering typically associated with resenting others’ success, to outright depression, anxiety, or other serious mental health issues. Whatever benef it one derives from posting recruit results cannot be worth the cost of someone seriously being harmed or harming themselves.

While I doubt that respect for persons requires me to account for others’ envy, per se, in my conduct, I’m much more conf ident that I

ought not act so as to impair others’ capacity for experiencing feelings of self-respect. I take myself to be doing so when my speech foreseeably causes someone severe psychological damage, potentially leading to further forms of harm. If that is a foreseeable consequence, I am duty-bound to speak with appropriate care and sensitivity. Sometimes, that may entail refraining from speaking at all.

Full disclosure: I deleted my post after leaving it up for nearly two days — largely for the above mentioned reasons. Under non-ideal circumstances, I acted in a manner I believed to be right, yet still non-ideal. In an ideal world, we would all feel free to publicly share our successes, and no one would be devastated by our doing so. However, people are, for now, foreseeably devastated by our doing so, so we cannot feel free to publicly share our successes so carelessly.

How do we get from the non-ideal to the ideal? That’s undoubtedly an inquiry beyond the scope of this piece. I can only imagine that it would entail a major shift in the culture surrounding law school and law hiring, as well as potential changes to the actual practices involved in the recruit. It may take much more than all of that. It may be impossible.

I can’t say with any certainty what the custom regarding publicly sharing recruit results should be, because I’m not, myself, convinced one way or the other. I’m not sure what we should be telling future cohorts who are bound to encounter the same quandaries.

What I can say is that I hope that they will be familiar with this conversation, and that, whatever they choose to do, their choices will be informed by this year’s experience.

PHOTO CREDIT: JACQUELINE HUANG

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

April 7, 2021 | 29

Oh, The Places You’ll Go! The Class of 2021 reflect on their law school personal statements ANNECY PANG (2L) Do you remember 2018? B efore t he SA R S - C oV-2 v i r us s wept across t he world? B e fore t he Hong Kong ex t r ad it ion bi l l wa s i nt roduced , s pa rk i ng a wave of protest s i n it s wa ke? It wa s t he yea r Ont a r io pa ssed Bi l l 5, reduc i ng t he si ze of Toronto’s c it y cou nc i l to 25 du r i ng a n act ive elect ion. It wa s t he yea r Megha n M a rk le ma r r ied P r i nce Ha r r y. Most i mpor t a nt ly, it wa s t he yea r t hat most st udent s i n t he g r aduat i ng C la ss of 2021 beg a n t hei r leg a l educat ion at U of T L aw.

T h i ng s have cha nged si nce t hen. I n t he spi r it of ref lect ion, U lt ra V ires a s ked g r aduat i ng st udent s to subm it excer pt s f rom t hei r law school appl icat ions to compa re t hem w it h t hei r post- g r aduat ion pla ns. E xcer pt s were subm it ted a nony mous ly.

T he fol low i ng have been ed ited for brev it y a nd cla r it y. “ I wa nt to be a law yer to rect i f y my reg ret [of not st a nd i ng up to my bu l ly], a nd to f ight for people who — perhaps l i ke you nger me — don’t k now how to st a nd up for t hemselves ag a i nst t hose w it h power. People l i ke E ck ford , Morgent a ler, a nd t he L ov i ng s d r ive me to ma ke cha nge, a nd prove to me t hat t he law ca n be used to ach ieve t h i s pu r pose. L eg a l power i s pla st ic a nd pl iable; it c a n be a tool of oppression a nd a site of resi st a nce. It ca n force people to cross fou l l i nes, or it ca n i nst a nt a neous ly a nd u n iver sa l ly remove ba r r ier s. L aw school w i l l help me st r ive for t he lat ter ; pa r t icu la rly w it h U of T ’s academ ic ca l iber a nd nu merous cl i n ica l oppor t u n it ies, I w i l l be able to use t he law a s a n i nst r u ment of cha nge just a s I a m a n i nst r u ment of cha nge.”

T h i s st udent ack nowledges he wa s na ive a nd recog n i zes t hat it i s not a s ea s y to use t he law i n t he way he t hought it cou ld or shou ld have been used. He w i l l be a r t icl i ng at a l it ig at ion bout ique because he rea l i zed what he l i ked about soc ia l just ice l it ig at ion wa s t he l it ig at ion.

--“ Not on ly i s U T a globa l leader i n law, econom ics, a nd f i na nce, t here i s a l so a st rong focus on col labor at ion bet ween t hese depa r t ment s. One such col labor at ive prog r a m i s t he Capit a l M a rket s I nst it ute (C M I ). B ei ng accepted a s a St udent S chola r at t he C M I wou ld a l low me to broaden my u nder st a nd i ng of f ina nc ia l ma rket s a nd t hei r reg u lat ion wh i le hav i ng oppor t u n it ies to see how t heor ies may be appl ied i n rea l-world scena r ios. T he t y pe of work a nd resea rch done at t he C M I a l ig n per fect ly w it h my f ut u re ca reer goa l s so joi n i ng t he pro g r a m wou ld be a top pr ior it y for me.”

W hen t h i s st udent a s ked about t he Capit a l M a rket I nst it ute i n h i s f i r st week of school, he wa s prompt ly i n for med t hey on ly accept Ph D st udent s. He look s for wa rd to a r t icl i ng at a f u l l- ser v ice Bay St reet f i r m.

--“ T here i sn’t a n epipha ny moment [about why I wa nt to come to law school ]. I k now t hat above a l l el se, I wa nt to ser ve people w it h t he g i f t s t hat I have. [...]

More t ha n a ny t h i ng el se, t he rea son I ’m apply i ng to U of T i s bec ause t here i s a world of oppor t u n it ies to use t he law to help ot her s, a nd I bel ieve t hat you wa nt to reach it . I wa nt to reach it too.”

T h i s st udent had ma ny oppor t u n it ies to help ot her s at U of T a nd w i l l cont i nue doi ng so wh i le a r t icl i ng at a GTA -f i r m t hat does publ ic i nterest work . Her dec i sion to pu rsue a lower-pay i ng publ ic i nterest job ca me at a cost 一 she ex pect s to be i n close cont act w it h her ba n k’s st udent loa n represent at ive for ma ny, ma ny yea r s to come.

--“ D i n i ng t able conver sat ions w it h my pa rent s wa s where I lea r ned about t he i nd i spensable role law yer s play i n helpi ng people rea l i ze t hei r d rea m s a nd busi ness goa l s. W it hout law yer s, my pa rent s wou ld never have been successf u l i n [reach i ng t hei r goa l of ] lau nch i ng product s onto t he ma rket . L aw yer s a re t he ones t hat t r u ly help people i n t u r n i ng people's v i sions a nd d rea ms to a rea lit y. [...] Si nce t he Un iver sit y of Toronto i s t he lead i ng law school i n Ca nad a w it h t he best placement r ate i nto cor por ate law f i r ms, I t h i n k it of fer s me t he best cha nce to rea l i ze my d rea ms i n bei ng a pa r t ner at a cor por ate law f i r m to help people i n t he sa me posit ion a s my pa rent s were 20 yea r s ago.”

T h i s st udent w i l l be a r t icl i ng at a f u l l- ser v ice f i r m. He never enjoyed law school a nd wonder s i f he’l l l i ke t he law. He t h i n k s t he on ly rea son he wa s at t r acted to law a s a n u nderg r aduate st udent wa s for t he money.

--“ W it h a J D f rom U of T, I see my sel f work i ng i n some for m of cu lt u r a l her it age protect ion [...] I may not recover t he E lg i n M a rbles or save a pr i zed a r t i fact f rom ex ter na l appropr iat ion, but I wa nt to ex a m i ne a nd resolve i ssues of ow n-

er sh ip, pa r t icu la rly at t he i nter nat iona l level. Idea l ly, I wou ld obt a i n a postg r aduate deg ree i n t he f ut u re to supplement my k nowledge, but bel ieve t hat a J D wou ld prov ide me w it h t he f u nd a ment a l st a r t i ng s k i l l s for t h i s f ield.”

At t he t i me, t h i s st udent just wa nted to be A ma l C ooney a nd had no k nowledge of how i nter nat iona l cu lt u r a l proper t y law worked. She d id not pu r sue a ny cu lt u r a l her it age or I P-related oppor t u n it ies at U of T. L aw school ha s si nce er a sed a ny i nterest she had i n f u r t her educat ion; i nstead , she w i l l be a r t icl i ng w it h t he M i n i st r y of t he At tor ney G ener a l.

--“ Si nce t he r u le of law i s a cor ner stone of t he f u nct ion i ng order i n ou r soc iet y, t he law must const a nt ly evolve a nd ad apt to t he u ncha r ted ter r itor ies of conf l ict i ng i nterest s of d i f ferent pa r t ies. T he problem- solv i ng a spect of law i s t he big gest d r aw for me. [...] Given my back g rou nd work i ng for a f i na nc ia l i nst it ut ion, I wou ld love to ex plore f u r t her a ca reer pat h t hat keeps me close to t he development of new f i na nc ia l tech nolog y, a s wel l a s t he law s a nd reg u lat ions t hat gover n how it i nter act s w it h t he f ree ma rket .”

T h i s st udent say s her sentence about t he r u le of law aged l i ke m i l k . She ha s si nce lea r ned a lot about soc ia l just ice, com mu n it y i nvolvement , a nd t he st at us quo of law a nd soc iet y. She w i l l not forget t he i mpor t a nce of bei ng i nvolved i n volu nteer i n it iat ives t hat ser ve t he col lect ive st r ug gle wh i le a r t icl i ng at a f u l l- ser v ice busi ness law f i r m.

--“ I n my homecom i ng, I have com menced t a k i ng ow ner sh ip of my c iv ic ident it y.

I see how, now more t ha n ever, it i s v it a l to ex pa nd t he d i scussion of what de f i nes bei ng “Ca nad ia n.” [...] I wa nt a say i n t h i s d i scussion. More t ha n t hat , I wa nt to u nder st a nd Ca nad ia n soc iet y at it s most f u nd a ment a l level: to pa r se t he law s a nd ag reement s, pa st a nd present , a nd to shape t he creat ion of t hose i n t he f ut u re. W het her my pat h w i l l lead me towa rd publ ic pol ic y, i m m ig r at ion law, or hu ma n r ight s law, I do not yet k now. I do k now, however, t hat a leg a l educat ion w i l l play a v it a l role i n g iv i ng me t he tool s a nd plat for m w it h wh ich to eng age t hese i ssues. I hope you w i l l g ive me t he oppor t u n it y to t a ke pa r t i n t h i s d i scus sion at T he Un iver sit y of Toronto Facu lt y of L aw.”

T h i s st udent wa s i n it ia l ly d r aw n to la rge i nter nat iona l i ssues a nd completed a n I nternat iona l Hu ma n R ight s P rog r a m fel low sh ip i n her 1L su m mer. She later rea l i zed t hat what d rew her to i nter nat iona l law wa s t he ef fect she wa nted to have w it h her leg a l c a reer, not necessa r i ly t he f ield it sel f. She w i l l be a r t icl i ng at t he Cit y of Toronto where she w i l l cont i nue to eng age w it h her deep sense of c iv ic dut y.

--“ U lt i mately, my pa ssion for const it ut iona l law, a nd t he role it play s i n protecti ng i nd iv idua l r ight s a nd l iber t ies, ha s led me to pu r sue law school. W het her it be t he Ca nad ia n C onst it ut ion or a st udent cou nc i l const it ut ion, rev i sit i ng gover n i ng docu ment s i nc ites i mpor t a nt conver sat ions about t he responsibi l it y to con sider t he need s of a l l const it uent s. I a m eager to joi n a com mu n it y t hat ha s a r ich h i stor y i n t a k i ng a st a nd ag a i nst v iolat ions of Cha r ter r ight s.”

T h i s st udent w i l l be clerk i ng, a f ter wh ich she w i l l probably ret u r n to a f u l l- ser v ice f i r m to ma ke a dent i n her r apid ly g row i ng debt load. T h roughout law school, she volu nteered w it h cl i n ics work i ng on const it ut iona l law i ssues a nd took cou r ses focused on con st it ut iona l law. She hopes to t r a nsit ion i nto resea rch or teach i ng i n t he f ut u re.

--“ My g reatest sou rce of enjoy ment i n chem i st r y i s t he a na ly si s. A pproach i ng a chem ic a l react ion requ i res t he st udy of pa st resea rch i nvolv i ng si m i la r ca ses, i n conju nct ion w it h lea r ned r u les a nd fact s, to eva luate t he most appropr iate met hodolog y. Acqu i r i ng a n u nder st a nd i ng of how pa st ca ses, releva nt fact s, a nd i nd iv idua l i n novat ion combi ne to prov ide a solut ion – t h i s i s what I f i nd t he most i nt r ig u i ng about chem i st r y. T h i s i s si m i la r to law, where I w i l l lea r n a mu lt it ude of leg a l ca ses a nd spec i f ic law s, t hen apply t hem i n pr act ice to cl ient s’ c a ses usi ng my ow n i nt u it ion. [...] Fol low i ng t he at t a i n ment of my law deg ree, I wa nt to work to a id t he leg a l r ight s of L GBTQ+ i nd iv idua l s, w it h a spec i f ic fo cus on yout h.”

A f ter s pend i ng t wo su m mer s at cor por ate law f i r ms, t h i s st udent w i l l be clerk i ng at t he Ont a r io C ou r t of A ppea l. H i s a na ly t ica l s k i l l s d rew h i m to clerk i ng a nd w i l l ( hopef u l ly) resu lt i n a f ut u re c a reer t hat i nvolves publ ic law. W h i le he does not foreclose t he possibi l it y of work i ng w it h L GBTQ+ yout h, it does not pay of f debt a s qu ick ly a s Big L aw.

FEATURES

30 | April 7, 2021

ultravires.ca

Law Follies 2021 Review

Recapping the highs and lows of a never-done-before virtual Follies JACQUELINE HUANG (1L)

A 1L GUESSING WHAT CLASSMATES ARE DOING DURING CLASS, PHOTO CREDIT: LAW FOLLIES

(PHILIPS: I’M MY OWN TRUSTEE!) PHOTO CREDIT: LAW FOLLIES

It’s been hard to get a sense of events happening at the University of Toronto Zoom School of Law. Coming straight to the Toronto lockdown from the Aussie outback, I hardly noticed any difference in social isolation. And in the midst of the Canadian winter, when restaurants and non-essential stores were shut down and cold wind blew through the empty streets, it felt like the city had gone into hibernation. Fortunately, the Law Follies 2021 provided a glimpse of what other students have been up to beyond their Zoom appearances.

The popular annual show has been a place where students relentlessly roast the deans, make wry comments about the school and the law, and mourn the foregone non-BigLaw dreams. This year, these rituals took on a pandemic spin. Instead of watching the show on stage from far away amidst a drunken mob followed by a pub crawl, students could enjoy the show from “a prime location” — in the comfort of their home. They could even go to bed earlier! Getting drunk was still allowed, of course, and encouraged. For people like me who have diff iculty telling what actors were doing while sitting in a theatre, being in the

front row certainly added a lot to my enjoyment of the show.

Zoom was certainly the centerpiece of Law Follies this year. The show was f illed with references to the goods and bads about online learning: jumping straight from bed to Zoom, wearing loungewear to class, employing cheeky virtual backgrounds, using loud mics that tore people’s eardrums, going to the bathroom during class, and of course, guessing what your classmates were doing on their sides of the screen.

There were a lot of fun moments watching these all too familiar, slightly embarrassing bits and pieces of life re-enacted in a playful way.

As usual, this year’s show was full of law students’ jokes. In the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) sketch, a judge’s exclamation “We are not here to get active!” spoke to both issues of judicial activism and the sedentary lifestyles of many practicing lawyers. I think the best part was the “line drawing exercise” that ended up as an unrecognizable mess on the whiteboard, ref lective of the common law.

The song parody, “A little bit Lexis,” was

THE SCC SAYS “HELL NO!”, PHOTO CREDIT: LAW FOLLIES

ridiculously funny, and in my opinion, LexisNexis should pay the Follies team for making an insanely catchy clip. I’m not sure about others, but my brain was replaying “Quicklaw-law-law-law-law-law” even a few days after. There were also parodies about weak papers, selling out to Bay Street, the fox hunter, and the overly inquisitive Laskin statue. My neighbours would not understand what I was laughing at, and I thank them for not complaining about me being a nuisance.

As a 1L who has attended law school mostly online, I’m not familiar with the origin stories of cold pizza, croissants, and runs around Queen’s Park. Yet, it was obvious that quite a few mean jokes were thrown at our faculty members and former Dean. This year’s roasting seemed to be on the harsh end, and I found the bald cap (for former Dean Iacabucci), the grey wig (for Assistant Dean Sara Faherty), and the household insect (“House Roach”) awkwardly comical.

On the other hand, some members of the faculty delivered some stunning performances. Dean Brunnée made her Follies debut as the cute and clumsy green Deanosaur who

tried to talk about international law in a comedy show. Professor Philip’s latest hit “I’m My Own Trustee” brought out all the confusion I experienced in my property law class, leaving me to wonder how on earth this would be possible. Finally, I was lost for words when seeing Professor Niblett’s luscious looks and accent on the screen, apart from asking: did they use a colour saturation f ilter, or is that really how blue his eyes are?

I haven’t been to a live Follies show, but I suppose the online format has its own perks. It also worked out quite well this year, and I liked the multiple layering of shots to mimic a theatre play. The details in the scenes and the variations of camera angles added a lot to the humour, and the screen was plainly a better medium than the stage for the hosts, Aaqib and Saqib Mahmood (4L JD/MBA), to pull off their amazing magic tricks. I imagine it was also a challenging and time-consuming project, but in my opinion, they totally nailed it.

Nice job, Follies team. I was in need of some good laughs, so thank you for bringing them to me.

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

April 7, 2021 | 31

A U of T Law Love Story

Interview with Owen Goddard and Janani Shanmuganathan — partners in life and law!

SABRINA MACKLAI (1L JD/MI)

JANANI SHANMUGANATHAN AND OWEN GODDARD ON THEIR WEDDING DAY. CREDIT: JANANI SHANMUGANATHAN (2014)

Maintaining a relationship on top of schoolwork, extracurriculars, mooting, recruits, job searching, and personal health is no easy feat. On March 5, Ultra Vires sat down with Owen Goddard and Janani Shanmuganathan, partners at Goddard & Shanmuganathan LLP, to discuss their relationship during law school.

Goddard and Shanmuganathan graduated from U of T Law in 2012 and 2011, respectively. They have been together for over a decade and will celebrate their seventh wedding anniversary in August.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Ultra Vires (UV): How did you meet?

Janani Shanmuganathan ( JS): We met in the third year of our undergrad. We were both in the criminology program at U of T. UV: When did you start dating?

Owen Goddard (OG): We started dating in September 2008. [ Janani] was in her f irst year of law school at Osgoode. I was taking a year off between undergrad and law school to write the LSAT and do the things you need to do to get into law school. I applied to U of T and got in. Janani had applied to U of T but did not get in, but she transferred in second year to U of T. So when I was in my f irst year in 2009, she was already in her second year at U of T. JS: To clarify, I did not transfer for him!

UV: How did you balance law school and your relationship?

OG: I mean, now we have a f irm together.

We’ve completely merged our work-life and previous school-life with the relationship — we don’t have very good boundaries with that kind of stuff. That is one of the challenges with doing your life like this. It’s great though — you will always feel supported and have a

OWEN GODDARD AND JANANI SHANMUGANATHAN DURING THEIR LAW SCHOOL DAYS. CREDIT: JANANI SHANMUGANATHAN (2010).

partner you can talk to about everything.

When I was at law school and I was taking Evidence, Janani already took it. Or I had a problem at work and I could talk to her, and vice versa. That part is great. But then you also never feel separated from it. It’s Saturday afternoon and you’re there with your wife who's also your business partner, or your f iance but also your colleague or classmate. It’s a little bit tough sometimes.

UV: Did you take any classes together while at the Faculty?

JS: We never took any law school courses together but both Owen and I were in the joint program at U of T Law, where you can complete the JD with a Masters in Criminology.

Both of us knew we wanted to practice criminal law, probably ever since undergrad. That was the reason I transferred, because U of T offered this joint program. We might have taken some Masters courses together.

UV: Do you have a favourite memory together from U of T Law? JS: There was a summer we were both research assistants and we’d spend so much time at the library together. We’d have a nice routine — get our bagels on Charles [Street], get lunch everyday, etc.

OG: The food court at the ROM was pretty good back then, and we used to go there for lunch sometimes.

JS: It was just a nice summer because it was warm out so we could go for walks and just sit next to each other at the library while we did our respective research. I feel like that’s what we do now too — we sit next to each other and do our work. Not much has changed!

UV: You two now run a successful firm together, Goddard & Shanmuganathan LLP. Did you always intend to run a firm together?

OWEN GODDARD AND JANANI SHANMUGANATHAN AT THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA TO DEFEND R V WILLIAMS. CREDIT: JANANI SHANMUGANATHAN (2019).

OG: It def initely wasn’t the intention.

There’re some people who go to U of T and have their entire 20-year career plan mapped out, and it usually never goes according to plan, but they at least have it mapped out. We didn’t know. I wanted to do criminal law, she wanted to do criminal law, but we didn’t know what that was actually like, let alone starting your own f irm. It wasn’t the plan.

We started working together two or three years ago. I started a f irm out of law school with my friend from U of T Law, Justin Nasseri ( JD ‘12). After a year or so, Janani joined us, since she got to that point in her career where it made sense to go out on her own. Just last month in February, we started the f irm together. Justin left to work with other civil lawyers and Janani and I are now doing criminal defense as the two of us.

UV: I saw on your site that you refer to your firm as a family business. You touched on this earlier, but what is it like running a firm with your partner?

JS: I think it’s really good. Since we both do the same thing, I’ve always found that if we worked at different places, we’d be at work doing work and then come home and talk about work. Now we just do the same work together. There is so much more leisure time since we already talked about work.

There’s also such a level of trust. We think of it as a family unit, so whatever we do is for the family and especially now that we’re thinking of having children, there’s a lot more f lexibility and control over our schedules and lives.

OG: I think the funnest thing either of us have done in our careers so far is arguing a case at the Supreme Court together in fall of 2019. It was just so cool to be in that courtroom together and to both argue for the f irst time at the Supreme Court. She watched me and then I watched her. We’ve also done some

really hard trials together. There’s something really nice about being in a courtroom as a criminal defense lawyer defending people charged with some serious stuff — that can be very stressful and scary but having that other person there with you is really nice. We’re lucky we were able to start this business together and do these things.

JS: It’s like you have your own personal cheerleader in the courtroom. When I saw Owen argue when we were doing Williams together, I remember feeling so much pride, love, and admiration. It was kinda nice because I couldn’t stress or worry about my own anxiety since I was so engrossed in what Owen was doing, and was so happy he was doing well. It gave me courage when I came up because I knew Owen did well and he was supporting me.

UV: Do you have any advice for maintaining a relationship during and after law school?

JS: Based on my personal experience, I think there is this competitive nature in law school.

You’re constantly comparing yourself to your peers, but it’s really important that you don’t do that with your partner. It’s not something Owen did, but I feel like I compared us. Owen is very smart — he clerked at the Supreme Court of Canada and did many wonderful things — and I couldn’t help but feel like I didn’t measure up. Rather than being truly happy for his success, it made me feel like I wasn’t as successful.

Looking back, I think those feelings had more to do with my self-esteem. Now I just feel really happy that Owen got to do these cool things. It worked out for both of us in the end. That’s why I’m appreciative of having a f irm together because his success is my own success. It’s all part of the family.

32 | April 7, 2021

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

IIO and ILSA Create Podcast Entitled “28: A Call to Action”

Law students can learn how to be a positive force in Canada’s reconciliation efforts FLINT PATTERSON (2L)* It’s no secret that our progress towards reconciliation has been sluggish — to put it gently. Indigenous victories in the courtroom tend to be met with virulent backlash. Judges are quick to walk back their own landmark rulings in favour of Indigenous interests. Indigenous communities are lambasted whenever they seek to assert their rights. It seems that for every step they take forward, Indigenous folks are shoved right back.

I take the optimistic view that most anti-Indigenous sentiment arises from miseducation. It’s truly shocking how many well-educated people still believe the myths that Indigenous folks pay no taxes, that Indigenous students never have to pay tuition, and that residential schools were primarily a 19th-century phenomenon. These are the hits of a political regime that seeks to make Canada’s history of Indigenous cultural genocide and dispossession more palatable for those who do not know any better. Unfortunately, these myths often play well with the public.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) appears to share my optimism. In its seminal 2015 report, the Commission released 94

calls to action, dozens of which call for robust public education regarding the history of Indigenous peoples, Indigenous law, and IndigenousCrown relations. Most important for the purposes of our Faculty is Call to Action 28, which singles out the legal profession as a constituency that desperately needs a stronger grasp on Indigenous history and cultural competency, given its privileged position in society. Call to Action 28 states: “We call upon law schools in Canada to require all law students to take a course in Aboriginal people and the law, which includes the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal-Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.”

In response to the call, the Indigenous Initiatives Office (IIO) and the Indigenous Law Students’ Association (ILSA) recently partnered to create

the podcast “28”. On 28, members of the IIO and ILSA ask Indigenous scholars how the legal community can better promote reconciliation.

In its inaugural episode, the 28 team was grateful to speak with Justice Murray Sinclair, former chairman of the TRC and Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Manitoba. Among other things, Justice Sinclair shared the impetus for including Call to Action 28 in the TRC’s report: the legal community can no longer ignore the grim history of Indigenous-settler relations, nor the necessity of cultural competency. Whether you work in government or on Bay Street, it is increasingly likely that your client will contemplate conduct which implicates Indigenous rights. You might even find yourself representing an Indigenous nation or corporation. In either case, it is imperative, both practically and ethically, that you have a firm grasp on Indigenous law and history.

28 also has a “mythbusting” segment, wherein guests disabuse listeners of some of the popular misconceptions about Indigenous folks mentioned above. In its inaugural episode, 28 welcomed Dr. Lorna Fadden, who handily dismantled the myth

that Indigenous folks love to do reconciliation work for free and ought to be grateful just for being given a platform.

Finally, sprinkled between interviews, 28 has lighthearted segments called “S**t Law Students say,” wherein members of ILSA share some of the most ridiculous micro – and not so micro – aggressions they have experienced in the Faculty.

We recommend that you listen to these segments if only to ensure that you do not find yourselves the subjects of one of them!

28 is, at its heart, a platform from which law students can learn how to be a positive force in Canada’s reconciliation efforts directly from those most affected by them. As co-creator Tomas Jirousek (1L) says: “podcasts are the perfect medium for immersing oneself in Indigenous voices in their own right.” The team at 28 hopes that you join us in learning from the lived experiences of our guests, as the legal profession could use a little more empathy.

Editor’s Note: Flint Patterson is a producer of the podcast.

The Big Issues in Big Tech Experts discuss issues of regulating Big Tech and its impact on news media SABRINA MACKLAI (1L JD/MI) On March 30, Torys and the University of Toronto (U of T) presented “Big Tech Wars: What Lies Ahead,” a panel discussion on Big Tech and its implications on competition policy and journalism. Big Tech refers to major information technology companies such as Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft.

The panel was moderated by the Faculty of Law’s Professor Anthony Niblett and Dany Assaf, partner and co-chair of the Competition and Foreign Investment Practice at Torys. The panel featured four experts from different industries affected by Big Tech: Amanda Lang ( journalist at BNN Bloomberg), Bilal Sayyed (former Director, Office of Policy Planning, Federal Trade Commission), Daniel Sokol (Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law), and Joshua Gans ( Jeffrey S Skoll Chair in Technical Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Rotman School of Business).

Professor Niblett kicked off the discussion by introducing one of the most common questions raised when discussing Big Tech — should Big Tech be regulated?

Sokol reframed the question, stating that regulation is inevitable, but we may ask how to go about regulating Big Tech without creating unintended consequences like increasing regulatory burdens and leading public companies to go private. He drew on examples from the UK and the European Union, which implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018. Sokol noted, “it turns out that GDPR has had a negative impact on competition. I’m not saying privacy is bad, I’m simply saying there are a set of trade-offs and I’m not sure people anticipated these trade-offs.”

Lang added that we must ask at what level should regulation happen. In reference to free competition, she asked “why should a company own the platform and compete with its service providers on that platform?” Sayyed commented that rather than legislate, it would be better to first analyze whether the conduct or structure of these Big Tech companies are even harmful to consumers, arguing that the harms seem “mainly speculative.”

This drew debate from the panelists on the impact of Big Tech companies. While their existence raises concerns of monopoly power and stifling innovation, they have also become integrated in our society.

On the topic of stifling competition, Gans noted that while Microsoft is one of the biggest monopolists, they’re often not even considered as such.

“Microsoft, now, is what we want from these [Big Tech] companies,” Gans noted. Unlike some other companies, Microsoft doesn’t engage in blocking tactics that stifle competition and actually offers competitive products.

Conversely, Lang highlighted Amazon’s Marketplace as an example of “literally stifling and killing competition.” Assaf brought up the diapers. com controversy in which Amazon engaged in possible anti-competitive behaviour, asking if companies would continue to participate in Amazon’s Marketplace if they knew their data would be used against them in Amazon’s own entry strategy.

Sayyed brought in an interesting perspective that this kind of behaviour is not restricted to Amazon and other Big Tech companies. When shopping at the grocery store, he noticed a lot of store-brand products were inspired by products

that gained popularity at that store. Lang countered that it is the dominance of the platform that is the difference; there are many grocery stores, but there is only one Amazon.

“Are they so big that their natural competitive behaviour becomes anti-competitive?” Lang asked.

The conversation then shifted to discussing the future of news media in the presence of Big Tech. Lang explained that journalism’s principle advertising-based business model no longer works. But while that is exacerbated by Google’s ability to advertise using their content, traditional media’s model was already failing.

Professor Niblett brought up how Facebook temporarily banned news pages from their platform in Australia, which had major effects on Australia’s media industry. This was in response to a proposed governmental move to require Facebook to pay big news outlets to be on their platform. To Gans, this looked like a way for one big company to extort money from another.

Gans acknowledged the power these companies had to control access to information but stated that rather than Google and Facebook taking the content away, they generally introduce more competition. They make it easier to find outlets outside of mainstream media. Lang argued the issue is that journalists are competing with themselves — it is their content that is being advertised on Facebook and Google, who pocket the revenue.

Sokol likened these platforms to “the world’s biggest digital billboards.” It may not be preferable but they are the dominant way to get information out into the world. The issue is figuring out a way to properly compensate content creators who are generating this value.

Overall, the panel discussion shed light on the many problems associated with Big Tech, and the complexities involved in solving them. Since Big Tech is staying for the foreseeable future, it is more important than ever to not only address these questions but bring them to the public light.

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

April 7, 2021 | 33

“What’s on TV?”: Faculty and Staff Edition Ever wondered what was your professor’s favourite law movie? Well, look no further!

HARRY MYLES (1L) As law students, we have all engaged with our fair share of law-related movies, television shows, and books. But what about our professors? Just in time for the summer holiday, Ultra Vires has a roundup of U of T Law’s faculty and staff ’s favourite law-related media.

Dean Jutta Brunnée: Book: East West Street by Philippe Sands Film: Eye in the Sky, The Trial of the Chicago 7 Dean Brunnée offered two film recommendations. First up, Eye in the Sky, an “excellent film about how legal advice factors into military and political decision-making on drone strikes (in the context of the “war on terror”).” Next, the Dean chose the recent Oscar-nominated Aaron Sorkin drama The Trial of the Chicago 7. Dean Brunnée described the film as an “excellent courtroom drama around [...]… well the trial of the Chicago 7 (lots of resonance with recent events).” For books, the Dean suggested East West Street, “a page turner of a memoir about the genesis of international criminal law.”

Associate Dean Christopher Essert: Book: The King of Torts by John Grisham Associate Dean Essert does not consume much “law-related media” as he spends “plenty of time reading and thinking about the law already.” That being said, he did offer this anecdote to go along with his book recommendation, The King of Torts: When I was in my first year of law school, some friends and I made the mistake of watching The Ring (Ringu), the Japanese horror movie. I found the movie so utterly terrifying that I could not sleep for the entire night. And — as those who have seen the movie will know — I could not possibly distract myself for the rest of the night by watching TV. Luckily, my mom had just sent me a copy of the John Grisham book The King of Torts, since she knew that I was taking a class called Torts. And so I stayed up until dawn reading the entire book. It’s been a while, so I don’t remember much about the book, but I am pretty sure it is not very good.

That said, it certainly served its purpose, so I can highly recommend it to anyone who finds themselves in the same unfortunate position as I did on that night.

Professor Vincent Chiao: TV: The Wire Film: Compliance

her number one pick, but also offered several films she has screened in class over the years, including To Kill a Mockingbird and the more recent Marriage Story. For television, Prof.

Cossman suggested The Good Fight, a spinoff of The Good Wife, and although she doesn’t read books about the law very often, Professor Cossman recommended her favourite novel, The Handmaid's Tale (and described the sequel, The Testaments, as “shockingly good”).

Amanda Carling, Manager, Indigenous Initiatives Office: Book: Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson Podcast: You’re wrong about, Criminal, More Perfect, The Trauma-Informed Lawyer Similar to Associate Dean Essert, Amanda Carling tends to avoid law-related books since she reads so much law material for work.

However, Amanda did recommend Just Mercy

by Bryan Stevenson, a memoir detailing Stevenson’s efforts to overturn wrongful convictions and represent marginalized clients.

Amanda is also a big fan of podcasts and had many recommendations, including You’re wrong about (not specifically about the law, but some episodes relate to wrongful convictions), Criminal, More Perfect (a mini series about the Supreme Court of the United States), and The Trauma-Informed Lawyer (created by Métis-Cree lawyer Myrna McCallum).

Professor Katherine Vitale Lopez: Book: My Own Words by Ruth Bader Ginsberg Film: Anatomy of a Murder Professor Lopez recommended the “excellent and stirring” book My Own Words, a compilation of Justice Ginsberg’s writings from the eighth grade “all the way to a few years before her death.” In terms of films, Professor Lopez went old school and suggested the 1959 flick Anatomy of a Murder, starring Jimmy Stewart. Prof.

Lopez described the film as “one of the only courtroom dramas I've seen that attempts to depict with some accuracy a trial from crime to verdict — lots of twists and turns and never boring.”

Professor Jim Phillips: Film: The Castle Professor Phillips does not watch TV and finds most law movies “a bit run of the mill.”

However, he does love The Castle, an obscure Australian film about land expropriation.

involves many law-related plots, Arrested Development (specifically, the episodes featuring hapless lawyers Barry Zuckerkorn and Bob Loblaw), Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law (an adult cartoon), and finally the classic legal series Boston Legal and Ally McBeal.

Professor Gillian Hadfield: TV: When They See Us Film: The Social Dilemma Professor Hadfield suggested two documentaries for students to watch. First, a mini-series on Netflix called When They See Us “about the failures of the criminal justice system for the ‘Central Park 5’.” Second, Professor Hadfield suggested another Netflix production, The Social Dilemma, since “figuring out what to do about social media platforms is a regulatory — legal — challenge.”

Professor Arthur Ripstein: Film: The Trial of the Chicago 7, The Advocate Professor Ripstein confessed that he’s slightly out of touch with popular culture. However, like Dean Brunnée, he “very much enjoyed The Trial of the Chicago 7.” As well, 30 years ago, Professor Ripstein saw “a movie about an animal being put on trial in late medieval Europe called The Advocate.” At the time, he “found it fascinating, but cannot vouch for [his] former tastes.”

Professor Bruce Chapman: Book: My Life in Court by Louis Nizer Professor Chapman recommended My Life in Court, a book he read many years ago that recounts the legal cases of the author, lawyer Louis Nizer.

Professor Anthony Niblett: Book: Bad Blood by John Carreyrou Film: Legally Blonde Podcast: All the Presidents' Lawyers, Judge John Hodgman Professor Niblett does not watch much television; however, he did provide some podcast suggestions including All the Presidents' Lawyers (“a weekly series looking at some of the more interesting legal problems of US Presidents”) and Judge John Hodgman (a “comedy podcast resolving non-legal disputes in a fake court of law”). For a book recommendation, Professor Niblett offered Bad Blood by John Carreyrou (“not 'law-related' per se, but an interesting tale of fraud in Silicon Valley”).

Finally, like many others, Prof. Niblett chose Legally Blonde as his film recommendation and gave the following review: “I still love it, even though it's totally ridiculous. 'The law is reason free from passion’ ... Does anyone know who spoke those immortal words?”

Ultra Vires Presents: A Work in Progress A study playlist to get you through this exam season HARRY MYLES (1L) WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ERICA BERRY (1L) AND DOMINIQUE WIGHTMAN (1L) We're in the final stretch of this pandemic Zoom year of law. All we have to do is make it through exams, but don't worry! UV has your back with an eclectic collection of study music to keep you company during the coming long nights.

Some highlights from the playlist:

Being a criminal law professor, it’s unsurprising that Professor Chiao’s TV pick is The Wire, a classic HBO series often ranked as one of the best shows ever made. Professor Chiao says the “depiction of cross-cutting incentives of drug gangs, police, lawyers and city politicians — and that’s just season 1! — is entirely brilliant.”

I have likewise watched The Wire, and, dare I say it, it’s better than The Sopranos. On the film side, Professor Chiao recommended Compliance, a movie that “deals with deference to authority, and is a very stark and somewhat disturbing set piece.”

Waleska Vernon, Career Development Counsellor:

Neil Dennis, Director, Career Development Office:

“float” by Luna Li

Professor Brenda Cossman:

TV: Silicon Valley, Arrested Development, Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law, Boston Legal, Ally McBeal

“Tank!” (from Cowboy Bebop) by SEATBELTS

Film: The Trial of the Chicago 7, Liar Liar

“music for indigo” by Adrianne Lenker

TV: The Good Fight Book: The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood Film: Legally Blonde, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Verdict, Judgment at Nuremberg, Philadelphia, A Civil Action, Marriage Story Professor Cossman has taught a course on law and film and chose the classic Legally Blonde as

Film: 13th, Legally Blonde Waleska from the Career Development Office (CDO) recommended her favourite documentary, 13th, about the 13th amendment in the American constitution. As well, like Professors Cossman and Niblett, Waleska suggested Legally Blonde.

Like Dean Brunnée and Professor Ripstein, Neil from the CDO recommended The Trial of the Chicago 7 and the Jim Carrey classic Liar Liar, a movie about a lawyer who can’t lie for 24 hours (imagine the struggle!). For television, Neil suggested HBO’s Silicon Valley which

“Main Title” (from Escape from New York) by John Carpenter “M.A.Y. in the Backyard” (from Call Me By Your Name) by Ryuichi Sakamoto “Teardrop” by Massive Attack “Starálfur” by Sigur Rós “Regalview Theme” (from Sorry to Bother You) by Tune-Yards “Watermelon Man” by Herbie Hancock “Silver Ladders” by Mary Lattimore “Morning Talk / Supersymmetry” (from Her) by Arcade Fire “1/1” by Brian Eno “Slap Pie” by Men I Trust “New Girl” (from Euphoria) by Labrinth “So What” by Miles Davis This article appears online at ultravires.ca, with a link to the Spotify playlist.

FEATURES

34 | April 7, 2021

ultravires.ca

Feeling Fortified

In Vino Veritas SAWYER PELOSO (1L) Fortif ied w ine is w ine to which quantities of distilled spir its are added. They were or ig inally developed as a way to preser ve w ines for longer per iods of time before refr igeration ex isted, however, they have stuck around due to their popular it y and uniqueness. They are t y pically ver y sweet, mak ing them particularly suitable as aper itifs or as after-dinner dr inks. Due to their strong and intr icate f lavours, fortif ied w ines are also often excellent additions to cocktail dr inks.

The rev iews this month highlight a diversit y of popular fortif ied w ines as well as a fortif ied w ine cocktail. Saw yer starts us of f w ith a rev iew of a Spanish sherr y that works well as an aper itif. If you are look ing to go upscale and impress family and fr iends, be sure to check out Saw yer’s rev iew of a 10 -year-old Sercial from the Madeiro Islands of Portugal. A ngela rev iews a port from the well known Duoro reg ion in Portugal that works well as a dessert w ine.

Last ly, if you are look ing for a delicious, summer y cocktail that incor porates a g inger apertif w ine, then you w ill love Tom’s rev iew.

A ngela Gu (2L) Quinta do Crasto Late Bottled Vintage Port 2014 Available at the LCBO: $14.95 Apparent ly 2014 was a challeng ing year for Portugal’s Douro reg ion, but I’m new to the world of fortif ied w ines and all I can say is that this small bott le is ver y dr inkable. This port has a gorgeously opaque dark ruby colour. W hile it’s plush and initially syrupy on the tong ue w ith jammy f lavours, it has notes of chocolate and oak, w ith a nice dr y f inish. It’s just tannic enough so that it’s not cloy ingly sweet. It’s like Welch’s grape juice, but for adults.

This port’s residual sugar comes in at 97g/L , and obscures the streng th of the alcohol (a nice 20% A BV ), mak ing it a fun dessert dr ink.

Tom Russel l (1L) Ginger & Elderberr y Cocktail Stone’s G reen G inger Aperitif Wine (Available at the LCBO: $11.45)

St-Germain Elderf lower Liqueur (Available at the LCBO: $49.95) Ginger w ine is a quirky and interesting t y pe of fortif ied w ine. It is made by blending fermented g inger root and raisins, before being fortif ied, often w ith brandy. The f irst record of this beverage was in London in 1740. Since that time, it has known per iods of popular it y as a remedy for cholera, as a digestive aid, and even as an aphrodisiac! In summar y, this beverage is strange, but def initely delicious.

A Ginger & Elderberry Cocktail is a delicious, sweet, summery drink that you really must try. For this cocktail, the recipe was slightly modif ied to make it more accessible.

Ing redients: 1.5 ounces of Ginger Wine ( I used Stone’s Green Ginger Aper itif Wine) 0.5 -1.0 ounces of Elder f lower L iqueur ( I used St- Germain) A splash of bitters (either citrus or aromat-

ic bitters) 1 stick of lemon grass 2 mint leaves 1 lime wedge Optional: Splash of lemon juice Met hod: 1. Chill the Ginger Wine and Elder f lower L iqueur and mix in a glass 2. Add a splash of bitters and (optional) a splash of lemon juice 3. M ix w ith the lemon grass stick 4. Add 2 mint leaves and leave lemon grass stick along the side 5. Garnish w ith lime wedge Voila! It’s easy and delicious. However, please note this is a fairly sweet dr ink. If necessar y, mix w ith a splash of g in or carbonated water to help reduce the sweetness to your taste.

Saw yer Peloso (1L) Emilio Lustau L os Arcos Amontillado D ry Sherry Available at the LCBO: $17.95 I was initially drawn to this t y pe of fortif ied w ine (sherr y) because of the song “Sherr y Baby,” but I stayed for the taste.

This w ine from Spain has a ver y cool caramel-like colour. On the nose, there was an interesting mixture of nuts, tof fee and caramel. It is v iscous and syrupy initially, although the taste of dr ied fruits, almonds and lemons stands out the most. The f inish is both dr y and long and it left me wanting more. A lthough the f lavour is somewhat complex, it is both ver y dr inkable and sweet. A s someone who has generally reser ved fortif ied w ines for cocktails, I am sold on the idea of a sherr y such as this one being used as an aper itif. I would specif ically recommend pair ing it w ith almonds and serrano ham.

Justino's Madeira 10 Year Old Sercial Available at the LCBO: $48.80 Since I had not really indulged in fortif ied w ines pr ior to this rev iew, and I have developed a reputation for rev iew ing w ine that is on the more expensive side, I also wanted to tr y a well-rev iewed but upscale fortif ied w ine. This one, from the Madeira Islands in Portugal, has a ver y mesmer izing gold colour. On the nose, lemon and dr ied fruits stand out the most. I was impressed w ith the complex but balanced palate consisting of smoky and nutt y f lavours, w ith dr ied fruits ultimately dominating. Once again, the f inish was somewhat dr y, but it was ver y long and smooth.

The integration of aroma and f lavour felt just r ight on this one, combining intr icacy and accessibilit y. I even felt somewhat justif ied in spending the higher amount. This is a great option as an aper itif at a w ine and cheese event.

A DELICIOUS GINGER AND ELDERBERRY COCKTAIL, PHOTO CREDIT: TOM RUSSELL

ultravires.ca

FEATURES

April 7, 2021 | 35

R v TJM: Examining Bail Applications in the Youth Criminal Justice System Implications of new SCC decision on access to justice for young Canadians AINSLIE PIERRYNOWSKI (2L) Prior to R v TJM (2021 SCC 6), it was unclear who had the jurisdiction to grant bail when the accused was a young person. This lack of clarity had the potential to produce prolonged, confusing proceedings, contrary to the goals of the Canadian youth criminal justice system.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act, (YCJA), which governs youth criminal justice in Canada, aims to render these criminal proceedings less formal and more efficient than their adult counterparts. As Justice Moldaver noted in R v KJM (2019 SCC 55), the right to be tried within a reasonable amount of time has particular significance for young accused persons. For instance, youth have a different conception of time compared to that of adults. Therefore, timely criminal proceedings can be key to reinforcing the connection between a young person’s actions and their consequences, and ultimately promoting the YCJA’s goals of rehabilitation and reintegration.

Likewise, since the time awaiting trial occupies a larger proportion of a young person’s life than that of an adult, the psychological impact of a delay can be much more significant for a young accused person. TJM presented an opportunity to mitigate these issues by clarifying how a young person may seek release on bail.

TJM was a young person charged with seconddegree murder. Under section 14 of the YCJA, youth justice courts have jurisdiction over any offence allegedly committed by a young person. Generally, a youth justice court refers to a special type of provincial court, presided over by a youth justice

court judge. In some cases, the province’s superior court is deemed a youth criminal justice court. For instance, if a young person is charged with seconddegree murder, like TJM, they may choose to be tried by a superior court judge. In that case, the judge is deemed to be a youth justice court judge and the court is deemed to be a youth justice court.

TJM elected to be tried by a superior court judge and sought release on bail before trial. However, section 33(8) of the YCJA provided that if a young person is charged with an offence listed in section 469 of the Criminal Code (including second-degree murder), only a youth justice court judge may release them from custody. Although under section 13(2) of the YCJA the provincial court judge was deemed to be a youth justice court judge “for the purpose of the proceeding,” it was unclear whether a “proceeding” also encompassed pre-trial decisions or just the trial itself.

The superior court judge in TJM interpreted s 13(2) to mean that only the province’s designated youth justice court had the power to grant TJM bail. TJM’s lawyer appealed this decision and the case ultimately reached the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). While the Crown had entered a stay of proceedings by this point, both parties to the case nonetheless agreed that the SCC could consider the bail issue.

In a unanimous decision, the SCC held that the youth justice court judge had jurisdiction to release TJM from custody prior to trial. Brown J reasoned that when the YCJA referred to a superior court judge having jurisdiction over TJM’s “proceeding,”

the meaning of the word “proceeding” was not limited to the trial alone. Rather, it encompassed the bail hearing. Further, the SCC determined that s 33(8) afforded superior court judges and designated youth court judges concurrent jurisdiction to hear bail applications under the YCJA. When s 33(8) is read together with s 13 of the YCJA, the language “a youth justice court judge” in the former provision can refer either to a superior court judge who has been deemed a youth justice court judge, or to the judge of a designated youth justice court.

The decision in TJM is significant for several reasons. First, Brown J expressly left ambiguous as to whether an application for judicial interim release made after the trial has started must be brought before the trial judge, or whether concurrent jurisdiction also applies here. This issue may be taken up in future youth criminal justice cases.

Second, in light of COVID-19-related criminal trial delays, this decision’s emphasis on the importance of access to justice and efficiency in the youth criminal justice system is remarkably timely. Professionals practicing in this area have noted that a lack of face-to-face services places vulnerable young people at a disadvantage, and pandemic-related delays risk jeopardizing rehabilitation efforts aimed at young offenders. Indeed, TJM’s own case had been making its way through the court system since at least fall 2019, when TJM’s initial bail application was dismissed.

Lastly, this case has especially important implications for young people from rural areas and Indigenous communities. There, as Brown J notes in

TJM, provincially designated youth justice courts tend to be more accessible than superior courts. As a result, their concurrent jurisdiction over bail hearings can promote timely criminal proceedings for youth in these areas. Indigenous youth remain overrepresented in Canada’s criminal justice system, and, on average, spend more time in pre-trial detention than their non-Indigenous counterparts.

Thus, it is significant that this case appears to take their specific circumstances and concerns into account.

TJM is not only about a single bail hearing. It engages the fundamental values underlying Canada’s youth criminal justice system. As Canada continues to grapple with the particular challenges associated with prosecuting young accused persons, the impact of TJM will likely resonate in courtrooms across the country.

This series by the Criminal Law Students’ Association introduces the law student body to the wild, wild world of criminal law and criminal justice. Articles will be published in print in Ultra Vires as well as on the CLSA’s website, uoftlawclsa. weebly.com/blog. To pitch an article to the CLSA blog series, please contact the CLSA Blog Editor, Teodora Pasca, at teodora.pasca@mail.utoronto.ca.

OPINIONS

A Difficult Conversation A call for the Faculty of Law to ensure all faulty and staff members have adequate mental health and sexual violence response training SHAE ROTHERY (1L) Content Warning: discussion of suicidal ideation and sexual violence.

Faculty and staff of post-secondary institutions possess a duty towards their students that extends beyond the classroom. This year, more than any other, we have come to appreciate the importance of having a strong support network. For law students, part of that support network includes an administration, faculty, and staff who are prepared to have difficult conversations.

Currently, there is no requirement in the Faculty of Law (or in the broader U of T community) for faculty or staff to be trained in suicidal ideation or sexual violence response. According to Associate Dean Christopher Essert, receiving this training is optional and there are many resources available to do so; however, due to the voluntary nature, actually tracking those who have received training is difficult.

As a former post-secondary administrative staff member, I’m sympathetic to the challenges of administration. I’ll be the first to admit that working with students is complex. With this said, I also feel comfortable calling in admin when something doesn’t feel right.

In my previous role as a student life professional, it was crucial that myself and any of my staff in student-facing roles received proper training to respond to suicidal ideation and sexual violence. In my experience, these conversations with students came up regularly. I believe it is crucial for faculty and staff members to know how to handle them appropriately.

For a Faculty that touts their mental health sup-

ports, sometimes the most impactful work starts by looking at simple changes that can be made within the existing community. Adding additional resources, such as embedded counseling, can break down barriers for students to receive support, and is a step in the right direction.

The administration cannot operate under the assumption that students will always feel comfortable seeking help from professional counselors or be able to receive this help in a timely manner. Part of a strong mental health strategy on campus is taking a proactive approach to crisis response with the understanding that a person in crisis may not reach out to a counselor as a first point of contact.

Students may feel more comfortable speaking with professors or staff members they trust and with whom they have an established rapport. If, in the course of these conversations, a student discloses suicidal ideation or sexual violence, the staff member should have sufficient training to know how to handle the situation and refer the student to appropriate resources.

Navigating these conversations is difficult. There is no one right way to handle a disclosure from a student, but there are a lot of wrong ways to deal with these situations. It takes a lot of courage for a student to speak up. The most important thing to keep in mind with both suicidal ideation and sexual violence is to maintain open communication and support the person in crisis. Shutting down dialogue or passing students from office to office without actually taking the time to listen to them is not best practice, and ultimately shows a lack of compassion.

In the course of these conversations, it is critical to take concerns seriously and not impart judgment.

The person in crisis should be given the opportunity to lead the conversation, and the responder should take a listening and supportive role. In the context of sexual violence, the survivor should choose what, if any, direction of action to take with their disclosure.

It is not up to the person receiving the disclosure to make an assumption about the form of action a survivor would like to take. Not every survivor is in the position to immediately go through a formal reporting process, and some survivors may never choose to do so.

I am calling on the Faculty of Law to implement a culture of expectation for all faculty and staff in student-facing roles to receive adequate training in suicidal ideation and sexual violence response. Suicidal ideation and sexual violence disclosures are not limited to frontline student services staff. Training in suicidal ideation and sexual violence response would provide faculty and staff with a basic toolkit to navigate through these conversations effectively and compassionately.

If administration were to commit to the professional development of its faculty and staff to include training in suicidal ideation and sexual violence response (among other much needed training and discussions — most notably in anti-racism, equity, and inclusion), it would reflect an administration that cares about the student community it serves, both inside and out of the classroom.

There are a number of organizations across Canada that provide this training, several of which the University has offered in the past. Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training (ASIST) is a two-day, intensive workshop in suicide first aid from Living-

Works, and in many cases is the industry standard for student life professionals in Canada. LivingWorks also offers a condensed, four-hour training session, safeTALK. The Mental Health Commission of Canada offers an 8-hour, virtual course in Mental Health First Aid. U of T’s Sexual Violence Prevention & Support Centre offers a 90-minute online workshop in responding to disclosures of sexual violence, specifically for staff, faculty, and administrators.

Being committed to student mental health is more than just embedded counselling and peer support programs. This commitment starts with each faculty and staff member taking personal steps to be accountable to the student community, especially during moments when students need them the most.

--Additional Resources: How to support a student in distress: https://studentlife.utoronto.ca/service/faculty-support-forresponding-to-distressed-students/ UofT MySSP is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via telephone, video, or chat in multiple languages How to support a survivor with a sexual violence disclosure: https://www.svpscentre.utoronto.ca/ give-support/how-to-help/ Students can contact the Health and Wellness Centre (weekdays 9 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.) at 416-9788030, or to visit the Student Mental Health Portal

36 | April 7, 2021

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

The Summer After Zoom Law School?

You better still keep six feet away!

JENNIFER SUN (1L) We just passed our one-year pandemic anniversary from when we first closed down in March 2020. This past year was one of a kind. The ordinary, reasonable, and prudent life we once knew feels like ancient history. The new standard of care consists of wearing a mask and maintaining a sixfeet distance apart from others. The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically altered our way of life.

Coronavirus definitely did not follow our classic rule of give and take, live and let live. It was all taking and no giving. Gee thanks, Coronavirus. You are the worst neighbour.

At least we anticipate it will be over soon. The University of Toronto recently announced plans to hopefully return to in-person learning this fall. I am sure everyone is eager to hear that. But what about summer? As much as I care about my education, my mind can’t help but wonder if we will actually get to enjoy our summer break. Realistically, we know it won’t be a ‘normal’ summer. The question is the degree of departure. As a follow-up to the piece I wrote last year, I am bringing my HH game in fortune-telling.

We look at the past to predict the future. The following chart from Public Health Ontario depicts Ontario and Toronto’s daily record of COVID-19 cases since March 2020.

This is not an optimistic picture. Our number of positive cases are much higher than last March’s,

yet Toronto’s outdoor dining has reopened since Saturday, March 20. While we don’t know the full extent of this impact, Toronto saw more than 1,000 daily cases on March 26 for the first time since January. (Apparently there was a "provincial technical issue" that included 260 previous cases. However, Toronto still reported 776 new cases, compared to 484 new cases on March 25.) This suggests we may see a steady increase over the next few weeks. The Ontario government responded by closing outdoor dining in the City of Toronto as of Saturday, April 3.

On the bright side, vaccines are here. Of course, the majority of students may be in one of the last groups to receive them. Nevertheless, as more people are vaccinated over the next few months, Toronto as a whole will become more immune to COVID-19. Maybe by summer the numbers will drop significantly in accordance with the vaccination rate. Who knows. But we already did it once. Albeit with restrictions, I remember I did enjoy the summer even though I knew less about COVID-19 back then. I met with friends (with masks for the most part) and sat at the patios to commemorate how we are living in the weirdest timeline. We learned to adapt and co-exist with COVID-19 in some capacity (because unfortunately this crazy neighbour is likely to stay). We are resilient and will always find ways to make the best out of a bad situation. The same holds true for this summer.

DAILY REPORTED COVID CASES, AS OF APRIL 3

What Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism Can Look Like in Academic Settings How general discourse can cloak anti-Semitic sentiments MAX SAMUELS (1L) Anti-Semitism has existed for a long time — long before the establishment of Israel as an independent Jewish nation. The goal of creating a Jewish national state in their biblical homeland can be dated back to as early as the 16th century. Zionism was a term created by Theodor Herzl in 1897 in response to anti-Semitism. Zionism is a political term that can be used to define the support for the modern state of Israel and a belief in an independent Jewish nation. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879, and may be defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) as: “…a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Regarding criticisms of Israel, the IHRA adds: “Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,” [Emphasis added].

The other day, there was a town hall hosted by B’nai Brith, a Jewish organization, where students and professors discussed their unique experiences with anti-Semitism at University of Toronto (U of T). As a Jewish person myself, a lot of the stories that were told resonated with me; most Jewish people I know have experienced some form of antiSemitism in their life. Jews were reported as the most targeted group of religious hate crimes in the United States in 2019, with 60 percent of hate crimes motivated by religious bias targeted towards Jewish people. The second most targeted religious group is at 13 percent.

Recently, an article from the Osgoode Law

newspaper, Obiter Dicta (OD), was shared by a student within the U of T Law virtual community. In this article, Osgoode Professor Faisal Bhabha (a non-Jewish individual) attempted to define antiSemitism and argue that the IHRA’s 2016 working definition was problematic as it “risk[ed] silencing critics of Israel.” The definition was adopted by 31 IHRA member countries. As a Jewish person, it is alarming to me how anti-Semitism is treated on U of T campus. I cannot address every issue I have with the OD article in a short opinion piece. However, I would like to discuss why I believe anti-Zionism is not as distinct from anti-Semitism as critics may think and the hypocrisy in universities surrounding anti-Zionist/Semitic discourse.

Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism: How distinct are they really?

In the OD article, the author portrays all of Zionism as “systemic oppression” and its inconsistency with purposes of anti-colonialism and anti-racism.

He separates this critique of Zionism from antiSemitism by arguing that “To say so has nothing to do with hating Jews. It is to accurately describe a reality.” The idea that all of Zionism is bad and this has nothing to do with any Jews is a fallacy. A statement like this is dangerous because the state of Israel cannot be separated from the Jewish people.

Israel is viewed in Judaism as the homeland of the Jewish people. Zionism was founded on the idea that Jews needed a homeland to escape anti-Semitism. To separate Zionism from Jewish people is not only disingenuous to what Israel represents but is ignorant to Jewish history and Judaism as a religion.

It also ignores the fact that the majority of people within Israel are Jewish.

You can be critical of Israel without being antiSemitic. The critique of Israel’s specific policies while recognizing the broader context of the situation is fair. In practice, however, many critiques of

Israel lack any nuances because it portrays all of Zionism to mean one thing. It neglects to recognize that Zionism is a political ideology that has a spectrum. To argue — as the OD article did — that it is impossible to be pro-Zionist and anti-racist is a blanket critique of a term that has different meanings to different people.

An example of this critique is prevalent during the annual Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns that occur on the U of T campus.1 Most supporters would characterize themselves in a way similar to how I previously described: anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. Similarly, those against IAW or BDS would be characterized by Professor Bhabha as oppressors using anti-Semitism as a shield to prevent well-founded critiques against Israel. Ultimately, this lack of nuances in the discussion of Zionism is what portrays the (arguably well-founded) critiques as dissimilar to critiques of other countries. It was usually Trump who was wrong, not Americans. In contrast, it is almost never Netanyahu who is wrong, always Zionists and/or Israel as a whole.

The Hypocrisy in Universities Surrounding Anti-Zionism/Semitism Imagine if ethnic and religious minorities were unable to define what they view as offensive because it limits the ability to critique institutions related to that definition. This is problematic because it does not allow those who experience hate to define the specific hate targeted towards them. Yet, the OD article exemplifies the idea that Jewish people cannot define what is anti-Semitic to them because it prevents a“fair” critique of Israel. Who is someone that is not a part of the Jewish community to tell Jewish people how they can and cannot define anti-Semitism? Why do I, as a Jewish person, need to conform to definitions made by non-Jewish

people? Further, the IHRA definition does not silence critiques of Israel. In reality, it ensures critiques of Israel directly target the issues on specific policies or actions, instead of portraying all of its citizens and supporters as racist colonialists.

If you want to provide a nuanced critique of Israel that recognizes Jewish history and the intertwined nature of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, I embrace that. But blanket critiques encompassing all of Israel or all of Zionism do nothing of the sort. It demonizes Israel and ignores Jewish history. It polices the parameters within which the Jewish people are allowed to define what they view as offensive. Most importantly, it shields itself by creating an unfounded and arbitrary distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I will not stand idly by and silently watch anti-Semitism evolve before my eyes.

Steps for the future The OD article is just one example of the prevalent issues that currently exist in the discussion of Israel and the Jewish people. Don’t hide your critiques of Israel behind an anti-Zionist guise that you argue has no ties to anti-Semitism. Don’t tell the Jewish people what they can and can’t define as anti-Semitic. What you can do is to be conscious of the history of the conflict and be precise with your wording in your critiques of Israel. For example, if you have an issue with the settlement policies, phrase your critique as something like “Netanyahu’s settlement policies are problematic for x, y, z reason” or “I’m angry with how the political right in Israel treats the Palestinian people.”

These statements are incredibly fair critiques of Israeli policies. They diagnose an issue that you have without generalizing the group your critique applies to and acknowledge the complex political landscape that exists within Israel.

[1] For more information on the relationship between IAW and BDS, as well as their events on U of T campus, see: http:// www.uoftdivest.com/iaw-2019.html

ultravires.ca

OPINIONS

April 7, 2021 | 37

A Reflection on International Women’s Day Events Paving the path forward for women in the law REBECCA ROSENBERG (1L) This year, I was invited to speak at the University of Ottawa’s Pre-Law Society’s International Women’s Day (IWD) Panel, an event I once helped plan. Speaking alongside other female law students inspired me to share some ref lections for this month’s celebration of women around the world.

I want to f irst share an experience I had attending the launch of a political candidate’s campaign (who will be referred to as “Candidate X”) a while back. I brought along two of my roommates and we noticed immediately upon entering the event that we were among the few women in attendance.

We didn’t think much of it though, and went to look for a place to stand while awaiting Candidate X’s opening remarks.

As we stood there, an older man approached me. He didn’t say “hi” or introduce himself. He simply said, “You know Candidate X is married, right?” I was unsure of what to say and ended up nodding my head.

He then said, “You should be careful because we don’t want to deal with a scandal.” I was taken aback. Instead of responding, I ushered my friends, who hadn’t heard the stranger’s remarks, to leave. For the rest of the event, I was self-conscious about how

people were perceiving my presence at the launch. I mean, why else would a young woman attend a campaign party if not to seduce the candidate into a political scandal?

These subtle, degrading comments are not unique to politics. I was told multiple times before applying to law school that if I wanted to have a family, I should avoid pursuing a career in law. Fortunately, I didn’t heed that advice.

There are three problematic assumptions underlying the “if you want a family” statement. First, it rests on the idea that all women want to become mothers and care for a family. This is not true for all women and it is wrong to assume that someone has certain priorities based solely on their gender. Second, it reinforces the notion that women, as nurturers, are unable to function in a highly competitive and demanding profession. Nobody should be discouraged from following a certain career path based on preconceived notions regarding traditional, and in many cases, outdated gendered stereotypes. Thirdly, these statements reinforce the myth that it is a mother alone who is responsible for rearing a child. Gender roles have changed over the recent generations. If both parents are

present, they are both equally responsible for raising a family so that the burden does not lie just with the matriarch. The onus is also on employers to create programs to aid women rather than punish them for personal matters. It is time to stop pushing the narrative that being a woman in law means sacrif icing one’s personal wishes.

Two years ago, I attended another IWD event that brought in women from different backgrounds and legal f ields to talk about their careers. None of the panelists mentioned having to give up a hypothetical future family. Nor did they advise us to change ourselves to f it into the "ideal" mold of what a lawyer should look like. Before that event, I had never spoken with a female lawyer (or really any lawyer for that matter). Since then, I've met so many talented women pursuing a legal career, each in their own way and with their own individual aspirations.

With that being said, I know I am not an outlier and that the incidents I have faced need to be placed relative to what others have dealt with. Many women face these kinds of situations which may be twofold as these occurrences intersect with other aspects of their lived experiences including

race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, marital status, etc.

I remain optimistic about the trajectory of the legal industry’s treatment of women. I recently heard of a f irm that implemented equitable policies to ensure that a woman who enters an associate position at the same time as her male counterpart but has to take time off for maternity leave, will be promoted upon return if during her leave, her counterpart has advanced. Further, many workplaces offer paternity leave so as not to allocate the burden of caring for a newborn solely on mothers. Policies like these demonstrate a step forward in promoting equity within the legal practice.

Throughout my time at law school and beyond, I have met so many passionate and ambitious women who I am conf ident will change the culture and attitude surrounding women in the workplace, whether within the legal profession or any other industry. There are also many allies of varying genders who want to see positive changes and are supportive of those who are attempting to implement them. So, on this ref lection of International Women’s Day, I look back at the women who paved the way for the women of today to cement this path.

Anti-Asian Racism: This Ends Now Reflections on experiences of Anti-Asian racism from childhood to the pandemic ANNA ZHANG (2L) One evening a few months ago, I was riding a streetcar from Bathurst to Queens Park in downtown Toronto. The streetcar came to a halt as a white man in his late 40s walked on without a mask and sat in the blocked-off seat right beside me. I looked at him, confused, uncomfortable, and honestly, a bit annoyed. He immediately noticed.

“What are you looking at?” he said to me.

“Your people brought the virus into this country. It’s you that shouldn’t be allowed on this streetcar.” Audible gasps f illed the air and people shook their heads, but none of the other passengers said a word. We rode the rest of the way in silence.

I wasn’t born in Canada, but I grew up here. My family and I moved here when I was four. I became a Canadian citizen when I was eight. I was raised here, educated here, and I speak English and French f luently.

I am Canadian. But these facts were completely lost to the man without a mask on the streetcar that night. Like many other AsianCanadians and visible minorities, I found myself defending my Canadian status and membership in this country, yet again.

Growing up, I didn’t want to be Chinese. I wanted to f it in.

When I was f ive, I picked an English name for myself after learning that I was the only kid in my kindergarten class with a Chinese name. When I was seven, I stayed quiet when a group of classmates mocked my dad’s Chinese accent while he volunteered as a chaperone for a school f ield trip. When I was

eight, I threw out the chive dumplings my mom packed me for lunch, ones that she made herself from scratch that morning so they would be fresh for me, and begged her to pack sandwiches or Lunchables instead. I hid the fact that I went to Chinese school on weekends to learn Mandarin. I only spoke English at home. And whenever someone made a joke about my eyes being small, my supposedly superior math skills, or yelled the oh-so-clever “ching chong” insult at me, I kept my head down.

But worst of all, I beamed with pride whenever someone said I was “white-washed” or that I was outgoing, fun, or cool “ for an Asian.” In my head, this meant that I had succeeded. That I had been accepted. That I wasn’t like the other Asians. I was normal.

I once thought these experiences were unique to me, but when my younger sister came home crying because the other kids in her third grade class said her Chinese food was “stinky,” I realized I was wrong. The truth is, almost every Asian-Canadian I have met or spoken to throughout my life has the exact same story or a variation of it. It may have been Vietnamese congee instead of Chinese dumplings, or their mom’s accent instead of their dad’s, but the effect was always the same. Learning that I wasn’t alone and meeting others who were proud of their Asian heritage gave me the conf idence to embrace my own. Nevertheless, the homogeneity of these shared experiences is absolutely terrifying.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, hate crimes against Asian-Americans and Asian-Canadians have been on a rise in Canada and the US. Most recently, a 65-year-old Asian woman in Manhattan was beaten in broad daylight while three bystanders watched. In March of last year, a 92-year-old Asian man with dementia was assaulted in a Vancouver convenience store.

The same month, a Filipino-Canadian woman was attacked in a Toronto subway station and told to “go back to China.” Statistics Canada conf irmed that hate crimes against Asians have increased three-fold during the pandemic. “Kung f lu” and the “China virus” have become well-known nicknames for COVID-19. Vancouver reported a 717 percent increase in the amount of hate crimes since last year. The list goes on.

When I hear about these statistics or read these stories, I don’t just see numbers from the reports or victims from the stories. I see my own mother being in the position of the 65-year-old woman beaten in broad daylight. I imagine my father being spat on and yelled anti-racial slurs to. I think about my sister, my grandparents, my friends, my classmates, and every Asian-Canadian, or visible minority I have ever known. These tragedies are not just stories to me. They are personal.

On Tuesday, March 16, a white gunman entered three massage parlours in Atlanta and killed eight people, six of whom were Asian women. Police have refrained from la-

belling this incident as “hate crime.” Whatever the merits or non-merits of doing so may be, I will not speculate. However, as I sat in my room reading the New York Times, I thought back to my school f ield trip from all those years ago. After that day, I never asked my parents to volunteer as chaperones ever again out of fear that they would be mocked.

As a seven-year-old, I didn’t know how to add, subtract, or even write full sentences.

Yet, I knew about racism. I knew about hate, and I could see both of these things as clear as day.

What happened in Atlanta was not an isolated incident but a horrif ic example of a narrative that Asian-Americans and Asian-Canadians have been familiar with for far too long. Whether it be the “model minority” myth, the perception that Asians are emotionless functionaries, or the fact that there are no inherent symbols associated with antiAsian hate, Canada has a deeply rooted history of anti-Asian racism that needs to be acknowledged. It is our generation’s responsibility to advocate for the protection of our friends, our elders, and our communities. We all have a role to play, and we all need to do more.

So, to the man without a mask on the streetcar and everyone like him: I will no longer apologize, I will no longer stay silent, and I will no longer hide.

Today, I am proud to be Asian. This ends now.

38 | April 7, 2021

ultravires.ca

R IGHTS R EVIEW

The International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law An independent student-led publication Editors-in-Chief: Rachel Bryce (4L JD/MGA) and Abdullah Jamshed Khan (2L) Senior Editors: Taskeen Nawab (2L) and Sabrina Sukhdeo (2L) Junior editors: Martha Côte (1L) and Sterling Mancuso (1L) Graphics Editor: Yuxuan Wu (2L) Social Media Editor: Ellen An (2L)

CAN THE ANTI-ASIAN MASS SHOOTING IN ATLANTA BE THE TIPPING POINT? ADDRESSING ANTI-ASIAN RACISM IN NORTH AMERICAN SOCIETY

By Vivian Cheng (2L) and Lauren Lam (4L JD/MGA) On March 16, many were devastated to learn that a mass shooter murdered eight individuals and injured one in spa parlours in Atlanta, Georgia. But this struck a chord especially with those in the Asian-Canadian and Asian-American communities. Six of the victims were Asian women. While authorities have not confirmed that this was an anti-Asian hate crime, the overwhelming majority of Asian victims is a cause for alarm.

This tragic event sparked a mass outpouring of grief, frustration, anger, resilience, and solidarity on both mainstream media and social media outlets. However, the very next day, an elderly Asian woman made headlines after she fought back against a younger white man, who punched her in the face in broad daylight in downtown San Francisco. On March 30th, a video surfaced of a 65-year old woman being knocked to the ground, repeatedly kicked, and told that she “didn’t belong here” outside a luxury New York City apartment building.

Mental health and psychological experts have told news outlets that “many East Asian people across Canada and the United States are likely

suffering from ‘vicarious trauma,” after seeing waves of those who look like them being killed or racially attacked.”

these forms of legislation do not exist today, many forms of exclusion serve to alienate us from our heritage.

The Atlanta mass shooting is the deadliest in recent times, but Anti-Asian hate crimes have been on the rise for over a year now. There has been a 717 percent increase in anti-Asian hate crimes in Vancouver. Most alarmingly, many of these attacks seem to be perpetrated against the elderly and individuals under 18. Since March 16, protests have erupted in Toronto and Vancouver over anti-Asian sentiment.

As Anna Zhang (2L) alludes to in her piece in Ultra Vires, many of us experienced microaggressions growing up that made us want to dissociate from our heritage. These microaggressions included anything from having our food called “stinky,” being asked where we came from, and having “white-washing” used as a compliment.

COVID-19 and former President Donald Trump’s referring to the novel coronavirus as the “Chinese virus,” has certainly exacerbated the xenophobia towards Asian individuals, but this anti-Asian sentiment is not new.

Anti-Asian sentiment has always existed in Canada. Historically, this has manifested in government policies from the Chinese Head Tax to Japanese Internment to the Komagata Maru incident. These policies, guised under the furtherance of nationalism or protectionism, have intentionally aimed to exclude Asian individuals from the Canadian fabric. While

And for the past year, anti-Asian hate crimes have become so prevalent that Asian communities are being told to be extra vigilant. If this is the case, is Canada really as welcoming and progressive as it claims? Racism is now manifesting in a more obvious and violent way.

As Canadians, we are repeatedly told by our elected officials that we are a country built on migrants, and that we celebrate our diversity.

While we want to believe this narrative, we continuously observe how “diverse” individuals are positioned in society.

The overrepresentation of Indigenous and

Black offenders in Canadian prisons is shocking. The lack of people of colour in senior executive positions or in academia is also concerning. The fetishization of people of colour, especially women of colour, continues to dehumanize and delegitimize millions of people in our society.

There is no easy way to eradicate racism. There are no quick and easy fixes. We can only become better as a society, if we mutually and steadfastly commit to creating spaces where people feel comfortable to share their experiences, seek to understand what individuals are saying without judgement, and alter our behaviour in meaningful, tangible ways. Better education, dialogue, and support from all segments of society are the path forward. Then, and only then, can we heal and grow into a society that truly celebrates diversity.

As future advocates, we must remember that the legal system is not immune from these sorts of defects, so we must constantly reflect on ourselves and our systems for implicit and explicit biases and prejudices.

RIGHTS NOT RESCUE: AN INTERVIEW WITH ELENE LAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BUTTERFLY A CONVERSATION ABOUT ANTI-ASIAN RACISM, WHOREPHOBIA, AND POLICING IN CANADA

By Sabrina Sukhdeo (2L)

Elene Lam is the Executive Director of Butterfly, the Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network, and a PhD candidate at McMaster University’s School of Social Work. She has been advocating for sex worker, migrant, labour, and gender justice for over 20 years. Butterfly is organized by and supports workers in holistic centres, body rub parlours, and the sex industry in Toronto.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Sabrina Sukhedo (SS): The heartbreak-

ihrprightsreview

ing killings in Atlanta represent a horrific rise in anti-Asian violence during the pandemic. How has this violence impacted the Asian and migrant sex worker community in Toronto?

Elene Lam (EL): We feel very sad and heartbroken. But at the same time, we know that this is not a faraway problem.

This also happens in Canada. We have workers in Hamilton, Toronto, and Mississauga who are being murdered. This is not new. This is something experienced by the community everyday.

While the violence issue is a huge concern within the community, the problem is actually policing and repressive laws, which make workers unable to protect themselves.

For example, at the city level, there is excessive investigation of massage parlours and a lot of ticketing. When massage parlour workers tried to lock their doors, they were charged. The City of Toronto has said that they are no longer enforcing the bylaw [that prohibits locked body rub rooms in parlours] after the murder [of Ashley Noell Arzaga last year], but these policies still exist. These bylaws make workers unsafe.

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/page/rights-review-magazine

On one hand, we think that all this public concern about anti-Asian racism is good.

But we are worried that people will forget that this is not just racist violence. This is also violence as a reuslt of anti-sex work sentiment, “whorephobia,” and moralistic views about sex and sexuality. We hope that people remember that there were other people in the massage parlour who were murdered. Whether they do sex work or not, people are being harmed by sex work laws and discrimination against sex workers because of their association with sex workers.

SS: Butterfly has raised concerns that

uoftrightsreview

ultravires.ca

RIGHTS REVIEW

April 7, 2021 | 39

PHOTO CREDIT: HTTPS://WWW.BUTTERFLYSW.ORG/8CALLSFORJUSTICE]

anti-trafficking groups will exploit the Atlanta tragedy. How do these groups cause harm to Asian and migrant sex workers?

EL: So often we see anti-sex work and anti-trafficking organizations use the safety issue to advocate for more repressive laws and law enforcement against sex workers.

Many anti-trafficking organizations — particularly religious and Evangelical groups — are actually anti-sex work organizations.

They conflate sex work and trafficking. But because they use the language of anti-trafficking, people don’t see that.

Many people say anti-trafficking groups are radical feminists or feminist organizations, but I don’t call them feminists because they support the police more than they support women. And we know very well that policing does not make workers safe. Policing and criminalization actually puts them in danger.

We are extremely worried that these organizations will use this opportunity and racist ideas about Asian women being trafficking victims who don’t want to do sex work to advocate for more harmful policies, including more policing in massage parlours, shutting down the businesses, and increasing police powers to investigate sex work in hotels and apartments.

SS: What sort of policies and legislation enacted by the government contribute to the marginalization and vulnerability of Asian and migrant sex workers?

EL: One of the policy issues I want to raise is the Ontario government allocating more than $300 million to anti-trafficking groups and proposing changes to anti-trafficking legislation [through Bill 251, the Combatting Human Trafficking Act].

We are surprised that there are so many people concerned about policing, police powers, and racial profiling, yet so many

ihrprightsreview

groups — including organizations dedicated to human rights work and ending gender-based violence — still support policing in service of anti-trafficking work. They support increased powers for police to conduct investigations and for Children’s Aid Society (CAS) to control youth. We know how harmful, historically, CAS has been to racialized youths in particular.

This new anti-trafficking bill requires hotels and other accommodation businesses to record personal information of anyone using their rooms and empowers police to access that data without warrants. This bill also increases police power to investigate, so police can enter any space, or carry out any investigation, without court orders. We know from the pandemic that when police have the power to access data, they abuse the system.

Furthermore, we don’t see any human rights organizations speaking loudly against this bill because they are afraid that they will support the trafficker. That gives so much power to the state and government to promote these harmful policies.

Anti-trafficking policies are a cover for racism and racial profiling. They assume that Asian women are victims who need to be rescued. And it won’t be rich, white people who will be checked in at a hotel. Of course, it will be racialized communities. They use anti-trafficking work to justify their racial profiling and surveillance. We have so many workers being arrested and deported, so increasing police powers just further pushes workers underground and increases the risk of harm. This is why it’s necessary to take immediate action around this issue.

SS: Because of the criminalization of sex work, migrant sex workers have often assumed the responsibility of protecting each other. How have migrant sex workers and Butterfly organized to address

the increased harms to their community?

EL: Butterfly is a grassroots organization that organizes workers to speak out. In 2019, 300 workers were at City Hall speaking out. They said that they were not trafficking victims, they need the work. They demanded the City to stop shutting down the massage parlours and taking away their businesses. Their safety is the concern, so they are still organizing and advocating. As a result, the City is now willing to not enforce the law around door-locking.

But this is a tiny step. Workers are still being policed, racially profiled, and criminalized. So, workers in massage parlours and the sex industry are reaching out to different community members and educating them. These workers are also collecting voices and evidence around how this is harmful to them. We are also building allyship so that the community has the power to bring about the necessary change.

SS: These women’s lives sit at the intersection of racism, misogyny, and classism. How does examining this intersection inform your advocacy?

EL: Intersectionality is so important. We hear many Asian groups — particularly the more privileged in the Asian community — say that they want more police to address hate crimes. Intersectionality tells us that these issues are not only about race, but also class, immigration background, and occupation. These experiences make a huge difference.

We also recognize how this dynamic plays out in the political arena. When we lobby at City Hall, we have 300 workers there, but we are not as powerful as one white, privileged woman from an NGO saying, “There are a lot of Asian women being trafficked, we need to change the law and kill the sex industry to make them safe.” We see this power imbalance, so having workers speak

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/page/rights-review-magazine

out is important but not enough. We also need to build allyship.

As law students, we really hope that you look at trafficking issues through a critical lens. Doing anti-trafficking work looks fancy and cool and attracts a lot of money, but the work is also often anti-migrant, racist, and whorephobic. Anti-trafficking policies harm migrants, increase the policing of Black, Indigenous, and Asian communities, and criminalize sex work. Building allyship with the labour movement, human rights organizations, and organizations fighting gender-based violence is important to us.

SS: What legal reforms are urgently needed to keep Asian and migrant sex workers safe?

EL: We keep telling the public that policing is not the solution. Workers are unsafe because of the police. But the reason police have all the power, and workers are put in danger, is because of problematic laws and policies.

When two people work together around sexual services, they are criminalized.

When someone helps to screen clients, or advertise a worker’s sexual services, they are criminalized. These important protective measures are all criminalized.

There are also harmful immigration laws.

Any worker in the sex industry who is not a permanent resident or citizen can be removed from Canada. There are also several repressive city bylaws against massage parlours.

We know how these laws are harmful.

Workers are organizing and telling the public how these laws are harmful, and how they want them to change.

Visit https://www.butterflysw. org/8callsforjustice to learn about Butterfly’s 8 Calls for Justice campaign and to sign their declaration of support.

uoftrightsreview

40 | April 7, 2021

RIGHTS REVIEW

ultravires.ca

MIGRANTS, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS INTERVIEWS WITH LIAM TURNBULL AND ASHLEY MAJOR ABOUT IHRP’S COLLABORATION ON VITAL GUIDES

By Rachel Bryce (4L JD/MGA) T he Inte rnational Human Rights Pro gram (IHRP) has pa r tne re d with the Immigration Le gal Commit te e (also k nown as No O ne Is Ille gal Toronto), But te r fly (A sian and Migrant Sex Worke r s Network), and the O nta rio Coalition Against Pove r t y to create a colle ction of compre he nsive le gal e ducation re source s for migrants and immigration se r vice provide r s. T he Migrants K now Your Rights Guide s cove r eve r y thing from obtaining status in Canada to dealing with immigration dete ntion and deportation. T he Guide s a re the re sult of months of de dicate d collaboration, communit y consultations, and thoughtful draf ting and e diting with countle s s hands on de ck. In May 2020, this team release d the Migrants K now Your Rights COVID ID e dition. In Februa r y 2021, the IHRP publishe d the full Migrants K now Your Rights Guide on immigration a rre st, dete ntion, and depor tation.

Co - e ditor-in- chief Rachel Br yce sat down with IHRP Clinic stude nt Liam Turnbull (3L) to discus s his work on this proje ct, his pe r spe ctive on the impact of this Guide, and migrant rights in Canada . IHRP Re sea rch A s sociate A shley Major provide s contex t on the additional publications and la rge r goals of the proje ct and pa r tne r ship.

Rachel Br yce ( R B): Let’s star t with an intr oduction about your work with r e gar ds to the Migr ants Know Your Rights Guide . Could you talk a bit about the backgr ound of the pr oject and your par tici pation?

Liam Turnbull (LT): I draf te d a “K now Your Rights” Guide for migrants navigating Canada's immigration, dete ntion, and depor tation syste m. I sta r te d as an IHRP clinic stude nt in Janua r y 2020, but the developme nt of the Guide sta r te d in the summe r of 2019. It was a pret t y long proce s s of draf ting, e diting, collaborating with communit y pa r tne r s until we finally publishe d it last month. We trie d to get as many pe r spe ctive s as pos sible to have a docume nt that refle cte d the views, ne e ds, and conce rns of the communitie s that it is tr ying to suppor t.

R B: What did the collabor ation look like? Who was involved?

LT: Before I sta r te d draf ting, Vince nt Wong, who was with the IHRP before, develope d a skeleton of the Guide base d on a “K now Your Rights” guide by the Immigration Le gal Commit te e, also calle d No O ne Is Ille gal Toronto. He de velope d the skeleton through dire ct consultations with me mbe r s of the migrant communitie s and with But te r fly, an organiz ation that suppor ts A sian migrant sex worke r s. Whe n I joine d the IHRP clinic, Vince and I, along with anothe r Clinic stude nt and Ele ne L am, the E xe cutive D ire ctor of But te r fly, sta r te d to discus s how to be st proce e d. It was de cide d that I would do the draf ting for the depor tation guide, the othe r stude nt would focus on police powe r s and e nforce me nt, and Vince and Ele ne would provide comme nts and e dits. T he Guide

ihrprightsreview

was draf te d in a ve r y collaborative way.

O nce the clinic work came to a close, we had draf te d the fir st six chapte r s, and the last chapte r was draf te d by an Osgoode Hall stude nt in the summe r. I also helpe d e dit the whole Guide and gathe r additional re sea rch. Af te r the summe r, we had more discus sions with the IHRP and A shley, incorporating comme nts from an ex te rnal reviewe r and the Immigration Le gal Commit te e.

T hrough all of that, we we re able to pub lish it last month.

R B: A nd how do you see this Guide coming into pr actice?

LT: For tunately, the re a re plans to translate this Guide into va rious language s.

But it was ve r y dif ficult to tr y to make the language easily unde r standable for pe ople without a le gal background. To re solve the se pote ntial ba r rie r s, we did a numbe r of plain language e dits through sha ring the guide with pe ople without a le gal background. At the same time, we k new some pa r ts of the guide we re bound to have some le gal te rminology, so we always made sure to pro vide re source s whe re it was dif ficult to elaborate. For example, whe n we discus s refuge e claims, we highlight how it is an ex tre mely complicate d a rea and e mphasize the ne e d for refuge e claim ants to tr y to obtain le gal advice or con sult the communit y organiz ations outline d in the appe ndix.

Since the Guide is so detaile d, we wante d to highlight that it would be pa r ticula rly useful for immigration se r vice pro vide r s. But we also trie d to strike a balance whe re it could still be unde rstandable for migrants the mselve s.

R B: Could you s peak mor e to your experience on the pr oject , and what you have taken away fr om s pending this time collabor ating and writing on migr ant rights?

LT: T he main takeaways would be to e nsure that communit y me mbe r s’ pe rspe ctive s a re dire ctly take n into ac count whe n developing le gal e ducation mate rials, and to make sure that, as law stude nts or le gal profe s sionals, we a re not e ngaging in a top - down approach. I think move me nt law ye ring builds on that approach, in which you a re not “giving” a voice to communit y me mbe r s; rathe r, you a re suppor ting their goals and ne e ds in the ways they want. Ove rall, what I will take from this expe rie nce is to always ke ep in mind the ne e ds and conce rns of the pe ople you a re se r ving, to neve r ne gle ct their pe r spe ctive s on how to suppor t their cause s, and to tr y to re me dy injustice s.

R B: What is your takeaway about the situation of migr ant rights in Canada?

For example, what needs to be done to impr ove the situation for migr ants who ar e facing de por tation? A nd who ar e detained in these immigr ation de tention center s , of ten in atr ocious conditions?

LT: T hat ’s a dif ficult que stion. Inte rna-

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/page/rights-review-magazine

uoftrightsreview

ultravires.ca

tionally, Canada's immigration syste m is of te n toute d as really progre s sive and one of the faire st. But as you note d, migrants a re facing some atrocious conditions in Canada . A nd COVID -19 is only a fur the r strain on the obstacle s that the migrants a re facing. I think the re is defi nitely a ne e d to reform how the syste m is e nforce d and how dif fe re nt laws and policie s a re imple me nte d. T he re also, I think, ne e ds to be a se rious inve stigation on the conditions of immigration dete ntion ce ntre s whe re the gove rnme nt actually e mbodie s the inte rnational human rights standa rds that Canada strive s to uphold. I think the re also ne e ds to be a se rious conve r sation about the alte rnative s to immigration dete ntion, pa r ticula rly for childre n and familie s. We ne e d to come up with solutions that uphold the dignit y of migrants and e nsure pe ople a re not treate d like prisone r s. Something that was stre s se d a lot in communit y consultations was that pe ople cannot be ille gal; sure, they might be he re without status, but saying a pe r son is ille gal is proble matic and

RIGHTS REVIEW

doe s not re spe ct their dignit y. T hroughout our guide, we trie d to make sure we we re highlighting the ways that the im migration syste m is unfair, while also stre s sing the ne e d for additional action and organizing beyond just k nowing your rights. Real change s and reform will re quire fur the r mobiliz ation, and it is great to se e our communit y pa r tne r s, But te r fly and the Immigration Le gal Commit te e, taking on that fight.

R B:That is an excellent note to end on. Ther e is momentum building of f of this r e por t and impor tant work that continues to be done by the communities and with the communities to cr e ate significant change and hold Canada accountable to its international human rights obligations . Thank you ver y much for your time, Liam , and for the gr eat work you have done with this team .

A f i n a l note f r om IHRP Re s ea r c h A s soc i a te, A s h l ey M ajo r : R B: Ashley, could you pr ovide some

final notes on the scope of this par tner shi p, its deliver ables , and what it means to work with these mobilizing or ganizations?

Ashley Major: Fir st of f, I’d like to just say how proud I am of Liam and how grateful I am for all of his work. I was the Profe s sor of the IHRP Clinic in Winte r 2020, and the Migrants Guide was one of the four proje cts that the nine stu de nts in the clas s worke d on. It ’s so exciting and validating to se e a Clinic Proje ct turn into such an impor tant re source. T his truly was a collaborative ef for t acros s unive r sitie s and communit y organisations. I’d like to shout out the e ntire team in addition to Liam: Vince Wong and Petra Molna r (Past IHRP); So phia Fozda r (IHRP Clinic Stude nt); Ele ne L am (But te r fly); Macdonald Scot t (No O ne is Ille gal ); Ma ris sa Hum (Osgoode Summe r Stude nt); Lor raine Chue n (G raphic D e signe r); the O nta rio Coalition Against Pove r t y; Prasanna Balasunda ram (Editor, DLS), and the ex te rnal reviewe r s and countle s s pa r ticipants in

April 7, 2021 | 41

our communit y consultations. L astly, I’d like to thank the L aw Foundation of O nta rio for funding this work.

T his proje ct has seve ral delive rable s attache d — it ’s not just the one Guide.

Whe n COVID hit, the team pivote d to publishing a shor t Guide on the implications of Eme rge ncy O rde r s pas se d due to the pande mic. T he se orde r s gave more expansive powe r s to law e nforce me nt of ficials to de mand ide ntification, which clea rly had unique implications for non-status individuals. T he team is now focusing on translating both Guide s, creating flashca rds of their takeaways in multiple language s, and of fe ring training se s sions, webina r s and informational vide os on the conte nt for migrants and immigration se r vice pro vide r s. T he L aw Foundation of O nta rio has be e n incre dibly suppor tive in help ing us to adapt our Guide s, training, and our timeline s in the pande mic. I am confide nt that we will be able to me et our goals and our Guide s will reach the communit y me mbe r s who a re in ne e d.

PAINTING HISTORY GREEN THE LEGALIZATION OF ABORTION IN ARGENTINA

By Ashley Mochon (LLM) In 2018, for the first time in Argentine history, a project for the legalization of voluntary abortion was debated in Congress. On the evening of August 8, I left my job and headed towards the Plaza del Congreso. The rain was torrential and the cold of the Argentine winter was sharp, yet thousands of women waited on the Plaza del Congreso in those conditions.

The Senate was discussing the law proposing voluntary interruption of pregnancy. On one side of the park, supporters of the pro-life movement wore blue scarves and waved the Argentine flag, chanting "Save both lives." On the other were those who dreamed of a fairer Argentina, where motherhood was desired and not imposed — one where women, girls and adolescents could decide whether, how, and when to become mothers.

The Senate rejected the proposal. I was outside of Congress when this happened, waiting under the rain with thousands of other women wearing our green handkerchiefs. “Sexual education to decide, contraception to avoid abortions, abortion to not die,” we chanted for hours. This is one of the memories I am most fond of, even if the result was bittersweet.

On December 30, 2020, the Argentine Senate finally approved the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Law. It was 3:00 a.m. Toronto time when the Senate voted: 38 votes in favor and 29 votes against. Legal abortion was finally a reality in Argentina. I cried and cheered from my sofa in Toronto, miles away from Buenos Aires, wishing that — for a minute — I could teleport to that park in Buenos Aires where thousands of wom-

ihrprightsreview

en, once again, joined together to make their voices heard. I wished I could be there to hug my friends and celebrate after all these years of debating and campaigning for women’s rights.

The International Human Rights Program (IHRP) Working Group Panel: Impact & Implementation — Carrying Out Legalized Abortion Reform in Argentina, carried out on March 5 featured three experts in the field: Mariela Belski, Executive Director of Amnesty International Argentina, Giselle Carino, CEO of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF/WHR), and Mercedes Cavallo, Visiting Professor at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella and Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD) candidate at the University of Toronto. The three of them presented the different challenges posed by the implementation of the new Voluntary Interruption of Abortion Law. Among the most salient issues, they discussed structural barriers to accessing abortion such as lack of trained personnel, lack of available medications necessary to perform ambulatory abortions, and the reluctance of some provinces to regulate the procedure locally.

The law came into force on January 14.

Any woman who decided to have an abortion before the 14th week of pregnancy could do so voluntarily (or even later, in some cases for which it would already have been legal). But this does not mean the fight is over. As the panelists pointed out, hundreds of private hospitals and healthcare institutions are already trying to declare themselves “conscious objector institutions” by asking their employees, individually, to take

on these positions; “pro-life” groups are putting pressure on health professionals to stop them from performing the procedure. There are particularly serious concerns in rural areas where access to health centers is scarce and, where in some cases, services are provided by religious institutions holding conservative views. Argentina is a vast country and does not have sufficient medical infrastructure everywhere. Furthermore, constitutional challenges by pro-life groups are already flooding Argentine courts.

The work of women, such as Mariela, Giselle and Mercedes, the panelists, is fundamental to ensure that all the rights affirmed by the movement are accessible to all. Supporting local advocates and organizations, keeping track of existing data, and paying particular attention to vulnerable groups, such as migrants and Indigenous peoples, are some of the next steps civil society is taking to keep public and private institutions accountable when they fail to comply with their new legal obligations.

The “Green Wave” has been more than a fight for abortion rights. It has been a claim over the autonomy of women’s bodies; it encompasses decades of feminist claims and has grown so resonant that no one could ignore it. Schools, churches, mosques, synagogues and every Argentine’s dinner table was the forum for heated debates. The claims of Argentinian women claims were no longer silenced. They were loud and clear, so loud they are echoing all across Latin America and the world. The name of the “Green Wave” comes from the color of our scarves, the color of the Campaign

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/page/rights-review-magazine

to Legalize Abortion in Argentina. Others have coined it “The Revolution of the Daughters”, because it was mostly young women and teenage girls who revived the debate around abortion rights in Argentina.

Even though abortion is now officially legal in Argentina, access remains to be attained. In a country undergoing a deep economic crisis, marked by inequality and high poverty levels, access to abortion rights presents not only a challenge, but also a new mission for the Green Wave.

"Recuerden las mujeres que dispersas las fuerzas se debilitan y que para conseguir el bien común necesario es sacudir la apatía y eleverse por encima de bienestar del momento presente."

"Remember women that dispersed forces are weakened and that to achieve the common good, necessary is to shake off apathy and rise above the well-being of the present moment." (English Translation) Alicia Moreau de Justo – Argentine Feminist – 1885- 1986 Ashley Mochon is an Argentine lawyer specialized in Public International Law, graduated from the University of Buenos Aires. She is a candidate for the LLM (Master of Laws) at the University of Toronto, Concentration in Health Law, Ethics and Policy and the Collaborative Program in Women and Gender Studies.

uoftrightsreview

42 | April 7, 2021

RIGHTS REVIEW

ultravires.ca

FROM AL-KHATIB TO KOBLENZ LIMITS TO THE FIGHT AGAINST IMPUNITY UNDER UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION

By Taskeen Ather Nawab (2L) In Damascus, whe re Baghdad Road purpor te dly me ets A l- K hatib Stre et and whe re the re d Cre sce nt Hospital sits, lie s Branch 251 of Syria’s G e ne ral Intellige nce D ire ctorate — or “al- K hatib” — a state se curit y inte r rogation ce ntre k nown to its sur vivor s as Hell on Ea r th.

L ast month, in a cour t about 40 0 0 k m away in Koble nz, G e rmany, following 11 months of proce e dings, a conviction haile d as a landma rk in the pur suit of justice for violations commit te d in the Syrian civil wa r was brought against forme r Syrian intellige nce of fice r Eyad alG ha rib. In autumn of 2011, the relatively lowe r level e mploye e of the branch sub division was found sea rching the stre ets with colleague s for anti- gove rnme nt de monstrator s, with k nowle dge of what happe ne d within the ce ntre. At least 30 of whom he capture d and buste d to alK hatib. O n Februa r y 24 2021, al- G ha rib was se nte nce d to four and half yea r s in prison for aiding and abet ting crime s against humanit y, including tor ture and deprivation of libe r t y. al- G ha rib was one of t wo defe ndants in this case — the othe r being A nwa r Raslan, whose trial is still on- going.

Raslan, alle ge dly the man “with an office on the fir st floor, who ran the place and dire cte d the tor ture” is dire ctly cha rge d with crime s against humanit y, pa r ticula rly the ove r sight of 40 0 0 counts of tor ture and 58 counts of murde r, amidst cha rge s of rape and sexual assault. Sur vivor s docume nt beatings e n route to the ce ntre, a “welcoming pa r t y” of the same on a r rival, ele ctrocutions, falling asle ep with backs and hands bound by cable s, and waking up to sounds of screams.

Background Repor ts of a net work of unde rground prisons cor roborate the se na r rative s.

Accounts include those of Syrian human rights law ye r A nwa r al- Bunni, who was e spe cially instrume ntal in rounding up witne s se s for the trial and had be e n de taine d at al- K hatib for five yea r s and eight days before fle eing Syria for G e rmany. Evide nce laid out at trial include d a grave digge r’s te stimony of the mas s grave s at al- Q utay fah and Najha , docume nting the a r rival of an ave rage of 70 0 bodie s pe r truck four time s a we ek from va rious state se curit y facilitie s. In total, ove r a million dead bodie s we re counte d with physical signs of lace rations and re move d nails.

With hor ror of this scope unde rpinning the ove rall conflict, how doe s the conviction of al- G ha rib, an ef fe ctive middle -man, signif y a turn in the pur suit of justice for atrocitie s commit te d in Syria?

According to Patrick K roke r, se nior le gal advisor with the European Ce nte r for Constitutional and Human Rights, the case was the fir st to reveal in- depth information about the inne r workings of the Syrian gove rnme nt ’s dete ntion ce ntre s. It was also the fir st instance of a

ihrprightsreview

forme r Syrian of ficial [involve d in the Syrian civil wa r] being held accountable.

T he plethora of evide nce from a gove rnme nt institution combine d with the in dictme nt of a gove rnme nt of ficial ap pea r s to sugge st to comme ntator s a syste matic at tack orche strate d by the A s sad re gime, instead of the crime s be fore the cour t being indepe nde nt instance s of tor ture and murde r. T he A s sad re gime holds, howeve r, that they do not have a tor ture policy and a re holding te r rorists to account, while claiming no owne r ship of the “ tor ture a rchipelago.”

Decoding Univer sal Jurisdiction T he se details give rise to the que stion of G e rmany’s as se r tion of authorit y ove r the case. Give n its pione e ring cha racte r, why was the trial not conducte d be fore the Inte rnational Criminal Cour t (ICC), and instead held in the small town of Koble nz, and why doe s it mat te r ?

A s Syria is not a pa r t y to the Rome Statute, only a refe r ral to the ICC by the UN Se curit y Council can le nd the cour t jurisdiction. Howeve r, whe n the draf t re solution calling for an inve stigation into alle ge d wa r crime s on both side s was brought before the Se curit y Council in 2014, China and Rus sia vetoe d the re so lution a rguing that it communicate d a one -side d account of the alle ge d atrocitie s.

It was not until 2019, whe n al- Bunni saw and re cognise d Raslan, who had orde re d his a r re st and dete ntion at alK hatib in 20 0 6— fir st in the refuge e ce ntre in Be rlin, and the n again in a furniture shop — that the case was brought to life in the inte rnational a re na .

T he G e rman cour t ’s claim re sts in the le gal principle of “unive r sal jurisdiction.” T he Völke r str afg e s et zbuch, or the Code of Crime s against Inte rnational L aw, allows for case s to be prose cute d unde r inte rnational criminal law provisions eve n whe re the defe ndants and crime a re foreign to the land — unde r the rationale that some crime s a re hostis huma ni g e ne r is, i.e., an e ne my to all pe ople, and ove r ride most conside rations of sove reignt y.

Critically, the principle of unive r sal jurisdiction pre date s the fully-fle dge d functioning of the ICC. G e rmany incorporate d unive r sal jurisdiction into its dome stic law in 20 02 in accordance with the Rome Statute of the ICC, cove ring the of fe nce s of ge nocide, crime s against humanit y, and wa r crime s. Be yond this, G e rmany’s authorit y ove r alG ha rib and Raslan’s case is bolste re d by the fact that the he im (“hea r th” in G e rman) welcome s many Syrian refuge e s, and that the se asylum-se eke r s re quire some form of acce s s to justice.

Howeve r, the national cour t ’s authorit y ove r any foreign case appea r s suspe ct whe n viewe d through the sele ctive man-

PHOTO CREDIT: TASKEEN ATHER NAWAB AND GOOGLE MAPS

ne r in which it has historically be e n exe rcise d. While seve ral nations have adopte d the principle, G e rmany de monstrate s an example of its sele c tive application. T he G e rman Fe de ral Prose cutor’s 20 0 5 and 20 0 6 de cision not to ope n inve stigations into se nior US of ficials for alle ge d abuse s of de taine e s at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba , and A bu G hraib in Iraq, refle ct the influe nce of political conside rations on prose cutorial discretion unde r unive r sal jurisdiction. Whe re diplomatic relations a re fracture d, as has be e n the case with G e rmany and Syria since 2012, prose cution be come s easie r.

Counte rintuitively, the ICC’s statute situate s it with a supple me nta r y role to that of nations— driving nations to prose cute criminals whe r e the cr ime s we r e commit te d. T he historical roots of unive r sal jurisdiction in piracy law fur the r detract from its justification through the singula r le ns of the e normit y of the crime commit te d. Comme ntator s have drawn at te ntion to the dual cha racte r of piracy, highlighting the loc us de licti of the of fe nce — i.e., its transnational nature — a proce dural justification for unive r sal jurisdiction rathe r than the sub stantive justification of hostis huma ni g e ne r is. Would Raslan and al- G ha rib’s alle ge d crime s, all of which we re commit te d on Syrian soil, qualif y unde r that proce dural justification?

A nothe r conside ration that ne ce s sa rily calls unive r sal jurisdiction outside the ICC into que stion is the application of dif fe re nt criminal code s to the trial, de pe nding on which nation prose cute s the crime s. T he evide nce levelle d against al- G ha rib in cour t was la rgely drawn from his own admis sions whe n he de fe cte d from the re gime and e nte re d G e rmany, and was e s se ntial for his convic tion unde r the principle of imme diacy in G e rman law. What would the evide ntia r y standa rd have be e n before a dif fe re nt

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/page/rights-review-magazine

national cour t that had adopte d unive rsal jurisdiction? If a nation othe r than G e rmany succe s sfully revive d the cha rge s against US of ficials being held to account for Guantanamo Bay and A bu G hraib, would they be subje ct to the same standa rds unde r a dif fe re nt law? D oe s that dif fe re ntial application of justice me et the borde rle s s outrage unde r stood to be produce d by the e normit y of such crime s?

T he same critique of sele ctive application of justice for e gre gious crime s can be brought against the ICC and the UN at la rge. Howeve r, China and Rus sia’s veto of the 2014 re solution de monstrate s an infinite simally highe r capacit y in such sphe re s to ca r r y out a more balance d fight against impunit y relative to national cour ts.

O n Februa r y 25, with re spe ct to alG ha rib’s conviction, the UN Human Rights Commis sion t we ete d that “with no inte rnational proce s s unde r way, fair national cour ts can and should fill ac countabilit y gaps for such crime s, whe reve r commit te d.” It has be e n hea r te ning for the sur vivor s of Branch 251 to se e the be ginnings of justice unde r way, howeve r symbolic. In this instance, as in previous instance s of the application of unive r sal jurisdiction in G e rmany and elsewhe re, it is an ave nue for those who have no othe r re cour se to justice.

It is pe rhaps a reach, howeve r, to sug ge st that accountabilit y gaps ought to be fille d by national cour ts in a conflict of this scope and complexit y. A prope r ex te nsion of justice he re would ideally leve rage the intrinsically re duce d bias of supranational cour ts to develop a prose cutorial capacit y unma r re d by diffe re ntiating diplomatic tie s or criminal code s — and would ce r tainly not hinge on a chance e ncounte r bet we e n a de fe cting pe rpetrator and his ex-victim.

uoftrightsreview

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

April 7, 2021 | 43

Advice Column: The Sauciest Intruder In this inaugural edition of “The Sauciest Intruder:” finding love in a Zoom world THE SAUCIEST INTRUDER It’s been a minute since Ultra Vires had an advice column and let’s be honest, we could all use some help in this chaotic world we live in. The Sauciest Intruder is here to answer all of your questions about life, love (ooOOoohh), and the law.

Note: The Sauciest Intruder is not responsible for any of the consequences that may result from following their advice. #lovenotliability I received 50 different summer job offers and I don’t know how to choose! Do you have any advice?

Sincerely, Big into BigLaw Dearest Big into BigLaw, No, I will not help you.

Come back when you have a real problem.

----------I have a crush on this person in my torts class, but this whole “lockdown” situation has made it quite difficult to talk to them. Do you have any advice?

Sincerely, In Love and Locked Down :( Dear In Love and Locked Down, Have no fear! The Sauciest Intruder has your back.

First, I would like to add a disclaimer to the following advice (one must always protect themselves from liability): full disclosure, I have never asked someone out over Zoom, never slid into anyone’s Zoom DMs, and I have gone on a total of 1 Zoom date. Now with that out of the way, let’s proceed to the advice!

For starters, we know that everyone loves a smarty-pants so be sure to ask the most detailed hypotheticals in every class, preferably right before class ends. This will definitely impress your crush and leave them admiring your big brain.

Next, if your crush has their camera on in class, analyze every aspect of their background to find something you might have in common. Do they have a contracts textbook on their shelf? Are you also in contracts? If so, then bingo! You can chat about your mutual love for tenders and consideration. Perhaps they have a pet that tends to interrupt their class? Do you enjoy pets or animals?

Bingo again! Do they have a bookshelf behind them? If so, try to read the titles to see if there’s anything you know and you can blow them away with a very astute literary analysis. Use a magnifying class if the titles are too small, although I DO NOT recommend doing this with your camera on (take it from me, it comes across as a tad strange).

Now, this next step is very important. What does your own background look like? Are you a “blank wall” type of person or more along the lines of “impressive bookshelf filled with carefully curated ‘intellectual’ titles?” What does your background say about you? This is an all important question; it can be the dealbreaker for your Zoom romance. If you have a mountain of dirty laundry behind you with a half-eaten slice of pizza on the summit then maybe you should consider cleaning up a bit or at least moving the pile off-camera.

May you find love in a hopeless place.

----------I took your advice and came up with the most complicated hypotheticals. I also scoured my crush's background for something we had in common. I noticed they have a framed picture of a fox on their wall, so I told them all about my love for

Pierson v Post. And it worked! We’ve been chatting every class since. I think I’m ready to take the next step and ask them out on a date (yikes!), but I’m pretty nervous.

Do you have any more advice?

Sincerely, In Love and Locked Down :( (Part 2) Dear In Love and Locked Down (again), I believe this situation calls for “the Zoomposal.” That’s right, everyone loves a grand romantic gesture, and what better way to ask some-

one out than through a very public, very extravagant proposal. At the start of class, add a virtual background with the words “[INSERT NAME], will you go out with me?” Feel free to use my example above!

If all goes well, they’ll respond with “Yes” or “heart” react, and you’ll be all set to begin your romantic journey! If, on the rare chance, the Zoomposal doesn’t work, there is one last thing you can try. Send that special someone an HHquality outline; it’s the closest thing to saying “I love you” in law school. If it ends up not working out after all that, at least you’ll always share Pierson v Post.

Stay saucy.

Diversions Presents: A Practice Hypothetical Ultra Vires has taken the liberty to write a practice hypothetical to help you prep for exams!

HARRY MYLES (1L) It seems like every professor has decided to use the COVID-19 pandemic as the basis for their hypotheticals this year and so Ultra Vires has decided to write a slightly different fact pattern. To any professors reading this, feel free to use this example. In fact, we encourage it!

The following fact pattern takes place in Falconer, the capital city of the province of Flavelle. Flavelle has laws identical to Ontario.

In recent months, Falconer’s friendly resident trash pandas have become quite the problem.

People across the city have been clogging up 911 and 311 with reports of raccoon-related crimes.

First, Molly McLachlin was working in a local Tim Hortons when a gang of raccoons broke through the ceiling and stole all the apple fritters!

Ms. McLachlin could not get an ID on any of the thieves, but she did say they were all dressed like bandits with black bands over their eyes.

That same night, Robby Rowe was awoken by a ruckus in his garage. Armed with an intimidating umbrella, he approached the garage and prepared to fight the intruders. Inside was a group of raccoons setting up an apartment in his rafters! They already had a couple of little beds prepared and a full raccoon kitchen (a.k.a. a bag of half-eaten McDonalds). A few days later, Robby noticed a new listing on Craigslist: “2 bedroom loft for rent in the heart of the city with a beautiful view of Robby Rowe’s backyard. $2000/month.”

A couple weeks later, Willie Wagner was enjoying the spring sunshine outside on his patio when he heard a terrible racket from the tree above. He looked up and couldn’t believe what he saw: a band of raccoons practicing their set! The music was cranked up to the max and Willie could hardly hear himself think. Unsurprisingly,

the critters were playing “Rocky Raccoon.”

Next, Karen Karakastanis decided to put her basement apartment on Airbnb and came to an agreement with a user to stay for a week. When Karen checked out the basement after the guests left, she found the apartment completely wrecked with garbage strewn everywhere and scratch marks on all of the furniture (not to mention the lack of proper toilet use). The nerve! The username of the guest was RaccoonLover4eva.

The people of Falconer have had enough and decided to file a class action lawsuit against all the raccoons in the city for their collective grievances. But wait! The raccoons of Falconer have united against these frivolous claims and launched proceedings of their own. For centuries, animals have been voiceless within the common law, deprived of standing to challenge claims and some, like raccoons, have been la-

beled “vermin” to justify violence against animals. No more! The raccoons have raised multiple claims of wrongful death by negligent human drivers and specifically cite an incident of false imprisonment at a certain law school.

You are the lawyer for the people of Falconer.

What are the causes of action (hint: think about torts, property, and contracts) and any criminal offences? How do you respond to the countersuit by the raccoons?

Unfortunately, the Flavelle Limitations Act does not say anything about raccoon-related causes of action and so the limitation period is inapplicable to this fact pattern.

AUTHOR’S DISCLAIMER: We never got to the class action section of Legal Process last semester so I don’t actually know how to commence a class action suit, but I’m assuming I’m close enough.