ULTRAVIRES.CA
OCTOBER 31, 2018
VOL. 20, ISS. 2
THE INDEPENDENT STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW
Professionalism Training Proves Controversial 1Ls react to speaker’s comments on #MeToo HONGHU WANG (2L)
GRAND MOOT PARTICIPANTS AND JUDGES. FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: DEAN IACOBUCCI (LLB ‘96), CHRISTOPHER PUSKAS (3L), DEVYN NOONAN (3L), JUSTICE ABELLA OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (LLB ‘70), JULIA KIRBY (3L), MEENA SUNDARARAJ (3L), JUSTICE FELDMAN OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO (LLB ‘73), NIC MARTIN (3L), HOLLY KALLMEYER (3L), AND JUSTICE MORGAN OF THE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (LLB ‘84).
2018 Grand Moot Recap LIAM THOMPSON (2L)
Exemplary advocacy on display This year’s Grand Moot was a legal tour de force on one of the most pressing legal issues of the day. The Moot took place before an esteemed panel consisting of Justice Edward M. Morgan of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (LLB ‘84), Justice Kathryn N. Feldman of the Court of Appeal for Ontario (LLB ‘73), and Justice Rosalie Abella of the Supreme Court of Canada (LLB ‘70). The problem was a thorny one: was the government’s current jury empanelment procedure constitutional? In R v Carol, the accused, Gladys Carol, an Indigenous woman living on-reserve in the northern reaches of Flavelle, was charged with second-degree murder. She claimed self-defence. Before the case could be decided on its merits, an application was made to f ind the Government of Flavelle’s jury empanelment procedures in violation of Carol’s ss. 11(d), 11(f ), and 15(1) rights due to the underrepresentation of Indigenous people on Flavellian juries. Via public interest standing, Carol also advanced an argument that the s. 15(1) rights of potential Indigenous jurors were infringed by their underrepresentation. The appellant Carol was represented by
Nic Martin (3L) and Holly Kallmeyer (3L). They advanced the argument that the government’s failure to increase jury representation led to a failure to include Indigenous perspectives on the jury. It was advanced that this failure led to an appearance of institutional partiality and a corresponding breach of Carol’s s. 11(d) and 11(f ) rights. Additionally, the benef it of a jury that properly represents its judicial district (provided by the provincial Juries Act) was denied to Carol, thus violating her s. 15(1) rights. Correspondingly, the s. 15(1) rights of the potential jurors were abrogated by their exclusion from the jury roll. None of these alleged breaches were justif ied under s. 1. The respondent government was represented by Julia Kirby (3L) and Meena Sundararaj (3L). They contended that the efforts made to compile a representative jury roll were suff icient, and pointed out that the appellant conceded that the petit jury would be independent and impartial. Carol’s s. 11(d) and 11(f ) rights were thus not infringed. In terms of s. 15(1), it was stated plainly that the Court cannot order the creation of an ameliorative scheme under s. 15,
and further that the government’s efforts did not create a distinction on an enumerated or analogous ground that either denied a benef it or imposed a burden on those living on reserve. The moot was hard fought. There was brevity: MS KIRBY: I would like to begin by noting that if this Court does not agree with the Crown in this matter, we intend to invoke s. 33. There were hard questions: ABELLA J: Which case is that? MS SUNDAR AR AJ: Law v Minister of Employment and Immigration. ABELLA J: Oh, the one we overturned in Kapp? Okay. Just saying. There were sparkly sneakers on Justice Abella’s feet. While the justices reserved judgement, we would be hard pressed to come up with any result where the mooters were anything other than exceptional future lawyers. We extend our admiration and congratulations to the mooters who put in so much effort in providing an exemplary demonstration of what true advocacy looks like.
The sexual assault allegations against movie producer Harvey Weinstein were f irst reported in October 2017. This month marks the one-year, post-Weinstein anniversary of #MeToo, a collective reckoning of the extent that men in professional positions abuse their power. On October 12, Andrew M. Shaughnessy, a Partner at Torys LLP and an Adjunct Moot Advisor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, gave a presentation to the 1L class at their mandatory professionalism session; the portion on the #MeToo movement has proved controversial. At least one slide, where #MeToo was misspelled #MeeToo, was removed by Assistant Dean Sara Faherty before she posted the presentation online. Shaughnessy cautioned at the beginning that he was not the best person to speak to the #MeToo movement, but that he included the slides because it was topical. “In the age of #MeToo, we need better standards, not just to avoid being called out later… You can’t be called out if you live your life to a high standard of behaviour,” he said. Shaughnessy mentioned, by way of example, that a female colleague of his retired at 9 PM while on business trips “because nothing good happens after 9 PM.” He continued, “To change our behaviour so that f ifty percent of our colleagues don’t have to live in fear of unwanted advances, #MeToo does not have to mean it happened to me too. I want #MeToo to mean, ‘I went out and got clients.’ ‘#MeToo.’ I’m saying that we need to treat women with respect… In an age where #MeToo is happening, if we lived our life to a higher standard, hopefully this behaviour can be eradicated.” In a vivid illustration of the problem #MeToo attempts to address, he provided the 1Ls with a cautionary tale of the “Class of DDS 2015 Gentleman’s Facebook Group”, the controversy of dental students at Dalhousie University in 2011–12. He apologized that some of the bullet points on the slide were of fensive. He emphasized that students should be very mindful of their conduct, even during their early days. “I’m sure that some of these guys thought it was okay to have a Facebook group, but obviously look what happened as their behaviour devolved”, he warned. Continued on Page 3
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE REFLECTIONS ON KAVANAUGH
RIGHTS REVIEW
CANNABIS SPECIAL
PAGE 8
PAGE 16
PAGE 13