Ultra Vires Vol 20 Iss 3 - November 2018

NEWS

2 | November 28, 2018

ultravires.ca

In This Issue 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 ref lect the views of the Editorial Board. Ultra Vires is printed by Master Web Inc.

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Chloe Magee & Honghu Wang NEWS EDITOR Shari Nathan ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITORS James Flynn and Melody Chan FEATURES EDITOR Daryna Kutsyna

We’re keeping this one short and sweet.

This issue, we reflect on debt and tuition (below) and the recent Toronto Recruit (page 16). Our Recruitment Special provides the hiring numbers, and personal commentary from students lends colour to this data. We feel especially fortunate to be sharing reflections from 3Ls who “failed” the 2L recruit (pages 19 and 20) and a first-hand account of experiencing the job-seeking process with mental health challenges (page 23). You’ll also find summaries of the long-form responses from our 2L survey (pages 16 to 18). (Part two of the Recruitment Special is forthcoming in our next issue).

If heavy topics aren’t your cup of tea this time of year, feel free to skip

to page X for an ample selection of funnies that will keep you smiling through to the holidays. (This issue actually contains more diversions than news and features combined!)

Speaking of getting in the holiday spirit, we’ve recently partnered with our friends at Obiter Dicta, the student newspaper of Osgoode Hall Law School, to bring you an exciting selection of their pieces in this issue (pages 9 to 12).

We hope you enjoy this issue and we wish everyone good luck on exams and a happy holiday season!

Do You Believe in Life After Debt?

Three alumni explore long-term ramifications of high tuition LILY HASSALL (3L)

ASSOCIATE FEATURES EDITOR Michelle Huang OPINIONS EDITOR SuJung Lee ASSOCIATE OPINIONS EDITOR Alina Yu DIVERSIONS EDITOR Rory Smith ASSOCIATE DIVERSIONS EDITOR Ariane Carmona EDITORS-AT-LARGE Tom Collins and Matthew Prior SUPERNUMERARY EDITORS Rachel Chan, Lily Chapnik Rosenthal, Robert Nanni, and Norm Yallen COPY EDITOR Ioana Dragalin LAYOUT EDITOR Alexandra Fox ARTIST Andrew Luba COVER DESIGN Tom Collins

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

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

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

Ultra Vires reserves the right to edit submissions.

– Honghu Wang (2L) and Chloe Magee (3L)

(LEFT TO RIGHT) MIREILLE GIROUX (‘12), CORY WANLESS (‘08), AND RENATTA AUSTIN (‘12).

PHOTO CREDIT: ALEXANDRA ROBERTSON (3L)

On November 13, the Barriers to Excellence campaign hosted “Life After Law School: Managing Your Career and Student Debt”, a lunch-hour panel discussion with three U of T Law alumni.

The Barriers to Excellence campaign was launched in October by a group of students and alumni and seeks to oppose increases to the law school’s annual tuition fees, set to exceed $40,000 for the 2019– 2020 school year. In support of this campaign, speakers at the event hoped to shine a light on how debt continues to affect lawyers’ professional and personal lives.

What’s Your Name? What’s Your Debt Like?

The panellists were Mireille Giroux (‘12), a labour lawyer at Koskie Minsky LLP, Renatta Austin (‘12), a sole practitioner in family and criminal law at Eglington West Law Office, and Cory Wanless (‘08), who practices at Wadell Phillips PC, specializing in corporate accountability, indigenous rights, and environmental law.

The panel began with a frank discussion about each of the panelists’ debt. Austin and Giroux explained that they both entered law school when tuition was around $23,000. Each graduated with about $100,000 of debt, and both are making monthly payments of $1000–$1200.

Both Giroux and Austin said the hefty debt had influenced their career choices.

Austin explained that her debt affects the type of work she can take on. In order to pay the bills, she has to do less of the work she finds most fulfilling—community-based

public interest work, including legal aid— and do more higher paying work that interests her less. Giroux’s debt impacted her career path as well. She focused on securing a job in private practice working with institutional clients, which influenced her choice to pursue labour law.

Wanless’ experience was different. He entered U of T when tuition was only $16,600. He still graduated with close to $70,000 of debt, but was able to take advantage of the school’s Post-Graduation Debt Relief Program, and as a result, was more free to pursue public interest work.

While the program may have worked in the past, however, Wanless feels that the debt-relief program is now little more than an empty gesture. In order to qualify for full debt relief, Wanless had to maintain an annual income of less than $60,000 for ten years after graduation. “The maximum income you can have in order to qualify for full debt relief—sixty thousand—has stayed roughly the same,” he explained, “while tuition has more than doubled and the price of living has skyrocketed.”

According to Wanless, this is inadequate: “This program was one of the big promises U of T Law made to placate the opposition to the tuition hikes… but it’s an underfunded program that I worry is primarily used as a PR exercise.”

Take it Personally The panel also discussed the impact debt has on many graduates’ personal lives.

“Debt doesn’t only impact your career choices,” Giroux explained, “it effects

whether you can buy a house, when you get married, whether you get married, when you choose to have kids, how many kids you have, and how much parental leave you can take.”

Austin noted that these considerations hit women particularly hard. “It’s unfair, but there’s a timeline on having a family if you’re a woman. If you graduate when you’re 26 and spend the first five years of your career figuring things out, that leaves a very narrow window to have children, and one or two hundred thousand dollars of debt makes that a lot harder.”

All three panelists also expressed that as well as hurting individual graduates, high tuition hampers diversity at U of T Law and hinders access to justice. “By increasing fees,” Giroux said, “the law school is sending a clear message of who it wants in its student body and who should be in the legal profession, and it doesn’t include someone like me.” Austin added that as debt forces lawyers like her to take on fewer low-income clients, it contributes to the lack of affordable legal services.

Would You Send Your Children Here?

The panellists weren’t all doom and gloom. They also offered students advice on how to combat the eternal tuition hike.

Wanless emphasized the crucial role of student activism, noting that “students in Quebec pay substantially less in tuition because every time the government tries to raise it, they fight like hell.”

Austin also suggested taking the conversation to the provincial government. “The one thing that would motivate me to run for provincial office would be to do to U of T Law what Doug Ford did to Toronto City Hall. This issue is just screaming out for regulation.”

At the same time, the number one piece of advice from all three panelists was to get more alumni involved. Austin stressed that a public statement from alumni that they could no longer recommend attending U of T Law would be particularly effective.

As for the panelists, they already share that sentiment. “I can’t easily recommend that future generations attend this law school,” Giroux said, “and that really pains me, because I had such a great experience here, but if someone in their undergrad asks if they should come here, I’d say it’s just not worth it in most circumstances.”

NEWS

ultravires.ca

November 28, 2018 | 3

Lessons from the Holocaust A powerful program for Holocaust Education Week LILY CHAPNIK ROSENTHAL (2L JD/MSW)*

THE PRESENTERS AND ORGANIZERS OF THE EVENT: (LEFT TO RIGHT): JOSH HACKER, THE HON. IRWIN COTLER, SAMANTHA ROSENTHAL (2L), HEDY BOHM, AND LILY CHAPNIK ROSENTHAL (2L JD/MSW). PHOTO CREDIT: JOSH YANG

On November 14, the Jewish Law Students’ Association ( JLSA) hosted the first-ever Holocaust Education Week event at the law school, called “Lessons of the Holocaust.” The event was cosponsored by the Faculty, the Canadian Society for Yad Vashem, and the Hart House Good Ideas Fund. The afternoon was very well-attended, filling the Moot Court Room, with many additionally tuning in to the live stream, and the program was both moving and pertinent to today’s tumultuous climate.

Holocaust Education Week consists of a series of programs scheduled to coincide with the

anniversary of Kristallnacht, which occurred November 9-10, 1938. Kristallnacht, a large pogrom which killed at least 91 Jews and saw every major synagogue in Germany defaced, is considered to be the beginning of the outright violence that characterized the Holocaust.

Kristallnacht marked the transition from discrimination to genocide.

The evening began with a land acknowledgement and opening remarks by Dean Iacobucci, followed by a powerful opening speech by JLSA Co-President Samantha Rosenthal (2L). The audience was reminded starkly of the fact that

THE HONOURABLE PROF. IRWIN COTLER DETAILS LESSONS FROM THE HOLOCAUST PHOTO CREDIT: JOSH YANG

in the Holocaust, one-third of the Jewish population was wiped off the face of the earth, and the Jewish population has not yet rebounded to pre-war levels. Citing rising anti-Semitism as the context for the afternoon’s program, she reminded the audience that the eighty years since Kristallnacht was “the lifespan of a person, enough time for memories to fade,” to make clear the responsibility of the audience to bear witness to the Holocaust and to anti-Jewish sentiments today.

Josh Hacker, of the Canadian Society for Yad Vashem, then introduced the first keynote speaker, Holocaust survivor Hedy Bohm. Hedy was born in modern-day Romania and was deported to Auschwitz with her family in 1944, where her parents perished. It was chilling to hear Hedy describe that “they could not believe that this could be true in the 20th century,” in reference to her family’s incredulity at the rumours of rights violations and mass murder that were creeping slowly to her hometown in the months before their deportation. The majority of the audience cried when they heard her describe the last time she saw her parents at the platform where they disembarked at the notorious death camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau. The auditorium listened, spellbound, as she told how she lived out the rest of the war as a slave labourer in a munitions factory, and that she survived the war—only to find out that her parents had been murdered in Auschwitz.

Hedy has also testified several times against Nazi war criminals, including Auschwitz bookkeeper Oskar Groening, and shared with the audience the renewed trauma of returning to Germany. Her testimony against him, and his trial, are recorded in the documentary “the Accountant of Auschwitz.” Hedy’s overwhelming message for the audience was to “never, ever

take it for granted” that we are Canadian citizens and live in a free, democratic, and diverse society. An overwhelming standing ovation followed her touching and sobering story.

JLSA Co-President Lily Chapnik Rosenthal (2L JD/MSW) then introduced the second, and final, keynote speaker, human rights lawyer and former Minister for Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Professor Irwin Cotler. Former counsel to several high-profile political prisoners, including Nelson Mandela, Professor Cotler has had a stunning career in academia, litigation, and politics. He spoke in his capacity as the Chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights.

Professor Cotler organized his speech, which was itself titled “Lessons from the Holocaust”, into twelve discrete lessons that we, as law students and professionals, must take from the Holocaust and apply to our lives and practice. A highlight from these lessons was his stark reminder, in the context of exploring state-sanctioned hatred, that “the Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers; it began with words.”

He then compared this to the world’s failure to intervene in the Rwandan genocide, boldly calling out the world’s leaders for staying silent in the face of evil. Another highlight was his plea that we should take interest in the plight of political prisoners, and lobby for their release. The overarching message of his speech was that everyone should strive to make the difference of which they are capable.

The Jewish Law Students’ Association is grateful to the Faculty for their support of this event, and hopes to execute and collaborate on similar events in the future. *Lily Chapnik Rosenthal is Co-President of the JLSA. She helped organize the event.

NEWS

4 | November 28, 2018

ultravires.ca

Faculty Council Revisits Tuition, Financial Aid CAMERON COTTON-O’BRIEN (1L)

Mounting frustration from students, faculty over ever-higher tuition Faculty Council met for the third time this year on November 21, where discussion again heavily focused on financial aid and tuition.

Campaign for Excellence without Barriers / Barriers to Excellence Dean Iacobucci began discussing these issues by acknowledging the Barriers to Excellence campaign.

He tabled questions about the prudence of launching of a “counter-campaign” to a campaign aimed at increasing contributions to financial aid, focusing instead on what he characterized as the campaigns’ joint endeavour to make the law school more accessible.

The Campaign for Excellence without Barriers, he said, is aimed at increasing the gap between effective tuition and listed tuition as much as possible. The Campaign has thus far raised roughly $15 million for financial aid, and $25 million overall.

Tuition to increase 4% instead of 5% Dean Iacobucci stressed the Faculty is also working on controlling tuition. He said that, subject to formal approval from the Provost, tuition will increase 4% next year instead of the statutory maximum of 5%.

Instead of increasing $1,836.00, tuition will now increase $1,468.80, representing a “savings” of $367.20 for students. Many SLS members praised the dean for this move.

Dean Iacobucci claims this may be the first time in 15 years that tuition will not increase by the maxi-

mum allowable amount.

Question and answer proves heated Professor Mohammed Fadel asked what the average difference was between nominal tuition and effective tuition for students on financial aid. The Dean was not able to speak specifically. Instead, he said that the average bursary was about $10,000. He said many students also received government grants like OSAP on top of that.

Professor Jim Phillips pressed the Dean on the average effective tuition. The Dean admitted that the gap between tuition and financial aid has increased dramatically over the past few years.

Alex Severance (1L), an SLS representative, asked if more granular budget information was available, such as on compensation. The Dean declined to share that information, citing that it was an “HR matter”.

[The Government of Ontario publishes salary information for public employees earning $100,000 or more as part of the “Sunshine List”. The highest earner at the Faculty of Law is Dean Iacobucci, who earned $359,999.34 in salary and benefits in 2017. The next highest earner is Professor Arthur Ripstein. He earned $325,116.12 in 2017.]

The Dean stated that, historically, 96% of graduates receive articles. SLS President Solomon McKenzie asked if the Faculty tracked alumni past articling.

The Dean said no.

The Dean mentioned that the Post-Graduate Debt Relief program was also available for alumni but did not give specifics on how many graduates used the program.

Professor Denise Reaume said much of the frustration from students and alumni over tuition is because the school says it is trying to do its best every year and treating the problems as new, when in fact they were “100% fully anticipatable and anticipated” when the Faculty, under the direction of Dean Ron Daniels, first started to increase professor salaries and tuition in 1995. She said there is frustration because it seems that there is no way the school can “get its head above water”.

The Dean once again defended his position because it was the “hand he was dealt” when he became Dean in 2015. He says that the school is doing the best it can.

Dean Iacobucci resented the notion that present circumstances were foreseeable and claimed that faculty budgets are crafted on five-year horizons. He did acknowledge, however, that present options are delimited by decisions taken in the past.

Related to these budget issues, the Dean also discussed recent provincial government decisions regarding post-secondary institutions, including the cancellation of proposed satellite campuses in Markham and Brampton, as well as the November 20 decision to deny funding to Ryerson University’s proposed law school. While the Dean noted that these decisions were perhaps justifiable on an independent basis, he did say that the general attitude displayed was disconcerting. The law school receives only 13% of its operating budget from the provincial government at present, but any decrease would compound the budgetary problems already facing the school.

Both SLS and the GLSA noted successful fall social calendars, with SLS hosting HalLAWeen and a Coffee House, and the GLSA holding a number of social activities for grad students, including a pumpkin carving contest and ping pong tournament. SLS president Solomon McKenzie also marked the launch of 1L exam study groups.

Faculty Council learned of a new Global Legal Studies certificate that may be offered as early as next Fall. Prof. Albert Yoon said the program, to be launched in cooperation with the Munk School of Global Affairs, would allow JD students interested in global studies to formalize these interests. If the program does get off the ground next Fall, students entering their final year who have taken some courses in the area would be able to add the specific requirements to their schedules and earn the certificate.

No time for mental health Yukimi Henry’s presentation on the “Student Mental Health Survey 2017-2018 Results” was pushed to the next Faculty Council meeting.

Recording, questions not welcome Dean Edward Iacobucci reminded attendees that recording was not allowed at Faculty Council. He later clarified this was due to his understanding of Robert’s Rules of Order.

The Dean also declined to allow many non-Faculty Council students to ask questions, citing time constraints.

FEATURES

Financial Aid Changes Edge Towards Implementation MELODY CHAN (1L) AND JAMES FLYNN (1L)

Rising tuition fees prompt financial aid restructuring, a donor drive, and student dissent Changes to the Faculty of Law’s financial aid program, approved at a March 2018 Faculty Council meeting, are set to be implemented in the upcoming academic year (beginning September 2019).

In the 2017-2018 academic year, the University of Toronto Faculty of Law distributed approximately $4.3 million in bursaries and loan interest payments to approximately 48 percent of its current students.

Tuition Fees The Faculty of Law has the highest domestic fees of any Canadian law school, at nearly $37,000 for first-year students entering in Fall 2018. In comparison, Osgoode Hall Law School charges approximately $29,000, Western University Faculty of Law charges about $24,000, and Queen’s University Faculty of Law charges about $21,000.

At the same time, U of T is the only law school in Ontario to offer strictly needs-based student financial aid.

“The University of Toronto Faculty of Law has the most robust student financial aid program in Canada, and we focus all of our student support on needs-based financial aid,” said Dean Edward Iacobucci.

Approximately 50 percent of JD students receive financial aid from the Faculty of Law through bursaries and interest payments on debt.

The Faculty also maintains the Post-Graduate Debt Relief Program, a low-income protection program for graduates who have lower incomes following graduation. The program assists graduates with the repayment of eligible academic student debt after graduation. A graduate will qualify for the program by making an annual income below or just above the Faculty’s Basic Income Level of $58,438.

Government Funding The law school has four sources of funds: the government, the University, tuition fees, and philanthropy, said Iacobucci.

“Government funding per student has been flat since the early ’90s; university funding has been declining since the mid-2000s. This puts pressure on tuition—and philanthropy,” he added.

“The Faculty of Law’s priority is to address these pressures with prudent fiscal management, raising the share of the Faculty’s operating budget devoted to financial aid, and by raising money primarily for student financial aid.”

Thus far, the Campaign for Excellence without Barriers has raised over $24.7 million (with $15 million going to financial aid). Of the $30 million target, $20 million will be allocated for student financial aid.

Privately supported endowments provide about onethird of the Faculty’s annual financial aid budget.

In an email to Ultra Vires, Merrilee Fullerton, Ontario’s Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, declined to say whether the government would increase government funding per student.

“Our government has a mandate to restore respect for taxpayer and tax dollars. Part of that process is making sure that the Government’s services and programs are efficient, effective, and conducive to job creation,” she said.

Financial Aid Program Changes The current financial aid system provides applicants with a percentage from a pot of bursary money relative to the needs of other same-year applicants.

The school calculates each student’s unmet need by subtracting assumed assets—deemed parental contribution, employment income and government loans—from standardized annual expenses based off

current tuition, room and board, and personal expenses. The faculty will pay interest on a line of credit that students may use to pay the difference between their bursaries and unmet need.

The Faculty will adopt specific changes to the financial aid calculations in 2019 with the goal of making the allocation more progressive. These changes—which were developed by the Financial Aid Committee following a mandate by Iacobucci—increase the available bursary funds for students by requiring that the first $5,000 of all students’ unmet need be provided in the form of interest-free loans.

This will leave a larger portion of the financial aid pot for those with higher levels of unmet need.

Additionally, the sibling adjustment for parental deeming will be removed for siblings who are above 18. In the past, a student’s deemed parental contribution would be split evenly among the number of children in the household who were attending a postsecondary institution. With the changed calculations, this division will be removed. This ensures that a student’s socio-economic background will be more accurately reflected by the parental deeming. The financial aid committee stresses that while not all parents may actually contribute to a student’s tuition, parental deeming accounts for the safety net that students have when taking out loans or paying debt.

The goal of the changes is progressivity: to shift the model to provide more aid to those with more need by finding ways to better account for those with larger safety net and available resources.

The committee decided on these two changes by using a model developed by Professor Adriana Robertson based on financial aid data from student applicants. After considering different possible changes and variables, they settled on their proposal, which will hopefully increase the percentage of unmet need

fulfilled through bursaries from 36 percent to above 40 percent, maybe even 45 percent for those with the highest levels of need. “I summarize my understanding of it with three goals,” Robertson said, “we want it to be budget neutral, progressive, and relatively easy to understand and implement.”

Law students are expected to access a variety of funding sources for their education, including personal resources, parental and spousal contributions, and government aid.

Student Advocacy Barriers to Excellence (B2E) is a student-led advocacy group formed as a response to the faculty’s alumni fundraising campaign, Excellence Without Barriers. It aims to shape the discussion about the school’s tuition and financial aid program through recommendations that reflect student’ concerns about the rapidly increasing costs of attending law school.

The focus is transparency: the campaign asks for information like a breakdown of expenses related to student experience and the current fair value of the financial aid pot. Before a complete review of tuition spending and financial aid system can be done, the Campaign requests a moratorium on tuition increases past $40,000. In a Faculty Council meeting in November 2018, Iacobucci addressed the Campaign’s concerns and said it was likely that the law school will only be increasing tuition by 4 percent next year, instead of the governmentally-permitted 5 percent.

In a concurrence to the B2E letter, the Students’ Law Society (SLS) agreed “that the increase in tuition has a deleterious impact on the financial and mental health of law students and on the accessibility of the Law School.”

ultravires.ca

OPINIONS

November 28, 2018 | 5

Reconsidering the Jackman Building A response to “The Jackman Law Building Sucks” TOM COLLINS (2L) In 1478, members of the Pazzi family staged a gitimate and fundamentally human. coup d’état against the powerful Medici family.

However, Quintilian, the Roman rhetoriDuring High Mass at Florence Cathedral, as cian, once mused that beauty is usefulness. Certhe bishop raised the Host into the air, two as- tainly, it is reasonable to expect buildings to do sassins lunged toward Giuliano de’ Medici, more than look good. Rather than measuring a stabbing him nineteen times. He died, but his building’s worth against arbitrary criteria, inbrother, Lorenzo, escaped. formed only by immediate, In the aftermath, the visceral responses to design Medici hunted down eighty choices that one does not Mohtadi’s article is suspected conspirators understand, one should remeant to be satirical, throughout Italy and execalibrate one’s aesthetics to cuted them all. However, reflect the nature of a but satire demands a as one author writes, it was studied appreciation of building. After all, one more than mere retribuwould not call a lemon a its subject. Without tion for the attempted as“bad orange,” simply bethat, it succumbs to its cause it failed to be sweet. sassinations; it was also punishment for their failThe Jackman building is own ridicule. ure. a work of architecture.

My motivation for writWriting about Le Corbusiing this article is similar. In the October issue of er’s revolutionary “Maison Dom-ino,” Peter UV, Matthew Mohtadi (1L) penned a half-sar- Eisenman, the famed deconstructivist architect, donic, half-satirical critique of the Jackman observed that “architecture is both substance Law Building. His polemic’s irrationality struck and act”. In other words, architecture is more me more than its irreverence. The Jackman than mere geometric planes or structure. Archibuilding deserved better than Mohtadi’s clumsy tecture occurs when “use conditions” imbue indignities. With this article, I hope to set things those things with meaning. For example, a straight. staircase is only a series of recessions and elevaI disagree not only with Mohtadi’s conclu- tions into space until someone walks on it. The sion—that the building “sucks”—but also with act of walking up or down, to reach another the analysis that led him to that conclusion. Al- level, gives the formal substance of the staircase though I understand Mohtadi’s frustration with meaning. That act defines and justifies the subthe Jackman building’s restrained aesthetics, I stance of the staircase form. Thus, architects believe that a more sympathetic and purposive like Le Corbusier and Eisenman would, at least, evaluation of the building reveals its merits and agree that the most sensible criteria by which that those merits outweigh its flaws. Ultimately, architecture could be judged is functionality. In I do not position myself an apologist for an im- plain English, functionality describes how well perfect building; I simply take a more generous a thing does what it was intended to do. view of our home away from home.

As I implied above, Mohtadi’s article adduces Before turning to my own assessment, it is no evidence that the Jackman building fails to useful to briefly review Mohtadi’s article, satisfy the only legitimate purpose that one wherein, he rails against the Jackman building’s could ascribe to it as a building. Mohtadi makes “blandness” and “monotony”. Mohtadi de- no substantive criticism of the building at all. claims the “rectangular columns” which adorn Indeed, it is ironic that, in his diatribe, he referthe outside of the building, finding them “bor- ences two of the building’s greatest functional ing and unimaginative.” Mohtadi also finds the successes: the carpets and the sun shades. interior simultaneously too white and too grey. Mohtadi may have hoped for livelier floor covIn his opinion, it is simultaneously dreary and ering, but he cannot deny the dampening qualstress-inducing. The lack of art also contributes ity of the library’s carpeted floors, which allow to the building’s dullness. Mohtadi takes to the students to come and go in relative silence. atrium’s fireplace for reasons other than its It is also clear that he gave little thought to drabness. Nevertheless, his dismissal of the fire- the practical implications of the sort of uninterplace fits in with the rest of his criticisms in that rupted glass expanse about which he fantasizes. it turns wholly on a question of aesthetics.

Apart from the structural considerations of A close reading of Mohtadi’s article reveals bending forces and buckling, such a huge that its title is too bold for its scope. When he amount of glass would be very inefficient to heat says that the Jackman building sucks, what he in the winter, and it would cause a greenhouse really means is that it is ugly. Mohtadi’s disen- effect in the summer. Those consequences chantment is understandable. Despite the fact would undermine the LEED Gold rating that that the building engages all of our faculties, for the school sought during the design phase (the those of us who can see, vision can dominate building actually has a LEED Silver rating). our experience of space. Hence, we are willing Moreover, in all seasons, the glare from the to cut more slack to a building that appears sun would make reading in Torys most unpleasbeautiful, in spite of its other shortcomings. ant. In addition to all of those problems, the sort Take, for example, Ludwig Mies Van der Ro- of fenestration Mohtadi describes would be dethe’s Seagram building in New York. It is one of rimental to the local bird population. As the the most iconic, admired, and imitated build- ratio of glass to solid wall increases, so does the ings, even though it is also one of the least en- risk of bird collisions. It is estimated that 25 milergy efficient. Wanting to behold beauty is le- lion birds die each year from window collisions

in Canada (Machtans, Wedeles and Bayne, down, I appreciate the opportunity to cast my 2013). Many of those occur in Toronto, which is gaze upwards and absorb some sunlight. The not only heavily developed, but lies within a ma- interior’s light, neutral palette is calming and uplifting. It helps to create a space in which I jor migration route.

Indeed, Mohtadi’s glass walls could be in con- feel comfortable stopping to chat with my travention of section 14 of the Environmental Pro- friends—an aspect of law school life which, I tection Act, which prohibits windows that reflect believe, may be as important as our academics.

According to Canadian Architect, the Jackman light as a contaminant―partly as a means of protecting birds, who could be injured by the Law building was conceived as a means of uniglare. Mohtadi’s glass walls would also risk vio- fying a formerly fragmented faculty so as to betlating section 32 of the Species at Risk Act, if an ter foster a sense of community. It may be true endangered bird were to die from colliding with that some classes are still taught in Falconer the glass. The 183 “square columns” are not Hall, but Jackman remains the focal point of life merely ornamentation—they mitigate the above at the law school.

Before I conclude, it is worth saying a word problems. The lines on the glass are also part of that scheme. The fact that their function eluded on the Jackman building’s aesthetics. Mohtadi is at pains to denounce the building’s formal Mohtadi may be evidence of their effectiveness.

Yet, there were many legitimate criticisms qualities, but his insults betray his impatience. that Mohtadi could have made. The Jackman The Jackman building, much like the law, warbuilding is fraught with design choices that com- rants a careful and nuanced reading. For one promise its functionality. The uneven heating is thing, the building’s design is not haphazard. probably the most noticeable problem. While As Canadian Architect observed, the main pavilsome spaces are comfortable, rooms like the ion’s curvature and fenestration echo the FiMoot Court Room and the Torys Reading nance Building on the southeastern corner of Room are frigid year-round. Torys is also Queen’s Park. While Jackman is a unique explagued by the irritating whine of its HVAC sys- pression, it remains contextually sensitive. It is a tem. There is also the extreme weight of the mercifully humble addition to an architectural doors. Although the school should be commend- landscape that, I believe, could suffer at the ed for making its spaces accessible with auto- hands of ego and brand-driven design.

Indeed, the law building is not unlike the best matic doors, the opening mechanisms make it challenging and slow to open a door manually. expressions of the common law, the study of And then there is the infernal fire door which which it fosters: it is an incremental change to its connects the atrium to Flavelle. Not only is that site’s character, respecting established princidoor too heavy, but it is absurdly narrow for ples while responding to novel circumstances. such a high-traffic portal. The reason for its ex- Again, the sun shades play a central role in that achievement. As one of the istence is unclear.

Jackman building’s distincMohtadi could also have noted the obvious design The Jackman building, tive features, it is unfortunate that Mohtadi afforded flaw that study room P336, much like the law, them so little considerin the library, is not soundwarrants a careful and ation. proofed. Or, he could have Even in material terms, commented on the bathnuanced reading. the building’s exterior disrooms’ numerous shortplays a sensible use of local comings. I can only speak to my time in the too-small men’s rooms, which materials. Canadian Architect put it well: the crescent-shaped pavilion introduces an have too few urinals to accommodate the numelemental palette of oversized glass panes ber of visitors at peak times. The sinks, particupunctuated by vertical nickel fins which sit larly on the basement level, are too narrow, upon a stone base of dry-laid Wiarton limewhich leads to huge puddles around them. stone—a material whose softly figured, Furthermore, having only one hand-dryer for dove-grey patina works beautifully with the every three facilities also fails to accommodate gold-tinted silver hues of the nickel. The the number of visitors at peak times. Having glass panels of the reskinned library pavilhand-dryers at all is questionable, given their ion sandwich a layer of brass mesh, giving it tendency to whip up an unfortunate potpourri its own warm expression. of fecal spores. Finally, while I, unlike Mohtadi, generally appreciate the patina of a well-used For Mohtadi, the Jackman building’s exterior concrete floor, the use of concrete in the wash- begins and ends at its failure to match the forrooms is ill-conceived, given its porosity and its mal potency of Flavelle’s pastiche portico.

Mohtadi’s article is meant to be satirical, but reactivity to acids.

Despite the above criticisms, I find the Jack- satire demands a studied appreciation of its subman building serves its intended function well. ject. Without that, it succumbs to its own ridiThe classrooms have enough seating to comfort- cule. While purporting to show the poverty of ably accommodate the students they host. The the building’s design, Mohtadi forgoes any subrooms’ acoustics are decent. They have good stantive and informed criticism. Instead, he lighting and sufficient conveniently located out- runs through an arbitrary assessment of aeslets. I also appreciate the atrium’s lightness and thetics. I agree that the Jackman building is not openness. As someone who finds himself teth- perfect. Nevertheless, on the balance, I find that ered to his reading for most of the day, looking it serves its purpose well.

6 | November 28, 2018

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

The Quirkiest Cases in Charity Law From internet access to eagle carcasses, what qualifies as charitable under the law?

BENJAMIN MILLER (2L JD/MPP) I f you t hought char it y law was a l l about ba ke sa les and clot h ing dr ives, t h in k aga in. Moder n char it y law dates back to t he 1601 Statute of Uses and in its 4 0 0+ year tenure it has seen some dow nr ight bizar re cases. We asked a number of char it y law yers to prov ide some insight on what t hey consider to be t he st rangest cases in t he f ield.

Mark Blumberg of Blumberg Sega l L L P shared T he House of Holy G od. I n t h is case, t he cour ts had to “work rea l ly hard to decide whet her a char it y reg istered for advancement of rel ig ion cou ld be solely engaged in t he business of producing and sel l ing maple sy r up and maple sy r up products” sa id Mark. A fter much del ib erat ion, t he cour t concluded t hat t here was indeed no ev idence “t hat t he car r ying on of a maple sy r up business is an element of rel ig ious doct r ine.” It seems t he d iv ine taste of french toast w it h maple sy r up was not a char itable enough purpose.

Char it ies receive a l l k inds of donat ions, from st ra ight-for ward cash to items such as unwanted hand made Chr ist mas sweaters. I f t he char it y issues a ta x receipt, t hey need to deter m ine t he va lue of what t hey’ve received. Ta x aut hor it ies ask a sim i lar quest ion when items are inher ited. T h is quest ion can get compl icated when it comes to ar t.

Adam Aptow it zer of Drache Aptow it zer L L P inv ited us to consider how to va lue items t hat can’t be sold. L et’s say t here’s a master piece ca l led “Canyon” by an ar t ist so famous t hat t he work is va lued at $30 - 60 m i l l ion. T he on ly catch is t he ar t ist found a ba ld eagle carcass in t he t rash one day and t hought it wou ld look g reat in t he piece. However, env ironmenta l law proh ibits sel l ing such carcasses. W hat k ind of ta x receipt can be issued? T he I R S t hought $29 m i l l ion in ta xes wou ld be fa ir, but u lt imately, an arrangement w it h a museum a l lowed t he

ar t ist to avoid t he quest ion. T h in k about t hat next t ime you go f ish ing an ima l carcasses out of t he t rash.

Apparent ly, people get more creat ive in t heir g ift-g iv ing as t he end draws near. Cy nt h ia Spencer of t he Of f ice of t he P ubl ic Guard ian and Tr ustee pointed us to t he most famous of a l l Canad ian w i l ls: Charles Vance M i l lar’s “Stork Derby ”. M i l lar, an eccent r ic law yer, prom ised a for tune to t he woman or women who bir t hed t he most ch i ldren in t he decade fol low ing h is deat h. T h is set of f an intense race t hat caught inter nat iona l attent ion, and led to a book and mov ie being w r itten. Four fam i l ies collected, but t he l it igat ion t hat fol lowed— over whet her t here was a publ ic pol icy reason to inva l idate such a w i l l— was so intense and long-last ing t hat rea l ly on ly t he law yers won. You k now what t hey say: where t here’s a w i l l t here’s a way… a way too long cour t case!

Clif f Goldfarb of Gardiner Roberts LLP led us to the more modern issue of whether connecting people to the internet can be considered charitable. In the beginning, charity law was focused on basic public goods that many now take for granted as government responsibility such as “the repair of bridges, ports, causeways and highways.” Nevertheless, this conception of what qualif ies as charitable work has continued to present-day. In the 1996 case of Vancouver Regional FreeNet Assn. v. M.N.R ., the Federal Court of Appeal found that providing free access to the internet was charitable on the grounds that the association was providing access to the “information highway.”

T hese cases are a l l prett y st range, r ight? But, wh ich is t he weirdest? Exercise your lega l acumen to decide for yourself by going to our Facebook page and vot ing!

In Cannabis Veritas Take a break from studying and get zooted TOM COLLINS (2L) I f t here wa s ever a t i me when a law st udent cou ld use a d iver sion, it is ex a m t i me. You st i l l have a l it t le bit of t i me before it is rea l ly t i me to buck le-i n, k nuck le- dow n, a nd use ot her cont r ived ph r a ses i n prepa r at ion of st udy i ng.

T hat is good, because it mea ns t hat t here is st i l l t i me to stock up on some ser ious da n k , for when you just need to t a ke a brea k from rea l it y.

Da n ken stei n I wonder i f Tom Ford k now s t hat t here is a st r a i n of Kush na med a f ter h i m. O f cou r se, Tom Ford d id not na me it—it wa s not nea rly ex pensive enough. But t hat is not to suggest t hat Tom Ford P i n k Kush is some cheap i m it at ion. Au cont ra i re. T h is I nd ica-heav y st r a i n is except iona l ly potent st u f f. A lt hough T F PK’s i n it ia l a roma is u n m ist a k ably sk u n k y, t hat f u n k qu ick ly g ives way to notes of pi ne, lemon zest , a nd rot t i ng

ceda r. It is l i ke a weekend at a cot t age i n a com for t able f la n nel sh i r t. T he f lavou r prof i le is ent i rely d i f ferent: I ma i n ly t a sted cher r y-f lavou red cough s y r up, a nd pepper. T h is st ra i n bu r ns hot a nd fa st , a nd it act s even fa ster. I wa s feel i ng ef fect s by t he end of t he joi nt. It wa s qu ite ext raord i na r y, l i ke my body wa s bei ng coated i n lead wh i le my head wa s i n f lat i ng w it h hel iu m.

T hen I fou nd my sel f watch i ng Jack a ss at 2:0 0 i n t he mor n i ng w it h a n id iot ic g r i n on my face. T he OC S does not ca r r y Tom Ford, but it does of fer P i n k Kush for bet ween $12.10 a nd $16 .0 0 per g ra m.

K a n n a- Kween I f you’re look i ng for a smoot h st ra i n to get you r creat ive ju ices f low i ng, “ R ise” may be t he st ra i n for you. R ise is a Sat iva dom i na nt st ra i n— per fect for a weekend mor n i ng where you may be

sit t i ng dow n to w r ite a paper or watch some mor n i ng Net f l i x. A long w it h t he creat iv it y, you w i l l a l so feel energet ic a nd mot ivated. T h is wou ld be a g reat st ra i n to mot ivate some mor n i ng clea ni ng. E ssent ia l ly, “ R ise” is cra f ted to ensu re t hat you wa ke up on t he r ight side of t he bed!

You ca n order a pre-rol l of f of t he OC S website, so t hat it is ready to go a s soon a s you, wel l… r ise. A nd w it h a pre-rol l ready to go, it w i l l t a ke even less t i me to prepa re t ha n a mor n i ng cof fee. T he pre-rol l ha s a refresh i ngly sweet smel l w it h notes of cit r us. T he ef fect s w i l l st a r t slow a nd w i l l have you r head bu zzi ng w it h i nqu isit ive t hought s. T he h igh fades a s smoot h ly a s it st a r t s a nd leaves you ready to cont i nue w it h t he rest of you r day.

P u f f, t he Mag ic Dragon T here is a say i ng t hat goes, “once

you’ve had G od’s Green Crack , you’l l never go back .” T h is is a wel l-ba la nced hybr id st ra i n t hat produces a rela xed, con f ident , upl i f t i ng, a nd super g iggly ex per ience — per fect for h it t i ng t he da nce f loor w it h some fr iend s. T h row on some 50 Cent a nd you’l l pa r t y l i ke it’s you r bi r t hday. Play some Vengaboy s a nd you’l l r ide t he Veng abus from New York to Sa n Fra ncisco.

Cra n k up t he B eyoncé, a nd now you’re conv i nced t hat i f he l i ked it , he shou ld have put a r i ng on it. You’l l be too bus y enjoy i ng t he music a nd g iggl i ng you r face of f to t h i n k about eat i ng a ny t h i ng, but i f you’re deter m i ned to i ndu lge you r t a ste bud s, t reat you r sel f to some good old Taco B el l. Order l ight , or expect to be shocked at how much food you r body ca n hold. Green Crack is not yet ava i lable at t he OC S , but i f it a rr ives, ex pect it to sel l for about $12.0 0 per g ra m.

ultravires.ca

OPINIONS

November 28, 2018 | 7

In Vino Veritas

Highlights from our November tasting TOM COLLINS (2L) On November 2, In Vino Veritas (IV V ) hosted a tasting prior to the Call to the Bar. The event, titled “My Cousin Vino” after the Joe Pesci f ilm, was designed to bring together students in a relaxed and informal setting where they could explore and compare a wide range of wines. In the hours leading up to the event, I admit I was slightly nervous that we would end up with ten bottles of Bodacious Red. But the evening was a tremendous success. Over thirty people attended, each with a bottle of wine (none of which were Bodacious!), contributing to a warm and vibrant atmosphere. Jason Lamb (2L), our unoff icial sommelier for the evening, had plenty to talk about as he led the attendees through each bottle. Ultimately, there were so many interesting wines that we decided to review some of them for this month’s issue of Ultra Vires, and to pair them with the drunk food we were craving that night.

Danica One of my favourite wines of the evening was one of the f irst ones that I tried, the L A N Gran Reserva 2010 ($34.95 at the LCBO.) I love spicy Spanish reds, and this was def initely one of the best riojas I’ve had. The L A N Gran Reserva is very dry with medium body, and packed full of dark red berry f lavours. Given the quality of this wine (and the price tag), I’d recommend drinking it at the start of the night, before you’re too many glasses deep to appreciate the f lavours. Pair it with a nice charcuterie board.

As the night wore on and our taste buds dulled, many wine enthusiasts turned to the Naked Grape Blue “wine.” I don’t believe that LCBO even stocks this bottle. If you are curious, you’ll have to head to your closest Wine Rack and hand them $10.45.

I’ll admit that this is a pretty tasty drink, and it was a hit at the event. However, if you pick up a glass of this expecting it to taste like wine, you’re in for a shock. It’s very sweet, with strong tropical and citrus notes. If “blue” had a taste, this wine would be it. I’d recommend this bottle for making cocktails, rather than sipping on its own. Because of its sweetness, it balances out nicely with your favourite salty drunk snack. I enjoyed it alongside a bowl of popcorn.

Tom Back in January, I reviewed a f iano that I really loved. So when I spotted Donnachiara Montefalcione Fiano di Avellino 2015 at the LCBO, I had to give it a try. Fiano is a classical, white grape varietal that has been grown since Roman times around Campagna, and especially in Avellino, whence this bottle comes. Donnachiara means “clear lady,” and this wine is as light and refreshing as any I have had. It opens with faint notes of f loral, meadow honey on the nose. The mouthfeel is smooth, and although there is a little citrus, it is not particularly acidic. There are also f lavours of watery, white peach, Asian pear, and a refreshing minerality. At $18.95, it is a remarkably good value. Pair it with pad thai.

Other than the blue “wine” that Danica reviewed, Montes Alpha Carménère 2014 was the strangest wine I tasted at the event.

But, unlike the blue wine, it was actually good. Carménère is a grape in the Cabernet family, but I would never have guessed.

Its bouquet struck me with potent aromas of jalapeño pepper and smoke. Then, as I took a sip, I found myself enveloped in bell peppers — the sign of an early harvest — dark fruits, and savoury spices. The f inish was long and savoury, as well. This is only a medium-bodied wine with medium acidity. So it could stand up to a mild grilled cheese sandwich, but it is really calling for roasted peppers or chili. $19.95 at the LCBO. Shout out to Alina Yu for the introduction!

Jason Torres Mas La Plana Cabernet Sauvignon 2013 is a knock-‘em-down, drag-‘em-out pronouncement of big, bold, f lavourful cab sauv, and is becoming my favourite wine. I have made a point of returning to this wine year after year, usually splitting the bottle with a friend to surmount the hefty price tag of $64.95 at the LCBO. Mas La Plana is harvested from a single vineyard in Penedès, Spain, a region not known for cabernet sauvignon. Nevertheless, it has cemented itself as Miguel Torres’s tour de force.

At our tasting, Mas La Plana towered above everything else we sampled, with the kind of f lavour experience that weakens your knees or impels you to recline back in your chair. It is the def inition of full-bodied; it will effortlessly carry you away to the sundrenched Mediterranean. And it will keep you there, with a smooth, and seemingly everlasting f inish.

No, this wine is not for your typical night out. Yes, it is expensive (and the price is going up!). However, Mas La Plana goes toe to toe with the huge Napa Valley cabs that start at twice the price. Once you taste it, you won’t want to drink anything else. So, I recommend that you head down to your nearest late-night bistro, order steak frites or a portobello mushroom burger to go, open a bottle, and step into a whole other world of f lavour.

A my Inniskillin’s Late Autumn Riesling is one of my go-to whites at the LCBO and Wine Rack. Many of you will recognize the sleek Inniskillin label, but this wine is something special. It is a versatile wine to have on hand for a night of casual drinking or a celebratory occasion. It is both sophisticated and accessible, offering an enjoyable sensory experience that is well worth the modest $13.95 price tag.

On the nose, the wine has an aroma of crisp apples and light f loral with a hint of rubber in the mix. The Riesling’s full-bodied apricot and honey taste packs a punch that is eventually offset by the balanced acidity and lingering f inish. If you are feeling adventurous (or just hungry) after a night out, try this wine with some McDonald’s chicken nuggets for a sublime pairing.

The sweetness works well for those late

nights when you inevitably forget to ask for extra honey mustard.

K imia I particularly enjoyed Cune Crianza 2014.

This Spanish red opens to oaky notes on the nose. But that gives way to a fruity, medium body. Plums, dark berries and black pepper are all noticeable on the palate, as well as a small hint of milk or cream. It has a lower acidity and tannis but it is still very well-balanced. Despite having a very low sugar content (2 g/L), this wine also has a certain sweetness. The only downside is the short f inish, but for $16.95 at LCBO, it

is a tasty and worthwhile Crianza. It would be great with a late-night hotdog.

Until the Naked Grape Blue arrived, Vincente Faria Animus Tinto Douro 2016 was the talk of the evening. No one could believe that wine with this much character only cost $11.95 at the LCBO! This Portuguese red is amazing for its price. It has all the great things that the Cune Crianza has, plus much more. One sip reveals rich flavours of vanilla, sweet berries, and light spices. On the palate, it is smooth, warm, and rich, with a very long finish. It was a little bit sweeter that I would have liked. But otherwise, it is a delicious and beautiful wine.

8 | November 28, 2018

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch But when you’re paying $40,000 in tuition…

ERNEST TAM (1L) Everyone loves free food, and when you’re a broke law student on the verge of maxing out your line of credit, it tastes even better. The following is a non-exhaustive list of free food options at the law school, ranked from worst to best: 241 Pizza (Worst) Do you remember your first bite of cardboard when you were in junior-kindergarten and put virtually anything in your mouth? Well, no longer do you need to reminisce! 241 Pizza has perfected their pizzas to mimic the flavour of corrugated cardboard as closely as possible. The plus side is that it is a great jaw workout and you’ll develop a jawline like Brad Pitt or Olivia Wilde in no time!

Often served at club and school events where they are trying to minimize attendance.

Pizza Pizza Pizza Pizza has mastered the technique of making the most mediocre pizza possible. If I were to describe it in one word, it would simply be “edible.” It certainly isn’t bad pizza, but coming to law school and being fed Pizza Pizza four times a week has made me realize that I would never actually pay to eat it. You get Pizza Pizza so often that you have to

actively control how much you consume, so that you don’t start looking like one. I never thought I would say no to a free lunch, but after having Pizza Pizza everyday for two weeks straight, I’ve decided that even I have standards. This is the most common food that you will encounter in the law school, served at most club, extracurricular, and speaker/ topical events.

St.George Catering Co (SGCC) - Lunch We’ve finally broken out of the pizza barrier, but the food doesn’t get much better. In terms of taste, SGCC is no better than Pizza Pizza, but marginally rarer and healthier. Most of the time when the school orders food from SGCC, it’s wraps and deli sandwiches. Each Turkey Breast or Roast Beef selection contains a single slice of the cold-cut, resembling a bookmark in the middle of your constitutional law textbook. Occasionally, there are equally mediocre cookies. From my experience, the school seems to gets catering from SGCC for mid- to large-sized events (50-100) featuring guests to the law school.

SGCC - Breakfast (Yak’s Snack’s) “He is a merciful creditor, not keeping the items given as se-

curity by poor debtors. He does not rob the poor but instead gives food to the hungry and provides clothes for the needy.”

— Ezekiel 18:7 Once a month, the beloved Yakdaddy descends from the heavens above and his benevolence nourishes the broke and hungry mortals of the second floor and below. Compared to SGCC’s lunch menu, the breakfast roster is much better. There is a nice assortment of danishes, muffins, croissants, bagels, yogurt and granola as well as juice, tea, and coffee. If I were to use two words to describe Yak’s Snacks it would be “carbs” and “sugar”. So much sugar that in a couple of months, they’re going to start serving a giant vial of insulin with some syringes at the end of the table. Also, the coffee is always burnt — so much so, it’s as if they scraped the bottom of a barbeque and threw the gunk into the coffee while it was brewing.

Santaguida Fine Foods (SFF) You ever see that meme where they show two similarly related objects and it’s captioned “You vs The Guy She Told You Not to Worry About”? Well to put it into perspective, SGCC is “you” and SFF is “the guy she told you not to

worry about.” SFF is superior to SGCC in virtually every regard. Their sandwiches are loaded with meat. The ciabatta buns are palatable.

They use sexy ingredients like roasted red peppers, caramelized onions, and tarragon aioli.

Sometimes the sandwiches are also served alongside salad, biscotti, tarts and surprisingly good coffee. SFF is often reserved for facultyrun events with faculty or alumni in attendance such as the Dean’s Leadership Lunches, Lawyers Doing Cool Things, and Faculty Council Global Professional LLM Catering Once every two weeks, Friday and Saturday, the Global Professional LLM candidates have classes down in the basement. They’re served breakfast, lunch and dinner. And whenever they finish, a sweet little birdy tells all the law students to come over for the leftovers. The food actually requires some level of skill to cook and this is probably as good as free food at the law school gets. The line-up includes things like lemon-rosemary chicken breast, garlic roasted potatoes, Moroccan beef, and mediterranean rice. Put simply, you know the food is good if it’s got a bunch of adjectives in front of it.

Scribendi Cacoëthes Let your inspiration flow from a fountain pen TOM COLLINS (2L) Buying a fountain pen revolutionized the way I write. If you write anything substantial by hand, do yourself a favour and upgrade from your ballpoint pen.

If you are a normal, well-adjusted law student (or even if you aren’t), then there is a good chance that you use a cheap, plasticky, ballpoint pen emblazoned with the trademark of some law-related

entity, such as LexisNexis or the Toronto Lawyers Association. Click down the top or twist the shaft and the nib comes out; scribble a few rough, concentric circles to get the ink flowing and you are good to go. And when the pen runs out of ink, you simply throw it away. People are always handing more out at promotional events.

That all sounds alright, until you try a fountain

pen. A fountain pen is like a ceramic mug to the ballpoint’s paper cup. The former offers little if any additional technology, but it performs at a higher level, more consistently, and for longer than its disposable counterpart. And, of course, you do the planet a service by reducing plastic waste. Fountain pens use fundamentally different technology to put ink on paper, which is ultimately responsible for their superior performance. There are three key differences to note. First, fountain pens convey ink through a channeled nib, rather than from an inkcoated ball. This offers three distinct advantages.

First, they offer immediate ink flow. There is none of this doodling and trying to warm up the ink; put the nib to your paper and you’re off. Second, nibs have variable ink flow, depending on how much you flex them. That may not seem terribly important for casual writing, but it is a useful quality for flourishes on signatures, especially if you normally use an extra-fine nib. However, the really great thing is that, unlike ballpoints, nibs require no hand pressure to write. If you have ever suffered from a sore hand during a particularly furious bout of exam writing, a fountain pen offers the perfect solution, because its nib just glides over the paper.

The reason a nib can write so smoothly is that it is usually made of a hard metal with a high polish.

Also, if you write with one nib long enough, it will wear to your particular movements. Moreover, the ink flows better, because it uses fully aqueous ink: pigment dissolve in water, rather than the sludgy mess that ballpoints use.

In addition, fountain pens hold their ink in relatively large, refillable reservoirs, as opposed to slender tubes. This has two special advantages. First it is easily refillable. So, you don’t have to throw away your pen when it’s empty. Although it is true that ballpoints are refillable, in that you can replace the cartridge, those cartridges are more difficult to find than fountain pen ink. Fountain pens can also take special cartridges—if you are planning to do

some writing on a wilderness retreat, you don’t have to bring a large, glass bottle of ink with you.

You can also change the colour of the ink. In fact, one of the joys of fountain pen ownership is the wide spectrum of colours available. Yes, you can find pink and lime green ink, but even in the more conservative ranges of the spectrum, you can find a colour to suit your particular taste. My go-to is Caran d’Ache Blue Sky, but there are so many wonderful hues.

By this point, you may be prepared to accept that the fountain pen sounds like a more pleasant writing experience, but you may also be suspicious of the total cost of ownership. In fact, you can buy a good fountain pen, like the Lamy Safari, for under $40. It is true that there are expensive pens, but their cost is explained at least in part by the materials from which they are made: gold, rhodium, silver, etc. And there are outrageously expensive pens, like the Montblanc Meisterstück 149, which costs about $1,000 and is made of “precious resin” (i.e. plastic). The thing to recognize is that a fountain pen is an investment. Take care of it and it will last for the rest of your life. So, you may justify spending a little more than you normally would on a pen to get one that really feels right in your hand.

Feel is the single most important thing when choosing a fountain pen, because, remember, you are looking for an improvement over the ballpoint experience. It is worth setting some time aside to visit a specialized stationary store to try out their pens. You will get a sense of what sort of weight you like, how a given pen balances in your hand, and how smoothly a particular nib writes. You might even fall in love. I certainly did.

If you plan to write your exams—or anything— by hand this year, treat yourself to something better than a ballpoint you picked up at an information session. Write the next chapter of your life with a fountain pen.

Volume 92

|

Issue 6

|

obiter-dicta.ca

The Definitive Source for Osgoode News since 1928

Obiter Dictation

Memes IRL

emmanuel abitbol & connor campbell We forced a bot to spend 1000 hours reviewing the Obiter Dicta inbox and groupchat, then asked it to record a conversation about Obiter on its own. Here is the first page.

INT. MASTHEAD OF OBITER DICTA [A MANAGING EDITOR appears. It’s Peter Werhun.

He likes print. He eats print. He likes seeing his name in print. He drinks beer. Beer me up Scotty!]

MANAGING EDITOR Osgoode’s hottest new story is unaffordable tuition.

This is a new issue for students. It’ll be never before seen content. No one sees our content!

[Print. Prince. Peter likes Prince. Peter has no fingerprints. He killed a man. But that’s what happens when people don’t submit their articles in time for print.]

MANAGING EDITOR (CONT’D) I just had a meeting with Corey and the Dean. The Assistant Dean, the Associate Dean, the Interim Dean. Some guy named Dean. The Former Dean.

McCamus. Contracts, contacts, we have to contact all the relevant parties. (We need to host parties.)

We need something to finish this thing is ready for layout.

[There is a strike looming. The year is 2020, unless it’s 2018, unless it’s 2015, unless it’s 2009, unless it’s 2001, unless it’s 1997, unless York gives in to CUPE’s demands. Too soon! Emily, an EDITOR, speaks up.]

EDITOR People are upset, they say “we have a newspaper?” I’ll say so. We have a team on crack editors -- wait no, that’s not legal yet -- I mean a crack team of editors.

While our standards are high, our editors are higher.

Hired! But our paper is a good rag! We must mop up the opinions of the students. We’ll start with the bottom of the barrel. Ask Connor to send out a Call for Submissions.

[Submissions flood the inbox. Articles, articles everywhere, and none are fit to print.]

EDITOR (CONT’D) We’re in print! Yes! NO! Damn! A Misprint. I miss Prince. One less reader.

[That’s the end of Peter. Washed away by a flood of beer. It was a Pub Night Fright Night. A WRITER arrives in a Doug Ford Pinto. It gets sued. By a Tesla.

Not fair. Belobaba couldn’t Ford Focus on the Facts. If only the Hon. Beaverton McLaghlin were here.]

WRITER I have a great idea for an article. It’s libel but I won’t put my name on it. I’ll send it in late.

[Dramatic voiceover: It was not a great idea.] [The Copy Editors cheer: they are full of time for edits.

They chant: SEND MORE EMAILS! SEND MORE EMAILS! The EDITOR IN CHIEF, Connor, texts the groupchat]

27 November, 2018

EDITOR IN CHIEF Better never than late. I’ll be late for the meeting.

The TTC. Period.

[Time is money, and Connor’s burning it faster than a politician. Smoke. The editors are smoking on the worn-out pleather couch. The clock says 10:17, but for the editors, it’s 420. A BUSINESS MANAGER tokes BUSINESS MANAGER Hey, that matchmaker article went horribly wrong.

Someone bought a diamond and diamond ring for his spouse, and now she’s marrying someone they’ve never met before.

[The editors hope they won’t be sued for that. The paper is done. WRITER never submits his article.

Deanna orders the pizza. Rachel shares a Facebook post. Oliver likes it. Connor counts the number of issues left this term (and then cries softly; Prince will not read them). Peter tries to quit. Ryan drags him back into the Obiter office. The editors cheer. Annalise groans. Thus begins the next issue of OBITER DICTA.]

a selection of content from obiter dicta, published fall 2018.

Dicta & Dicta. . . . . . . . . . . (92.1, sept. 25, 2018) Obiter Dictation . . . . . . . . . (92.1, oct. 23, 2018) Angela Swan Interview . . . . (92.3, oct. 9, 2018) Be one of the good ones . . (92.5, oct. 9, 2018) Editorial Cartoon . . . . . . . . (92.5, nov. 6, 2018)

CANNABIS SPECIAL 10

EDITORIAL

obIter dIcta

Perspectives and Options Featuring: Professor Angela Swan emily papsin

› arts & culture edItor

Early Life.

When is your birthday? 10th of October. In two weeks I turn 80.

And for fun, in the ‘40s in Ireland? Well if you wanted to go for a Sunday afternoon drive, you had to go by pony and trap.

Was that common practice? In those days, yes. I stayed away for three months at a time without going home.

How do you feel about that? Some satisfaction – that’s what I’ve said to people. It’s like walking a mile; you just put one foot after the other and eventually you get there, you know?

Did the pony have a name? Yes, the pony’s name was Blinker. He used to sit out in his field, back on his haunches, a bit like a dog, and look out at the view — and it was a very lovely view.

Where were you born? My parents’ home was in Donegal, but in those days, the only good hospitals in Ireland were in Dublin and Belfast, so if you could afford to go there, you went there. I was born in Belfast.

And growing up, did you stay in Donegal? Well the schools were dreadful. They were state schools and Catholic schools. So the only way to get me educated properly was to send me to a boarding school in Dublin. I went there when I was 8.

So you were better at living away from home than most of us who went away for university! I hated it. I got dreadfully homesick, especially when I was small. And then I went to a private secondary school, a “public” school in Ireland, from the time I was 13 until I was almost 18. Then we left Ireland and moved to Canada.

a. Osgoode Hall Law School, 0014f York University 4700 Keele Street Toronto, on m3j 1p3 e. ObiterDicta@osgoode.yorku.ca w. obiter-dicta.ca t. @obiterdictaoz “If a thing isn’t worth doing, it isn’t worth doing well ” - sydney j. harris

editorial board editor-in-chief | Connor Campbell managing editor | Alessandro Perri managing editor | Peter Werhun business managers | Howard Xin, Saba Mohammed Chenani layout editor | Ben Stacey deputy news editor | Emmanuel Abitbol web developer | Joseph Simile editor emeritus | Ian Mason editor - news | Jerico Espinas editor - opinion | Alice Xiao editor - arts/culture | Emily Papsin editor - sports | Rachel Marcus co-head, copy editing | Ryan Ng co-head, copy editing | Se-Line Duong

editorial staff copy editors | Brayden Anstee, Deanna Cristovao, Felisha Jagiah, Jeevan Kuner, Ankita Nayar, Naa Ode Lansana, Camille Ouellette, Alexander Toope Calls for Submissions are paused for exams.

Thank you to our contributors, and especially to our Staff Writers: Oliver Backman, Victoria Bell (OHFLA), Alison Imrie (DISCO), Corey R. Leblanc, Cam MacInnis (Crosswordsmith), Janice Perri (LEO), Adam Veenendaal (SC), Elie Waitzer (Adversaries).

Obiter Dicta is published biweekly during the school year, and is printed by Weller Publishing Co. Ltd. Obiter Dicta is the official student newspaper of Osgoode Hall Law School. The opinions expressed in the articles contained herein are not necessarily those of the Obiter staff.

Obiter reserves the right to refuse any submission that the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board judges to contain defamation, personal attacks, or discriminatory comments.

Submissions may be edited for length and/or content.

EDITORIAL Arrival in Canada.

Where did you land in Canada? Well we took the ship across, because in those days that’s how you did it. We left Liverpool in a howling storm in October. I got quite seasick. And we arrived in Montreal.

Actually, I caught my first glimpse of Canada on my 18th birthday, coming through the Strait of Belle Isle between Newfoundland and Labrador.

And was that where your family settled? We took the train across the country from Montreal to Vancouver – about four days’ journey. My father’s diary for the first two days just said, ‘trees, trees, trees’, because going through northern Ontario all you saw were trees – there was nothing else to see. We arrived in Vancouver. We had no money at all. My father and I got jobs and my siblings came out at Christmastime.

We rented a house in Port Moody just outside Vancouver.

What was life like in Port Moody then? We had so little money, but I was young and I had no worries. I imagine my mother and father were sick with worry, because it was the days before we had health insurance; if anyone got sick I don’t know how we would have coped but nobody got sick – we managed it. I managed to save enough to go to university: $600.00 was enough for fees, books and board then, and after my first year I got scholarships.

Where did you go to university and what did you study? I went to UBC. I started in commerce, and I couldn’t stand it. And the only way out of it without going backwards was going into law. In those days, before the LSAT and so on, if you could sign your name I think you pretty well got in, but back then law schools weeded out about a third of the class by Christmas. But I did fairly well, and at the end of my third year I got a Commonwealth Scholarship and went to Pembroke College, Oxford. I was there for two years. It was wonderful; the scholarship paid for everything – you had an allowance for books, fees, and lodging. It was very generous.

So why did you come back to Canada, if Oxford was so kind? Well, I had written to the dean of the law school at UBC, essentially asking: “Do you want to give me a job?” He never bothered to reply, but out of the blue came a job offer from the dean of the law school at U of T. At the time, every graduate student was dealing with international law. I didn’t want to do that. I said I wanted to do the common law, and the dean, Cecil (Caesar) Wright — he graduated from Osgoode in 1926; you can see his picture in the Graduating Class — was Canada’s preeminent authority on torts and having someone who wanted to work on the common law was what he wanted, so he gave me a job on that basis. That brought me to U of T in 1965, and that’s when I started to teach. I was only three years older than the students I was teaching. Your first years of teaching are terrifying! Even now, I get nervous before every class, but I think you always have to feel like that. The same way that if you aren’t nervous before going to court, well, you should be. It means you take it seriously.

And when did you start teaching contracts?

Not until 1972. I soon learned I could not teach using someone else’s materials, and it’s been 40 years since the first edition of my text came out.

Conflicts and Questions After teaching contracts for 12 years, she wanted to see if her ideas for contracts would actually work in practice. The opportunity to do so came from none other than one of the many students she had taught.

27 November, 2018 11

In March of 1987, a friend – a former student who was actually working at Aird & Berlis – wanted my advice on something. I met him for lunch, and told him I was unhappy. Just as I was walking back into my office after the meal, the phone rang. It was my friend on the line. He told me to send my CV down to the firm’s senior partner, so I did. After a month or so, I was invited to meet the management committee for lunch; they offered me a job, and the rest is history.

My friend died of cancer not long ago.

Were you content to have left academia? At the end of my first year with Aird & Berlis, I asked the university if I could stay away another year. I was told that I could, if I promised to come back.

Did you take their offer? I’ve made the serious decisions in my life by asking myself, “How will I feel, say, five years from now if I make this choice, rather than that choice?” I realized that if I left the firm and went back to academia so soon, I would regret it forever. I wasn’t sure I wanted it, but I knew that two years didn’t give me enough time to see if my ideas worked. And so I stayed, and I became a partner two years after I joined the firm.

Transition and Transparency As an introduction during her first class of the year, Professor Swan makes a point of announcing that her earlier work was published under the name John Swan.

When did you decide to fully transition? When my wife died, I figured well, why am I waiting? I’ve wanted this all my life.

When did you first know? I’ve known since I was six.

How did you choose the name Angela? Well I would have preferred other names, but they were all taken by members of my family! I love Catherine, Jennifer. But Angela’s alright.

Why do you tell us right off the bat? The reason it’s one of the first things I say to you is that it seems to be so much easier to get it out; there are no misunderstandings. Last year, one person wasn’t in the room when I did that, so it took her a while to figure out what the hell was going on!

And has the rest of the community been accepting? Yes, entirely accepting.

Were you worried ever? No. Not at all.

On Teaching Us. Professor Swan joined the Faculty of Law at Osgoode an adjunct professor in 2003 after spending six years at McGill.

Do you have any plans to stop teaching? As long as I can do it and believe I can do it well, I’ll keep doing it. I don’t want to sound pretentious, but when I tell my students that I never leave a class without knowing more than I did when I went in, I mean it.

Like today, thanks to a question brought up in class, I suddenly saw something I had never thought of, some particular connection or point of view. The excitement for me of teaching and writing is that I keep changing my mind in the sense that I see things more clearly. I am not unhappy with what I wrote even 30 years ago; I just see things more clearly now. Teaching, for me, is this wonderful stimulus, because as I’m

talking in class I say, “Hmm, that’s not quite right”.

And so I go back and figure out what is right.

Do you have an example of a moment like that?

When I first started teaching, my principal course was ‘Conflicts’: an absolutely crazy course. It really is.

As an intellectual construct, it’s a complete monster.

It’s like some kind of Heath Robinson monster that’s hung together with bailing twine and old bolts. On one Tuesday, a student asked me in class: “How do you choose the law to govern a tort that occurs in one country when the parties live in another?” I said to the students that I would get back to them on Thursday. I didn’t sleep from that class to the next class; I had to work this thing out. The conclusion I came to was that you simply apply the law of your own court, because you have no reason not to. It was like a light suddenly going on. The whole thing came from a student’s question. If I hadn’t had that student’s question, would I have got the same response? Would I have had the same kind of learning opportunity that that question offered me? That’s why I love teaching.

Is there something special about teaching first years? If you teach undergraduates, you can regard the students coming in one end and going out the other – a bit like a tunnel. But with law students, when they finish law school, they will come and join me in the profession! There are people at the firm who were my students, and I like that. There are several partners and associates, an articling student, and a summer student coming back next year who were my students, so I have the joy of seeing people that I taught become my colleagues. And that is an intense joy, because I’ve seen you grow and develop. I’ve seen you become the person you are.

And do you have any counsel for those of us just beginning our journeys? The quality of student has dramatically increased. No student who gets into law school now should not also expect to get out. There are no people at the bottom of the class. Everyone should be able to get a job; the problems are not the students and their abilities.

Is there anything that you would want to tell the students at Osgoode, for those who may not ever get to sit in your classroom? I’d say: take as many courses as you possibly can. This is the only time in your life that you will get a chance to learn this much law. Be careful with taking intensives and be careful with taking various litigation things, because yes, you might enjoy that but be careful, because you’re going to need to learn an awful lot of law.

And besides that, have fun. You’re all so smart, and you will learn so much, so make sure you enjoy it.

Angela Swan is a solicitor at Aird & Berlis LLP, and an adjunct professor at Osgoode, teaching first year Contracts and occasionally, Contracts II, an upper year course, subtitled, “Contracts for Solicitors”. Her students are scattered everywhere from the Supreme Court of Canada to her own firm, and her course has been nicknamed “Swantracts” as a testament to her tenure and expertise. As an authority on the matter, she may have discovered the key to a long life; she starts every day with 100 ml of kefir, 80 g of blueberries, 50 ml of 2% milk, 8 g of ground flaxseed, 6 g of hemp hearts and all bran, 4 g of psyllium husk, and 3 g of cocoa. She is besotted with her 14 grandchildren, has befriended everyone on the 7:00 a.m. 143 Beach Express bus to downtown, and sometimes walks in the Pride Parade with the Bar Association.

RIGHTS REVIEW 12

obIter dIcta

Be One of the Good Ones There Are too Many of the Bad ian mason

› edItor emerItus

Lawyers aren’t viewed in the highest regard by a large segment of society. Sure, people seem respectful to the lawyer they want to retain, and more than a few otherwise skeptical would-be mothers-in-law have dialled back the hostility when they realize their kid’s not shacking up with the Starbucks barista or tattoo artist (because that’s so important). But some people see lawyers as rather predatory creatures who profit from misery and suffering, since most people don’t look up a barrister until something’s gone wrong in their lives.

Being a lawyer often means dealing with people at their lowest moments and then handing them an enormous bill for the privilege. Good times had by no one, but it’s an often-necessary exercise.

That said, a lot of the time, it’s not even close to necessary, and you’ll deal with a lot of people who are at best utter disgraces to the profession, if not humanity.

In several years working in the legal system and several more years as a student, it’s become readily apparent that some lawyers see clients as walking expense accounts. Lawyers can and do take cases where the amount of money at issue is less than the inevitable legal bill. Parties hire $500/hour lawyers over mere thousands, ultimately losing before they even get to a case conference. There are lawyers who make their living fleecing the college funds of

working-class children, and it’s appalling, not only for what they’re taking, but because they’re usually just wasting court time on personal vendettas.

Agents of misery, ultimately working to rob a child and settling for robbing a party who didn’t know when to cut his losses. It’s hard to keep your composure around such people, but we manage, somehow.

If we don’t, only the undeserving win, and that’s not justice.

That kind of moment may come to define my legal career, or in a way, I hope it does. It encourages a resolve to be better, and to know that at many points, I will be fighting monsters. Perhaps that’s more than a little cliché, as is my immediate follow-up thought of “but beware, lest you become a monster yourself.”

Yet for all the talk about multiple sides to every story and everyone being entitled to counsel, there are some cases you simply shouldn’t take, and a lot of lousy people willing to take them. The kind of counsel who would fleece a college fund or an inheritance stands out, but it’s not an unusual level of malice or apathy. While working as a court reporter, I regularly watched lawyers do things like use discovery questions as a means of insulting a witness who did nothing worse than lose their life’s work due to someone else’s negligence. No one lives without occasionally doing something distasteful, but some lawyers do distasteful things for a living. Such people deserve scorn, even if they’re too far gone to acknowledge it.

And yet, happy as I am to find

EDITORIAL myself in a position where I can help people through an awful moment where someone they once loved is spending a fortune trying to hurt them, I must ask: is it really necessary? We could argue either way (if only because that’s basically what we do), but where do you, personally, draw the line? Do you want to sit in a room with someone with wholly ignoble motivations who wants to use you, the legal system, and the things you swear oaths to uphold, only to shrug it off as long as you get paid? Do you want to send your kids to college by plundering the college funds of other children? Don’t you want to do better things with all the work you put into your career and your life? Is it so hard to be better than that?

This is especially important when you aspire to practice law, given the capacity for harm that the courts can inflict or neglect to correct. We shouldn’t settle for meeting a low standard, to say “what I did was okay because others have also done it, or someone would have done it anyway.” We shouldn’t let people use the courts to inflict vengeance, no matter how well they pay or whether they’re a client or judge or Prime Minister. We shouldn’t tolerate injustice because it’s convenient or because remedies are hard to find and harder to execute. If you can’t do it as people, do it as lawyers, or vice versa. We don’t need to be resigned to mediocrity, or to see suffering as necessary. We don’t need to be agents of misery. If you’re going to practice law in Ontario, you are honour-bound to “let right prevail”. If you can’t accept that honour, stand aside for someone who will.

At the very least, ask yourself this: does the world really need more pointless cruelty?

Be one of the good ones, because there are far too many of the bad.

November 28, 2018 | 13

ultravires.ca

RIGHTS REVIEW The International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law An independent student-led publication Co-Editors-in-Chief: Anne-Rachelle Boulanger (4L JD/MGA) & Brenda Chang (3L) Senior Editors: Chelsey Legge (4L JD/MPP) & Emily Tsui (2L JD/MGA)

THE A-TEAM TAKES O-TOWN: IHRP AND CITIZEN LAB CONSULT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON “BOTS AT THE GATE”

By Julie Lowenstein (2L) and Solomon McKenzie (3L) Why does Bots at the Gate matter?

suggest the probability of success of an application, or even assess the application in lieu of a human decision-maker.

The Canadian Border Services Agency (the “CBSA”) and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“Immigration Canada”) are actively experimenting with the adoption of autonomous decision-making systems in the immigration context. In 2018, the Government tendered a Request for Proposals for the design of a system that would help assist frontline decision makers and automate inter alia the process of analyzing Pre-Removal Risk Assessments (“PRRA”) and Humanitarian and Compassionate decisions (“H+C”). PPRAs and H+C decisions are often highly discretionary.

The applications are multi-faceted, and their review requires an assessment of the current social and political conditions in the applicant’s country of origin and a careful review of various aspects of the applicant’s personal history and circumstance.

An incorrect assessment could result in the deportation of an individual to deadly conditions.

The stakes of automating this type of decisionmaking are high, and thus require a similarly high level of precise calibration on the part of the automated system. However, automated systems are not inherently neutral. If an automated decisionmaking system is fed biased or inaccurate data, or is provided biased or unclear criteria for success, the system will generate biased and inaccurate results.

Ensuring that human rights are integrated into the collection and analysis of data, identification of potential sources of bias, and establishment of the criteria for successful applications are essential for automation to be used appropriately and justly.

What does Bots at the Gate focus on?

The A-Team

Bots at the Gate aims to ensure that the Canadian government generates a human rights-focused system for the review, design, and procurement of automated decision-making tools in the refugee and immigration system. The report does not intend to prevent the development of automated decision-making technologies, nor does it lionize human decision-making as inherently superior to automated decision-making. Particularly in the immigration space, human decision-making can often be inconsistent, flawed, or biased.

Bots at the Gate focuses on ensuring that Canada remains a world leader in both human rights and the development of appropriately designed automated decision-making systems.

Bots at the Gate’s analysis of the current and potential use of automated decision-making led the authors to recommend: 1. Greater transparency into the uses and applications of automated decision-making systems, both at procurement and on an ongoing basis; 2. The adoption of binding standards and review processes for the use of automated decisionmaking systems by the Federal government; and 3. The creation of a federal task force to bring interindustry and inter-disciplinary groups together to review the best uses for automated decisionmaking systems.

This trip was an awe-inspiring opportunity to watch an interdisciplinary advocacy team from the IHRP and Citizen Lab shine. The team’s particular strength was in its ability to pivot and mould discussions to different audiences. The team included Petra Molnar (Technology and Human Rights Researcher at the IHRP), Samer Muscati (Director of the IHRP), Yolanda Song (William C. Graham Research Associate at the IHRP), Cynthia Khoo (Google Policy Fellow at the Citizen Lab), Professor Audrey Macklin (University of Toronto Faculty of Law Professor and Chair in Human Rights Law) and us (clinic students at the IHRP).

CAPTION: THE A-TEAM IN FRONT OF CENTRE BLOCK CREDIT: TOURIST

This past September, we had the privilege of joining the International Human Rights Program in Ottawa for a series of consultations about the use of automated decision-making in Canada’s asylum and immigration system. The trip also launched the IHRP and Citizen Lab’s joint report Bots at the Gate: A Human Rights Analysis of Automated Decision-Making Systems in Canada’s Immigration and Refugee System. Over the course of three days, we met with a variety of government departments, agencies, and members of parliament. Our advocacy emphasized the importance of integrating a commitment to human rights into the process of procuring and developing any technology that may replace or augment human decision-making in Canada’s immigration and refugee system. The trip resulted in productive engagement from all stakeholders.

What is Automated Decision-Making?

Automated decision-making describes a constellation of different uses of data or technology to help or replace human decision-makers. Automated decision-making can describe technologies as complex as artificial intelligence or as simple as Excel spreadsheets. In the context of government administrative systems, automated decision-making can be used to review parts or all of an individual’s application for a service or classification.

Canada’s immigration and refugee system currently requires humans to assess applications. Automating decision-making could allow for a computer system to highlight or sort applications,

ihrprightsreview

The Trip During our three days in Ottawa, we consulted with the Treasury Board, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Immigration Canada, the CBSA, Global Affairs Canada, Innovation Canada, the Prime Minister’s Office, and various members of parliament.

The advocacy team was very warmly received.

Our meetings made it clear that policy-makers are aware that Canada is at a crossroads with automated decision-making technologies. Government officials understood the potential risks and benefits associated with automation, and were receptive to the idea that human rights should be integrated in program design from the beginning of

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/page/rights-review-magazine

the implementation stage. It was clear that this was the right time for this trip, as many organizations were still relatively early in their process of reviewing the potential of integrating automated decisionmaking into their service provision.

The meeting with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (the “TBS”) was particularly animated.

The TBS is currently in the midst of an iterative process of developing cutting-edge directives for the use of automated decision-making across the Federal Government. The TBS’s work on automated decision-making provided the backbone of Bots at the Gate. Of particular interest was their algorithmic impact assessment tool, which will help government agencies assess the risks associated with automating particular types of decisionmaking.

We had similarly exciting conversations with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”), who have been dedicating increased energy into thinking about the intersection of human rights and technology. The Commission underscored that Canada has the potential to become a leader in both human rights and autonomous decision-making, and that the integration of a rights perspective can actually bolster the competitiveness and desirability of Canadiandesign autonomous decision-making technologies.

The advocacy team was thrilled to have the opportunity to engage with both Immigration Canada and the CBSA. Immigration Canada confirmed that they are scoping out automated decisionmaking technologies, but they are currently only looking to augment, rather than replace, human decision-making. They stressed that the use of automated decision-making tools would be for the purpose of triaging “easy yeses” rather than precluding entry. Importantly, they noted the risks involved in the use of these technologies in heavily discretionary decisions such as PRRAs and H+Cs. This sentiment was also reflected in our meeting with the CBSA. Of particular note was the CBSA’s clear understanding of the discriminatory potential of poorly calibrated automated decision-making, and their investment in pre-empting these types of issues at the development stage.

Global Affairs Canada provided an international perspective on the development of automated decision-making. They noted that governments across the world are trying to tackle the complexities related to the use of automated decision-making. Global Affairs Canada exposed us to a dynamic team that is carefully reviewing the operability of various automated technologies. They were particularly helpful in developing new directions for research, for instance by directing us to analyze different professional sectors’ understanding of bias, which could help develop a common language for bias across all the professions that develop and use automated decision-making systems.

Finally, our meetings with the Prime Minister’s Office and members of parliament provided an continued on next page…

rightsreview

14 | November 28, 2018

RIGHTS REVIEW

ultravires.ca

continued from previous page…

opportunity for representatives to gain greater understanding of this developing issue. Our discussion highlighted the fact that migration is currently a hot-button issue on Parliament Hill.

These discussions reinforced that this is an important time to stress that any discussions about immigration must focus on ensuring that Canada has a fair, accessible, and human rights compliant immigration and refugee system.

Conclusion Overall, the Ottawa trip was incredibly positive, with strong engagement and feedback from stakeholders. It was clear that many parts of government are starting to tackle the hard issues surrounding the use of automated decision-making. It was also clear that Bots at the Gate provided a useful framework to help government agencies and departments think critically about the procurement and roll-out of automated decision-making systems.

CAPTION: MEETING AT PARLIAMENT WITH ARIF VIRANI CREDIT: PARLIAMENT STAFFER

AN INTERVIEW WITH PETRA MOLNAR: TWISTS, TURNS AND ADVICE ON A CAREER IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW Transcribed (and edited for flow) by Julie Lowenstein (2L) and Solomon McKenzie (3L) haul. I also kept up with my previous work, and writing on the side, to make sure that the all-encompassing law school experience was balanced by real life concerns.

Were there opportunities outside of the law school?

Yes, I kept up as much community work as I could and some on the more academic side. I was working on various projects on the side.

While you were at UofT, did you ever think about diverting or changing your career path or were you pretty focused on migrationrelated work?

CAPTION: ADVOCACY IN OTTAWA WITH CYNTHIA KHOO, CITIZEN LAB, SEPTEMBER 2018 CREDIT: PETRA MOLNAR

Petra Molnar is a lawyer and researcher with the International Human Rights Project, and is currently completing her LLM in International Law at Cambridge. This October, Julie Lowenstein and Solomon McKenzie sat down to chat with her about her career in International Human Rights Law and her tips and tricks for students interested in the field.

How did you end up in law?

How much time do you have? I took a circuitous route. I never planned to be a lawyer. I started next door at the Music Faculty as a classical flutist. But I always felt that there was not enough of a social justice focus in music and I ended up switching into Social Anthropology. After my studies, I took a job as a settlement worker at a community agency, working with child soldiers and recently arrived refugees. This role opened my eyes to a new area of work, because I felt an immediate connection there as a migrant from a low income family. I ended up getting a Master’s in Anthropology, and continued to work as a settlement worker. I was then going to do a PhD in England but my funding was

ihrprightsreview

taken away, and I had a bit of an existential crisis. I was asking myself if a super theoretical degree was actually the right way forward, and I considered law seriously for the first time because I thought it would provide me with the right mix of theory and practice. I went into law school with a really laser focus on human rights, and I stuck with it. It was really helpful to have such a unified focus during law school.

While you were at law school, what did you do to bolster your interests?

At UofT it can sometimes appear that there isn’t a wealth of opportunity for those interested in social justice. But when looking around, there are definitely options. I worked at Downtown Legal Services [“DLS,” UofT Law’s poverty law clinic] over the summer and in the full-time intensive course after that—I basically did full time at DLS for 8 months and it was one of the best things I did in law school and in life. I also worked with the IHRP on a special project looking at Canada’s policies around Syrian refugees and HIV/AIDS. That project took a year and a half in total, so it was a long

There was maybe a second during 1L when I thought, “maybe I should be considering other things?” But I knew exactly what I wanted. However, I did try to push myself. I wanted to try and see if litigation was for me—it certainly was not.

Family law was something that I tried to develop some skills in, and I ended up articling at the Schlifer Clinic [the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic offers legal representation, professional counselling, and interpretation services to women who have experienced abuse] that focuses on family and immigration law. Other than that, I would do a lot of one-off things—the client counselling competition or short snap trial advocacy workshops, just to get a well-rounded sense of what practicing law is all about.

Any courses that you would suggest for students who are interested in social justice?

Because I came in with a Master’s and work experience, I wanted to get broad exposure to law as it related to the issues that I was working on. But I definitely didn’t take many Bar Prep courses [also known as Black Letter Law classes]. It’s a miracle I passed the Bar! I took a lot of international law classes, with really interesting discussions and critiques of the law.

For someone who is starting out and may not have an idea of what they want to do as a lawyer, taking foundational and practical courses is a good idea, like Trial Advocacy, or DLS, or the IHRP clinic course. Get a broad exposure and challenge yourself to think about the law - and your role as a lawyer- critically.

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/page/rights-review-magazine

Are there are areas which you’ve been surprised how much you use?

There are certain classes which you might think are irrelevant, but later turn out to be very useful to your practice. For example, Legal Process and Professionalism and Ethics were super useful, because as someone with limited exposure to the legal profession, I needed to learn how the legal system worked broadly and fit together.

Walk us through your path after law school.

During law school, I worked in the Middle East doing a project for the IHRP, on a grant from an AIDS foundation. I worked there part-time during my 2L and 3L years, and full time in the summer during 2L. For articling, I applied to five organizations focusing on social justice. I landed a position with the Barbra Schlifer Clinic.

What were your five articling applications?

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Amnesty International, the Schlifer Clinic, and the Canadian Centre for International Justice in Ottawa. I also was in talks with a couple of immigration firms. But I wasn’t sure if a firm was the best fit.

My articles were funded through the Public Interest Articling Fellowships from the Law Foundation of Ontario. The fellowship pays at roughly similar rates as firms. They also give you an amazing continuing education package—$5,000 to spend on learning. A nerd’s dream! I was so excited about this and went to as many conferences and continuing education seminars as I could. The Law Foundation of Ontario sponsors seven or eight organizations you can work with. The positions are pretty competitive as each organization only hires one person. Also, a downside as the only articling student is that you don’t have a peer group to bounce ideas off and for support. But these fellowships are such a great opportunity if you are interested in practicing human rights and social justice law.

How did you find out about these opportunities?

Mostly through personal research. I did talk to the CDO about working internationally, or splitting my articles between national and international. Howcontinued on next page…

rightsreview

RIGHTS REVIEW

ultravires.ca

continued from previous page…

ever, it takes a substantial amount of personal research, lots of networking, and connecting with people at organizations where you want to work to land the right position for you.

Do you know of any other useful resources?

The IHRP has a handbook about public interest and international human rights law careers generally, with an articling section in the handbook.

There are also a couple of different fellowships which you can do. But if you are thinking about international articles, it is important to make sure that the lawyer who is supervising you is still a current member of the Ontario Bar. You have to do your own due diligence as you don’t have that much institutional backing. A fellowship is a good middle ground as you have a salary, good support, and you can have a network with other fellows. Also, talk to people doing interesting things with their law degrees and how they got there.

What did you do after articles?

After articles I was offered a couple of staff lawyer positions. I decided to turn them down to find the right fit for me. I still continued to take roles as a research lawyer at the Schlifer Clinic. Then a

position at the IHRP came up!

What was the job? How did you find out about it?

I found the job online. The IHRP got a donation from the William C. Graham Foundation to employ a research fellow, to support the IHRP [and] to increase the consistency and the depth of the IHRP’s work. The IHRP now has a series of consecutive six months positions—it’s also a bridging program for [recent] grads who want to get into this field. I will admit that I was a little burned out from my time at the Schlifer Clinic—the Clinic handles very intense, very high-level trauma cases. I needed a break from that because my mental health was beginning to suffer.

Talk about some of the projects that you worked at the beginning of your IHRP fellowship.

When I first came on, we were going to do a research project on temporary foreign workers to document abuses on farms. However, from community consultations, we realized that the groups we were working with (mostly Filipino workers) wanted to explore litigation instead. So we followed their lead and pivoted to best serve their interests. Lawyers need to do a better job of

November 28, 2018 | 15

working closely with communities. And it often pays off in unexpected ways. Through the connection to the Filipino community, the IHRP got asked to go on a fact-finding trip in the Philippines. Professor Anna Su and I went to Manila and Santa Cruz to learn about the impacts of the drug war and what Canada could be doing in the region. I also worked on a case concerning the discrimination of Syrian drivers at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, and the intervention in the Vice media project at the Supreme Court of Canada [Vice Media Canada Inc., et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada].

A new research area spontaneously presented itself. In January, the IHRP hosted a panel on the “Darker Side of Digital: Human Rights Implications of Technology in Canada and Abroad” and we became interested to see what was happening on the technology and immigration front. From there, we connected with Lex Gill [Citizen Lab Research Fellow and co-author of recent IHRP/Citizen Lab report “Bots at the Gate: A Human Rights Analysis of Automated Decision Making in Canada’s Immigration and Refugee System”]. This led to us to do a report on algorithms and automated decisionmaking, which was hugely taken up by the media and very well received – it’s been a bit overwhelming, but so wonderful to see such engagement.

What’s next for you?

I am taking a flight to Cambridge! I’m going to be doing an LLM specializing in International Law. If you could give any tips to current UofT students interested in a career in International Human Rights, what would they be?

You have to know yourself. Knowing who you are and what you want is key, because life is a series of choices. No career path is perfect, but you have to know what you’re okay with or not. Sometimes people say that you have to “pick your poison”: you can have a really stable career with a high earning potential, but you may not feel morally and ethically fulfilled. Or you can be super happy with the purpose behind your work, but you may have to do contract work that does not pay well and is unstable. Sometimes human rights work seems very glamorous, but it is also dangerous, exhausting, and uncertain (it also sometimes involves you googling “what is bankruptcy?!” in the middle of the night as you wonder if you will financially swing it). But at the end of the day, it is all worth it and I cannot imagine doing anything else.

Being in tune with yourself, your motivations, and goals in life will really help make informed choices that feel authentic to you and where you want to go. At the end of the day, a law degree is an incredible privilege and responsibility. Use it wisely.

EXCERPTS FROM BOTS AT THE GATE: A HUMAN RIGHTS ANALYSIS OF AUTOMATED DECISION MAKING IN CANADA’S IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE SYSTEM Page 62: Technology travels.

Whether in the private or public sector, a country’s decision to implement particular technologies can set an example for other countries to follow. This is doubly true if Canada continues to present itself as a leader both in AI as well as in human rights. Machine learning and predictive analytics in the immigration space is already being explored in various jurisdictions across the world, as well as by international agencies that manage migration, such as the UN. Canada has a unique opportunity to develop international standards that regulate the use of these technologies in accordance with domestic and international human rights obligations. It is particularly important to set a clear example for countries with more problematic human rights records and weaker rule of law, as insufficient ethical standards and weak accounting for human rights impacts can create a slippery slope internationally. Canada may also be responsible for managing the export of these technologies to countries more willing to experiment on noncitizens, and infringe the rights of vulnerable groups with few ramifications.

These power dynamics are crucial to interrogate in the migration space, where private sector interventions increasingly proliferate, as seen in the recent growth of countless apps for and about refugees. However, in the push to make people on the move knowable, intelligible, and trackable, technologies that predict refugee flows can entrench xenophobia, as well as encourage discriminatory practices, deprivations of liberty, and denial of due process and procedural safeguards. With the increasing use of technologies to augment or replace immigration decisions, who benefits from these technologies and what does success look like? While efficiency may be valuable, those responsible for human lives should not pursue efficiency at the expense of fairness— fundamental human rights must hold a central place in this discussion. By placing human rights at the centre, the careful and critical use of these new technologies in immigration and refugee decisions can benefit both Canada’s immigration system as well as the people applying to make their new home here.

BOTS AT THE GATE: FRONT COVER CREDIT: DESIGN AND ILLUSTRATION JENNY KIM

ihrprightsreview

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/page/rights-review-magazine

rightsreview

16 | November 28, 2018

ultravires.ca

RECRUITMENT SPECIAL In Your Own Words Comments and feedback on the recruitment process from our 2L survey Ultra Vires conducted an anonymous survey of the 2L class about the Toronto Recruit. We have summarized their responses to the long-form questions, below. A more detailed breakdown is forthcoming in the January issue.

MATTHEW PRIOR (2L)

Preparation Why did you decide not to participate in the 2019 Toronto second year recruit?

Among the students who disclosed their reasons for not participating in the recruit, the two most common reasons were having already secured a summer job, and having no interest in the process or the result.

Comments:

• “The

OCIs seem like an unnecessary strain and competition at an already stressful time. I had no interest in participating in what seemed like a factory for law students.”

• “The

recruit is meant for only very narrow paths. I dislike how the CDO makes it seem like the be-all and end-all.”

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

Students generally advised that next year’s students approach the process cynically, knowing that the process is weird and arbitrary, but also knowing that it can go well if you trust your instincts and take steps to reduce your stress level.

Best tips:

to message updates to and bounce ideas off of— probably an upper year would help with that as well.”

• “Be with people for calls. It's nice to already be drunk, and to have someone to hug.”

• “Write a memorable cover letter. Have innumerable questions up the back of your sleeve.

Make jokes and appear relaxed rather than gushing about the firm as though you desperately need a job.”

• “Eat.

Drink gatorade/coconut water to keep hydrated. Don’t have too much coffee. Don’t be afraid to ask to use the washroom. Learn the PATH. Talk to an upper-year. Have someone

• “You have to ball hard! Especially if you didn’t

go to Upper Canada College, are introverted, have average grades, and are helplessly middleclass.”

• “Trust your gut”

• “It isn’t about the networking, it’s about learn-

Do you have any comments on networking?

The student response to networking was ambivalent. Some students found the process very important for information-gathering, learning firm culture, or showing interest. Other students hated networking and found it useless at best. Still others could not make up their mind.

• “Networking

• “Carry cash to pay the amazing taxi cab driv-

ers who will get you where you need to be.

Know that the firms talk to each other. Ask an upper-year for their thank you email threads to have an example of how to write yours. Carry a backup-battery and charger for your phone.”

how much I learned though.”

Comments:

• “Networking

is neither important nor unimportant I think.”

• “Networking is valuable to show interest and it

did help me land OCIs, I think. I don’t know

ing where you want to work so you can be informed. Informed candidates are more confident and impressive. It’s not about the connections as much as what it does for you personally.” made literally no difference whether I got an OCI from a firm or not. In fact, most of the firms that offered me OCI’s were firms I did not network with.”

Do you have any comments on the CDO’s services during the recruitment process?

Student perception of the CDO in this process is generally very positive. A common sentiment was continued on next page…

November 28, 2018 | 17

ultravires.ca

RECRUI T MEN T SPECI A L continued from previous page… regret at having underused the CDO’s services.

However, some students had issues with organizational decisions made by the CDO, including the timing of certain information sessions and the organization of information on the CDO’s website.

Others found that the CDO was either insufficiently critical of applicants’ materials, or too focused on corporate law career paths.

Comments:

• “Thank you for all that you do.”

• “There is a lot of quality information available.

Better organization would be helpful. I discovered some excellent documents late in the game.”

• “Keep in mind that they are balancing students’

interests against their own in maintaining relationships with the firms. That isn’t a bad thing, since a good relationship with firms make it easier to U of T students to find a job, but don’t think that they are solely giving advice based on what’s best for you.”

• “The CDO was very helpful, but it can only

help as much as one asks it to. If one does not realize that one should be consulting its staff in person, in addition to simply reading the CDO’s literature, then one may be at a disadvantage in the sense that one may not know one’s own blind spots.”

• “I wish they would give us more specifics on

firms beyond general comments for the process.

I felt like I knew the general information from UTLC and the rest of the services were not super helpful.”

• “They were fine but I think the fear-mongering

re first choice has got to stop.* I would not credit any of my success to them though. I had help from other mentors with cover letters/resumes—the CDO was generally useless on that front.”

*This comment refers to the advice that candidates should only disclose to a firm that the firm is their first choice of employer, on one occasion.

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

Students’ most common frustration was the prohibition on firms signalling their intention to make an offer. Many students would prefer the New York style of recruiting process. Other than these two common threads, while students generally did not like the process, they disliked it for opposite reasons.

Comments:

• “I

wish employers could speak openly about their intentions before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday.

The places that made me offers said everything [...] but it just made things complicated and stressful in the meantime.”

• “I would make it more like the New York system. Our system is absolutely ridiculous. Even though I ended up with a job out of the process I also drove myself ill and I don’t know if it was worth it.”

• “More time is needed. I wanted to an in-firm

with everyone but couldn’t! And all offers should not be accepted until 9:00 a.m. the next morning.”

• “I would prefer it all to take place on Monday

and Tuesday and have all of Wednesday as a blackout period to make a decision.”

• “In-firms moved so fast. It was insane and I

didn’t know which firm to choose in the end.

Not sure if it would be better to stretch it over more time though.”

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

Many students did not want their interviewers to know the specifics of their marital status, personal life, or politics. Others did not want their interviewers to know that they were not really interested in working with the employer or intended to leave the job after a short time.

Comments:

• “I didn’t actually want to work for them.”

• “I don’t plan on working with them for very long.”

• “How much of an anxious person I am.”

• “How introverted I was in real life.”

• “I was exhausted and just wanted a job.”

• “When asked about what I thought the biggest

challenge for me would be as a young lawyer, my immediate thought was "striking a work-life balance".”

Did any firms make you feel uncomfortable?

Generally, uncomfortable firm conduct related to (1) violating or skirting LSO rules, (2) potentially or unquestionably bigoted behaviour, and (3) generally strange or abrasive behaviour.

Note that, of the over 100 survey responses, only 17 students responded to this question. It is not possible to determine whether there were few uncomfortable moments, or whether students were unwilling to call out inappropriate firm conduct.

Comments:

• “Sexist comments at a reception.”

• “As someone from a different country, several

partners from a very old and prestigious firm would jot down secretive notes or give me weird pauses and looks whenever I mentioned any government agency or my experiences in my home country. This happened even in the context of a discussion of international trade law. It has got to be the single most peculiar experience in the entire recruit.”

• “There were age-related questions, and quite a few questions about family income. In both cases, I’m in a slightly atypical situation that gives rise to those though.”

Do you have any comments on receptions, lunches, or dinners?

Students generally thought that dinners were a confusing part of the process. At best, they were difficult to prepare for and to navigate, and at worst, they were the most obvious example of gauging a candidate’s “fit.” However, the general consensus was that such events were a necessary part of the interview process, and that declining to attend any such event hurts one’s chances of receiving an offer.

Comments:

• “I think it is incredibly hard to prepare students

for these events and it isn’t easy to tell exactly how candidates are being evaluated at them.”

• “I don’t think it was necessarily the choice of

activity (dinner, reception, lunch) that made a difference, but how much face time you got with the employer. For the firm I ended up at, I did not give them the supposed all-important dinner. I went to their lunch on the Tuesday, their reception on Tuesday, and [that day, they] asked [me] to come back [...]. It was the face

time that got me the offer I think, rather than the specifics of what time I was giving them.”

• “Not a big fan of them at all, they favour a specific subset of students over others. They also reduce the amount of free time a student has to reflect during the three days which is crucial.”

• “I think something important that isn’t talked

about enough is how much more difficult the process is for non-white students, particularly non-white female students. It isn’t a surprise that the legal profession, at least on Bay Street, is a male-dominated industry. I think we all know that and that fact is given some attention, maybe not sufficient attention, but at least some. I don’t think much attention is given at all to an even more disproportionate statistic. The lawyers working on Bay Street are predominantly white. I’m talking about a 50:1 ratio of whites to non-whites. Maybe I’m being too generous actually… it’s probably worse than that. So why does this matter? I don’t think firms blatantly discriminate. Maybe some lawyers do, who knows, but two very significant factors at the interview stage is the candidate’s level of comfort as well as their cultural knowledge. We all know how important “fit” is to firms. One of the lawyers at a dinner I attended said himself that it’s all about “connection” in terms of who gets hired.”

• “Free drinks are great. Too many free drinks is not.”

showed me how important it was to be friendly and professional to everyone, even a firm that you are rejecting or is rejecting you.”

• “I am happy [with] where I ended up, but I wish

I did the articling recruit instead. I felt pretty overwhelmed and not ready to commit to a firm, or being in Toronto. More voices from people who passed up OCIs and were successful in the articling recruit would be great to hear in advance.”

• “This process is ridiculous and not designed to

help students make an informed career decision.”

• “The process is a disaster. It is baffling to me that the process has existed in this form for so long, when obvious alternatives exist in other major legal markets in North America. It is natural and understandable for Toronto lawyers to want new students to undergo the same useless hazing that they did, but at some point, a non-interested party needs to go in and fix things. The recruit should be about matching great students to great firms, not mind games and interest-signaling.”

How did interest in a legal career change?

Students had a range of reactions to this question, ranging from excitement at entering a legal career having met interesting people who do interesting work, to no change at all, to very explicit disgust at the prospect of becoming a lawyer.

Do you have any closing thoughts?

Most students thought the process was bizarre and stressful, and in need of serious improvement. One theme in the responses was the importance of treating the process as a collaborative effort, and taking the time to relax, reflect, and share information with other students in an effort to overcome the informational asymmetry students face throughout the recruit. A few students found that the process helped give applicants a good idea of firm culture.

Comments:

Comments:

• “I wanted to be a business lawyer and that's

• “I think finding a supportive group of friends is

really key. Don’t be afraid of talking to your classmates, and I don’t think we should shy away from helping each other out as well. So much of law school revolves around law students competing against each other. The system works IF we compete. But the recruitment process, even with countervailing protections for students, is skewed against us and relies on us competing with one another. Firms have so much more power, and if students were to share information with one another, firms would have less of it. Talk to your friends, be open with them, come up with questions together, research the firms together—you and your friends will come out the other side all the better for it.”

• “I would strongly encourage students to apply

and interview selectively—it is much easier to turn down an employer before the in-firm week than it is to string them along after you’ve received a positive response (and in some cases a “soft offer” in breach of LSO rules) from your first choice.”

• “It’s a silly process that doesn’t really do a good

job of matching people with positions. I’m lucky that I ended up somewhere great, but it could easily have gone the other way (I had my two top-choice firms giving me extremely strong signals, but only one ultimately offered me a position. It just reaffirmed for me that absolutely nothing is settled until your phone rings at 5:00 p.m.). One pleasant surprise was that at some of the firms I ended up not [...] clicking with, I actually met a lot of great people who I hope to keep in touch with. So this process does help you build a network, which is nice. It also

• “I got to meet a few of my law heroines, includ-

ing some who have argued landmark equality cases at the Supreme Court. Even though the process was rough, I appreciated that and was inspired to join their ranks.”

• “I was very impressed by the people I spoke

with over the course of the week. I am excited to work with them.”

• “No

difference. Significantly less excited to work in Toronto though.” what I’m going to be.”

• “I did not know very much about the different practice areas in a law firm or what a lawyer's job looked like until I began networking.”

• “Fuck lawyers.”

Are you satisfied with the recruit process?

Generally the response to this question was based on whether the student responding received an offer at the end of the process. That said, even some of those who received an offer were annoyed or harmed by the process.

Comments:

• “I was given very strong signals by one firm that

they liked me, and while they never said anything directly I was under the impression they would likely give me an offer. This influenced how I conducted other interviews and acted towards other firms, and in the end I was left without an offer.”

• “Did not get a job despite excellent marks.”

• “I felt grateful to have met so many excellent

lawyers. I was also pleased with how supportive all of my peers were and in turn hope that I supported them as well as we struggled through it together.”

• “I ended up with my first choice and got to meet

some truly wonderful people from many others.”

• “Got a job at the expense of ruining some relationships. Time will tell if it’s worth it.”

18 | November 28, 2018

ultravires.ca

RECRUI T MEN T SPECI A L

On Firms and LSO Procedures Allegations and other comments from our survey HONGHU WANG (2L) Ultra Vires conducted an anonymous survey of the 2L class about the Toronto Recruit. The Recruit is governed by the Law Society of Ontario 2019 Toronto Summer Student Recruitment Procedures.

Relevant Procedures Procedure B.7. states: “Throughout the recruitment process, firms shall not put undue pressure on students to accept an offer of employment, or to reveal their intention to do so.”

Procedure C.8. states: “No communication of offers of employment shall be made prior to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 7, 2018 [...]”

Firms (allegedly) not following procedures When asked, “Did you experience any employers not following LSO Procedures?”, 18 of 91 responses said “Yes”.

To the follow-up question, “Which employer(s) did not follow LSO Procedures, and how?” these were their responses: Miller Thomson LLP One respondent said that Miller Thomson asked people if Miller Thomson was their first choice. Another respondent said that “Miller Thomson put[s] lots of pressure to say first choice”.

Jessica Watkins, the Director of Talent Management at Miller Thomson LLP, said in an email to Ultra Vires: “Miller Thomson is, and has always been, committed to complying with the Law Society of Ontario Recruitment Procedures and Guidelines. Should there be any issues arising from the recruit, Miller Thomson will deal directly with the Law Society of Ontario and the school’s Career Development Office, which are the appropriate channels for dealing with any matter, and with whom we continue to have a strong relationship and ongoing dialogue. We are committed to the Recruitment Process and providing students with a positive experience, as we take this very seriously.”

firms have all the power.”

Stikeman Elliott LLP One respondent in the survey said that Stikeman Elliott LLP “asked people if they were their first choice and told people they were receiving offers on Day 1 and Day 2” (November 5 and 6).

Natasha Bhimji, the Interim Director of Student Programs at Stikeman Elliott LLP, said, “We certainly were surprised with the response to the question because it is not consistent with the training and guidelines that we provide to our interviewing lawyers on LSO recruitment procedures. We expect that our lawyers understand the rules and are expected to comply with these rules. That being said, we are not actually in the room when the interviews take place and we can’t know exactly what was said.

Every year we reinforce the LSO recruitment procedures with the lawyers and will continue to do so.”

General comments

• “Throw them the fuck out and start again.

Do exactly what they are doing in New York.”

• “It's a collusion that benefits law firms at the

expense of students. The regulators are NOT on our side. We try our best to navigate within the framework, but frankly the students would be much better off if the recruitment process was de-regulated.”

Some students found that firms did not follow the spirit of the procedures:

• “I found that technically the firms do follow

the rules, but the spirit of the rules is not always complied with. Firms want to know your interest level and that is understandable [...] I found myself wondering afterwards if I had accidentally told a firm something that they were going to interpret as "first choice" language. Really I was just trying to tell them I am very interested but still deciding.”

• “A major Bay Street law firm and one of the • “While I didn't experience firms overtly ask"Seven Sisters" both asked how they stood in my preferences and indicated they would call me with an offer at 5 pm on Wednesday.”

• “They won't say it out loud (first choice ques-

tion, communicating offers, etc.)...but isn't that just a matter of semantics?”

• “I knew I would get an offer before Wednesday at 5 PM”

Comments on the LSO Procedures Ultra Vires also asked, “Do you have any comments on the LSO Recruitment Procedures?”

Many students thought the procedures were not being followed:

• “Literally, no one observes them.”

• “They're useless — everyone breaks rules”

• “They're tion.”

Paul, Weiss, Rif kind, Wharton & Garrison LLP One respondent said that Paul, Weiss communicated an offer on Tuesday, November 6 (Day 2). The LSO Procedures dictate that no offer shall be made before Wednesday, November 7 (Day 3).

In an email statement to Ultra Vires, a spokesperson for Paul, Weiss, Rif kind, Wharton & Garrison LLP said that the firm complied fully with LSO Procedures in its recent hiring of two students: “The firm extended offers after 5:00 pm on Wednesday (Day 3), in accordance

• “This process is fucking terrible and the law

with the LSO Procedures.”

the

clearly very open to interpreta-

• “The rules get broken or bent enough that they shouldn't exist.”

ing me to identify them as my first choice, I had many firms suggest that it would strengthen my application to 'indicate interest' and once I had made a decision I should let the firm/student recruiter know. I think by default not following up to say that the firm was my first choice was taken to mean that it was not. While I was able to navigate this, it means I was forced to decide on Tuesday whether I wanted to pursue an offer from one of the firms I interviewed with, which felt rushed.”

Many others suggested ways to improve the procedures:

• “Intent to call emails make the stress worse.

Better to know promptly at 8:00 am on call day, instead of sitting on pins and needles waiting for the waves of impending PFO's or ITC's for two weeks.”

• “The fact that firms can't indicate offers is

detrimental to students. Since we are only supposed to "first choice" one firm, it creates an information asymmetry [...] where they know much more about us than we are even allowed to know about them.”

• “There are so many ways to skirt the "no of- • “If firms can send out ITCs for call day, I'm fers before 5" rule that it is pretty much a cruel joke.”

Many students did not think that the procedures benefitted the students:

• “I don't see how they benefit students at all” • “The LSO is misguided in thinking that this process makes life easier for students.”

not exactly sure why they can't give out ITCs for offers when literally everyone knows that firms will still heavily hint about this during interviews whether consciously or subconsciously. Students may get a strong hint that they will get an offer only to then have to wait hours agonizing over whether that would materialize at 5.”

• “Employers

should be allowed to present

students with the offer once they know to relieve the stress on whether to come back or misinterpret signs during the process. They do this informally anyways so why not give them the option to do it formally to give students a sense of relief if they already know which firms they are taking. It is also better for employers to receive confirmation on their numbers as well and focus on other resources if there is a need.”

• “Make it so that we rank our firms and they

rank their top candidates. None of this first choice non-sense and this way it maximizes the best outcomes for everyone”

Lastly, one student had more neutral feedback:

• “First-choice

signaling is incredibly awkward and feels overly strategic”

The Law Society of Ontario provided a statement to Ultra Vires: While the Law Society receives very few direct complaints about breaches or circumventions of the Recruitment Procedures, the Law Society is alive to the fact that many law students may be reluctant to come forward and report breaches of the Recruitment Procedures when they are encountered. As part of its ongoing effort to ensure the spirit and letter of the procedures are understood and adhered to, the articling office conducts an annual review of these procedures, and in doing so, solicits feedback from law schools and employers, and carefully reviews anonymized comments from students going through the process, including the Ultra Vires recruitment reports.

When considering changes to the procedures, the Law Society seeks to ensure that students are treated fairly and that the process enables students an opportunity to consider their employment options. Should anyone participating in the recruitment process wish to make a complaint, the Law Society has protocols in place to respond. Any questions or concerns about the recruitment process can be directed to the articling office for further clarification.

To help candidates entering the licensing process navigate the resources in place to prevent and address harassment and discrimination, the Law Society has created an information sheet, which is available on our website and provided to all new licensing candidates. Such resources include the Law Society’s complaints process, the Discrimination and Harassment Counsel service, and the Member Assistance Program, which is available to all law students and their families.

November 28, 2018 | 19

ultravires.ca

RECRUI T MEN T SPECI A L

Mistakes Happen Why I think of my application screw-up as the most important mistake I made ANONYMOUS (2L) To say that OCIs are stressful is an understatement. Any small error or misstep you make can feel cataclysmic. From misspelling a firm name in a thank-you email to having a high-heeled shoe fall off my foot while walking to the elevator, I am no stranger to OCI mistakes. But perhaps the most important mistake I made was in the application process itself.

I had logged into UTLC a few days before the official OCI schedule was set to be released since I had heard that some results had been posted early. Although I was initially happy with what I saw, I quickly noticed that one firm I was particularly interested in hadn’t extended me an interview. Upon further investigation, I discovered that the reason for this was that I hadn’t actually

applied to the firm. Although I had submitted a viLaw application, something had gone wrong and I hadn’t managed to submit the complimentary blank PDFs that UTLC requires (the joys of our application system).

At first, I was prepared to cut my losses and focus on my other interviews. I assumed that if I reached out to the firm, they would look at my mistake and think: “We have so many qualified candidates—why bother with someone who can’t even use a computer properly?” However, after talking it over with my friends, I decided that I didn’t have anything to lose by asking if they would still consider my application.

Lo and behold, within a couple of days, I received a reply telling me that I should email them

my CV and transcripts for consideration. A day after that, the firm appeared on my ‘Applied’ tab on UTLC, as I was now number 1 on the waitlist.

A few days later, I was extended an OCI offer.

Fast-forward to 5pm on the Wednesday of interview week, and I received a phone call from that firm offering me a summer position (which I was very happy to accept).

Now, you might wonder—why think of my application screw-up as the most important mistake I made, given that everything worked out in the end? The reason is twofold. First, the firm’s willingness to give me a second chance set the tone for the rest of my interviewing experience. I went in knowing that it was a place where the people were understanding and would let me learn from my

mistakes rather than punish me for them. Since every firm I visited was full of nice, smart, welcoming people, this extra bit of knowledge made the firm stand out for me in my decision-making.

If I hadn’t made that initial mistake, I may well not have ended up there.

Second, it gave me confidence going into interview week that, although I am still the kind of person who sweats the small stuff, I could perhaps sweat a little less if everything didn’t go perfectly according to plan—which believe me, it didn’t.

So, the next time you discover a misplaced comma in a cover letter, I hope my experience can provide some comfort. Or, if not, it can at least serve as a reminder to seriously double check— no, triple check—your UTLC applications.

Myth or Fact: 2L Recruit Edition The (completely subjective) recollections of a 2L after the Toronto Recruit DARYNA KUTSYNA (2L) Earlier this month, a new cohort crossed the finish line of the 2L recruit marathon. I was one of said 2Ls, having completed rites of passage ranging from spending two days with my suited-up classmates in a crowded conference room to nearly crying in the PATH when I got lost on the way from my second reception to a dinner all in the same night.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I was one of the lucky ones who managed to come out of this with an offer from my first-choice firm. Nevertheless, the 2L recruit was likely the most stressful time of my life. Much of this stress was compounded by the advice coming at me from all directions—the CDO, upper years, articling student friends, and in-the-know classmates.

Some of this advice (in my very subjective experience) turned out to be a total myth. Other scenarios actually happened—but were much less scary than I thought they might be. Without further ado…

“If you drop a fork/spill something at dinner, consider yourself out with that firm”: MYTH. Now, don’t get me wrong here: I’m not saying good dinner etiquette isn’t an asset. But when you’ve had several interviews and cocktail parties before you get to dinner, you are a) hungry and b) tired. This combination, despite your best attempts, can sometimes result in dining blunders.

In my particular case, I dropped a bite of steak straight past my mouth into my napkin at a dinner. I was not proud of this then, and I am definitely not proud of it now (not entirely sure why I’m admitting to it in a UV article). That said, I am very excited to be starting at said firm this summer.

“Doing more than a reception and a dinner in a single night is not a good idea”: FACT. During OCIs, I talked up my time management and multitasking skills so much that I actually believed myself. I packed two cocktail parties and a dinner into one night, and convinced myself that I would be at my best during all of them despite a 6:30am wake-up that morning and a day of backto-back interviews.

Fast forward to liking the first reception so much that I stayed way past my “drop-dead” time, sprinting in my heels to attend the second for exactly 10 minutes (which did not go unnoticed by the recruiter), and getting lost in the PATH on my way to the dinner. When people told me the week is designed to force you to make choices, they were probably right.

“First Tuesday interviews mean you’re out at that firm”: MYTH. It is likely true that requesting your first interview on a Tuesday is a signal to the firm, and unfortu-

nately not a positive one. The firm will be aware that your Monday is too packed to fit everyone in, and the choice has not been made in their favour.

However, a first impression in this case is not the only one that matters. If a firm is willing to schedule you on a Tuesday, they do see you as a candidate to whom they could potentially make an offer, and I am aware of several such offers being made this cycle.

“During the second interview, the firm will switch to selling you on them if they like you”: FACT. I didn’t make it to a second interview at all of the firms I interviewed with. I also don’t know whether the firms I didn’t see follow this practice. However, based on both my experience during the second half of interview week as well as what I have heard from classmates, firms do seem to switch into “sell” mode once they are satisfied that you are a good candidate.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that once a firm asks you if you have any questions, you can check out and assume a call is coming at 5pm, but it is a better sign of interest than still being grilled on your resume come Wednesday.

“Don’t drink even a sip in front of lawyers – it makes you look sloppy”: MYTH. Now, this is not to say that getting drunk will

lead you to a Seven Sister job (though who knows—stranger things have happened!) However, someone told me during in-firm prep that you shouldn’t drink when you’re speaking to someone (seems like good advice) or when someone is speaking to you (?).

The question then arises – when do you drink, and should you ever have a sip or two or just hold your wine glass as a prop instead? I am happy to report that I not only sipped my drink during receptions, but told some of the lawyers about this advice and had it serve as a great icebreaker.

“The recruiters all talk” – FACT (but a less scary one than I thought).

Within three business days of accepting an offer, several other firms I interviewed with reached out to congratulate me/ask to stay in touch. It is true that the information about where I have landed didn’t come from me, or wasn’t yet made widely public, but (at least in my case) it did not seem like recruiters were talking in order to influence where candidates will go, but rather about the post-factum results.

Granted, I also said “first choice” to exactly one firm and accepted an offer with that firm. I can imagine how, if that was not the case, it could make for some very awkward conversations during and after call day.

20 | November 28, 2018

ultravires.ca

RECRUI T MEN T SPECI A L

Toronto 2L Hiring Numbers U of T, Osgoode fall as Queen’s reaches new heights MATTHEW PRIOR (2L) T hese number s i nclude ret ur n i ng sum mer st udent s a nd st udent s who spl it sum mer s as appl icable Firm

Total

Aird & Berlis LLP

8

Baker & McKenzie LLP

4

Bennett Jones LLP

19

U of T

Osgoode

Queen's

2

Western 1

Ottawa 1

Windsor

4

5

1

2

4

Bereskin & Parr LLP

6

2

2

1

1

30

11

8

2

1

2

3

1

6

4

1

2

5

3

3

Did not respond

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

25

Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP

3

Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP

15

Dale & Lessmann LLP

2

Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP

15

Deeth Williams Wall LLP

0

Dentons Canada LLP

11

1 3

3

1

Department of Justice (Toronto)

11

Dickinson Wright LLP

3

1

2 3

1

3

3

1

4

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP

5

1

1

1

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

6

1

1

1

1

Gardiner Roberts LLP

4

1

2

1

Gilbert's LLP

3

1

1

Goodmans LLP

13

2

3

2

3

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP

14

3

5

1

2

Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP

7

1

1

2

1

Koskie Minsky LLP

5

2

1

2

KPMG LLP Tax Law Division

4

2

2

Legal Aid Ontario

10

Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP

10

Littler LLP

1

forthcoming

MAG – Ministry of Labour

forthcoming

2

Alberta, UBC

1

1

Lakehead

1

1

UNB

1

University of Leeds (UK) / Columbia (US)

1

Lakehead

1

Boston University (US)

1

1

Lakehead

3

1

King's College London (UK)

1

6

forthcoming

Harvard (US)

1

2

4

MAG – Crown Law Office, Criminal

1

UNB

1

1

MAG – Crown Law Office, Civil

UBC

University of London (UK)

1

2

forthcoming

1

1

1

8

MAG – Civil Law Division, Family Responsibility Office, Legal Services Branch

Calgary

2

2

1

15

forthcoming

1

2

1

DLA Piper (Canada) LLP

MAG – Civil Law Division, Treasury Board Secretariat, Legal Services Branch

1

1

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

3

Other Leicester University (UK)

2 1

5

Other

2

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Bogoroch & Associates LLP

Dalhousie

3 1

3

McGill

1

1

1

1

4

1

2

2

1 1

1

1

1

1 1

1

3

1

1

1

1

Mathews Dinsdale & Clark LLP

4

McCarthy Tétrault LLP

29

9

4

7

3

2

1

1

McMillan LLP

12

2

3

1

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

Miller Thomson LLP

13

1

3

2

4

1

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

16

3

4

3

3

1

Office of the Ontario Ombudsman

0

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

2

1

1

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

29

9

8

2

2

Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP

4

2

1

1

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

2

Polley Faith LLP

3

3

3

1

1

McMillan LLP

12

2

3

1

2

2

1

Miller Thomson LLP

13

1

3

2

4

1

2

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

16

3

4

3

3

1

Office of the Ontario Ombudsman

0

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

2

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

29

ultravires.ca

Paliare Roland Rosenberg Firm Rothstein LLP

4 Total

2

2

3

1

3

2 U of T

1 Osgoode

1 Queen's

Western

Ottawa

Windsor

McGill

34

3

Bennett Jones LLP Service of Public Prosecution Canada Office BereskinOntario & Parr Regional LLP

19 2 6 2 30

2 11

Did not0respond 1 25

16

2

Torkin Manes Department ofLLP Justice (Toronto) Torys LLP Dickinson Wright LLP Wildeboer Dellelce LLP DLA Piper (Canada) LLP

1

5 1

18

3

4 1

1 1

2

2

3

1

2

5

3

3

4

1 1

3

1

Other

1 1

Calgary

1

UBC

1

Harvard (US)

1

UNB

1

1

University of London (UK)

11

15 2

Alberta, UBC

1

Lakehead

1

UNB

2 2

3

1

1 4

3 1 1

2

1

5

2

7

5

1

1

1

2

3

1

1

2

13

2

21

1

1

1

6

5

1

1 1 1

1

4 93 6 290 1 32% 1

1 1 2

62 1 200 1 31% 1

52 1 173 1 30%

37 2 320

41 1 245 1 17% 1

20 1 180

170

11%

6%

Gardiner Roberts LLP employers Count of participating

4 58

7 1 1 2 95 1 208 46% 1

1

1 % employers responding 2

3 Total

1

Total

U of T U of T

1 Osgoode

Osgoode

King's College London (UK)

Leicester University (UK)

Did not11 respond 3 11

1

2

1

1 5

Lakehead

Other

2

1

11

Dalhousie

3

2 11

1

November 28, 2018 | 21

0 22

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Approximate class size Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti % with positions secured from LLP Toronto Summer Student Fogler, Rubinoff LLP Recruit

Year

4

23

22 3 5 8 433 15 1496 5 29% 6

Gilbert's LLP Firm

1

1

3

15 1 2 Smart Biggar 2 Davies&Ward Phillips & Vineberg 15 LLP Stieber Berlach LLP Did not respond Dentons CanadaLLP LLP Thorsteinssons

1

8

Baker & McKenzie Polley Faith LLP LLP

Deeth Williams Stikeman ElliottWall LLP LLP

1

9

28

Shearman & Sterling LLP Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Shields O’Donnell MacKillop Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP LLP Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP Dale & Lessmann LLP

1

RECRUI T MEN T SPECI A L

Paul, Wharton & Aird &Weiss, BerlisRifkind, LLP Garrison LLP

Rae Christen Jeffries LLP LLP Blake, Cassels & Graydon Ridout & Maybee LLP LLP Bogoroch & Associates

1

12% 1

1

1

86%

Queen's Queen's

Western Western

Ottawa Ottawa

1 Windsor Windsor

McGill McGill

Dalhousie Dalhousie

62

52

37

41

20

11

Other Otherof University Leeds (UK) 15 (US) / Columbia

Goodmans LLP

13

2017 LLP Gowling WLG (Canada)

14 428

3

110

5

99

1

50

2

49 1

35

32 1

19 1

14

Hicks Morley Hamilton 2016 Stewart Storie LLP

7

375

1

93

1

83

2

44

1

42

301

33

20

1

Koskie Minsky LLP

5

48

49

32

40

25

18

18

KPMG LLP Tax Law Division

4

46

48

35

26

27

15

21

Legal Aid Ontario

10

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

34

37

23

18

26

2018

2015

2014 ...

Lenczner Slaght2008 Royce Smith Griffin LLP

10

Littler LLP

1

2

433

420

2

398

2

...

406

3

95

106 97 ...

85

3

1 2 4 2

93

84 83 ...

92

2

2 1 2

49

3

1

42

1 1

1

3

1

1

1

1

14

20 16

Lakehead

1

Failing the 2L Recruit: A Success Story MAG – Civil Law Division, Treasury Board Secretariat, Legal Services Branch

forthcoming

MAG – Civil Law Division, Family Responsibility Office, Legal Services Branch

forthcoming

MAG – Crown Law Office, Civil

forthcoming

MAG – Crown Law Office, Criminal

forthcoming

MAG – Ministry of Labour

forthcoming

Mathews Dinsdale & Clark LLP

4

McCarthy Tétrault LLP

29

9

4

7

3

2

1

1

McMillan LLP

12

2

3

1

2

2

1

1

Miller Thomson LLP

13

1

3

2

4

1

2

16

3

4

3

3

1

1

1

2

Looking back, though, not getting an OCI job was one of the best things that could have happened to me NortonDE Rose Fulbright(3L) LLP RITA FAZIO

Office of the Ontario 0 Ombudsman Thirteen OCIs, four in-firms, zero job offers. That

Ogletree, Smoak was the kindDeakins, of horror Nash, story I had heard about again 2 & Stewart, P.C.the recruit. I just didn’t think that and again before it would be my story.

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP 29 By the beginning of 2L, I knew that I wanted to practice labour law. Despite the fact that Paliareunion-side Roland Rosenberg 4 in there was only one union-side firm interviewing Rothstein LLP the recruit, I feltRifkind, the social and financial pressure to Paul, Weiss, Wharton & 2 participate.

When in-firms came around, I knew Garrison LLP deep down that I wasn’t particularly interested in Polley Faith LLP 3 any of the firms I was interviewing with. However, I Public Prosecution Service of had connected well with some of the people at2the Canada Ontario Regional Office firms and decided that I could stomach doing work Rae Christen LLP 2 I hated as long asJeffries I liked the people I worked with.

On Offer Day, my stomach dropped as the time Ridout & Maybee LLP 0 on my phone went from 5:00 to 5:01. I knew I wasn’t Shearman & Sterling LLP 1 going to get a call. Even though I hadn’t been all that Shields O’Donnell MacKillop invested in the firms to begin with, not getting a2job LLP seemed like confirmation that I wasn’t cut out to be Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP

Smart & Biggar Stieber Berlach LLP

1

a lawyer. Everyone would know I was a failure. I was articling recruit. Throughout the summer, I asked ashamed. That Friday, I met for coffee with one of the lawyers I worked with to connect me with others 1 1 the partners at a firm I had interviewed with to find in the field and cold-emailed people doing work that out what went wrong. “If it’s any consolation, everyinterested me. It was amazing how many people 9 8 2 2 1 3 one who met you loved you,” he said. Somehow, that were willing to3provide help if I just put myself out made me feel worse. there and asked for it.

2 that same part1 1 However, I scheduled 10 interviews ner also suggested that I during the articling recruit, of For those who walked needed to show more of a which, I attended 8. I ended “demonstrated interest.” I away from this recruit up with four job offers, includ3 took his words to heart. I netjobless, just know that ing one from the firm that was worked and talked my way my top choice throughout the 1 1 there’s more than one into volunteer spots at both process. path to success.

Downtown Legal Services’ This time around, I didn’t 1 1 Employment Division and have to feign interest. I only Advocates for Injured Workapplied to places that did work ers (AIW)1 in the second term. I ended up spending that I was passionate about, and that came across my summer at AIW and getting great hands-on exduring my interviews.

1 1 perience that made me a better candidate during the Despite all the challenges, I don’t regret going

1 2 Did not respond

1 1

1

1

1

Boston University (US)

1

Lakehead

through the 2L recruit. It taught me how to “play the game” and lit a fire under me that got me to where I am today. I now have that union-side labour law job that I had been dreaming of and I’ll be workKing's College 1 London (UK) ing with a team of amazing, intelligent people.

For those who walked away from this recruit jobless, just know that there’s more than one path to success. In the grand scheme of things, your 2L summer is not as significant as it may feel right now.

There will be tons of opportunities next semester, in the articling recruit and beyond –opportunities that you may find more interesting. Don’t make the mistake of letting this experience impact your self-worth and self-perception. The OCI process can be arbitrary and unfair; some of the brightest, most capable people I know walked out of the recruit without a job. Looking back, though, not getting an OCI job was one of the best things that could have happened to me. I hope it is for you too.

22 | November 28, 2018

ultravires.ca

RECRUI T MEN T SPECI A L

“Failing” the 2L Recruit Reflection on the law school recruit journey SUJUNG LEE (3L) On Ca l l Day last October, t wo week s a fter my 2L OCI’s, my phone d id n’t r i ng.

Out of a l l of my OCIs, I d id n’t receive a si ngle i n-f ir m. I was devast ated. Fastfor wa rd eight mont hs to t he a r t icl i ng recr u it, a nd my phone wou ld not stop r i ngi ng. Not on ly d id I receive over ten i nter v iew of fer s, but I a lso ca me out w it h si x job of fer s, one of wh ich happened to be my d rea m posit ion.

On the Class of 2020 Facebook Group, a 3L recounted a very similar story. In the comments, a dozen more upper years echo the same. Clearly, what I went through was not a miracle; several of my classmates experienced the same tumult. So what changed for us between 2L and 3L? A s it t ur ns out, not h i ng rea l ly.

A fter what I saw as my abysma l fa i lure i n t he 2L recr u it, I sun k i nto a st ate of d isbel ief. For t he most pa r t, I felt my OCIs had gone wel l. Was I overly zea lous about publ ic i nterest work? Was my focus on d iver sit y of f-put t i ng? Was I too A sia n? I spira led i nto t hought s t hat had no pur pose, a nd quest ions t hat y ielded no a nswer s. T h is was t he brea k i ng poi nt of my a l ready decl i n i ng ment a l hea lt h si nce 1L . L aw school had found yet a not her way to tel l me I wasn’t good enough, t hat I d id n’t belong, a nd t hat I wou ld be a fa i lure sadd led w it h a mount a i n of debt for t he rest of my l i fe.

I n brea k i ng, I found l iberat ion. T he t rauma of 2L cascaded me dow n a n i nt rospect ive jour ney.

I t ur ned to counsel l i ng for t he f ir st t i me i n my l i fe. Here, I had t he space to ex plore t he root s of my d i m i n ished sel fwor t h, a nd t he absurd it y of my fut i le effor t s i n school. I let mysel f be a ng r y at t he world—I had worked so ha rd to get i nto law school, a nd even ha rder to surv ive i n it. Yet, it seemed t hat no a mount of work cou ld counter t he a rbit ra r y forces t hat cou ld just as easi ly favour my ot her, equa l ly t a lented col leag ues — so much t ur ned on circumst a nce, t i m i ng, a nd luck. Va l idat ion of my a nger a l lowed me to accept my sit uat ion as it was: suspended somewhere i n t h is dua l it y of mer it a nd cha nce.

I nstead, I focused on what I coul d cont rol: seek i ng out what I act ua l ly enjoyed doi ng, a nd what got me excited about law. Dur i ng my 1L sum mer, I worked at Dow ntow n L ega l Ser v ices a nd loved ever y moment of it. Upon ref lect ion, I rea l i zed I had so enjoyed my f ir st sum mer at DL S because I was at t racted to law

t hat d irect ly revolves a round people, a nd a l l t he huma n d ra ma t hat ent a i ls. I lea ned i nto cour ses t hat nat ura l ly i nterested me, l i ke Wrong fu l Conv ict ions. I concent rated my academ ic energ y on t he issues towa rds wh ich I felt st rongly, l i ke system ic issues i mpact i ng t he cr i m i na l just ice system. I beca me a l it t le braver about reach i ng out to law yer s I found per sona l ly i nterest i ng to chat about t heir ca reer pat hs, w it h no ex pect at ion of a job at t he end of t hese t a l k s — super v isor s at DL S, pa r t ner s at prom i nent f ir ms, a nd a r t icl i ng st udent s who were once i n my shoes. I took to hea r t t he adv ice of t hose who were most passionate about t heir work.

A l l of t hese seem i ngly l it t le act s a llowed me to pur sue on ly t hose pat hs I k new I wou ld genu i nely enjoy. I u lt imately ended up spend i ng one of t he best sum mer s of my l i fe i n t he cr i m i na l d iv ision at DL S, a nd t he rest, as t hey say, is h istor y.

W hat I d id n’t rea l i ze dur i ng t he 2L recr u it was t hat it was so much easier to sel l mysel f when I k new what I wa nted to do. Moreover, despite what t he CDO suggest s, t he 2L recr u it represent s on ly a sl iver of t he ent ire lega l ma rket. I n cont rast, t he a r t icl i ng recr u it of fered a much w ider select ion across ma ny d i f ferent sector s: l it igat ion bout iques, cr i m ina l defence f ir ms, publ ic i nterest posit ions, a nd more. Bei ng more at t uned to my genu i ne i nterest s, I was more pa r t icu la r about where I appl ied (i nstead of send i ng t he sa me let ter to ten i nd ist i ng u ishable Bay St reet f ir ms). W hen I was more i ntent iona l about my appl icat ions, employer s cou ld more easi ly see why I wa nted to be t here. A nd when t hey saw t hat, I was act ua l ly able to “ be mysel f ” a nd connect w it h my i nter v iewer s more aut hent ica l ly.

However, I don’t wa nt to dow nplay t he ver y rea l concer ns t hat under pi n st udent s’ decisions to pa r t icipate i n t he 2L OCIs. I under st a nd too wel l t he pressure created by job i nsecur it y a nd t he cr ushi ng wor r y of not bei ng able to pay of f our enor mous law school debt. T h is pressure weighs heav ier for t hose who face h igher ba r r ier s get t i ng i nto law school— pa r t icu la rly racia l i zed, i m m ig ra nt st udent s from lower socio - econom ic back g rounds.

I felt t hat I had bot h more to lose, and more to prove. T he fa i lure to secure a big Bay St reet posit ion, w it h it s prom ise of f i na ncia l secur it y a nd socia l prest ige,

ca n ma ke lack of success i n t he OCIs a l l t he more d isappoi nt i ng. Un for t unately, my stor y is not one t hat of fer s a solut ion, on ly a per spect ive. I had to ma ke my peace w it h t he possibi l it y of a lower sa la r y t ha n my Big L aw col leag ues, a nd a potent ia l pat h of job i nsecur it y. I si mply accept t hat t hese a re not t h i ng s t hat I necessa r i ly have cont rol over; a l l I ca n do is chase what I ca n cont rol.

I n sum, I d id n’t cha nge a ny t h i ng i n order to become “more successfu l” i n t he a r t icl i ng recr u it—I d id n’t i mprove my resume, net work i ng sk i l ls, or st udy hab it s. I just had to t a ke some t i me to rega i n my ow n voice.

A s I’ve w r it ten elsewhere i n U V, it’s easy to lose sight of our selves i n t h is school. Even as I’m 3L OL i ng, t he conver sat ions I overhea r rem i nd me how d i f f icu lt it was to be i n t h is bu i ld i ng last yea r. A l l I hea r a re 2L s t a l k i ng about who’s goi ng for cockt a i ls where, a nd who’s work i ng at wh ich f ir m i n t he summer — a l l at t he ex pense of t he si lence of t he ot her 50% of st udent s who eit her d id not secure a ny jobs t hrough OCIs, or chose not to pa r t icipate at a l l for a my riad of reasons. T he nor ma l i zat ion of t h is d ia log ue a l most mask s t he fact t hat t he OCIs a re a weird l it t le ga me — except t hat ever yone is prov ided w it h a n uneven number of pieces, or none at a l l. A s such, I rem i nd ever yone to be m i nd fu l about conver sat ions on ca mpus about OCIs. I f you’re one of t he luck y “successfu l” ones, be proud wh i le a lso ack nowledg i ng your for t une i n t he a rbit ra r y nat ure of t h is process. Most i mpor t a nt ly, be suppor t ive of each ot her.

To t hose t hat do feel a l ienated by t hese conver sat ions —bot h t he 2L s recover i ng from t he recr u it a nd t he ma ny 3L’s who a re st i l l i n sea rch of a n a r t icl i ng posit ion—I wa nt to rea f f ir m t hat you d id ever y t h i ng r ight. You worked ha rd to get to where you a re, a nd you shou ld feel proud of your sel f for bei ng here. T here w i l l always be oppor t un it ies t hat come your way. I n t hese oppor t un it ies, t here a re people who w i l l see a nd appreciate you.

Cong rat u lat ions on ma k i ng it here to day, despite a l l t he t r ibu lat ions a nd i nter na l st r uggles of a profession t hat is i n herent ly set up to d isappoi nt even t he best a nd br ightest! T h is i n it sel f is your v ictor y, a nd one t hat w i l l propel you forwa rd to t he next bet ter phase of your l i fe.

I didn’t change anything in order to become “more successful” in the articling recruit… I just had to take some time to regain my own voice.

November 28, 2018 | 23

ultravires.ca

RECRUI T MEN T SPECI A L

My Mental Health and the Recruit Oh… the places you’ll go… the shit that you’ll do: an in-firm memoir NARGIS FAZLI (2L) Reading Week was a joyous time for me in 1L. For the first time in months, I could sleep past 6:00 a.m. I could eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I could actually do the readings I may-or-may-not have neglected. But in 2L, Reading Week seemed more like a nightmare because of In-Firms (cue ominous music).

Prior to Reading Week, there was buzz all around U of T Law. I could tell you which person would be in-firming where—even if I’d never so much as had a conversation with them. It was creepy. I was creepy. But I was nervous and being nervous makes you do crazy things—like learn everyone’s schedule for the week, have lawstudents.ca open 24/7, and memorize three years of Ultra Vires’ recruitment statistics. I was determined to get a job, and I knew exactly where I wanted to go: Goodmans LLP. So, when Call Day came, I (being the overly nervous, neurotic freak that I am), scheduled nine in-firms, five receptions, two dinners, one lunch and a partridge in a pear tree.1 But, most importantly, on Monday morning at 8:00 a.m., I scheduled my first in-firm with Goodmans.

On Monday, November 5, at 4:45 a.m., I was awake. I was ready. Well, almost—I still had to put on my suit, my heels, a pound of makeup, and my trusty CDO-issued name tag—but otherwise, I was totally ready. I left my house at 6:30, commuted down to 333 Bay, and bolted up to Goodmans (it was 7:15 when I got there, but the sense of urgency was real!). Some random dude from Fasken wished me good luck in the elevators. But rather than ease me, his words made me more nervous—DID I LOOK LIKE A NERVOUS STUDENT THAT NEEDED LUCK??? I TOTALLY WAS, BUT I WAS TRYING REALLY HARD TO GIVE OFF MORE OF A HARVEY SPECTER 2 COOL 4 SKOOL LOOK. Ah well. I arrived at Goodmans.

At 8:01, I met my host. Within two minutes, I blurted out the magic words: FIRST CHOICE. I went on to repeat those words two more times over the course of an hour and a half. If there was skill involved in in-firms, I definitely lacked it. On top of already having played my ace, I also used finger guns, made mad jokes, and used an alarming amount of self-deprecating humor—but (to my surprise) people liked me, and I was invited back for Tuesday. Hooray. I just had to get through the rest of the Monday interviews and the evening reception to secure that coin.

Fast forward to 5:30 p.m. I was running from my last interview back to Goodmans. I had to make a great impression at this reception. In my head, I envisioned myself floating ethereally across the room, making connections, friendships, and majestic first impressions. But, alas, this was not my reality. Instead, I entered a small, hot room with about 150 people. They were mostly students, all already engaged in conversation, all looking fly as f***. So I did what any rational student would do: I hunted for a lonely lawyer to latch onto. Once I

found them, I stuck by them and hung onto their how could I be a lawyer at this amazing firm? My every word. In fairness, they were mad interesting Goodmans dreams were over. So, I left the recep(but srsly, I should not have been such a keener, like tion, head hanging, and heart hurting. holy). When the lawyer wanted to eat, I ate. When I went home to my parents and I cried. A lot. I they wanted to drink, I drank. I was basically mir- was embarrassed. Embarrassed that my mental roring them.2 And then—it health wasn’t as strong as I had thought. Embarrassed happened. that I showed vulnerability All my life, I’ve suffered in front of my favorite firm. from panic attacks. For those When I have a panic And embarrassed that I said who don’t know, a panic atattack, I completely first choice to a firm that tack (for me at least), feels like lose my vision… So would undoubtedly reject death.3 My mind genuinely there I was, standing in me. My parents, not knowconvinces me that I’m dying, and my body reacts by doing a circle of lawyers when ing anything about the law or law firms or the intensity all those things you wouldn’t it hit. And I had of this whole process, laughed want to do at a reception: absolutely no control… with me.4 Their laughter sweating, crying, shaking and, my favorite, going temcalmed me enough that I porarily blind. Yes, you read could sleep. So, I did, not that right, when I have a panic attack, I completely looking forward to my next day at Goodmans. lose my vision for about twenty minutes. So there I When I awoke, I had emails and voicemails was, standing in a circle of lawyers when it hit. And from lawyers at Goodmans who had heard what I had absolutely no control. But I was fortunate. happened. And guess what? They were checking The lawyers around me instantly recognized in on me, making sure I was alright. I was slightly that something was wrong, and they took me by mortified but also very appreciative. And when I the arm into a separate area. They got me water, went into Goodmans later that day, lawyers were food, and fresh air. They were nothing short of in- saying they heard a lot about me—all positive credible. And I was, of course, mortified. I blew it. things! My host let me know that my mental health I couldn’t even handle being in a crowded room, issues were okay there. I would be accepted as I was

and had nothing to be embarrassed about. And for the first time, I felt like that was true. I could be me, here, at Goodmans.

I’ll spare you the anxiety. On Wednesday at 5:00 p.m., Goodmans called me. I accepted their offer. I had found my fit, and found my people. But this story isn’t just a plug for Goodmans—it’s bigger than that. Yes, Goodmans was great. But, more importantly, the legal field is changing. You no longer have to contort yourself to fit into a tiny little box. To the 26% of students at the faculty who suffer from mental health issues, I want you to know that it’s okay. You may be in the minority, but you are not alone. You are enough, exactly the way you are. The reason you’re in law school is that you deserve to be here, and I hope that when you go job hunting, you find a firm that recognizes your worth. If you ever need an ear, reach out to upper years like myself, Yukimi, or anyone you feel comfortable with. We want to help! We want you to find your Goodmans.

1

Joke’s on me cause I only ended up doing five in-firms, two receptions, two dinners and a lunch. Ha, ha, ha who was I kidding with the NINE IN-FIRMS?!?

2

I acknowledge that this is incredibly creepy but pls understand how scared I was.

3

Not even exaggerating.

4

TBH, it was probably at me, but whatever.

OPINIONS

24 | November 28, 2018

ultravires.ca

The Combined Program’s Lament, or Stockholm Syndrome?

Missing the law school LILY CHAPNIK ROSENTHAL (2L JD/MSW) As I sit in my classes and work on my papers for my Masters of Social Work program, I often catch myself thinking back to what I was doing this time last year. I’ll be in Laboratory class practicing therapy skills, and I’ll flash back to a fevered moment, cramming for Contracts. I’ll be browsing databases for articles on group dynamics, and I find my mind floating to papers I wrote last year on causation. Do I miss the law? Nah, probably not. I cannot even believe I am hearing myself say this, but I think what I miss is being a law student.

Without the all-encompassing intensity of it, who am I anymore?

For better or for worse, the intensity of 1L bond-

ed me deeply with my fellow students. One might even call the experience slightly traumatising. If I was cramming for Contracts, it meant that I was doing it along with my classmates, who were also feeling the same way. I miss that terrible sense of camaraderie, even if it was over coffee at 11:30 pm under the too bright lights of Bora Laskin. Social work is interesting in and of itself, and the people are lovely, but the nature of the program is very different. Many people commute. We have several classes a week. And at the end of the day, people really, truly, go home. The program does not take over your life quite like law. While finding out your practicum placement is definitely a formative ex-

perience, it doesn’t have the same gut-wrenching, identity-forming quality as call day for the 2L OCIs. It may be an exciting moment, but it doesn’t chew you up and spit you out. It doesn’t give you some sort of twisted blood bond with others who know what you have been through.

My friends have moved on. We comforted each other over exams and papers in 1L, but I’m not there anymore to share their struggles. They commisserated over their OCIs with other people— people who knew exactly what they were going through. I won’t really know what it was like for them. I will go through OCIs (or not, but that’s the subject of another article) with the incoming 1Ls,

who are having their own deeply formative experiences, also without me. When I return to the law school, I will be stuck between two groups - one that left me behind, and one that has deeply bonded in my absence. I wonder where my place will be.

You could say I have Stockholm Syndrome.

You could say that I don’t know how good I have it right now. But I’ll say it — I miss the law school. I miss the friends I made, I miss the connections I forged, I miss the connections that I know I am missing as my friends move ahead in their journey without me.

I’ll say it — so sue me.

Food for Thought: Saag Paneer A delicious and nutritious way to feed your brain this exam season TOM COLLINS (2L) E x a m sea son ca n be over whel m i ng. You have a lot on you r plate. I ron ica l ly, w it h so l it t le f ree t i me, some of what is on you r plate probably is not doi ng much for you. I a m by no mea ns a model for hea lt hy eat i ng, but even I k now t hat a per son need s more t ha n cof fee, c ig aret tes, a nd whatever st a rchy lef tover s ca n be fou nd i n t he Rowel l Room. T hat is why I wa nt to sha re my favou r ite recipe, sa ag pa neer.

Sa ag pa neer is a n I nd ia n d ish wh ich l iter a l ly mea ns spi nach pa neer. It is r ich, cos y, a nd packed w it h i ron. I ma ke sa ag pa neer once per week , because it is ea s y a nd absolutely del ic ious. It is a g reat way to keep you r sel f st rong a nd energ i zed wh i le you st udy. P lus, it heat s up wel l i n t he m icrowave. S o, you ca n br i ng it to school a nd ex tend you r st a mi na.

Pa neer, t he f lavou rless, I nd ia n cheese ca n be fou nd at Ca rlos House of Spice i n Kensi ng ton M a rket . You cou ld a l so sw itch it w it h f i r m tof u. T hen, i f you use a ca n of coconut m i l k i nstead of yog u r t , you wou ld have a veg a n ver sion of t h is rec ipe!

Saag Paneer à la Tom Total preparation time is about 1 hour and the recipe serves 4-6, depending on portion sizes.

Ingredients 16 oz. chopped spinach (I use 2 packs/ 4 bricks of frozen spinach, or a whole XL spinach salad container) 12 oz. paneer (one brick, cubed into 0.5” x 0.5” pieces) 1 large Spanish onion, finely chopped 4 large cloves of garlic, finely chopped One 1 1/2” thumb of ginger, finely chopped (or 1 tsp powdered ginger) 4 tsp ground coriander 2 tsp ground cumin 2 tsp salt 1 tsp garam masala 1 tsp turmeric 1 tsp sugar 1/2 tsp cayenne Ground black pepper 1 cup water 1/2 cup plain Greek yogurt (the higher the fat content, the better. So, crême fraiche also works well) At least 10 Tbsp olive oil Procedure 1. Assemble all ingredients. You are going to want to have everything at hand, because preparation goes quickly.

2. If you are serving this dish with rice, consider how many people you going to serve. If you are serving four, put the rice on right away. If you are serving one or two, put the rice after step 7. Brown rice is obviously a different

story and will require extra planning. I find that 2 cups of jasmine rice is the ideal amount to make to account for this whole recipe.

3. In a small mixing bowl, whisk together turmeric, cayenne, 1 tsp salt and roughly 3 Tbsp olive oil. Gradually add cubed paneer to this mixture, ensuring each piece gets coated.

4. Place coriander, cumin, and garam masala in a small vessel. If you are using powdered ginger, add it as well.

5. If using fresh spinach, chop it in a blender or food processor. Blend one large handful at a time, adding a little bit of water as needed to prevent the leaves from sticking. You are going to want a fairly dense slurry, but there is no need to fuss, because excess water will be boiled out. If you are using a brick, thaw it in the microwave. This takes some time. So, I do it while proceeding through the following steps.

6. In a large, heavy stockpot, heat roughly 5 Tbsp olive oil until a haze appears. If you have cast iron, use it!

7. Add the paneer and its marinating sauce, and turn the heat down to medium. Try to spread the paneer across the bottom of the pot, frying each side.

8. While the paneer is frying, chop the onion.

9. When the paneer begins to turn golden and becomes somewhat spongey, remove it to its mixing bowl. Try to keep as much oil in the pot as possible. A perforated spoon or tongs can be useful.

10. If a lot of oil has been lost, add some more and reheat.

11. Add all the remaining spices to the oil and stir until the mixture becomes homogeneous (about 15 seconds). Then add the chopped onion and reduce the heat to medium. Stir the onion to coat it in the oil. Place a lid on the pot.

12. About a minute later, add the chopped garlic and chopped ginger (if you are using it), and stir with the onions. Recover the pot, and reduce the heat to medium-low. Let the ingredients caramelize, stirring intermittently.

13. Once the onions look like a golden-brown stew, add the blended spinach. Sprinkle a heaping teaspoonful of sugar over the spinach. Also add about a teaspoon of salt and some ground black pepper. Stir the ingredients together.

14. Increase the heat to medium and cook the spinach for a few minutes, stirring intermittently. If you used fresh spinach, you will want to boil away a little more moisture — until there are no longer large puddles of water forming on top. Taste the mixture. If it still seems watery, keep going.

15. Once the spinach is cooked, turn down the heat to medium-low. Add the yogurt slowly, stirring as you go to prevent it from curdling.

16. Once the yogurt has been mixed in, add the paneer.

17. Reheat and test the taste. You may have to add more salt to get a pronounced flavour.

Once you are satisfied, it’s ready to serve over the rice!

18. Pair with an off-dry Riesling, like Tawse Quarry Road or Cave Springs, or with a dry rosé.

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

November 28, 2018 | 25

10 Signs You Are Living with a Law Student A legalistic listicle JOANNA CHAN* How do you know if you are living with a cyclist?

A bike has taken up residence in your living room.

3. The Wif i network is titled “In Vif i Veritas”.

Seriously? Do you understand Latin? Because I don’t. I prefer a variation of “RunFastBae”.

What about a craft beer enthusiast?

Try opening the beer fridge.

4. The cof fee table is covered in various editions of Ultra Vires, Waddams on Contracts, and the McGill Guide.

Where are Canadian Running, iRun, and the LCBO’s Food & Drink magazine? Actually, upon investigation, that last one is just under last month’s edition of UV and open to page 144 —an article on pairing olive oil and wine. Wine, like coffee, is a staple in the apartment.

And a law school student? The presiding roommate hereby presents: The 10 Signs You Are Living With A Law School Student.

1. A copy of the Canadian Charter graces the wall.

And this is just the beginning.

2. You were asked to sign a “Roommate Contract” prior to moving in.

Before getting keys to the newly-leased apartment, you were forwarded and told to sign “Roommate Contract” with twentysix clauses that detailed rent payment schedules, upkeep responsibilities, policies regarding overnight guests, and many other items.

5. There is no such thing as “we ran out of cof fee”.

There is always an abundance of coffee beans and brewing apparatus in the apartment. On the kitchen counter sits the coffee maker, the French Press, and the Moka pot.

Because there’s no such thing as too much caffeine for the law student.

6. Unjust rent increases are handled swiftly.

When your property management company increases your building’s rent but fails to inform the occupants, worry not! Your roommate will take care of it.

7. You can’t watch movies or TV shows that feature a law component in peace.

Everything. Everything that is inaccurate gets pointed out. Do we really need to know that it usually takes two to five years for a patent to be filed, and that Mike can’t actually get Harvey one for a client’s product within the day? What if we’re just watching because we have a major girl crush on Donna, and because Alicia is also pretty badass.

8. Your apartment is incredibly lonely in the summer.

The aroma of coffee lingers in the kitchen. Drycleaning receipts lie crumpled on the coffee table. An apple is missing from the fruit bowl.

The apartment is silent, still, and the culprit is nary in sight. A lonely, lonely summer awaits.

If you’re lucky the glass towers of Bay Street

will release your partner-in-crime by mid-August.

9. You’re thankful for your own sixtyplus-hour weeks.

Your own sixty-hours-a-week grind seems like a comparative walk in the park. At least you’re home for dinner and in bed by midnight. And you still have time (and energy) to work out in the morning.

10. “The bar” does not always refer to a licensed location with alcoholic beverages for sale.

A call to the bar usually means a couple of pints, an order of fries, and a shawarma on the way home. But, to your beloved roommate, getting called to the bar represents hundreds of hours of studying and pure panic. Unless of course, it is Thursday night. *The author of this diversion is a beer marketer, a semiretired runner, a long-time resident of the Annex, and the roommate of a law school student. Her gift to your nonlaw roommate this holiday season is a fun-to-read listicle that they, too, can enjoy when the coffee table is covered in copies of the latest edition of Ultra Vires.

Dance Me to the End of Law There are strange things done in the law school sun ROBBIE GRANT (2L)

Learning to walk in the footsteps of giants

Body Art

Activities at the Law School

Picture the steps on the South side of the Jackman building

Eddie was one of those

We have a space for yoga,

They are so large

weird childhood friends.

across from the space for hot yoga.

as though they were designed for giants.

He claimed that when he grew up

And outside, a space for cold yoga.

When I walk up them

He would get sponsors

And enough Kombucha

I take two footsteps for each stair-step

To pay for advertisements

for everyone

As though I am an infant, learning to walk

Tattooed on his body.

And so I will be.

A Nike swoosh on his hand,

I thought this to myself

A Starbucks mermaid on his forehead.

On the first day of O-week

The Law School

Striding up the stairs

Is not so different

Behind Spencer Paveck

From Eddie.

Who is himself An Atlas of a man.

DIVERSIONS

26 | November 28, 2018

ultravires.ca

Rejected 1L Exam Questions The second in a series GABRIELLE MCLAUGHLIN (2L) Property: This is a 3 hour, closed-book examination. You may not consult any materials.

Xerxes holds the title to an emu farm that has been in his family since 1612. From 1612 until 1993, the land directly to the east of the farm was owned and occupied by a gun club.

The only access to the gun club was a winding and hazardous footpath that wove through the emu farm. Since the emu farm had no use for the footpath (aside from occasionally startling gun club members with an escaped emu) the gun club proprietors and members enjoyed access to the club by way of the hazardous path for 381 years. No complaints were made by either party.

In 1993, the 381-year old owner of the gun club finally died of a heart attack after being startled by one too many emus. His family discovered that he had never completed a will.

None of his children, who ranged in age from 91 to 314, were interested in maintaining the gun club, so they sold the property to Yolanda, a local emu-hunter, and divided the proceeds amongst themselves.

Yolanda did not require the footpath because she used the roof of the old gun club as a helipad. She and her on-again, off-again lover, Zorro, would fly in and spend the evenings smoking cigars and lamenting the statutes that prevented them from shooting Xerxes’ emus.

Some evenings, they would just dig holes in the yard because they did not have Netflix.

On the evening of August 16, 2012, Zorro was digging a hole when he discovered emu bones approximately two feet below the surface of the now-destroyed garden. He ran and found Yolanda, who inspected the bones and said “Dear God! These are the bones of the Great Emu! No one ever thought these would be found! Do you know how much money we can make from these?!”

Over the next two years, Yolanda and Zorro spent $250,000 converting the old gun club into a shrine to the Great Emu. The shrine opened on October 1, 2014, and visitors paid

$50 each to exult in the Great Emu’s majesty.

Because most of the visitors did not have helicopters, access to the shrine was through the footpath running through Xerxes’ land. When Xerxes visited the shrine, he said “Hang on.

THAT’S MY OLD EMU! I wondered where she has gotten off to!” He has approached you for advice.

1. Using relevant case law and statutes, advise Xerxes about any claims he might have against Yolanda and Zorro. You can assume that Zorro is also an emu.

2. Same as question 1, only it turns out that the bones of the Great Emu are actually the bones of Xerxes’ wife.

Professors: The Grades are In LP for Legal Process KRISTIN A. MARKS (3L) A s I f inish up my f ina l year of law school, I have been think ing about the professors I have had dur ing my t ime here. Dear professors, the curr iculum committee has f inished meet ing, and the g rades are in.

Genera l comment: U of T Law sure has a strong cohort of professors! Most of my professors have met my high standards of teaching excel lence, so you should a l l be ver y proud of yourselves.

L ar issa K atz: HH. Delightful, clear, professiona l, organized, wants students to learn, and wel ldressed. She inspires me to voluntar ily part icipate, which is a pleasant sur pr ise

for this t ired third year student.

Brenda Cossma n: H. Her sass would earn her an H, but she backs it up w ith interest ing course mater ia l and clear lectures.

Mart ha Sha f fer: H. Or, as one student put it: “I love Shaf fer, but I have some rea l ly strong professors this term, so Shaf fer gets an H. If I’d had Shaf fer another term w ith d if ferent profs, she might’ve gotten an HH!” Ma lcol m Thorburn: H.

W hat a treat to exper ience ev idence law in an int imate 10 -person seminar sett ing, but w ith the actua l learning of a big lecture course. This is no 1L sma l l g roup course.

L orra ine Weinr ib: P. Const itut iona l advocacy was r ight over d inner t ime. Scheduling wasn’t her fault, but g rades are arbitrar y, and I’m hung r y bet ween 4 –7pm, so P it is.

Mar ia Ba nda: P. W hen I haven’t done the read ings ahead of t ime, I’m prett y confused in class. Her teaching improves a lot when I’ve done

the read ings. She should be more consistent.

Ed Iacobucci: P. Dean-a-ling-a-ling. I’m rea l ly d isappointed that he’s never stopped by my study g roup while dressed in a dumb costume to g ive us some irrelevant news.

L ega l Process (a nyone): L P. Nobody wants to take this course; nobody wants to teach this course. Not their fault.

Faculty are advised that , per the Academic Handbook , the only basis for appeal is the unreasonableness of the grade.

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

November 28, 2018 | 27

Life as a Law Student’s S.O. During In-Firm Week Hell To be fair, Harvey Specter would probably get lost in the PATH as well SEAN MACKAY*

Day 1 of in-firms: 5:03 am Getting a case of the “in-firm day sympathy nerves” and now I can’t sleep. Instead of counting sheep, I’m trying to commit the names of the all the big Toronto full-service firms to memory. I wonder if law students have also ever found this to be oddly therapeutic.

7:15 am It’s a rainy morning and the first round of infirms are about to start. “It took a while, but I finally know my way around the PATH. I’m barely going to have to go outside today,” my S.O. says to me. Fully suited up, she strides confidently out the door.

1:22 pm Happy to receive a text update from the S.O. after an intense morning of second-round interviews. It’s just a stream of expletives punctuated by exclamation marks, but I’m still happy. S.O. must be lost in the PATH again.

7:45 pm Missed arm day at the gym, but partly made up for it hauling a 10-pound tub of valerian tea home from David’s. #InFirmWeekGains 10:31 pm Pro law S.O. Tip #1: After a long and stressful first day of interviews, it’s finally time to get a little steamy. A steamer is the Law S.O.’s friend during in-firm week. Steam the wrinkles out of your S.O.’s suit in the evenings while they write their 47 thank-you emails for the day. Do a good job and you just might find one of those personalized thank-you emails in YOUR inbox. ;)

Day 2 of in-firms: 5:06 am Blakes, Goodmans, Davies, Torys, Stikeman, McCarthys, Os… Oslows? Oslens?? OS?? This is no longer therapeutic…

11:40 am Note to self: Gauge interest in Law School S.O.

official support group. Could meet quarterly to share suit steaming tips, war stories etc.

4:34 pm Had to explain to the team at the office why I just jumped up from my desk and shouted “OSLER! It’s Osler!”

11:45 pm Pro law S.O. Tip #2: If you leave the valerian tea steeping longer than the 7 minutes it “recommends” on the instructions, you’ll get a pretty decent buzz.

Day 3 of in-firms: 8:45 am Sifting through the sea of business cards on the coffee table attempting to find my keys. Consider suggesting including cardstock quality in S.O.’s “One True Firm” evaluation criteria.

2:34 pm Googling “valerian tea dependency signs symptoms”.

Explore | Engage | Learn Developing Future Leaders in Law

4:58 pm Reassuring S.O. that dropping one piece of steak on the floor during the first-night dinner likely isn’t a reason to disqualify someone from the process entirely. Quietly Google “bad table manners disbarred Ontario” and quickly scan the first two pages of results.

5:00 pm CELEBRATION TIME! Time to pop the bubbly while remembering to somberly pour a bit out for those who didn’t get a call. Flooded with warm feelings only slightly dampened by the looming spectre of exam season. Wonder if S.O. will still be repeating “P’s get degrees” by December... *The author of this piece is almost-but-not-quite a SNAIL. Significant other of a law student. Former student journalist trying to relive past glories in a nonawkward I’m-showing-up-to-the-end-of-year-masthead-party kind of way.

DIVERSIONS

28 | November 28, 2018

ultravires.ca

Excellent Barriers Build the wall MADELINE TORRIE (2L) You may have heard about the campaig n to raise money [subsid ize increased tuit ion] ca l led Excel lence Without Barr iers and the “so-ca l led” counter-campaig n Barr iers to Excel lence. Wel l now, the Facult y * would like to announce to you, our lovely donors, a counter-counter fundraising campaig n ca l led Excel lent Barr iers.

Yes, you heard r ight. This is the longawaited Phase 2 of the build ing renewa l plan. Essent ia l ly, we are fundraising to erect the most excel lent barr iers of any Canad ian law school. This can include razor w ire, steel-reinforced bol lards, a moat, or —if the campaig n goes poorly— simply stack ing the unused treat ises from the librar y in front of a l l the doors.

Excel lent Barr iers would accomplish severa l of our strateg ic object ives: 1. Academ ic Excel lence A s you k now, 99% of our facult y members believe that they are liv ing in New

Haven, Connect icut. To d iscover that they have, in fact, spent the last 20 years teaching law in Canada’s largest public universit y just might k il l them, or worse, lead them to accept a tenured posit ion at the Universit y of M ichigan. More money for more barr iers (idea l ly high enough to block the CN tower ent irely from v iew) w il l help maintain the il lusion that our facult y members are, in fact, A mer ican professors. This w il l a lso prevent them from f lock ing south of the border when they d iscover that their sa lar ies are in Canad ian dol lars.

2. Facu lt y to St udent Rat io Of fsett ing costs by increasing the number of students in each class is unacceptable. Instead, we are look ing at increasing the qua lit y of our incoming class by reducing the number of students admitted. Our proposed renovat ions seek to address this issue by constr uct ing a “ Wipe Out” st yle obstacle course that

w il l be integ rated into our admissions cr iter ia. Not only w il l we expect applicants to have a 4.0 and 18 0 LSAT, but a lso transferable sk il ls such as the ag ilit y, ba lance, and g r ip streng th necessar y to nav igate a g r ueling obstacle course where one misstep results in their fa l ling neck-deep into mud. ( The children of appel late-level just ices and manag ing partners of downtown law f irms w il l instead be d irected to play a game of hopscotch).

3. Career Opport un it ies U of T Law has an unpara l leled reputat ion for matching students w ith art icling posit ions and summer jobs. However, we wouldn’t want the burden of pay ing of f pr ivate loans to prevent students from tak ing on jobs in their f ield of interest.

That is why we are restr uctur ing the debt forg iveness prog ram to be more accessible to debt-sadd led a lumni. Graduates who have decided to pursue delu-

Gilbert’s LLP is one of Canada’s Top Ten Intellectual Property Boutiques (Canadian Lawyer).

We are innovative counsel and patent agents who deliver creative solutions to our clients.

And we love what we do.

Interested in intellectual property, complex litigation, entertainment law, or patent prosecution?

We want to hear from you.

www.gilbertslaw.ca

siona l career fantasies such as family law, cr imina l defense, or refugee and immig rat ion law can pay of f their loans by putt ing in 40 or so hours a week of honest labour d igg ing a moat around the law school. Not only w il l a moat a l low students to maintain their physica l f itness by add ing a br ief sw im to their morning rout ine, but it w il l a lso be a g reat place to house the law school’s beloved wel lnesssharks.

We would like to thank a l l our donors for their cont inued support of Universit y of Toronto Facult y of Law. We are current ly solicit ing naming r ights for the aforement ioned excel lent barr iers. Bennett Jones has a lready claimed the obstacle course, but shark-naming r ights are current ly sel ling for 10k a pop. *T he Faculty is not , at this time, actually f inancing a system of physical barriers for the law school . However, we hope this does not preclude future deans from committing to such a campaign .

Where excellence, advocacy, and the unconventional align