U of T Law’s Take on EDI: Exclusion, Discrimination, Islamophobia
HUMZA KHAN (2L), SAKINA HASNAIN (2L) & SAMAR MOGHAL (3L)
It’s no secret that equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) training at U of T Law is below-par. From surface level sessions with boilerplate talking points to trauma-dumping from speakers, EDI training seemed to exist to just tick the box, rather than push for any real reflection. But recently, just as we thought EDI training could not get any worse, we realized how we apparently should have been thankful that at least our EDI training wasn’t blatantly racist.
On January 23, the Assistant Dean, EDI, Ada Maxwell-Alleyne assigned a Coursera course on antisemitism. One would think such training would cover pertinent issues regarding antisemitism in the modern world. Instead, it was to our shock that the course disseminated to all 1L students included copious amounts of hateful Islamophobic and anti-Arab racism. In fact, it included an entire module on “Islam and the Arab World” to discuss in depth the authors’ contempt towards Islam, Muslims, and Arabs. The course used sacred religious texts, stereotypes, and other propaganda to describe us as terroristic, unaware of social equality, and unable to co-exist with other faiths. Amongst others, one line that embodies the sentiments throughout the module thoughtfully stated: “Not every Islamist is a terrorist. The distinction with regard to antisemitism between violent and nonviolent Islamists is not pertinent, because both the Islamists who are peaceful and those like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, who are violent, they share the same antisemitism. I see little difference in this regard.”
The dissemination of this content was especially disturbing given its timing during the Green Square Campaign against islamophobia, which commemorates the Quebec Mosque Shooting. January 29—designated as the National Day of Remembrance and Action Against Islamophobia—marks the anniversary of the tragic attack at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City where a gunman opened fire on congregants, murdering six Muslims in prayer. This heinous act of terrorism, fueled by Islamophobic vitriol, serves
as a solemn reminder that prejudice exists within our communities and country. This year, in the days surrounding January 29, Muslim students at U of T Law were given a rude awakening and a stark reminder that our school is no different.
Hurt, yet perhaps not surprised, Muslim law students worked for a path forward. We stayed up night after night reviewing the content, gathering evidence, sacrificing our own mental health to create a response to the law school Administration. It was by no means easy work as we would face some of the most deeply islamophobic content many of us have encountered in our lives. Nevertheless, we wrote a statement through the Muslim Law Students Association (MLSA), bringing the problem to the attention of Dean Jutta Brunnée and the rest of Administration (including the Assistant Deans, Associate Dean, and Assistant Dean Maxwell-Alleyne herself). Despite all of our work, we were given a response essentially stating ‘sorry you felt that way’ and told that they assigned only the first, less islamophobic, carefully selected module. But it does not take a law student to understand that if any part of an “EDI course” is racist or Islamophobic, then the entire course is problematic.
The feeling of rejection and confusion was palpable. It became clear to us that our voice as Muslim students alone would not be enough. Accordingly, the MLSA began contacting other groups to create a second statement to respond. This effort was not without pushback from students, fellow classmates, who were nervous to associate themselves with any statement. Nevertheless, the statement, with the brave support of the the Student Law Society (SLS), THE University of Toronto Law Students’ Union (UTLU), the Black Law Students’ Association (BLSA), the Disabled Law Students’ Association (DLSA), and co-Presidents of various other equity groups including the Jewish Law Students’ Association (JLSA), reiterated that it was no excuse that the other modules in question had not been assigned. Together, we demanded acknowledg-
ment, accountability, and a public apology. Instead, Administration scheduled a closed-door meeting.
To say that this meeting was a failure is generous.
Members of the MLSA and SLS sat across all of the Deans in a private “discussion”—ironically, nothing was discussed. We shared our concerns with Administration, describing the isolation and fear Muslim students were feeling. We hoped that this was all a misunderstanding, and that with conversation, there could be some positive way forward. Dean Brunnée began with her sadness over the situation and a desire for a collaboration, which sounded promising at first. Yet, when pushed to acknowledge that the course was inappropriate and islamophobic, and to give the students some guidance on their next steps, Dean Brunnée shut her notes, looked us straight in the eye, and said that there is nothing else to discuss—effectively and abruptly ending the supposed “conversation” with an Administration that was “committed to engaging in dialogue”. As we left the room, we realized that the very Administration we had entrusted to put students first and protect our interests was now the one pushing us further away and leaving our calls for help unanswered.
An unsatisfying meeting led to an unsatisfying solution. After this encounter, 1L students received an email from Assistant Dean Maxwell-Alleyne. While the email took a step towards at least attempting to address the issue, it fell short in key respects. In it, Administration relayed that it was troubled by the feedback they received on the unassigned modules, that they were taking it seriously and reaching out to the course provider to relay concerns. The Administration seemed to “unassign” all modules of the course (well after the course's deadline), and indicated that it would put the EDI series on pause (we’re still not sure how delaying anti-islamophobia training helps deal with islamophobic training sent out). However, yet again, the school stopped short of an adequate public apology or any accountability. While they expressed “sincere regret” about the “unintentional harm” that resulted from the “situation,” they did nothing to acknowledge their failure to adequately vet the materials that they hold out as an authority to students. Further, despite this issue being made known to the broader student and Muslims community and commented on by student groups, this email was only sent to 1L students, with nothing relayed to anyone else.
Anyone at this school can see that U of T Law lacks diversity. This only makes it even more imperative when Administration promotes blatantly racist and Islamophobic courses for EDI, that they retract and apologize immediately. However, our Administration refused to take the Muslim students at the school seriously. It was only after weeks of pushing from the students, alumni, and other invested organizations that there has been any response (and a horrendously minimal one at that).
Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism is hatred that kills. From Guantanamo Bay to Iraq to Gaza, these forms of xenophobia are the same tool used to justify violence time and time again. Many of us have grown up in a post-9/11 era. It was this era that motivated us
to come to law school, these very experiences that some of us wrote about in our law school personal statements and hoped to change. We have seen how demonization has led to devastating consequences in the past, and it is exactly why it was so hurtful to see a revisiting and revitalizing of the notion of collective responsibility and guilt amongst the Muslim community. What we requested was not that onerous, and certainly not for a law school of the self-proclaimed calibre of U of T law. In addition to substantive steps, we simply wanted an apology. We wanted someone, anyone, to say “this was islamophobic and unacceptable, and it was our fault, we are sorry.” Not “we acknowledge that some community members were disappointed,” not “this feedback is troubling” and certainly not “we regret the unintentional harm this situation resulted in.” Not once in the email communications between Administration and affected students was the word ‘sorry’ ever used. The fact remains that this “situation” did not appear out of thin air. It was the result of decisions made by individuals. Therefore, it is this very refusal to take real accountability and acknowledge that this harm was the result of actual tangible actions and decisions, and genuinely apologize, which is most troubling to us. Why can’t anyone just say sorry?
Perhaps it is fear. Fear that to say sorry acknowledges wrongdoing. Fear of acknowledging that just because harm was unintentional, that doesn’t mean it was non-negligent. Fear of taking a strong stance, because strong stances open oneself up to pushback or consequences. And perhaps that latter fear is one that goes far beyond just the Administration. The fear that resides in members of the law school community more generally, a fear that taking a stance, showing too much support for one “side” or another may make you less hireable. The fear that makes students and student groups hesitant about speaking out on our behalf or reiterating our demands.
However, let us be clear and unequivocal. This issue is not, and should not be controversial. The issue is solely whether it is appropriate for a law school to hold out as an authority course materials which suggest that Muslim and Arab individuals are inherently regressive and followers of a religion antithetical to equality. The answer to that question should be obvious to every member of our law school community. We cannot continue to allow the reasonable fears, concerns and requests of Muslim students to be sacrificed at the constructed altar of being “non-controversial”.
But after everything—this moment and the past year—we urge our peers to ask themselves: Do you believe you are smart and capable enough to make something of yourself? And if so, why do you think speaking out on injustice jeopardizes that?
Why assume that standing for what is right undermines your merit in corporate spaces? Why accept the idea that advocacy and ambition cannot coexist? A law degree from this institution is a privilege, but its value is not diminished by using it to demand better. If anything, it is strengthened. The real question is not whether speaking up will cost you opportunities—but why a profession built on justice would ever demand your silence.
CREDIT: SAKINA HASNAIN (2L).
Ultra Vires UV INDEX
84 Queen’s Park Crescent Toronto, ON M5S 2C5
Ultra Vires is the independent student newspaper of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. We provide a forum for diverse viewpoints on topics of interest to our readers. We aim to foster dialogue on academic and social issues between students, the faculty, and the broader legal community in Toronto, Ontario, and Canada. Our content does not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board. We print six issues per year. Ultra Vires is printed by Master Web Inc.
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
Manreet Brar and Abby Sasitharan
BUSINESS MANAGER
Leon Xu
NEWS EDITORS
Rachel Chen and Malka Younas
ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITOR S Yuha Khan and Alex King
FEATURES EDITORS
Julia Allen and Asra Areej
ASSOCIATE FEATURES EDITORS
Tyler Lee and Madura Muraleetharan
OPINIONS EDITORS
Puneet Kanda and Mariam Patsakos
ASSOCIATE OPINIONS EDITORS
Kaitlyn Matthews and Yebin Shin
DIVERSIONS EDITOR
Sakina Hasnain
ASSOCIATE DIVERSIONS EDITOR
Kiwan (Paul) Kim
PUZZLE EDITORS
Matthew Farrell and Navya Sheth
RECRUIT EDITOR
Rosemary Fang
EDITOR-AT-LARGE
Cherry Zhang
ONLINE EDITOR
Siegfried Kahama
STAFF WRITERS
Katherine Fan, Georgia Gardner, Shelby Hohmann, Glenn Howard, Olivia Schenk, and Grace Xu
RECRUIT REPORTERS
Jane Byun, Alice Min, and Celine Tsang
STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
Kabir Singh Dhillon
SOCIAL MEDIA COORDINATOR
Parker Hopkins
LAYOUT BY Fox Hill Creative
ADVERTISING
If you are interested in advertising, please email us at business@ultravires.ca
ERRORS
If you notice any errors, please email us at editor@ultravires.ca.
SUBMISSIONS
If you would like to submit a tip, letter, or an article, please email us at editor@ultravires.ca.
Ultra Vires reserves the right to edit submissions.
Welcome back from reading week. We hope you did more resting than you did reading—you can count Abby and I certainly did. A sweet n’ short issue of Ultra Vires in honour of this short month of love (and definitely not due to the fact that our contributors dropped like flies this month).
Recently, U of T Law assigned an antisemitism course module, which consisted of islamaphobic material, as part of the 1L Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion sessions. The cover story of this issue, written by
Samar Moghal (3L), Humza Khan (2L), and Sakina Hasnain (2L), details the Muslim Law Students Association’s role in advocating against the module and the Faculty’s response. Also in this issue, 2L student Pe’er Krut has written about the module from the perspective of the Jewish Law Students Association.
In this issue, you’ll also find coverage of recent events, such as International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the inaugural John A. Tory Lecture Recap on the GAAR preamble, the Runnymede Soci -
ety’s fireside chat with Supreme Court of Canada Justice Mahmud Jamal and various perspectives on oral advocacy including the Baby Jessup and the Arnup Cup. If you have any comments, are looking for ways to get involved with UV, or just want to say hi, you can always reach us at editor@ultravires.ca or @ultravires.ca on Instagram.
Students’ Law Society Update
February edition
ISABEL BRISSON (3L)
Welcome back, we hope that you all had a restful reading week!
Law Ball
Ticket sales for Law Ball close on Friday, February 28 (tomorrow). Be sure to purchase your ticket to Law Ball, which is taking place Saturday, March 8 at Old Mill—you don’t want to miss the biggest event of the year.
Last year we received a lot of feedback from students about the theme, so this year get ready for Barristers, Boots, & Bowties. For those of you confused about how to combine country and formal wear, not to worry, the SFC has shared a mood board with examples of country formal attire on the SLS insta-
gram—check it out for inspiration on how to dress the theme!
Valentine’s Week
Our Valentine’s Week events were a success. Whether you made an envelope at the craft corner or sent a candy gram, we are glad that so many of you took part in celebrating.
Furthermore, we want to thank everyone who stopped by the Canadian Blood Services table at the atrium on Thursday, February 13 at lunch. Despite the snowstorm and several cancelled classes the day before reading week, 55 students got swabbed and joined the stem cell donation registry. Thank you to all who stopped by the booth. If you couldn’t attend or donate, you can still join the stem cell registry on-
line at blood.ca/Swab4Alex. A swab kit will be mailed to your home.
The SLS recognizes the importance of giving back and hopes to continue similar initiatives. If you have any suggestions please send us an email at studentslawsociety@gmail.com.
Updates
Following discussions with the SLS Executive, on Tuesday, February 11, Associate Dean Christopher Essert sent an email updating students on the steps the Faculty has taken to mitigate the impact of the recent open book exam policy change. The changes include the following:
1. Students who purchased an electronic text-
book from the UofT Bookstore may exchange it for a hard copy. Further instructions regarding the return/exchange process were attached to Dean Essert’s email.
2. Students will now be able to use the copyand-paste function during exams.
3. Students who are part of the Financial Aid Program will be provided funds to print 100 pages (black-and-white, double-spaced) for each exam course they are enrolled in.
We recognize that these steps, while helpful, cannot rectify all harm done to students caused by the exam policy change. Student consultation on these issues is critical and will remain a focus of SLAC’s advocacy going forward.
Barristers, Boots, and Bowties!
Law Ball FAQ
TAYLOR CLAPHAM (3L)
Q: When is Law Ball?
A: Saturday, March 8 at 7:30pm.
Q: Will there be an entry cutoff time?
A: YES!!! You must arrive before 9:00pm. No entry will be allowed after 9:00pm.
Q: Where is Law Ball being held?
A: The Old Mill Toronto! It is located directly across the street from Old Mill
Station on Line 2.
Q: What is the theme of Law Ball this year?
A: Barristers, Boots, and Bowties! Think upscale country and rustic elegance.
Q: What is the dress code for Law Ball?
A: The dress code is formal. This means no jeans and no flannel shirts!
But cowboy boots, cowboy hats, and bolo ties are encouraged! Keep an eye on the SLS Instagram page for some outfit inspo.
Q: Will there be food?
A: There will be desserts and late-night snacks throughout the evening—but please eat dinner before arriving!
Q: Why should I come to Law Ball?
A: Because it is the biggest and most
memorable night of the school year!!! There’s dancing, photobooths, casino tables, and games! Law Ball will be a night you remember long after law school has ended. Trust me. You don’t want to miss it.
Editor’s Note: Taylor Clapham (3L) is the Vice-President Social of the Students’ Law Society.
U of T Law Yearbook Tradition Returns
The Students’ Law Society on what they are doing to revive the yearbook tradition this year
XU (2L)
The Student Law Society (SLS) is bringing back a by-gone tradition to the Faculty of Law—yearbooks! This tradition dates back to 1999. Ultra Vires reached out to members of the Social and Finance Committee who have taken charge in revitaliz -
ing the U of T law yearbook: Arielle Amacker (3L), the SFC secretary, and 2L SFC representative Emily Segal (2L) to inquire more about this exciting student initiative aimed at capturing moments that define the U of T law school experience.
The 2024-2025 yearbook will be a compilation of photos showcasing student life throughout the academic year. It will likely feature small group photos alongside snapshots of clubs, intramurals, and other student activities (including the law school’s very own Ultra Vires ). Inspired by copies of old yearbooks found in the SLS office, the yearbook initiative seeks to revive a cherished SLS tradition while giving current students a physical embodiment of the law school experience—something that can be looked back on years from now.
“We came across copies of old yearbooks and decided it would be fun to revitalize the project,” explained Amacker. “There’s more to law school than just reading cases—we hope students can remember all of the other exciting things that go on at U of T Law” Amacker elaborated.
The SLS is currently in the process of collecting photos from small groups and student groups. Students will soon have the opportunity to submit their own photos from events such as the Halloween Party, Law Ball, and Call to the Bars throughout the year through an online form. The SLS is also open to student suggestions—the team will release a google form in the coming
weeks to gather input for the yearbook.
While the main framework of the yearbook has been decided, the SLS gave a nod to the previous yearbook tradition. “We were loosely inspired by the old yearbooks,” Amacker noted. The SLS is looking to include the superlatives, which would add a nice touch of humour and personality to the yearbook.
The SLS hopes this year’s yearbook will mark the beginning of a renewed tradition. “Yearbooks next year would be up to the SLS. [...] We think it would be great if they could continue what we hope can become a new tradition,” Amacker stated when asked about the yearbook in upcoming years.
For now, the focus remains on creating a memorable and inclusive yearbook that captures the essence of student life at U of T Law, whether that be candid intramural games shots or Law Ball photo booth pictures.
This year’s yearbook is expected to be available in April, pending confirmation for grad photos. It will be sold to students at an estimated cost of $40. In the meantime, students are encouraged to stay tuned for updates and contribute photos and ideas when the opportunity arises.
GRACE
I Am Meeting with 75 Lawyers Before I Graduate—This Is How It’s Going
GPLLM student celebrates U of T Law’s 75th anniversary with a networking challenge, one conversation at a time
CLAUDIO KLAUS (GPLLM)
When I set out to meet 75 lawyers before I graduated from the Global Professional Master of Laws (GPLLM) program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, I wasn’t entirely sure how it would go. I had heard about this concept from JD students in the United States who often aim to meet 100 lawyers before they finish their three years of law school. The idea stuck with me! As someone who loves connecting with people, it seemed like the perfect way to celebrate U of T Law’s 75th anniversary while growing as a professional.
Why I Set This Goal
My journey at U of T began in September 2024, but my connection with this community started earlier. Back in 2022, I came to Toronto as a researcher and was immediately impressed by U of T’s legal network. Attending the 75th anniversary gala this fall solidified my admiration. The event was filled with stories of past deans, alumni, and students who’ve made their mark in the legal world. It inspired me to dive deeper into this incredible community by setting a goal to meet 75 legal professionals before I graduate in 2025.
I am a legal professional with international experience, currently building my career in the Canadian legal market. Before coming to Canada, I had the privilege of working as a legal extern at the Arizona Supreme Court and serving as a judicial clerk at the Roraima State Court of Appeals in Brazil. I’ve learned that networking isn’t just about chatting and making connections. It’s been a way to understand the challenges and opportunities in the legal market from those who have been through it.
Progress So Far
So far, I’ve connected with 35 lawyers. If I count conversations from before I set this goal, the number would be closer to 50 already. But I wanted this journey to have a fresh start, so I started from scratch. Each meeting has been more than just a name added to a list: it’s been an opportunity to hear personal stories, understand diverse perspectives, and gain practical advice.
Lessons from Conversations
One piece of advice that resonated deeply with me came from a corporate lawyer who encouraged me to stay curious and open to opportunities outside my immediate goals. They emphasized that adaptability and a willingness to explore can lead to unexpected but rewarding paths.
Another theme that has emerged is the importance of authenticity. Many lawyers I’ve spoken to stressed the value of building genuine relationships, not just transactional ones. People are more willing to help and share their experiences when they sense sincerity in your approach.
Later this year, I will release a booklet of quotes from these conversations. To give you an idea, here are a few selections from the discussions:
“Don’t lose sight of the basics that you learned in kindergarten. Be kind, respectful and listen to others. As I write this, I am working opposite five U of T classmates on various transactions. Maintaining a professional and friendly relationship not only makes the job more enjoyable, but it often keeps the work focused and leads to a better result for all parties involved.”
"Always keep the big picture in mind. When you start out as a new attorney, ask thoughtful questions. Find out how your contribution fits into the larger project, be it complex litigation or a commercial transaction or anything in between. Don’t just go through the motions—take the time to understand why you’re doing what you’re doing. Curiosity and drive to learn are what define great lawyers."
My Networking Approach
Networking can feel daunting, especially in a new country or industry, but I’ve found a few strategies that work well:
1. Start with curiosity: I approach each conversation as a chance to learn, not just to expand my network. This mindset helps me stay open and engaged.
2. Leverage LinkedIn: I often reach out to lawyers with a simple, thoughtful message, explaining why I’d like to connect and what I admire about their work.
3. Be intentional: rather than aiming just for quick meetings, I focus on making each interaction meaningful. This includes researching the person’s background and preparing thoughtful questions in advance. I am happy to report that I got to meet with many of these professionals in person!
4. Follow up: a simple thank-you email or LinkedIn message after the meeting goes a long way in leaving a positive impression and keeping the connection alive.
Why Stories Matter
As someone who produces a podcast called Studying Law Around the World , I’m passionate about storytelling. Over the past few years, I’ve interviewed guests from
19 countries and produced over 40 episodes. These conversations have taught me the power of sharing experiences—not just as a way to connect, but as a way to inspire others.
This passion for stories extends to my networking goal. Every lawyer I meet has a unique journey, and hearing how they’ve navigated their careers motivates me to keep going, even when challenges arise.
Advice for Other Students
If you’re considering a similar networking challenge, my advice is simple: be bold but respectful. Don’t hesitate to reach out to someone whose career you admire, and approach the conversation with a genuine interest in their experiences. Networking isn’t just about job opportunities, it’s about learning, growing, and building relationships that can last a lifetime. It’s also important to remember that networking takes time. You won’t form meaningful connections overnight, but consistency and sincerity will pay off.
Looking Ahead
With more than 40 lawyers still to meet, I know the road ahead will be busy, but I’m excited for the journey. Each conversation helps me feel more connected to the Canadian legal community and more confident about my own path.
Do you know of any U of T Law alumni with whom I would benefit from meeting? I'd appreciate an introduction. U of T’s 75th anniversary is a reminder of the incredible legacy of this institution and the community it fosters. I’m grateful to be part of it and to celebrate it, one conversation at a time.
Another Runnymede Success
A Fireside Chat with SCC Justice Mahmud Jamal
ANDREW SANSONE (1L)
It has been an active year for the Runnymede Society at the University of Toronto.
The club is on track to host over 16 events across the Fall and Winter Terms, with speakers including two Supreme Court of Canada justices, two Ontario Court of Appeal justices, one Federal Court of Appeal justice, the current Attorney General of Ontario, two Premiers, and a host of leading legal academics.
The wide array of speakers has been paralleled by the breadth of topics covered during these events, which include Charter interpretation, federalism, judicial restraint, the notwithstanding clause, mandatory minimums, Indigenous ownership of resource projects, religious freedom, and much more.
The common thread running through these events has been Runnymede’s commitment to its core values of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms—and to advancing intellectual diversity within the Canadian legal community.
The enthusiasm on campus has been immense, with between 80 and 200 people consistently attending each event.
On January 27, Runnymede welcomed Justice Mahmud Jamal, the second Justice of the Supreme Court to participate in a Runnymede event in the span of only three months. Justice Jamal was joined by Justice Grant Huscroft of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, a distinguished member of the bench and profound legal thinker in his own right. Excitement on campus was palpable. As the 6:30 pm start time approached, the Rosalie Silberman Abella Moot Court room was jampacked with around 200 students, faculty, jurists, and members of the public.
The discussion between Justices Jamal and Huscroft—which was preceded by an excellent introduction by Runnymede Co-President, Erik De Lorenzi (3L)—was a thought-provoking and eye-opening exchange between two of Canada’s most admired jurists.
Their dialogue provided a unique chance for attendees to pull back the curtain and hear about the inner workings of Canada’s highest court. They provided insight into the Court’s leave process, the value of judicial specialization, the role of academic work and international law in judicial reasoning, their approaches to authoring opinions, and the fundamentals of good legal advocacy. More than anything, the discussion humanized the two Justices. As students, we spend hours and hours (and hours and hours) reading through decisions that have profoundly shaped the common law, many of them issued by the courts these two men now sit on. We become familiar with the leading men and women of the common law: Laskin, Dickson, Wilson, McLachlin, and, of course, the omnipresent Lord Denning. In many ways, these figures seem larger than life. Yet, at events like these, we are provided the opportunity to see how—behind the eloquent legal reasoning, between the lines of their judicial opinions, and beyond the ubiquitous use of
Latin—they are living and breathing persons, endowed with the same humanity as any 1L student that roams Jackman’s halls. As Justices Jamal and Huscroft reflected on the justice system, the law, and colleagues they had in common — engaging in friendly banter with one another along the way — we saw these sides of them. Furthermore, we saw that while the two may hold vastly different positions on a wide range of issues, they continue to respect and appreciate each other as individuals.
This is what made the event special. In my view, it is also what makes Runnymede an indispensable organization at U of T Law: they are actively committed to creating a forum for good faith participants of all different perspectives to engage, learn from one another, and make measured advancements towards the truth and the pursuit of the common good.
Editor’s Note: Andrew Sansone (1L) is a member of the Runnymede Society.
Canada Will Never be the 51st State
Discussing the looming trade war and other border concerns
GRACE XU (2L)
Donald Trump was not bluffing with his tariff threats. On November 25, 2024, American President-elect Trump threatened 25 % tariffs on all products entering the United States (“US”) from Canada and Mexico until both countries take concrete steps to stop the flow of illegal drugs and migrants. His tariffs, however, ignore important realities. Canada and the US share one of the most secure borders in the world. Illegal drug trafficking and migrant crossings from America’s northern neighbor account for only a fraction of those from Mexico and other foreign countries.
In response to President-elect Trump’s threat, Canada unveiled a 1.3 billion dollar border security plan to address the flow of fentanyl in December 2024. Despite this, on February 1, 2025, Trump made true his promise and signed an executive order to slap 25 % tariffs on Canada. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised a 30 billion dollar retaliation package and an additional 125 billion dollar in duties on American products effective in 21 days. The tariff announcements sent the Canadian dollar plummeting to under 68 cents US, its lowest level since 2003. Stocks on Wall Street also took a tumble with the Dow Jones down 122 points or 0.3 %, up from a 1.5 % drop
earlier that day.
Trump then reactively delayed the tariffs on Canada and Mexico for an additional 30 days on February 3, 2025, prompting Canada and its provinces to temporarily pause their retaliatory tariffs. Next, in less than a week—on February 10, 2025—Trump backtracked slightly and formally announced, through executive order, 25% tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum.
Canadian steel and aluminum industries, already battered by Trump’s 2018 tariffs, now face renewed challenges under the latest measures. The 2018 tariffs—25% on steel and 10% on aluminum—were intended to bolster American manufacturing. However, economists estimate that these tariffs cost America approximately 75,000 manufacturing jobs, as higher costs for Canadian steel and aluminum disrupted supply chains and stifled demand throughout North America. Canadian markets suffered as well, with steel and aluminum exports plummeting. Far from strengthening America’s manufacturing base, the tariffs only exposed the cost of protectionism.
Jean Simard, President of the Aluminium Association of Canada, warns that the new aluminum tariffs will disrupt the jobs of 9,500 Canadian workers who produce alu -
minum that is then exported to the US to be processed by over 500,000 American manufacturing workers.
The automaking industry faces significant disruption as the tariffs threaten to upend highly integrated auto-manufacturing supply chains. With no feasible short-term alternatives to replace the U.S. market, the sector faces mounting pressure. Economists warn that layoffs and rising unemployment will likely proceed. Manufacturing sectors will likely bear the initial brunt of the tariffs before spilling over to hospitality and other service industries. For thousands of workers, the tariffs could mean not just lost wages, but an uncertain future for their families and communities.
For the average Canadian, the impact of Trump’s tariffs will hit close to home. From grocery bills to everyday household expenses, the ripple effects will be felt across the country. The Bank of Montreal forecasts that reduced demand for Canadian goods from the US will force Canadian businesses to raise prices. This would compound on top of the added strain of retaliatory tariffs and supply chain disruptions. As such, Canadians can expect not only higher costs for consumer goods but also a narrower selection on store shelves near them.
Given the strength of the Canada-US border and the immediate economic harm caused by tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, questions on what Trump truly wants come into full force. The President has long floated the idea of annexing Canada as the 51st state, an idea met with growing international backlash. However, his rhetoric suggests a more cynical agenda. Some analysts speculate that Trump’s true aim may lie further north in the Canadian Arctic. Rich in natural resources and home to emerging shipping routes due to melting ice caps, the Arctic Circle has become a global focal point, with countries like Russia and China vying for influence over the region. By targeting Canada, Trump may be signalling his intent to leverage economic pressure to secure a foothold in this strategically vital region. As Trump’s tariffs loom large over Canada, the nation’s leaders have come together in a rare but necessary show of solidarity extending beyond political lines. The provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, and Newfoundland and Labrador have taken bold steps to support Ottawa’s strategy, including pulling American liquor from store shelves as a retaliatory measure. The message remains clear. Canada stands strong. We will never be the 51st state.
A Film Festival for Workers by Workers
The Labour and Employment Law Society Hosts 2024 Canadian Labour International Film Festival
Did you know November is Labour Film Month?
On November 28, 2024, the Labour and Employment Law Society (LELS) presented its first-ever screening of the Canadian Labour International Film Festival (CLiFF). Showcasing a diverse selection of short films exploring the achievements and challenges faced by workers across Canada, the event welcomed both students and members of the community. Attendees had the chance to learn about recent developments in the Canadian and international labour movements, consider broader issues concerning workers’ rights, and simply relax and enjoy good films with a bag of buttery popcorn.
The CLiFF is a national, publicly attended film festival which made its debut in 2009. Founded by social justice, community, and trade union activists, the CLiFF shares the stories of unionized and non-unionized workers seeking workplace justice. It provides opportunities to workers and filmmakers to reach a greater audience across Canada, drawing attention to past and current labour issues.
CLiFF 2024 featured 14 short films, covering a diverse range of genres, from documentary and drama to animation. Five selections
from CLiFF 2024 were showcased at the screening hosted by the LELS.
Adidas Owns Reality by Keil Orion Troisi & Igor Vamos showcases the collaboration between trickster activists “The Yes Men”, the Clean Clothes Campaign, and fashion designers in Berlin to organize an elaborate hoax announcement at the Berlin Fashion Week, addressing poor labour conditions faced by garment workers in the Adidas supply chain. The “performance-intervention” is a piercing critique of Adidas’ manufacturing practices that are far from ethical and sustainable.
The Canadian Dream by Ilse Moreno follows the journey of a migrant worker whose pursuit of the Canadian dream veers into a horrifying discovery of exploitation and grim working conditions in Ontario’s agricultural industry. The film exposes the injustice experienced by Ontario’s migrant farm workers and at the same time celebrates the resilience of workers fighting for safer and just working conditions.
Bargaining Forward by Colleen Butler illustrates strategic mobilization and collective bargaining efforts of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) representing 22,000 public sector workers in New Brunswick, Canada in their strike against wage suppression in
2021. The documentary highlights the history of CUPE’s public sector negotiations in New Brunswick and derives lessons for unions and workers, emphasizing solidarity and organization.
Counting Days by Hiromu Yamawaki tells the story of Ayano, a migrant worker from Japan, struggling to make a living in Canada against rising costs and the vulnerability she feels as her VISA expiration date approaches. With beautiful cinematography and subtlety of dialogue and direction reminiscent of Japanese films, Counting Days captures the reality of working in Canada as a temporary foreign worker.
Time of Insurrection by Gabriel Fernández-Gil is a modern take of Miguel de Unamuno’s 1930 novel San Manuel Bueno, Mártir. At his annual shareholder’s meeting, the CEO of a global dairy corporation begins to discuss corporate responsibility and environmental impact— topics which greatly discomfort shareholders. The uneasiness created by the CEO, amped up for dramatic effect, unfolds an intriguing series of events for the audience.
Each film was distinct, highlighting various labour issues in domestic and international spheres. Occupational safety and living wage were common themes throughout the screen -
ing. A mix of documentaries and fictional dramas provided viewers the opportunity to learn and entertain themselves at the same time.
One of the student attendees described their CLiFF 2024 experience as emotionally captivating and inspiring: “After watching the films at the Canadian Labour International Film Festival 2024, I was truly impressed by how well they captured the struggles and resilience of workers. Each film not only highlighted important social issues but also brought to light the often overlooked stories of everyday people fighting for their rights.”
In 2025, the LELS aims to organize a number of events for students interested in the field of labour and employment law in addition to law firm tours, panels, and the Hicks Morley Moot. Missed CLiFF 2024? This fall, CLiFF 2025 will return with brand-new labour films to indulge in! For more information about the CLiFF, check out their website at https://labourfilms.ca/
Make sure to follow @lels.uoft on Instagram for the latest information on labour and employment-related events happening at the Faculty of Law.
Editor’s Note: Yena Kim (1L) is a member of the Labour and Employment Law Society.
YENA KIM (1L)
Supreme Court of Canada to Hear Challenge to Québec’s Controversial Secularism Law
On
Thursday January 23,
the Supreme Court announced it would hear a legal challenge to Québec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State, also referred to as Bill 21
OLIVIA SCHENK (3L)
On Thursday, January 23, the Supreme Court of Canada announced it would hear a legal challenge to Québec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State . This Act is more commonly referred to as Bill 21, which has banned public workers in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols since it was first enacted in 2019.
Overview of Bill 21 Bill 21 was introduced by Simon JolinBarrette while he was serving as Minister of Immigration under incumbent Premier François Legault of the Coalition Avenir Québec provincial political party. The National Assembly of Québec passed the controversial Act on June 16, 2019.
Chapter 1 of Bill 21 emphasizes the importance of the separation of religion and the State. Section 1 begins with a declaration:
“The State of Québec is a lay State.”
Chapter 2 section 6 prohibits an enumerated list of public workers from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their functions. The list includes the President and Vice Presidents of the National Assembly, lawyers, peace officers, and teachers. Religious symbols are specified as including “clothing, a symbol, jewellery, an adornment, an accessory or headwear, that (1) is worn in connection with a religious conviction or belief; or (2) is reasonably considered as referring to a religious affiliation.”
Chapter 3 restricts an enumerated list of public workers from exercising their
public service functions while wearing face coverings. The list includes members of the National Assembly, elected municipal officers, school board commissioners, peace officers, physicians, dentists, midwives, and subsidized home childcare providers.
Chapter 4 section 14 clarifies that “no accommodation or other derogation or adaptation, except those provided for in this Act, may be granted in connection with the provisions concerning the prohibition on wearing religious symbols or concerning the obligations relating to services with one’s face uncovered.”
Chapter 5 amends various provisions in two other Acts, including the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms , to make them harmonious with Bill 21.
Chapter 6 section 31 grandfathers individuals currently working in roles on the enumerated lists, allowing them to continue to wear religious symbols so long as they exercise the same function within the same organization.
Bill 21’s section 34 invokes section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms , also known as the notwithstanding clause. The controversial notwithstanding clause of the Charter shields Bill 21 from being declared unconstitutional even if a court finds it contravenes the Charter. The notwithstanding clause’s provision must be renewed every five years. The last renewal was in 2024.
Criticism and Public Opinion of Bill 21
Bill 21 has been accused of targeting adherents to minority religions, including Muslim, Sikh, and Jewish Québecers. Despite evidence substantiating these concerns, the majority of Québecers appear to support the Act.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims highlighted the impacts that Bill 21 has had on the employability of Muslim women in Québec. Many muslim women wear a hijab or face coverings as part of their faith.
One woman surveyed, Sarah, found herself “having to choose between [her] religion and [her] career” after Bill 21 became law.
The World Sikh Organization (WSO) is party to the legal challenge against Bill 21.
The WSO has highlighted the personal impact on former Québec resident Amrit Kaur, who is a WSO Board Member and former WSO Vice President, who wears a dastaar (turban) as part of her Sikh faith. She wanted to be a teacher in Québec, but since the passage of Bill 21 she has been forced to move to British Columbia to pursue her profession.
The Association for Canadian Studies reported that 14.3 % of Jewish men and 15.4 % of Jewish women have themselves or had family members or friends impacted by Bill 21—compared to the 6.7 % and 7.6 % of all Québec resident men and women surveyed, respectively
Despite the evidence of targeted impacts, a
2019 Ipsos poll found that 63 % of Québecers support Bill 21. With the highest support found amongst voters for the Bloc Québécois, the People’s Party of Canada, and the Conservative Party—at 85 %, 76 %, and 62 %, respectively.
Decision History and Pending Supreme Court of Canada Challenge
The Québec Superior Court and the Québec Court of Appeal upheld Bill 21 with the caveat that the ban on wearing religious symbols could not be applied to members of the National Assembly. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada will mark the final judicial review of Bill 21.
Supreme Court Justice Mahmud Jamal has recused himself from hearing the case due to the involvement of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). Justice Jamal was President of the CCLA when the CCLA filed to challenge Bill 21 in 2019, before he was nominated to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2021.
Québec’s Justice Minister, Jolin-Barrette, issued a joint statement with Jean-François Roberge, the minister responsible for upholding secularism, saying Québec intends to defend the law until the end. The federal government has announced it would be intervening in the case and making arguments against Bill 21. Jolin-Barrette has stated that any federal intervention would be an affront to Québec’s autonomy.
2025 John A. Tory Lecture Recap
KUNWAR SINGH (LLM)
On January 30 2025, the University of Toronto Faculty of Law hosted the inaugural John A. Tory Lecture—the lecture captivated the attendees with a thoughtful exploration of recent changes in the area of tax law. Distinguished speaker, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice and Dean Emeritus the Honourable Frank Iacobucci, addressed the significance of the new preamble to the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) introduced through Bill C-59 in June of 2024. The event was moderated by U of T Law Professor and Osler Chair in
Business Law Benjamin Alarie and the dialogue underscored the dynamic interplay between statutory interpretation and tax policy.
The lecture took us on an intriguing exploration of the history of GAAR since its inception in 1988 through Section 245 of the Canadian Income Tax Act . Originally intended to prevent abusive tax avoidance while protecting legitimate transactions and their tax consequences, the role of the GAAR’s has evolved over time—a shift highlighted by Iacobucci during the lec -
ture. Iacobucci pointed out the broadened scope of the new GAAR rules. Under the new framework, a transaction will be deemed an avoidance transaction if "one of the main purposes" is to secure a tax benefit regardless of whether the transaction is primarily legitimate. This presents a marked departure from the old rule, which permitted transactions to avoid GAAR if they were primarily for bona fide purposes, even if they produced a tax benefit. Iacobucci indicated that the new rule facilitates the application of GAAR to a wider range of
transactions, thereby diminishing the likelihood that taxpayers will successfully contest GAAR assessments. The cases of Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada (2005) and Deans Knight Income Corp. v. Canada (2023) were reviewed, demonstrating how the GAAR has been implemented in practice to strike a balance between tax fairness and commercial reasons.
The lecture then shifted focus to the 2024 update of the GAAR preamble, and its propensity to initiate new conversations about its impact on statutory interpretation and
future case law. Iacobucci referenced a paper by U of T Law Professor Kent Roach titled “The Uses and Audiences of Preambles in Legislation” in which Professor Roach argues that preambles are essential for understanding legislative intent and informing judicial interpretation. Echoing the same points, Iacobucci contended that preambles create a link between the legislature and judiciary, offering insight into the underlying purpose of a law.
A light-hearted and engaging moment occurred during the 15-minute Q&A session. Professor Alarie jokingly mentioned that during his time on the bench, former Justice Iacobucci had never in fact decided a GAAR case. One of the audience members playfully inquired about how Iacobucci would have handled the new preamble if he had been a sitting judge at the time. Iacobucci pondered thoughtfully,suggesting that, as a judge, he would have likely taken into account the preamble in his judicial interpretation, in line with Professor Kent Roach’s astute assertions in his paper.
The evening concluded on a positive note, with attendees gaining a greater understanding of the intricacies of GAAR and the significant impact that even minor shifts in legislative language, like the preamble, can have on the interpretation of statutes.
Papers Worth Saving
A guest contribution by the Editor-in-Chief of Obiter Dicta
OMAR EL SHARKAWY (3L AT OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL)
The custom of school rivalry dictates that Osgoode Hall and U of T Law School are oft discussed in terms of their differences. Much as we like to compare statistics and vibes, a precious kinship between both schools lies in a key yet understated institution: The student newspaper. The academic journal is, of course, a staple of any law college, as are mooting circuits, and the long column of law clubs specialising in one area or another. Student journalism is a distinct space, though, which the Obiter Dicta and Ultra Vires have long carved in as a proverbial “third place” outside the monopoly of studying and working in law. It’s no less shaped by law students—their time, their views, their concerns. It is a place where student expression need not be qualified by an academic or professional affiliation. Long has it been the soapbox from which we’ve preached that you can’t quite say outside a lecture hall (or at least find an audience for it). For as long as I have read both papers, I’ve noticed a candour and sincerity in articles almost unseen elsewhere in law school circles; a space where one can feel vulnerable, but not uncomfortable speaking their mind. On the other side of the paper, there’s a readership keen to hear about all the news fit to print regarding the dread of
tuition increases, courses students never cared much for, or the always fashionable frustration with endless job interviews. It is no less because of the historical continuity of these platforms that generations of students have expressed their relevant concerns and interests for so long—above all, in their voices.
Obiter Dicta , which is Osgoode’s official student newspaper, has itself been publishing since 1928. The subtitle on every nameplate proudly bears the laurel of “The Oldest Law School Newspaper in North America.” I often enjoy going back to the archives and reading about what students had to say in the editions of yore—surprisingly little different from today. There’s a melancholy in that distinction of age, though. Editions from the 1920s up to the Y2K era and little beyond that are clearly from another time in student journalism. They’re brim with advertisements that wouldn’t seem alien in the Star or the Times : Chrysler automobiles, Jersey Milk chocolate bars, tailors of both suits and barrister’s robes, The production schedules were practically weekly, and the staff list was mammoth. The news columns didn’t have to compete with the law school’s own newswire. Far from just the forum of a student
voice, this was your go-to source of information, your choice of literature during a coffee break, and your reprieve from the monotony of case readings.
Today, student newspapers of any stripe may be looked onto as something of an anachronism. In law schools—where the constituency of the student newspaper is even smaller than many a high school or undergraduate campus—there’s been especially trying times to preserve their niche. Nowadays anyone can curate their own arbiters of opinion through social media, or have access to news within an instant, whether local or worldwide. Yet the student newspaper has not gone extinct, nor will it. There’s certainly been a bit of creative reinvention with its content and presentation over the years, but the message stays the same: Our platform, our voice. The law school newspaper is, conceptually, medium for student agency. It's also an accessible medium by virtue of that mission—anyone can write for it, and with more generality and personability than in most other law school settings. Even when readership is low—which isn’t unusual—the very fact of that expression gives students a distinct voice, made more authoritative by a nameplate and editorial masthead.
Both our schools are lucky to not only have student newspapers, but leading and longstanding newspapers of their kind. There must certainly be no want for enthusiasm in seeing them prosper given their long continuity, and how eager new boards take up production year-by-year even as complete turnovers and new generational cycles carry on. Still, as a student dependent enterprise it’s fickle, and to take it for granted comes easy. It might not seem like a lot, in the abstract, to lose the means to write about a favourite show or the state of articling recruitment to the law school community. But we’ll notice if that voice is gone, and it’s our imperative to make sure that this is a liberty we may always keep. We’ll always need it, even if we don’t always know it. Even if only one student reads it, it’s worth it. So please don’t take your student newspaper for granted—whether you read in passing, write for every issue, or put the layout together, keep it up. Whether you know it or not, future students will be in your debt even as the paper gets reinvented again.
Editor’s Note: Omar El Sharkawy (3L at Osgoode Hall Law School) is the Editor-in-Chief of Obiter Dicta, Osgoode Hall Law Schools’s student newspaper.
Justice Rosalie Abella Reflects on Holocaust Remembrance and Lessons of History International Holocaust Remembrance Day: Justice
Rosalie Silberman
Abella in conversation with Professor Arthur Ripstein
GEORGIA GARDNER (2L)
“It is your responsibility, as future lawyers, to commit to liberal and democratic values, to protect the rights of minorities where the government cannot justify intrusion and to ensure that the law remains responsive to legitimate minority interests.”
On Holocaust Remembrance Day—Monday, January 27, former Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella and U of T Law Professor Arthur Ripstein engaged in a meaningful discussion about Holocaust remembrance in Canada, hosted by the Jewish Law Students Association. For Abella, the Holocaust was not just a historical atrocity but a defining element in her life’s journey—a reminder of justice’s fragility and the ongoing struggle against antisemitism. Professor Ripstein began with the question: What does Holocaust remembrance mean to you?
“I’ve struggled with how to put it into words because it operates on so many levels,” Abella answered. “When I was in law school, I don’t think I fully appreciated the impact this day would have on me. At the time, I saw the Holocaust as a failure of law and justice. But I didn’t come to understand its deeply antisemitic dimension until years later.”
Abella’s connection to the Holocaust is deeply personal. Her parents, both Polish Jews, were married on September 3, 1939, just two days after Hitler’s invasion of Poland. Abella was born in a refugee camp in Stuttgart, Germany. Her father, a law school graduate from Kraków, never had the chance to practice law in Poland. When the war began, his family’s manufacturing business was seized by German authorities, and he was sent to a labour camp.
“I don’t know how my parents survived,” Abella admitted. Despite enduring unimaginable pain, Abella’s parents chose gratitude over grievance. “I grew up in a house where there were no complaints about what had happened to them. They were just happy to be in Canada. I was raised with a sense of obligation to prove that Canada was right to let us in.”
Justice Abella reflected on the fragility of life and
the systems we often take for granted. “Life stopped for my parents when they were in their 30s and 40s. They never said it outright, but I understood—everything you have can be abruptly taken away,” she said. “I feel the same way about our social and legal systems. We must make the most of what we have because what we have is very precious.”
Her father, determined to reclaim his legal career, approached the Law Society upon arriving in Canada. He was told he couldn’t practice until he became a citizen, which required a five-year wait. Undeterred, he taught himself English and persevered, embodying the resilience that would shape Justice Abella’s own career.
Professor Ripstein then shared his own family’s history. He recounted how his family had once lived comfortably in Germany—his father, a veteran of the First World War, displayed his Iron Cross in the store window, a symbol of loyalty and service to the country. But even that could not protect them. “Their windows were smashed. They were forced to sell the business under duress,” Ripstein said. His family fled to Amsterdam, where his mother was able to secure false papers and survive. His grandparents, however, were murdered in the Holocaust. After the war, Ripstein’s father was sheltered by a German family who risked their safety to protect him. “They got him out by bribing people,” he said. “One of the most troubling things is that antisemitism seems to find its own occasions. Whenever something goes wrong, Jews are blamedfor capitalism by the left, for communism by the right. Jews are constantly called upon to prove themselves in ways that others are not.”
Abella posed the next question to Ripstein: How should institutions confront antisemitism in the face of growing resistance?
Ripstein emphasized that universities must remain custodians of civilized human interaction - places where difficult conversations can happen without fear
or exclusion. He referenced a quote from philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer: “It isn’t a conversation if you don’t believe that the other person could be right.” For him, this is a crucial reminder of what universities should represent: spaces where hard questions can be discussed, disagreements can be had in a civilized way, and conversations can continue even in the face of deep differences.
He noted that antisemitism is distinct in certain ways while also sharing characteristics with other forms of discrimination. He also argued that anti-racism training should recognize antisemitism in its particular forms, including the ways it manifests differently from other prejudices.
Justice Abella challenged the audience to consider the role of law schools in an era of deepening political and social divides. “In law school, we learn about civility, the dignity of intellect, and the requirement for respect when there is difference,” she said. “But what is the role of the law in all of this?”
She questioned whether legal standards are still meaningful when interpretation can be stretched to fit any argument. “What laws do we need to protect and foster an environment of open and respectful debate? And how enforceable are they when people fear disapproval from one side or the other?” she asked. At a time when public discourse is driven by outrage, social media, and populism, she worried that law may no longer function as a force above political pressures. “I had always seen law as something that transcends human behavior. Is that still the case? Or are we in a post-legal world where it doesn’t matter what the law says?”
Pointing to the United States, Abella expressed concern over the erosion of legal protections and human rights. “Reading the newspaper, what’s going on in the U.S. is an insult to almost every single part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was passed in 1948,” she said. “Anti-refugee policies, dis-
criminatory practices, arbitrary actions—we have laws against these things.”
Beyond Holocaust remembrance, Abella urged students in the audience to recognize their duty in protecting current liberal and democratic values. “Canada has a history of commitment to these principles,” she said, pointing to the evolution of human rights protections, from the 1950 Bill of Rights to provincial human rights codes, culminating in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Even as Justice Abella ascended to the country’s highest judicial office, she remained acutely aware of the journey that led her there. “My path to the Supreme Court was a circuitous route - it was all about the Holocaust. Over the years, I became infused with passion, not just about the justice and injustice I was born from. I felt committed to redressing it in any way I could. I understood that this all happened because I was Jewish.”
Justice Abella recalled the moment she became an Ontario Family Court judge - an achievement that, in her words, was infused with chutzpah. “A 29-year-old Jewish woman on the bench - it was something my family could hardly believe,” she said with a smile. For Abella, it was a moment of joy and disbelief. “It was a happy, loving, ‘isn’t this amazing?’ kind of moment.”
“My clients [as a lawyer] taught me about discrimination against minorities. The Royal Commission on Equality in Employment taught me about systemic barriers. The newspapers taught me about discrimination against Jews,” she said.
For much of her life, Abella felt fortunate that she didn’t have to worry about what being Jewish meant in a deeply personal way. “Unlike my parents, I never had to think about it,” she reflected. “But now… now I feel it.”
Reflecting on the infamous Wannsee Conference, where Nazi officials formalized the Final Solution, Abella pointed out a chilling fact: many of the architects of genocide were highly educated. “Fifteen men sat around that table. Nine of them were lawyers. They created the legal framework for the slaughter of Jews, Roma, and other targeted groups. That brings me full circle to how I think about the Holocaust - my lifetime’s review to what justice really means.”
For Abella, Holocaust Remembrance Day is not just about reflection; it is about vigilance. It is a reminder that the pursuit of justice is never complete, and that history’s darkest lessons must never be forgotten. Abella concluded with a hopeful message. “I see you—the next generation—as the guardians of justice. If we can’t count on you, then there’s no hope. But I do count on you. The things you learn, the people you meet - this is your collegial entry into a lifelong duty. You have an obligation to make the world better. Because if law isn’t about justice, then what’s the point? It is your responsibility, as future lawyers, to commit to liberal and democratic values, to protect the rights of minorities where the government cannot justify intrusion and to ensure that the law remains responsive to legitimate minority interests.”
Justice Rosalie Abella’s words serve as both a warning and a challenge: the law is only as strong as those who uphold it. Holocaust Remembrance is not just a day of reflection. It reminds us how fragile justice can be, how quickly rights can be stripped away, and how easily hatred can take root when left unchecked.
Credit: UofT Jewish Law Students’ Association
The Paper That Binds Us
Three Former EiCs on the Magic of Ultra Vires
ABBY SASITHARAN (3L)
Ever wondered what it’s like to run Ultra Vires ? Three past Editors-in-Chief share their experiences—from investigative wins to last-minute scrambles (and free donuts, of
ALYSSA WONG
Class of 2024
EiC Year: 2023-2024 (Volume 25)
course). They reflect on the challenges, triumphs, and the lasting impact of student journalism at U of T Law.
A huge thank you to our Ultra Vires alum -
I’m Alyssa Wong. I was EiC for the 20232024 school year and graduated in 2024. I’m currently articling at the Law Society of Ontario.
I decided to join UV in 2L after seeing friends get involved during 1L. At the time, I wasn’t sure if I wanted to write anything so I applied to be the Online Editor to help with maintaining the website instead. Despite my initial hesitations, I ended up writing for UV and had so much fun that I decided to apply to be an EiC going into 3L. I loved getting to spend time working in the UV office with
people who became my friends and learning all about the different things going on at the law school. I especially loved seeing the work that went into each issue pay off on launch days when we got to hand out issues, even if people were only coming by for the donuts. To any current students, don’t wait until it’s too late to submit something to UV. While I was EiC, multiple students told us they hoped to submit something to UV but never got around to it before graduation. There’s one more issue this year–now’s your chance!
SABRINA MACKLAI
Class of 2023 (JD/MI)
EiC Year: 2021-2022 (Volume 23)
ni for sharing their stories, wisdom, and experiences. Your contributions keep the spirit of UV alive. From investigative deep dives to lighthearted law school chaos, your lega -
HARRY MYLES
Class of 2023
EiC Year: 2022-2023 (Volume 24)
cy inspires future generations to write, question, and make a difference! Here’s to celebrating the magic of UV with our beloved UV alumni.
Since July 2024, I have been working as inhouse counsel for the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE). Initially, I advised CUPE locals in the school board sector on collective agreement interpretations and handled grievance arbitration. I then switched assignments to my current role as a WSIB Representative, in which I represent injured CUPE members at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the Appeals Tribunal.
Outside of work, I volunteer at the Workers’ Action Centre to assist non-unionized workers with employment issues, particularly ESA claims for wage theft. I likewise volunteer with a labour
organization working to unionize the private sector.
I joined UV in 1L after having written and edited an undergraduate music magazine. I began as a diversions contributor and loved the freedom UV offered to parody some of the (many) absurdities of law school. When I later focused on long-term investigations, I saw UV’s tremendous value as a tool to hold the law school (and greater UofT) administration accountable for its actions. As a student, you often feel powerless in the face of a dominant academic institution, but the press is one way through which students can tip that power imbalance.
It feels surreal to draft this from my office in New York almost two years after graduating U of T Law (and saying what I thought was my final goodbye to UV in a very melodramatic article that I can’t believe we ran!). So much has changed and yet some days I still wake up in a panic that I overslept and missed Sara Faherty’s 8am externship seminar.
I currently work on intellectual property (“IP”) transactions within a big law firm, after having clerked at the Federal Court for a year. During law school, I tried to make it known as the “IP Girl”—I took every IP class there was (shout out to Professor Ariel Katz for having to see me on a near-daily basis), wrote and edited for Osgoode’s IP blog, competed in the Fox Moot, volunteered for Artists Legal Advice Services, and started a club on legal innovation and technology.
You’d think after all that, something IP-related would be top of my mind when asked to reflect on my law school journey. And yet, when I think back on those three years, UV remains the highlight. I always loved student journalism; to me, it was the best way to foster community amongst my peers and give a voice to those
who felt unheard. I joined as a 1L opinions editor, quickly fell in love with the paper, and, after authoring probably 20-something articles in my first year, became co-EiC in my 2L year. I loved our chaotic pitch meetings, as we tried to figure out what articles to include in the next issue/what the hottest gossip was on campus that wouldn’t get us sued for including. I loved doing a final sign-off on every article that came in, making sure everyone’s story was in its best form. And while I didn’t love chasing writers who missed their deadlines (I say as I missed the deadline for this article—sorry folks!), nothing beast the satisfaction every month of holding in my hands the output of everyone’s hard work and passion.
My apologies to the editors who have to review my draft and deal with my penchant for taking the scenic route to my point! So here it is: join UV! I’m not guaranteeing it will land you a job or an interview, or that it’ll make you the most popular person on campus (quite the opposite, really—I definitely pissed off more people than I can count with some of the articles I published). What I do guarantee is that it’s a lot of fun,
you meet some really cool people and you get a chance to make a difference in the law school community, by publicizing issues that may have otherwise fallen on deaf ears. When I was EiC, I made it a point to increase UV’s foray into investigative journalism, running articles on a student’s human rights claim against the Faculty, an in-depth investigation into the Facul-
ty’s budget, and countless articles on the law school’s lack of accommodations, especially during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. While I can’t say these articles directly led to change, they at least helped form part of the historical record, keeping the Faculty accountable and allowing for the conversation to continue. And you get free donuts!
Alumni Insights: “What I Wish I Knew about Business Development”
GEORGIA GARDNER (2L)
Law students spend years perfecting legal analysis, research, and statutory interpretation, but almost no time learning how to build a sustainable legal career. Business development, the skill that determines whether lawyers attract clients, grow their practices, and advance in firms, remains an afterthought in legal education. Yet, for many lawyers, business development is essential to career growth. Whether in private practice, criminal law, or family law, the ability to bring in work, maintain strong professional networks, and position oneself strategically in the market can shape long-term success.
To better understand what business development looks like in practice and what law students might want to consider early-on, I spoke with University of Toronto Law alumni who have navigated this challenge firsthand. Their experiences offer insight into what they wish they had known earlier and how they approached this often-overlooked aspect of legal education.
Justin Nasseri (‘12) is a founding partner at Ross Nasseri LLP, a litigation boutique that specializes in civil and regulatory disputes.
For Nasseri, developing real and strong relationships is the cornerstone of business development: “There are plenty of smart and capable lawyers in the Bar. If that was the only criteria to develop business, the profession would be replete with rainmakers,” he explains. “The people that really advance at business development are not only good at the craft, they’re also good at building relationships. They have close relationships with people they care about and grow and develop with over the years. Those relationships are going to be the best source of work because those are going to be the people who (i) know you’re good at your job, but more importantly, (ii) are so invested in your success that when there’s an opportunity to direct work to you, they will go out of their way to ensure it happens.”
For Nasseri, those relationships are key. “Most of my work comes from 10-12 pipelines,” he said, citing sources that include law school classmates, clients he has befriended, and lawyers with whom he built mutual respect after going against them on files. What connects the range of sources is the strength of the relationship and the effort put into maintaining the relationship over time.
That investment has been integral to his practice. “It’s the reason I have files that I can run and do a good job on,” he stated. “And the more files you do a good job on, the faster your reputation grows, and the more files you get.”
If there’s one thing Nasseri wished he knew in law school, it’s that business development shouldn’t wait. “Some people in this profession will say that law students and associates are too young to worry about business development. That’s nonsense. If you want to grow a big book of business, it’s never too early to start.”
Samantha Eisen (‘17) is the founder of Samantha Eisen & Company, a family law firm.
For Eisen, business development in the family law bar is about visibility and relationships. “It’s making sure my name is out there, that people know who I am,” she emphasized. “It’s helpful to have connections in the bar, to have mentors and mentees.” With the vast majority of her clients coming from referrals, these relationships are critical. “Ninety-five percent of my clients come from referrals.” When someone is dealing with a family law issue, they often ask, “Do you know any family lawyers?”—a dynamic that makes being known in the right circles essential. “More broadly,” she added, “everyone knows somebody going through a family law issue.”
Reflecting on what Eisen wishes she knew in law
school, she believes that business development is often misunderstood. “It’s not just about going to networking events,” she says. While those can be useful, they can also be exhausting. “There are so many other ways to get involved—working groups, legal organizations, writing about issues you care about.” She highlights the Ontario Bar Association’s Women’s Law Forum (OBWAY) as one example of a group that provided valuable connections.
For those who prefer alternatives to traditional networking, Eisen highlighted social media as an effective business development tool. “Platforms like Linkedin and TikTok are amazing,” she stated. “They let you connect with people in a quick and easy way.” While she hasn’t posted on her TikTok account in a while, she acknowledged its potential: “If it’s something you like, it’s a way to get your name out there.” She observed that social media allows clients to feel a connection before meeting her. “Clients like to see you and get a sense of who you are,” she explained. “They watch how you talk, hear how you communicate in everyday language, and that makes you more approachable. It helps them feel comfortable, like they can trust you and have a real conversation.”
Eisen also emphasized that business development should be intentional and aligned with the type of clients a lawyer wants to attract. “Who is your clientele? You should be doing activities that allow you to interact with them,” she explained. Writing blog posts and engaging with relevant communities are part of that process. “The goal is not just to build a practice but to attract the right clients in the right ways.”
Jacob Roth (‘18) is an associate in the criminal practice at Henein Hutchison Robitaille LLP.
For Roth, business development in the criminal law bar is about reputation. “It’s about gaining a reputation first and foremost among colleagues, members of the bar, as being someone who is very effective at what they do,” he explained. Unlike other areas of law, where former clients might be a source of referrals, criminal defence work relies almost entirely on referrals from other lawyers. “People who are criminally charged tend not to want to speak about that,” he pointed out. “They are less likely to say, ‘I worked with this defence lawyer, and my lawyer was really good.’”
Because most people will never need a criminal defence lawyer, and those who do may not openly discuss their experience, building a strong professional reputation is critical. “It’s really important that your reputation isn’t solely with other criminal defence lawyers,” Roth explained. “You want to have a reputation among people from diverse areas of practice, particularly those that have a lot of overlap with criminal law. One example is family law, as many criminal cases arise in domestic contexts. Maintaining good relationships with family lawyers, who often have clients facing criminal charges, is an effective way to generate referrals.”
Looking back, Roth acknowledged that he knew little about business development in law school. “I didn’t really know anything,” he admitted. But one key lesson has stood out to Roth: in the legal profession, reputation is everything, and small interactions can have lasting effects. “You don’t know, in any given interaction, how that might wind up getting talked about,” he reflected. The legal profession is small, and while it takes time to build a reputation as someone who is trustworthy and effective, a single misstep can quickly undermine it.
He has seen firsthand how word spreads in ways that aren’t always obvious. “If you do a really good job at a trial, the judge might mention it to other judges,” he pointed out. “Word gets around that you are somebody who can be relied upon to do good work.” This
isn’t about deliberately trying to develop business, it’s about consistently demonstrating excellence. As a student, he hadn’t realized “just how much people talk and how little you know about those discussions within the bar.” Reputation, he has learned, is shaped in ways that aren’t always visible, but that are nonetheless impactful.
Atrisha Lewis ('12) is a partner in the Litigation Group at McCarthy Tétrault LLP with a focus on commercial disputes, securities litigation, professional liability, and product liability matters.
For Lewis, business development is about more than just networking—it’s about building genuine, lasting relationships, and positioning yourself to attract the kind of work you want. “It means getting your name out there, building authentic relationships, and placing yourself in the best position to attract the work you want,” she explained.
Throughout her career, business development has been a natural extension of how she has and continues to interact with colleagues and contacts. “I try to build
authentic relationships,” she said. “I have done so pretty organically throughout my career—whether it is meeting classmates for a coffee while articling, taking someone who is in-house to a Raptors game, or sending a personalized email when something makes me think of someone.” These small but meaningful interactions have helped her cultivate a strong professional network and maintain connections that can lead to new opportunities.
Looking back, Lewis wishes she had known just how valuable law school connections would become.
“Your classmates will end up in a lot of very interesting places,” she noted, “if the only ‘business development’ you do is stay in touch with your classmates, you will be surprised at the exciting twists and turns people’s careers take and how people want to help you and make introductions that can benefit your career if they can.” In a profession where relationships drive opportunities, simply keeping in touch can be one of the most effective forms of business development.
Editor’s Note: These interviews have been edited for brevity and clarity.
My Arnup Cup Experience
A retelling of my experience trying out for and participating in the Arnup Cup, the only competitive trial level moot offered at UofT law
OLIVIA SCHENK (3L)
My interest in the Arnup Cup competition was an extension of my love of mooting. Before this year, I had participated in four oral advocacy events while in law school: the Stewart Cup, 1L Trial Advocacy, the Legal Innovation and Technology Competition, and the Competition Law Moot. With each experience I felt myself grow as an advocate. In 3L, the Arnup represented my last chance to compete in pretend court before beginning my articling at a civil litigation boutique.
So I enrolled in the Trial Advocacy class in the Fall term. Near the beginning of the class, the Faculty communicated to us that the top eligible performers would be selected for the Arnup Cup. Our professor Julie Hannaford told us multiple times that our class was exceptional, and I believe her. I knew only two mooters would be selected and I knew it would be tough to make the cut. After the initial workshops, which covered basic skills, we ran a mini trial. I was paired with Humza Khan (2L) who had a lot of experience in trial advocacy competitions from his undergraduate. Khan taught me a lot about the theatrics necessary to be a successful trial advocacy mooter: hand gestures, the correct emphasis on words, and moving around the space.
Later in the semester, our final assignment was to run an entire civil trial. Shelby Hohmann (3L) and I paired ourselves together. Hohmann spent her last summer at a criminal defence firm, I was super excited to be working together. We collaborated incredibly well and helped each other elevate our sections into a strong and cohesive case.
The night of the final trial Shelby and I were nervous but ready. Our witnesses, Daniel Jolic (3L) and my fiancé, had worked super hard to prepare. Jolic even came in costume, using a cane because his character had been permanently disabled after falling from a horse. He was such a great actor that the registrar genuinely thought he needed assistance getting into the witness box!
My personal highlight of the trial was when I made a successful Browne v Dunn objection. I wrote a sticky note to Hohmann “I’m gonna object re Browne ”. She looked at me and shook her head cautiously—it was a high risk move and we had already failed an objection earlier. However, I felt confident we would succeed and decided to go for it. The opposing side was about to contradict our witness on cross on a point not raised during the in-chief examination. I stood up and objected. The objection was sustained.
After the final trial, I received an email
notifying me that I had been selected to participate in an additional Arnup tryout. It was the middle of exam season, but I decided to go for it. I elected to run my cross examination for the tryout, which was more challenging than my in-chief examination but also demonstrated a broader range of my skill set. I competed against four other highly skilled mooters for two seats. For my tryout the witness was played by Corie Langdon, a Crown attorney. She played a tough witness, but the cross examination went relatively well. I had no idea if it would be enough. Luckily, I made the cut and was selected to participate in the Arnup Cup with Janna Getty (3L). Janna had previously mooted in the Callaghan Memorial Moot last year and has spent her last two summers with the Ministry of the Attorney General in the human trafficking division. I was immediately looking forward to working together.
Getty and I dove into the problem immediately after New Years. The problem was 51 pages long with six pages of exhibits. We represented the defendant, Mark Johnston, and the Crown would be representing Jason Walters. The facts of the case are as follows: on the night of June 11, 2024, Walters and Johnston met at Halo Nightclub to discuss a settlement for an outstanding civil claim between them. The meeting rapidly turned hostile. The hostility culminated with Johnston yelling “Gun!” and striking Walters with a bar stool. The issue before the court was whether Johnston was acting in self defence.
Our coaches were three senior criminal lawyers. Two Crown attorneys, Corie Langdon and Emily Marroco, and defence lawyer Royland Moriah. All our coaches brought with them years of valuable real court and pretend court experience. We met multiple times a week to workshop different sections. Our coaches shredded our initial drafts to bits, but it was all worth it when the final drafts began to come together. In the week leading up to the Arnup, we had two in-person run throughs and an exhibits workshop to practice working in physical spaces.
The Arnup took place from February 6 to the 7 at the Federal Court in Toronto. Historically, the Arnup has been jointly run by Weirfoulds LLP and the Advocate Society. However, this year the Advocate Society dropped out and Weirfoulds had to step up to save the entire event by running everything.
The Arnup consisted of four rounds with eight Ontario law schools competing: the Bora Laskin Faculty of Law (Lakehead University), Lincoln Alexander School of Law (Toronto Metropolitan University), Osgoode Hall Law School (York University), Queen’s University Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Western University Faculty of Law, and University of Windsor Faculty of Law. Each round is before the same judge, jury, and witnesses in order to standardize the evaluation as much as possible.
At the Arnup we competed on the first day in the second round slot against the team from Queens. The competition began at 12:30pm with 45 minutes of witness prep. Unlike real life, we were permitted to “woodshed” our witnesses as much as we liked. The witnesses were Weirfoulds associates. We explained to them our theory of the case and how we wanted them to approach potential
cross questions.
The Crown opener revealed that Queens planned to use a prior charge as a key point in their arguments. However, we remembered that the Sopinka Rules of Evidence explicitly excluded the prior charge’s use. I wrote a sticky note to Getty, “They better not—I’ll object.” As predicted, during their first in-chief examination, they began to ask questions about the prior charge. I immediately objected, and successfully kept the details of the prior charge out of the evidence.
I spoke first for our team in the primary cross. The cross went relatively well except for one curve ball. Luckily, the night before, Janna and I had chatted about how to handle if Walters insisted when he told police he had been “carrying his gun for months,” he actually had meant he had been carrying the gun inside his home. Walters took that exact position on the stand. Luckily, Janna and I had prepared a line of questions to deal with it and make Walters look ridiculous.
The rest of the trial went incredibly smooth. It was the first moot where my Apple Watch didn't give me multiple “high heart rate” warnings. Getty was an incredible cocounsel. She spoke with a lot of poise, handled the enlarged exhibits like a professional, and gave a great closing to tie our entire case together. I was so proud of our entire performance. The feedback we received after the trial was largely positive. In particular, I recall the judge, The Honourable Clayton Conlan’s, comment on my risky choice to incorporate yelling into the opening: “You definitely startled me. But I suppose that was the point and I suppose it was ultimately very effective”.
Getty and I attended the day one reception at Weirfoulds in high spirits. The drinks and food provided were great. Chief Justice Tulloch for the Ontario Court of Appeal gave a speech about successful trial advocacy. We mingled with the other teams, various lawyers, and judges present.
On day two, we headed back downtown for the awards dinner at Modus. The event began with a cocktail reception at 6pm that ultimately turned into a sit down dinner from about 7:30pm-9:30pm. The food was fantastic. We were offered the choice of three appetizers, three entrées, and three desserts. I had calamari, pasta, and tiramisu. They left us on the edge of our seats until 9pm to announce the winners.
Getty and I tied with the team from Windsor for second place and were chosen as the top defence team! The Winner was Osgoode’s team acting for the Crown. Getty and I congratulated the other finalists and wished them well at Nationals, the Sopinka Cup. Now the prep for the Sopinka will begin soon. The Sopinka will be held in Ottawa over the March 15 to 16 weekend. There is a strong chance we will be required to switch sides and completely rework our whole case. It will be a lot of work in the coming weeks, but I am excited to start! I’m so thankful for my incredible coaches, fabulous co-counsel, and all the work everyone put in to get us to the Sopinka.
I’m so grateful for my entire trial advocacy experience this year. The skills necessary for trial advocacy are a lot different than appellant level mooting. I’m excited to continue learning and developing my advocacy skills to implement them one day in a real court room!
JANNA GETTY (LEFT) AND OLIVIA SHENK (RIGHT) POSING AFTER TRIAL WITH THE ENLARGED EXHIBIT OF THE SNAPCHAT SCREENSHOT OF JASON WALTER'S "BORROWED" GUN.
1Ls Take on the Baby Jessup Moot
Recapping my first law school mooting experience
ALEXANDRA BROUN (1L)
Mooting was one of the things I had always been looking forward to about law school, way before I even knew which law school I would attend. My love for mooting began in the first year of my undergraduate degree at the University of Guelph when I joined the Guelph Pre-Law Society’s mooting team. I was always interested in pursuing public interest law and knew that getting a head start on developing my litigation skills was crucial.
Coincidentally, I met my mooting partner, Hasti Jamalomidi (1L), through undergraduate mooting competitions as we had crossed paths as captains of our respective university’s teams. We both agreed that if we were to attend the same law school, we would try mooting together. Naturally, when I received an email from the International Law Society announcing that U of T Law would be participating in Lincoln Alexander School of Law’s inaugural Baby Jessup moot, I instantly messaged Jamalomidi and we signed up to participate together.
Although I had some familiarity with international law through the classes I took during my political science degree, this was my first time trying out a moot in this field and I was looking forward to the switch. The case was titled The Republic of Antrano v The Kingdom of Remissia. It is a fictional scenario that was argued at the 2024 Jessup competition. The case focused on issues relating to deprivation of citizenship, statelessness, and the right to access consul during detainment in a foreign country. Jamalomidi and I were assigned to represent the respondents, the Kingdom of Remissia.
Preparing for the moot was fun but also challenging. On one hand, Jamalomidi and I were already familiar with the rules and structure of mooting, which took off a lot of the nerves we probably would have had if we had never mooted before. We both saw mooting as a fun extracurricular activity and were excited to get back into it. On the other hand, it was still our first moot at the law school level and we found it difficult at times to balance preparing for the moot with other responsibilities, such as staying on top of readings and preparing for the 1L and LSSEP recruits. Additionally, since the Baby Jessup is an international law moot,
it had its own unique set of rules that required some adjusting to. For example, each participant had 12 minutes to make their submissions instead of seven and the respondents had the opportunity to present a surrebuttal to the rebuttal of the applicants.
The first day of the competition consisted of two rounds. Since the competition only had participants from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, and the Lincoln Alexander Faculty of Law, I had the chance to see many familiar faces and friends. The atmosphere was tense but also very supportive as we were all preparing to take on the first round.
I find that in mooting, the first round is always the most nerve-racking and that with every round you gain more confidence. My experience at the Baby Jessup was no different. By the time the first round ended and several hours of waiting for the results had passed, all of the nerves wore off and we were eager to find out the verdict. Once it was announced that we were moving on to the second round, we instantly had to move to the room where the round would take place. The second round was much more intense than the first, with the judges ramping up both the amount and difficulty of the questions that they asked. In both of the rounds, Jamalomidi and I went up against U of T Law teams, which was unexpected to me because I rarely had to go up against people from my university in undergraduate moots. Nevertheless, shortly after the second round ended we were told that we were moving on to the quarter-finals and had to come back the next day.
The next day, when I arrived at Lincoln Alexander’s campus, I found out that the majority of the teams that moved on to the second day were from U of T Law. I was really happy to see this because even if our round didn’t go as planned, it was clear that students at the Faculty had been very successful in this competition. As anticipated, the quarter-final round also consisted of way more questions. At one point I was even asked three different questions at the same time. Although we were hoping to make it into the further rounds, we were still very grateful and happy to have made it this far in the competition, especially in our first law school moot.
Overall, my time at the Baby Jessup moot was very exciting and a great experience. I was happy to be able to get back into mooting and take some time out of my regular law school routine to do something different. I would highly encourage future 1Ls to do the Baby Jessup or any other moot as it is a great way to develop your oral advocacy as well as legal research and writing skills. Participating in the Baby Jessup made me look forward to taking on more mooting opportunities and to taking some courses in international law. I wanted to extend a big thank you to the organizers at Lincoln Alexander School of Law and the International Law Society for making this possible. I also wanted to congratulate all of the participants of the cup, it was a pleasure to moot alongside all of you!
Are You Lacking Law School Stress Dreams?
SHELBY HOHMANN (3L)
During my first two years of law school, I hardly ever found myself having stress dreams, or any dreams at all. While this might be a desirable alternative to waking up in a cold sweat from your nightmare of Sara Faherty telling you that, for some reason, you can’t write your final exam, it may be a sign of something even more disturbing going on. Okay, in actuality nothing is more disturbing for us U of T Law students than this scenario, but a lack of dreaming may be
a sign of a sleep disorder–at least it was for me. For some backstory, I have struggled with low energy levels for several years. Even when I was in high school and undergrad, I would always come home and take a nap that was at least a couple of hours long. Sleeping in or going to bed early didn’t do much for my energy, and my problems really ramped up when I started law school. Obviously, law school is demanding enough
when you don’t feel tired all the time. I was constantly struggling to keep my eyes open in class despite drinking multiple cups of coffee and cans of Redbull, but I still felt like my lack of energy was my own fault. I thought that I was just a lazy person and blamed myself for always feeling sleepy. It was hard to keep on top of my readings (which remains a struggle, but for other reasons) and I fought to make it to all of my early-morning classes (I did not succeed).
Due to my self-blame, I never thought to raise the issue of my excessive daytime sleepiness with my doctor or any other medical professionals. In fact, my mind was only turned to the possibility that what I was experiencing was not normal when my orthodontist made some observations and inquired about whether I had ever had a sleep study done. His brother is also a lawyer, which is not relevant to the story of my sleep, but a fun connection nonetheless!
After some time waiting, I got in for a sleep study, which was an extremely odd experience. It was just before my 2L first semester exams, and I had to go to an office building for around 9PM. The staff were thankfully very nice and set me up with a bunch of wires and an oxygen monitor. Then, I had to try to go to sleep despite it being several hours before my usual bedtime and the glowing red camera light I knew was watching over me. Even in the face of my sleepiness, it took me what felt like hours to achieve what was ultimately a very restless sleep. I was woken up around 5:45 am and then got to leave with the glue from the wires still caked in my hair.
My sleep study results then took a few more months to come in, and I finally got the amazing news that I have obstructive sleep apnea, hence my constant lack of energy (the ‘amazing’ is supposed to be sarcastic, but in hindsight, it really was lifechanging). During my sleep study, I stopped
breathing (AKA had an ‘apnea’) an average of about 19 times an hour…which is not ideal. I’m not a medical professional, so take this all with a grain of salt, but I was told that everyone has the occasional apnea when they are sleeping, and over five per hour is considered sleep apnea. 19 events per hour would be classified as moderate sleep apnea, as the threshold for severe is 30. Every time I was having an event, my body would wake me up (so I didn’t die), but I never felt it because the waking was so brief. So basically, I was waking up over a hundred times a night, which as you can imagine had an absolutely devastating effect on the quality of sleep I was getting. When you’re waking up so often, it’s incredibly difficult for your body to reach the deeper REM stage of sleep, which as you may know, is where dreaming happens. Apparently it can also just make it more difficult to remember your dreams, or can even trigger nightmares (so sorry if these are law
school related), but thankfully I did not experience many. As you might know from your dad or grandpa, the most effective sleep apnea treatment is a continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP machine. As much as I was embarrassed at the thought of having to sleep like Darth Vader every night, my sleepiness was affecting my life (and overall health) so much that I had absolutely no hesitation in doing whatever I could to fix it. Getting the CPAP machine was another long and expensive process, but from the first night I slept with it, I felt an immediate change. I actually felt well-rested when I woke up in the morning and didn’t have a pounding headache (another sleep apnea symptom). The machine was surprisingly comfortable and quiet—I haven’t looked back since.
I’ve now been treating my sleep apnea for about nine months and to say it has completely changed my life would be an understatement. I wish I realized earlier that the
way I was feeling was not normal, and I probably would have if I didn’t just chalk my low energy up to a personal failing. Sleep apnea is not only for old or otherwise unhealthy people. In my case, I think my large tonsils are to blame–and you could have it too. If you are sleeping a normal amount but never feeling rested, it may not just be law school. I would highly recommend that anyone else dealing with excessive daytime sleepiness (like falling asleep constantly in class, or when watching TV) look into getting a sleep study. Sleep apnea is also far from the only sleep disorder that could be causing issues. When I first got my diagnosis, I was so embarrassed to tell anyone, but in opening up more about it, a lot of people were thankful to me for sharing my experience. If I can help others who are going through a similar situation to mine, then I will gladly tell everyone at the law school that I have sleep apnea (please don’t make fun of me!).
EDI as a Box to Tick: Performative, Problematic, and Missing the Mark
PE’ER KRUT (1L) AND MAYTAL LAZAROVIC
Year in and year out, the administration at U of T Law forces its 1L students, already drowning in readings and grappling with the hardest academic year of their lives, to come in on Fridays for Equity Diversity Inclusion training. This training is important, in theory, it seems, but not in practice—at least not in the way it’s delivered at U of T Law. These sessions are meant to foster inclusivity and awareness, but more often than not, they’re performative exercises that exclude the very voices they claim to uplift.
Take this year’s training on antisemitism. Jewish students and community leaders had been vocal for months about how to get it right. U of T Law Administration even confirmed a speaker with the co-Presidents of the Jewish Law Students Association leading them to believe—finally—that the voices they represent were being heard. And yet, at
(1L)
the last minute, with no warning or explanation, they moved the entire module online and made it asynchronous. No live discussion, no real engagement, just a recorded outsourced module that students could click through on their own time. Meanwhile, every other EDI session has remained in person.
Why? Jewish students weren’t given an answer. But the message was clear: their concerns didn’t matter. This wasn’t about real education or combating antisemitism—it was about optics. It was about checking a box while avoiding the discomfort of a live conversation.
And even beyond the format, the module itself was problematic. The assigned portion seemed neutral enough at first glance, but anyone who took the bare minimum step of clicking through the menu of other module
options provided would have noticed some red flags. It didn’t take long for groups, particularly the Muslim Law Students Association to point that out. The very students these trainings are meant to support were, once again, left correcting mistakes that Administration could have avoided if they had just meaningfully consulted the people affected.
And this isn’t just about one module or one community. When EDI training is done without true consultation, it doesn’t just alienate the people it’s supposed to support— it spreads misinformation, fuels resentment, and makes law students less informed, not more. Islamophobia, antisemitism, and other biases don’t get meaningfully addressed when the very people affected have no say in the conversation.
If U of T Law actually cared about making
its students better advocates, it would stop treating EDI as a bureaucratic obligation and start treating it as an actual dialogue. Until then, these Friday sessions will remain what they’ve always been: a waste of time that makes things worse, not better.
If EDI is truly a priority, and the Administration insists on continuing to mandate it for their 1Ls, then it should be given the level of attention something of this importance is owed. That means actual consultation and implementation of feedback—or, at the very least, double-checking the full content of a course before assigning it. But hey, what would we know? We’re just Jewish students— it's not like we’d have any insight into a module about us.
Editor’s Note: Pe’er Krut (1L) and Maytal Lazarovic (1L) are members of the Jewish Law Students Association.
As Memory Becomes Legacy: Reflections from the 80th Commemoration of the Liberation of Auschwitz
PE’ER
KRUT (1L)
Last month, I had the profound honour of attending the 80th commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz in Poland. It was a moment of profound personal reflection, but it further revealed to me the shared responsibility we all bear in preserving Holocaust memory. As survivors pass away, their direct memory and testimony fade. This is concerning at any time, but especially now, as antisemitism is rising globally. The power of a survivor’s firsthand account—of looking into their eyes and hearing their voice as they recount unspeakable horrors—is irreplaceable. While world leaders gathered at the event, the most powerful presence was that of the survivors themselves. Their
voices, now more precious than ever, serve as a solemn reminder that the responsibility of remembrance is shifting to us.
Just weeks after speaking at the 80th commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz, Holocaust survivor and relentless advocate Marian Turski passed away. Turski endured unimaginable horrors, yet he did not shy away from his suffering. Instead, he devoted his life to preserving Holocaust memory and advocating for human rights. Throughout his lifetime, he addressed the United Nations, marched alongside Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and delivered a speech at the 80th commemoration—his final public address. His
passing reinforced an undeniable truth: the guardians of memory are becoming fewer with each passing day.
This concern was a recurring theme in Poland, where several survivors we spoke to expressed deep fears about the rising tide of antisemitism on campuses worldwide, as well as the growing prevalence of Holocaust denial and distortion. Many voiced their distress at leaving a world where antisemitism is at its worst level since they themselves endured the horrors of the Holocaust.
Remembrance is not merely reflection; it is a responsibility. The horrors of the past must never be forgotten, and the urgency of remembrance has never been greater. Now, it is our responsibility to ensure
Holocaust memory transitions accurately and effectively to legacy. I urge all of us to see this as a wake-up call—to take the time, even just a day, to reflect and act. With survivor voices dwindling, we—those who have heard their stories and those who have yet to— become the next generation of witnesses. Just next door, the Royal Ontario Museum is hosting an Auschwitz exhibition. It is our collective duty to engage with these histories, to bear witness, and to ensure their memory endures.
Remembrance is not just about the past. It is about safeguarding the future. Now and always, we must remember.
The International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law
An independent student-led publication
2024–25 Rights Review Editorial Board
Editors-in-Chief: Jason Quinn (3L) and Daniel Edmeades (3L)
A SEISMIC CHANGE
DR.
ARDI IMSEIS ON
THE
INTERNATIONAL
COURT
OF JUSTICE ADVISORY OPINION ON ISRAEL’S ILLEGAL PRESENCE IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN
TERRITORY
Introduction
Last semester, Dr. Ardi Imseis, Associate Professor of Law at Queen’s University, and Legal Counsel for the State of Palestine before the International Court of Justice (the “ICJ”) visited our law school to share his perspective on the 19 July 2024 advisory decision of the ICJ, which found Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian Territories (Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem) to be unlawful in light of Israel’s conduct therein. Dr. Imseis had previously visited the law school in January 2024 to promote his book, The United Nations and the Question of Palestine: Rule by Law and the Structure of International Legal Subalternity
Subalternity in the International Legal Order
To Dr. Imseis, the essence of the international legal subaltern condition is that those subject to it are told of the promise of international law despite its full realization perpetually kept out of reach by the very same institution which espouses it: the United Nations. He argues that the international legal order, rooted in a Eurocentric conception of international law, fails to achieve rule of law in the international system, instead acting as a system of rule by law. Rules are fashioned and applied by international hegemons in a manner abusive to smaller, less powerful states.
However, Dr. Imseis provides an optimistic view on the future of international law: that it contains the “seeds of resistance” through which less powerful states can counter the hegemonic influence of the powerful. As examples, he puts forward the emergence of relatively new principles surrounding decolonization, new international economic orders champions by postcolonial states, the recognition of new categories of international legal personality (e.g., displaced persons and Indigenous peoples), and multiple attempts by Global South countries to use the organs of the legal international system to hold the Global North to account, including South Africa’s action against Israel at the ICJ.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 77-247
However, the process which Dr. Imseis came to share his perspectives on is that which followed United Nations General Assembly resolution 77-247 which, inter alia requested that the ICJ provide an advisory opinion on the status of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories. In particular, the Resolution asked (a) what legal con -
sequences arise from Israel’s actions (which the Resolution enumerates) and (b) how those actions affect the legal status of the occupation itself and what consequences arise therefrom for other States and the United Nations.
The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion
The crux of the ICJ’s decision is that Israel’s violations of the Law of Belligerent Occupation have rendered the continuation of the occupation unlawful and, correspondingly, have placed upon Israel the duty to end the occupation and withdraw from the Occupied Territories “as rapidly as possible.” In addition, the ICJ tells us that Israel’s obligations in righting the wrong include making appropriate assurances of non-repetition, reparation to all persons affected since 1967, the return of stolen property, and to allow the return of refugees.
In so deciding, the ICJ ruled that Israel’s violations of the Law of Belligerent Occupation cannot be justified through a right to self-defence. This is consistent with the ICJ’s previous holdings that self-defence does not enable the use of military force by an occupier in retaliation for an attack which originates from the territory it occupies. Likewise, the ICJ effectively characterizes the continued occupation as analogous to the widely recognized international crime of aggression, precluding the application of self-defence as a justification.
armed conflict. This is where war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other major international crimes like genocide are contained. This is also the branch of international humanitarian law which encompasses the Law of Belligerent Occupation, governing the lawfulness of conduct by an occupying power. A central tenet of international humanitarian law under the conventional wisdom which prevailed before the ICJ’s advisory decision was that the two branches must remain separate, and illegality under one could not affect legality under the other. This was to avoid attempts to justify violations of one branch based on alleged violations of the other. This is the distinction which the ICJ appears to collapse in its decision. In deciding that Israel’s violations of the Law of Belligerent Occupation ( jus in bello) render the occupation itself illegal (an expression of jus ad bellum), the ICJ has allowed for the first time illegal in bello conduct to affect the ad bellum legality of the general use of force.
As a member of the international community, Israel’s violation of peremptory norms, Dr. Imseis says, creates obligations for Canada in how it responds to the Israeli occupation.
Collapsing the Distinction between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello
Perhaps the most legally significant part of the ruling is the Court’s apparent fusion of the two broad categories of international humanitarian law which have, until now, remained entirely distinct. Of these, jus ad bellum governs the reasons for which a state may lawfully go to war. This is an especially important body of law since the United Nations Charter created a general prohibition on the use of force in international relations in 1945. As such, for the use of force by one state against another to be lawful, it must be justified under jus ad bellum
In contrast to jus ad bellum, jus in bello regulates the lawfulness of conduct in an active
The justification for this collapse is that the cumulative effect of in bello violations of the Law of Belligerent Occupation which are incompatible with the very rationale underlying that body of law can remove the legal basis for the occupation itself. A core tenant of the Law of Belligerent Occupation is that occupation is inherently temporary and cannot effect the transfer of sovereignty over the occupied territory. This is rooted in one of the most important elements of the modern international legal order: the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force. Since occupation is itself a forceful act, it cannot be used to transfer territory from one state to another.
Israel’s actions as occupier of the Palestinian Territories, the Court tells us, amount to de facto annexations of large parts of the territories and are designed to keep the occupation in place indefinitely. This is the inherent incompatibility with the Law of Belligerent Occupation.
What Does This Mean for Canada and Other States?
Dr. Imseis tells us that the legal effect of this decision is that, through its continued occupation of the Palestinian Territories, its frustration of the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, and its de facto annexation of
territory acquired by force, Israel is engaging in serious violations of so-called peremptory norms of international law. Also called norms of jus cogens, these are legal obligations on states that are so important to the international order as a whole that they are binding on all and that violations of those peremptory norms create obligations on third states in respect of the state violating them. As a member of the international community, Israel’s violation of peremptory norms, Dr. Imseis says, therefore creates obligations for Canada in how it responds to the Israeli occupation.
Chief among these obligations are the duty of non-recognition of legality of violations of peremptory norms, and the duty to refuse to render assistance in the maintenance of the wrongful act. These obligations apply both in bilateral relations with Israel and in multilateral relations with other states.
In refusing to recognize the unlawful act, Dr. Imseis tells us that Canada and other states are obliged to distinguish in their dealings between Israel (with whom states are entitled to maintain economic and political relationships) and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Dr. Imseis argues this effectively establishes BDS (the movement for “Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions” against Israel) a legal obligation on the international community, at least as it pertains to the Occupied Territories. Likewise, the international community, including Canada, have an obligation to refrain from any activities which could assist Israel in maintaining the occupation. Dr. Imseis analogizes these obligations to those facing the international community following the legal finding that Apartheid South Africa’s continued occupation of Namibia (originally given as a League of Nations Mandate) was illegal.
What’s Next?
Despite the name, the ICJ’s advisory opinion is, according to Dr. Imseis, binding on international law. These obligations—on Israel, on Canada, and on every state in the international order—have real legal effect. However, the realities of international law prevail, and without a practical means to enforce the Court’s will, Israel’s violations of international law can effectively continue. Instead, Dr. Imseis’s optimism is rooted in the cumulative political effect such declarations can have. As violations of international humanitarian law are further spotlighted, political pressure may mount on Israel and its partners to withdraw from the Palestinian Territories and given effect to the Palestinian right to self-determination in the form of a viable state.
By Daniel Pope (3L)
The International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law
An independent student-led publication
IHRP WORKING GROUP: GENDER APARTHEID IN AFGHANISTAN
By Manreet Brar (3L) and Cassie Heward (2L JD/MPP)
Group Leads: Manreet Brar (3L) and Cassie Heward (2L JD/MPP)
Group Members: Daniella Springer (1L), Veronica Axenova (1L), Rachel Brouwer (1L), Chrisoula Angelis (1L), Romina Hajizadeh (1L), Paul Huang (1L), Agata Spiewakowski (LLM), and Samraggi Hazra (1L)
When and why was this working group instituted? What are the objectives of this working group?
In the words of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, “nowhere else in the world has there been an attack as widespread, systematic and all-encompassing on the rights of women and girls as in Afghanistan.” In August of 2021, the Taliban took de facto control over Afghanistan, establishing its second regime over Afghanistan. Since taking control, the Taliban have imposed a regime that systematically discriminates against women and girls in Afghanistan through measures such as prohibiting women from further education and employment, morality laws,—also known as vice and virtue rules—and strict punishments including public stoning and executions.
The Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan (“GAA”) working group was established in the 2023-2024 academic year. Last year, the group produced a report docu -
menting the Taliban’s human rights abuses against women and girls since its rise to power in 2021. The report identified the Taliban’s specific violations of relevant international law in the areas of employment rights, civil rights, education, and socioeconomic rights. The report also sheds light on Canada’s international human rights commitments towards Afghan women and children in view of Canada’s legal obligations and longstanding peacekeeping role in Afghanistan. The purpose of the report was primarily to inform the discussions between Canada’s Special Representative to Afghanistan, David Sproule, and the Taliban. In March of 2024, a preliminary draft was concluded and presented to David Sproule, who provided in-depth recommendations and feedback. In the summer of 2024, inhouse research assistants and Nabila Khan at the IHRP worked on refining the draft report.
Afghanistan considering the ongoing International Court of Justice case on the Taliban’s violations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (“CEDAW”) brought by Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands. The working group is compiling research on the different CEDAW articles that the Taliban has violated and want to produce a legal tool with this research that the Canadian government and civil society can reference as the ICJ case moves forward.
"Nowhere else in the world has there been an attack as widespread, systematic and all-ecompassing on the rights of women and girls as in Afghanistan."
This year, the GAA working group aims to produce a second report, a part two to the initial report, on gender apartheid in
To substantiate the research, the working group will integrate case studies in our report through discussions with Afghan women who have come to Canada and are willing to share their experiences under the Taliban regime. The case studies will be conducted through focus group and one-on-one interview forums with women and girls who are currently in or have fled from Afghanistan, or those organizations and institutions, such as human rights defenders and journalists, who have interacted with these women and girls. We are hoping these case stud -
ies can inform our advocacy and overall recommendations we are integrating in the report directed at the Canadian government.
The GAA working group aims to finalize the final draft of the second part of the report by fall of 2025.
How does this working group contribute to the IHRP experience?
The GAA working group enhances the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) experience by providing students with hands-on opportunities to address a pressing human rights crisis. Through rigorous research, students document the Taliban’s human rights violations of CEDAW. Students will learn how to build a case against the Taliban based on the ICJ framework and human rights principles protected by CEDAW.
Moreover, by collaborating with experts like Ghizaal Haress, Afghanistan’s former presidential ombudsperson and a current visiting scholar at U of T Law, students gain insights into the legal and social dimensions of gender apartheid. This project allows students to develop essential skills in legal research, advocacy, and policy writing while contributing to meaningful change, bridging the gap between academic study and international human rights advocacy.
IHRP WORKING GROUP: CAMEROON ATROCITIES PROJECT
Group Leads: Allison Zhao (2L JD/MGA) and Parker Hopkins (2L)
Group Members: Ritica Ramesh (1L), Bruce Yao (1L), Matthew Crocker (1L), Simren Sharma (1L), Alexia Lee (1L), Maryam Helmy (1L), Rebecca Dragusin (2L JD/ MGA), Qiyang Hong (2L), Ella Stoyan (2L), Thomas Mora (2L), Jason Quinn (3L), Adrien Piecyk (3L), Natalie St Pierre-Jubb (GPLLM), Jose Quevedo (GPLLM)
When and why was this working group instituted? What are the objectives of this working group?
The working group was established as a part of the Database of Atrocities’ response to the outbreak of the Cameroon Anglophone Crisis, which has been ongoing since 2016. The Crisis has been severely underreported in international
news, and civilians have been subjected to acts like killings, school burnings, rapes, kidnappings, and enforced lockdowns. Perpetrators of these acts are found in both government and non-state Anglophone minority separatist forces. Thus, the objectives of the working group in expanding this database include countering the prevalent culture of impunity as the Crisis continues, verifying and storing evidence for future accountability procedures, assisting activists and journalists, and deterring the parties to the conflict from committing further atrocities. To accomplish these objectives, student volunteers investigate incidents that are submitted to the database and verify as much information as they can about each incident’s location, time, and perpetrators. Students then write and submit reports on
each incident to be preserved in the database. The database is apolitical and nonpartisan and incidents are investigated and reported accordingly.
How has the work of this group changed in recent years?
For 2024-2025 our team has expanded to take on more volunteers, allowing for more detailed investigations and multiple streams of verification for each incident. We are continuing to refine our research techniques and verification mechanisms as new incidents arise.
How does this working group contribute to the IHRP experience?
Student volunteers have the unique opportunity to be trained in using open-source intelligence (OSINT) techniques that are not
typically encountered in law classes. These include using satellite, weather and sun data, and social media in order to pinpoint locations and times at which photo and video evidence was collected. The Cameroon Atrocities Project aims to draw attention to a lesser-known human rights crisis, and allows students hands-on experience in fact-checking evidence on reported human rights abuses, in addition to strengthening their writing skills for public-facing reports.
The Cameroon Anglophone Crisis Database of Atrocities can be accessed at https://borealisdata.ca/dataverse/cameroon. The Cameroon Anglophone Crisis Database of Atrocities will be updated with the 2024-2025 cohort’s work in summer 2025.
By Parker Hopkins (2L) and Allison Zhao (2L)
It’s Okay if You Don’t Make Lifelong Friends in Law School
SHELBY HOHMANN (3L)
When I was getting ready to start law school a few years ago, I would constantly hear about how many people meet their best friends for life (BFFLs) in law school. These sentiments made me really excited to get to know everyone in my class, but they also created a lot of pressure on me to try really hard at making friends…whatever that means. Much to my dismay, as hard as I did try to build my budding law school friendships at the outset of 1L, I encountered quite a few ups and downs. Since I had internalized everything I had heard about making friends, I felt incredibly upset and anxious when things didn’t really work out as I envisioned. U of T Law is a cliquey place, making it easy to feel isolated when you don’t have a big group of friends. If you are one of the many people who are lucky to have such a group, then I, for one, am jeal -
My reflections on law school friendship Queens vs. U of T Law
ous of you, but you’re also not my target audience.
When I was struggling with friends in 1L (and honestly, throughout the entirety of my time here), I would often try to find comfort in telling myself that I can be a ‘lone wolf’ and learning to be content with my own company. That’s much easier said than done though, and I would frequently find myself crying as I walked from the school to the subway at the end of the day (which was not very lone wolf of me, I admit). If you are someone who is struggling with making friends, or feels that all of your connections are surface-level, like I did, I truly hope you can feel less alone and know that it will get better. Or at the very least, you will learn to deal with it better.
Since 1L, things have improved friendship-wise in a lot of ways, but in many
ways, they have stayed the same. Thankfully, I hardly ever cry over friends these days and I have made some really great connections with people who I hope I will keep in touch with after I graduate in a few months. But I still am not part of any large tight-knit group, which I have finally come to be okay with, and even happy about.
My perspective on friendship is one of the ways I think I have grown the most in law school, and it’s probably more important to me personally than many of the academic skills I have developed. I have recognized that in life, friendship ebbs and flows—you may be extremely close to someone for a period, and then both move on in your lives. As much as I still grieve the friends from whom I have grown apart, or the ones I wish I could have deeper bonds with, friendship
is not necessarily easy (and again, if it has been for you, you’re probably not my target audience here).
I learned the hard way that no one has to be your friend, and maybe it will feel like no one wants to be. So, if you have a bunch of pals, don’t take them for granted. And if you’re struggling to make friends in law school, remember that although it feels allconsuming, try to remember school is only one aspect of your very expansive life and hang out with normal people (who are not in law school). From my experience, putting pressure on yourself and overthinking all of your interactions is not going to be helpful or healthy. Also: it’s perfectly fine to spend lots of time alone (I still do). While law school is probably a great place for a lot of people to find lifelong friends, it’s okay if you’re still searching.
Perspectives of a Transfer Student
KATHERINE FAN (2L)
Last semester, I transferred here, to U of T Law, from Queen’s Law. I had an amazing time so far here surrounded by amazing friends and colleagues. Ever since I joined Ultra Vires , I couldn’t help but compare and contrast between both law schools based on my personal experiences being a student at Queens and U of T Law. Who's the winner? See my thoughts below! Here, I will break down my experiences related to my time at both schools based on social, academic and lifestyle factors.
Social and Extracurricular Involvements
From my experience, I would say that my social life has been much more active here at U of T Law than at Queens. However, this is also contributed by the fact that my 1L year was more intense in terms of my workload—there was a significant learning curve, as is characteristic of 1L.
Here at U of T Law, I have joined clubs, such as the Asian Law Society, and occasionally attended Call to the Bar nights where I made friends. The atmosphere at these events was collegial, friendly, and warm. The school also gives us opportunities to meet people outside our program through events, such as the Students’ Law Society organized Med Mixer and opportunities to network with practicing lawyers and professors through networking sessions.
To compare, Queens has a “Call to the Bar” equivalent event known as “Smokers” that runs every week with different themes. I found
the “Smokers” to be more creative and playful than Call to the Bars since we had fun themes every week. In addition, Queens also allowed students to meet others outside of the law program through the med and law games. However, in terms of networking, I personally felt that clubs at Queens placed a greater emphasis on giving students more networking opportunities with practicing lawyers along with a greater variety of stress-relief activities, for instance trivia nights, board game nights, casino nights, and hackathons. However, a lot of events were virtual instead of in-person.
Here at U of T Law, I have joined clubs, such as the Asian Law Society, and occasionally attended Call to the Bar nights where I made friends. The atmosphere at these events was collegial, friendly, and warm.
Overall, while I felt that Queens did give me more “opportunities” to socialize through the voluminous amounts of fun-themed activities and networking clubs, I have ironically felt a more sociable atmosphere from students at U of T Law, which may be due to a greater emphasis on having in-person activities.
Academic and Career Support
My experience with my 1L professors at Queens was phenomenal. They truly were each so passionate in academia and teaching, and I found myself feeling more engaged in class at Queens than at U of T Law. For instance, my criminal law professor at
Queens turned each legal concept of murder, defences, mens rea and actus reus into a memorable story from the humourous jokes he was able to make so that we could be able to manage to engage with course content. In addition, my contracts professor at Queens broke down the legal reasoning behind each case we read clearly, provided his own interesting perspectives to case decisions, and truly challenged students to think critically and theoretically. Overall, I had a very positive experience with all the professors at Queens as their passion in teaching was truly reflected in their patience for us, the 4-hour office hours professors were willing to have before exams, and interesting methods of teaching they used to turn law into a living and breathing subject for students! On the other hand, professors at U of T Law are mostly practitioners who bring practical perspectives to the laws which are also very useful. In terms of the Career Development Office, I have experienced more support and resources at U of T Law. Before the recruits, I booked multiple mock interviews with academic advisors and have gotten lots of very useful and honest feedback. Many info sessions and important firm data (that did not
seem available at Queens) were also posted before the recruits to ensure all students were well-informed of the process. Overall, the staff at the CDO have been so supportive, compassionate, and genuinely interested to see students succeed, making me feel that I was in good hands during the busy recruit period. They gave me the confidence I needed to do well in the recruits, and also followed up after the recruits which I found so heart-warming!
To conclude, I did find my experience at Queens to be more academically engaging, yet I felt more supported by the CDO at UofT along with a wider array of resources for career development.
Lifestyle
I find myself enjoying the lifestyle in Toronto much more than in Kingston due to multiple factors: (1) greater diversity in food choices, (2) more activities, such as cocktail bars, and fitness classes, and (3) I am closer to my family. When I was in Kingston, the winter felt slightly more humid and slushier, and I also found myself to be living on frozen microwaveables and cereals much more than I have in Toronto. In Kingston, there was also a smaller selection of cafes I could study at, and so I just ended up studying at home instead more often. In addition, the commutes back to Toronto where my family is located took two to three hours each time which made it more difficult to visit.
Overall, I had great experiences at both law schools—each for different reasons!
Intra Vires
SAKINA
HASNAIN (2L) & KATE SHACKLETON (2L)
Fresh New Take on EDI: Exclusion, Discrimination & Islamophobia!
Given past criticism that EDI sessions simply haven’t been cutting it, U of T Law has decided to switch up their pedagogy and give students firsthand experience with racism. After all, remember kids, if there was no discrimination, there wouldn’t be any need for EDI!
Never Fear: Copy & Paste is Here!
For all those worried about the new exam policy, the administration would like to assure you that there is nothing to worry about! Sure, you may not be able to access any materials on your hard drives, and sure, you have to print out pages and pages of content, but hey, at least you can copy and paste now! What can you copy and paste you ask? Well, instead of rifling through binders and outlines, you can now spend your exam time reformatting and organizing your exam! We’re sure this new ability to copy and paste will certainly revolution -
ize exam writing and totally erase any burdens or inequities from physically printing documents!
Small Group Assignments Back to Haunt Us One Last Time
As if law school wasn’t already like high school, yearbooks now seal the deal! Students of all years rejoice at getting one last small group assignment: photo coordination. Coordinating a time between law students has proven to be quite a feat, with some committed groups even resorting to photoshop. Against all odds, some small groups were able to execute their plans quite swiftly, but many are still suffering from the collective action problem.
The End of J’s Java: On the Search for a New Alliterative Breakfast
With Dean Jutta Brunnée parting ways with the Faculty of Law by the end of this semester, Intra Vires would like to share our heartfelt goodbye to J’s Java. If there
was anything we liked as much as the coffee and pastries paid by our own tuition, it was a good alliteration. J’s Java—you were short, you were sweet, you were to the point—you were everything we needed you to be. Alas, all we can hope is that the new Dean, whoever they are, can bring an equally satisfying alliteration to the breakfast table.
Feeling Under the Weather? Don’t Stay Home and Rest!
As we all know, lectures here at the law school are recorded. The question is… why? Sick students have now uncovered the truth—the administration wants to keep them confidential. Why else make them impossible to access? A doctor’s note? No, that’s too simple. You need a specially formulated á la U of T “Verification of Illness” form (printed at your own expense, no financial aid for this printing). At least the sound of students coughing doesn’t disrupt the recording!
Valentine’s edition advice
SAUCY INTRUDER
The Saucy Intruder is back once again (I’m as tired of my perpetual returns as you are). Normally, like a toxic situationship, Saucy likes to keep you guessing about the next time you might hear from them. However, my return in UV’s January issue resulted in an abundance of love letters from my admirers, begging for more advice. And I can never let my fans down. Myself, I’ve never had any issues with love. However, I’ve heard that the law students of Jackman are anything but lucky in love.
Dear Sauce,
My partner is insistent on making noise during sex. They provide live commentary during sex— think behind-the-scenes insights, sound effects, and motivational speeches. I want a peaceful, wordless experience.
How do I ask them to shut up without killing the mood?
Sincerely, Silence of the Libidos
Dear Silence, Communication is key, especially when you’re trying to limit communication. Try to broach the subject before intimacy arises. A casual conversation over dinner will be taken much better than telling your partner to stop talking during foreplay. Scared of confrontation? Suggest a “librarian fantasy” night with strict silence rules. Bonus points if you wear glasses and threaten late fees. Turn your preferences into a playful challenge.
If all that doesn’t work, may I suggest noise cancelling headphones? An expensive, but effective compromise that allows for you
to experience complete silence, while your partner can scream as if they are auditioning to be the next Riley Reid.
Stay Saucy in silence!
hey saucy, my bf never asked me to be his valentine. and sure, on vday, he surprised me with breakfast in bed, roses, a basket of gifts, and a romantic dinner in that revolving CN Tower restaurant butttt he never did ask me to be his valentine. should I pick a fight?
- ella un-asked
Dear Ella,
This is certainly a conundrum. The grand romantic gestures are sweet, but they mean nothing without you having never been asked to be his Valentine? It isn’t that difficult to ask someone to be one’s Valentine—a quick text, a chocolate bar, a sweet note. The bar is low.
My ruling: pick a fight, subtly. Instead of outright communicating, talk around the problem. Bring it up constantly for the next several months. Nag him. And next Valentine’s, remind him of this shortcoming. Remain toxic!
Hi Intruder,
My name is Bartholomew. I took my Hinge match bowling for our first date because I wanted to impress her with my bowling skills. She was really bad at bowling. Additionally, she left an hour into the date, even though I had asked her to push the date later into the night. I have sent her several follow-up messages offering bowling advice, left voicemails, and sent a few dozen emails, but she has yet to respond. Should I report her missing to the authorities?
Bowling Barty
Hey Barty,
Seems like you may have just experienced what the kids call ghosting. I do it all the time to my readers. Your date doesn’t want a bowling instructor. Maybe you’d be better off with a fellow bowling aficionado?
Stay saucy!
Dear Denning
A med student and I really clicked at the medical malpractice mixer.
After a few days of texting, I invited him to my ends (Jackman). I treated him to an iced mango americano (I wanted to flex my New York summer money).
I wanted to take him to a study room in Bora but I accidentally booked the room for the wrong day. The stupid mooters took up all the study rooms, so I had to take him to the fishbowl (the seats in there have some great butt support). Someone in there yelled at us for talking (how else are we supposed to get to know each other?)!
And then, because I couldn’t afford to pay the 25 cents for the straw, my date had to swirl the cup around to let the mango and the espresso mix but in the process he ended up spilling it all over himself and the chair. We got kicked out of the library because we “made a big mess” and because I allegedly “screamed sweet baby Jesus” when the spill happened.
Can I sue Terima?
Thanks, Sticky Love
Hi Sticky,
First, what a saga you’ve narrated—I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. Second, I’m no Denning. And this is certainly no tort.
Blizzard No Match for Legal Education!
With trains cancelled and roadways a disaster, U of T Law students were forced to find creative ways to get to school during a recent blizzard. While some students resorted to cross-country skiing, one student is rumoured to have made the journey on foot from Richmond Hill. While the Faculty declined to cancel classes or make lecture recordings available for commuter students, they did make clear that they were absolutely not liable for any slip and falls!
LAW BALL: Instructions Unclear Law Ball is heading to the Wild West this year! But this theme has students confused about the dress code… Is it still a black tie event? Or should students dress as if they’re going to Rock ‘n’ Horse? Are cowboy hats optional or mandatory? If you bring your horse, is a guest ticket required? Only one thing is clear: anyone who expresses dislike for country music will be immediately banished from Law Ball forever!
Totally real news from a totally EDI centric law school! Love, Sex, and Other Laws
It seems that you might be prone to making bad decisions. Finding love at Petty Cash was the first misstep in a series of unfortunate events. Then, inviting him to what you dub as “your ends”—what made you think a first date in the law library, let alone Jackman, was a good idea? And, if you are insistent on the law school, at the very least, you could have taken him to the Rowell Room instead.
You also made the mistake of “treating” him to Terima and subjecting him to the flavour blasphemy that is a mango americano. And even with all that New York summer student money, you too couldn’t afford to pay for Terima’s add-ons? I would say you are to blame for your date’s spill. And for this, he may have a torts claim against you for the distress that you put him through. Next time (not that there will be a next time), try to be a normal person. Hope that helps,
The Sauce
Hey Saucy, I’m suuuper single. All I see on Valentine’s is couples posting about their love. I can’t avoid social media, what do I do?
- for-Ava alone
Dear Ava, This isn’t your fault. Social media is flooded with tributes to everlasting love, especially ironic when one’s forever Valentine a year ago was certainly not this year’s forever Valentine. Me thinks all couples need to have their phones locked away on Valentine’s Day so none of us have to see story after story of their ugly photos. Stay single!
Hollyscopes
What 2025 Oscar nominee describes your upcoming month?
MEGAN CORBETT (3L)
This one’s for those of us who rehearse telling a reporter their Letterboxd four favourites in the shower in case they ever make it onto a red carpet.
Aries, A Complete Unknown: For the next little while, you’re going to pretend to be something you’re not. Instead of having the intended effect of making people like you, this will actually prove incredibly grating and make people realize how much they like it when you’re just being yourself. I guess that’s good, but unfortunately, just like when I watched A Complete Unknown, you will learn nothing from this experience.
Taurus, Conclave: You’re in the running for a big career opportunity this month. I recommend taking up vaping and wearing a lot of red. Also, while you’re at it, why not start a reputational cold war among your colleagues to secure your ascendancy?
Gemini, Anora: Your next month will get off to a fun and glamorous start, full of glitter and impulsive decisions after you receive an unexpected material windfall. You’re pretty much going to be a modern Cinderella, minus the parasocial mice. But be careful: this boon won’t last forever, and if you try to ride it too far, the crash will hit even harder than the rise. Remember to not get too attached to material things, or to the heirs of oligarchic fortunes. Пока!
Cancer, Wicked: You’ve been having an absolutely crazy year. It seems like you’ve been everywhere: Starbucks, Aerie, the Lego store… you’ve been holding more space than a black hole. And, while some people doubted you, they’re now finally starting to see that the hype was all worth it: you really are that girl, and thank goodness for that. There’s no stopping you and your unflattering blonde hair from defying gravity! Enjoy your flowers, and dance through the next month knowing you’ve earned all the wonderful popularity coming your way. ( Author’s note : I demand some recognition for how many references I crammed into this one).
Leo, The Substance: Even the best of us sometimes let our egos get out of hand, and that’s what’s in store for you in the weeks ahead. Someone is going to pay you a compliment that changes your brain chemistry, or you’re going to take a selfie that makes you say “I am the undiscovered supermodel.” Your pride is going to go from zero to a million in a way that will be both fascinating and repulsive. There’s nothing wrong with feeling Margaret-Qualley-hot, just remember to respect the balance. The only people who will care more about what you look like than who you are are shrimp-smacking weirdos who don’t have your best interests at heart anyway. If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a million times: if you prioritize other people’s opinions over your own well-being, you’ll end up as an oozy blob of flesh on the Hollywood walk of fame. Not hot.
Virgo, The Wild Robot : Being different can be hard. You know this better than most, and sometimes, it can get you down. Would life be easier if you were just like everyone else? Over the next month, you’ll be reminded that
even if they don’t express it clearly, the people around you appreciate your specific talents and love you because of your quirks, not just in spite of them. Sure, you’ll have to endure some deeply Millenialcore music in the process of learning this lesson, but that’s a small price to pay to be valued for who you truly are.
Libra, Inside Out 2: Inside Out 2, which builds on its protagonists' emotional development from the first Inside Out, is all about how we discover our individual identities in adolescence. Your next month is going to be adolescesque, but in a slightly less poignant way. You’re going to break out, you’re going to feel mad at your parents for no reason, and you’re going to stink no matter how much Pink body mist you use. Sorry, maybe it’s a hormones thing? Rest assured this will go away on its own once the Maya Hawke and Amy Poehler in your brain learn to value each other’s hockey skills or whatever.
Scorpio, Dune Part 2: With its incredible score, visual effects, and costuming, Dune Part 2 managed to win over a lot of skeptics. People who aren’t normally into sci-fi, people who typically can’t stand movies as long as a roundtrip flight to New York, and people who usually don’t like Zendaya (AKA people who are wrong) were all persuaded that maybe Canadian filmmakers do deserve rights. Just like Monsieur Denis, you’re going to be an unstoppable persuasive force this month, dominating whatever argument you set your mind to. I suggest that you use this power for good, perhaps in a moot, rather than to win a really pretentious debate about the ability of film to ever faithfully adapt sci-fi epics (they can, but they have to sacrifice pursuing the broadest possible commercial appeal)(Yes, I am pretentious, you should know this by now).
Sagittarius, Nosferatu: I have a very dramatic, very intoxicating horoscope for you this month: you’re going to have to choose between two lovers, each of whom desires to possess you entirely. One of them is sweet, takes care of you, and is willing to sacrifice their life for your wellbeing, but the other one is really tall. Sure, the tall one may also be actively rotting, but nobody’s perfect, right? I wish you and your forehead the best of luck in making this difficult decision.
Capricorn, Gladiator II: Despite all of its main actors having strong cases of iPhone face, Gladiator II managed to be nominated for best costume design. I guess the new ‘Best Casting’ category doesn’t kick in until next year. Anyway, just like Gladiator II, you’re going to receive some unexpected admiration this month. Someone you know medium-well is going to confess that they’ve been harboring a secret crush on you for a while now, and they’ll want to know whether you feel the same. Now, I can’t answer that question for you, but remember not to rush into anything you’re unsure about. In love, in a bar, and in the Gladiator franchise, it’s better to wait for a fine mezcal than to settle for an old crow.
Aquarius, Challengers : But Megan, you’re saying, Challengers wasn’t nominated
for any Oscars! Not even Best Original Score! You’re correct, dear reader, but I’m not one to let injustice slide. To right this wrong, I will be pretending that Challengers was nominated for, and won, every Oscar in every category since 1929, as it deserves. Exaggerating for comedic effect, you say? I would never. Anyway, like Challengers, you’re going to be snubbed this month. Whatever project you’re working on, whatever event you’re planning, your efforts are going to go unappreciated by the very person or people you’re trying to impress. Don’t let it bother you too much. As with Challengers, real ones will still see and appreciate your efforts. Plus, wouldn’t you rather have the admiration of a few people with excellent taste, rather than that of a whole academy of people who nominated El Mal for Best Original Song?
Pisces, Alien: Romulus: This movie was nominated for Best Visual Effects, largely because of its use of practical effects to bring its namesake aliens to life. Like the Romulus effects managers, you’re going to get your hands dirty this month. This could be either literally or metaphorically. Literally, you might pick up a messy new hobby. I’ve heard pottery throwing is fun, plus sexy if you can find a ghost companion to wrap their arms around you. Metaphorically, you may find yourself stooping to behaviour you normally wouldn’t condone in order to right a wrong. I’m not one to get in the way of vigilantism, so I wish you luck. The only ethical line I would encourage you not to cross is using AI to unconvincingly project a late and beloved actor’s face onto a prop head. That’s a bit too grotesque, even for someone like me who loves watching people run around a spaceship getting rekt by little rubber alien guys.
Presents: Love is in the Air!
Romancing, romanticizing, romance!!!
Love is in the air—and it’s cool to have feelings!
Whether you already have someone special, are simply #maincharacter inventing your own love story in your head, or are just grateful for the love in your life—wherever it may come from—these tracks are here for you.
This playlist will help you romanticize love in all its forms or reflect on how it exists right now for you, featuring songs by Sade, Central Cee, Naomi Sharon, SiR and more!
EMILY CHU (3L) & SARA ESAYAS (2L)
Sudoku
(2L)
SHETH (2L)
The Ultra Vires Crossword
NAVYA SHETH (2L) AND MATTHEW FARRELL (2L)