Ultra Vires Vol 12 Issue 2: 2010 October

ULTRA

VIRES

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

VOLUME 12, ISSUE 2

October 20, 2010

www.ultravires.ca

Staredown over stare decisis: the C20 summit

L-R: Padraic Ryan (3L), Sinziana Tugulea (3L), Helen Burnett (3L), Michael Laskey (3L) More Grand Moot coverage inside!

Administration agrees: U of T Law still awesome

Keen students aren’t the only ones receiving top marks at Flavelle House and Falconer Hall. Indeed, the recently released U of T Law Self-Study report suggests that the law school itself makes the grade, especially with reference to its Canadian and American peers. The report was released in late September as an internal appraisal of the law school’s performance, part of the overall review process that occurs every five years. It can be found on the Faculty of Law's website.

Prominently featured in the SelfStudy report are the Social Science Research Network’s (SSRN) law school rankings, which are based on the number of downloads of academic papers produced by the institution. Among law schools located outside of the USA, U of T ranked 3rd in the world, behind Oxford and Dutch university,

BY ABRAR HUQ (3L)

Tilburg. In SSRN’s rankings of the top law schools in the world, U of T finished 22nd, placing behind 19 American schools and the aforementioned international schools, Tilburg and Oxford. Harvard finished 1st in the SSRN rankings, while U of T’s 22nd place finish slotted them between the University of Michigan and University of Virginia.

The release of the Self-Study report comes right after the release of another set of rankings: Maclean’s released its 4th annual law school rankings in early September with U of T finishing 1st among Canadian common law institutions for the 4th consecutive year. Osgoode placed 2nd, with McGill rounding out the top 3. Maclean’s ranked the country’s law schools in 5 different categories. U of T finished 1st in Canada in two of the categories: elite

firm hiring and faculty hiring, and 2nd in two others: Supreme Court clerkships and faculty citations, and 4th in national reach.

Given the backdrop of these seemingly impressive rankings, the SelfStudy report notes the launch of new initiatives “that further [U of T’s] unique combination of academic excellence and public mission,” including the Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, the Centre for Legal Profession, and the recently-launched Internationally Trained Lawyers Program. The report also discusses the development of a new “on-going legal education program that encompasses both a Summer Institute and a Global Professional Masters Program.”

The Self-Study report attempts to assuage any fears related to endowment CONTINUED on page 2

UV INDEX

- INTERVIEW WITH JUSTICE ROTHSTEIN... P. 3

- SEXY TIME... PP. 4-5

- IN-FIRM AND CALL DAY ADVICE... P. 7

- LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS... P. 8

- BAY STREET TOWERS REVIEWED... P. 11 - CANADIAN POLITICS... P. 13

- THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEAD... P. 14 - BIG PHARMA... P. 16

- BMO V. HAMATA REDUX... P. 18

- LEGAL LADIES: HOT OR NOT?... P. 19

- GUNNER WATCH... P. 20 - UV COOKS... PP. 22-23

- PROFESSOR SALARIES... P. 23

Masthead

Ultra Vires staff weigh in on this issue’s pressing matters

This month’s UV: Sex, OCIs, the Grand Moot... and rankings

In a recent episode of The Simpsons (don’t ask me why I still watch new episodes of The Simpsons), Marge Simpson tells a desolate Lisa Simpson not to fret about seeing her chances of getting into Yale slip away, after all “you could still go to McGill, the Harvard of Canada!” Lisa retorts that “anything that is the something of the something isn’t really an anything of the anything.”

The recently released M a c l e a n’s rankings and various other ranking systems cited by the U of T Self-Study report seem to re-iterate some sort of position that this institution holds as the “top” law school of Canada. But as a student, what are we to gain simply from being told that we go to the “top” law school? You can undoubtedly get a great legal education and a fantastic law school experience at U of T. But it doesn’t (nor should it) come through osmosis. You don’t become a better lawyer or a prolific law student simply from taking deep breaths of the asbestos and mold-tainted air of Falconer Hall. So what if being the “best” law school in Canada is our “something of the something?”

It won’t be the “anything of the anything” to you unless you make it so.

- AH

Ultra Vires is a lowbrow publication. We aim to cater to the lowest of tastes at U of T Law, a task we carry out with much aplomb. To that end, the theme of this issue is sex, OCIs, and the Grand Moot. At first glance, it is an unlikely trio, but after reading this issue of UV I hope you will achieve a deeper understanding of the mesmerizing synergies. Many of the articles make the link explicit, but many more are shrouded in complex layers of irony and metaphor. For added fun, see if you can decipher the hidden message I have embedded on pages 4, 11, 10, and 25.

As I write this (in the UV office), Josh Chan is using dictionary.com's pronunciation tool to read himself several synonyms for excrement. This brings me back to the subject of UV's philistinism. I think it constitutes a welcome contrast to the earnest drudgery of our everyday studies. It reminds us that we are not only law students, but human beings as well. If you are interested in being UV's sunshine girl (or guy) for November, please email us at ultra.vires@utoronto.ca.

- AC

ULTRA VIRES

is the student newspaper of the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto.

Editors - In - Chief News Editor Opinion and Editorial Features Diversions Production First Year Content Business/Ad Manager Photo Editor Web Manager Copy Editors

Self-Study - from page 1

Aaron Christoff & Abrar Huq Ashley McKenzie Brendan Morrison Amanda Melvin Caroline Samara Andrea Kim Matthew Brown Robin Elliott Joshua Chan Yingdi Wu Andrea Wong & Annie Tayyab

Communications Centre, Falconer Hall 84 Queens Park Crescent, Toronto ON M5S 2C5 ultra.vires@utoronto.ca (416) 946 - 7684

to the Faculty as a result of the recent economic downturn. The report assures readers that “through careful management and budgeting and the support of the central university, the Faculty’s budget is in a secure position.” Nonetheless, the report does note that enrolment revenue and endowment income will need to be enhanced.

As is to be expected, the state of the JD program is a special focus in the report. To that end, emphasis is placed on the academic strength of incoming students to U of T’s JD program. With U of T placing far ahead of its Canadian counterparts in the two objective standards of the admissions process, GPA and LSAT, the SelfStudy report also investigated how the school compared to law schools south of the border in the 2009-10 admissions cycle. The report’s analyses place the school among a comparator group of the top-tier American law schools, colloquially referred to as the Top 14 (“T14”) (although it should be noted that Cornell is a traditional T14 school that was not included in the Self-Study’s analysis).

Looking first at median cGPA, U of T (median cGPA of 4.1) finished 1st, ahead of McGill (4.0) and Osgoode (3.9). However, after converting to the American scale, U of T finished 4th among the American group, trailing only the holy trinity of American law

schools – Harvard, Yale and Stanford. In fact, the report notes that “Harvard, for example, has a 20092010 incoming class GPA of 3.86, only .01 higher than [U of T’s] 2010-2011 incoming class GPA of 3.85.” In terms of LSAT scores, U of T’s 2010-11 incoming class median LSAT score is 168, placing it 4 points ahead of the nearest Canadian school, UBC. The report also notes that “of the top thirteen U.S. law schools, our median LSAT is within one point of more than half of them, including Stanford, Michigan, Georgetown, Northwestern, Pennsylvania, Duke and Virginia.”

Interestingly, the report notes that in 2009-10, 74% of applicants who received offers from U of T accepted those offers. This “take rate” exceeds all members of the 13 school American comparator group aside from Yale and NYU. Furthermore, the report observes that “of those who decided to go to other law schools in 2009-2010, one-third went to U.S. law schools, including Harvard, Yale, NYU and Columbia.” The report recognizes that losing these students to American law schools poses a significant obstacle for the law school.

Overall, the report aims to provide “guidance for quality improvement and academic planning” and is to be accompanied by a soon-tobe released external review report.

Contributors

Jeremy Ablaza, Thomas Ayers, Arden Beddoes, Jonathan Bitran, Matthew Brown, Heather Burnett, Todd Brayer, Lee Chitiz, Aaron Christoff, Luke Gill, Mike Hamata, Abrar Huq, Stephen Hutchison, Sarah Jones, Natasha Kanerva, Camille Labchuk, Marty McKendry, Brendon Morrison, Gillian Muirhead, Justin Nasseri, Andrew Robertson, Lauren Rock, Michael Serebriakov, Benjamin Sharma, Andrea Tannenbaum, Lucas Wilson, Allison Worone, Erica Young Ultra Vires is an editorially autonomous newspaper. We are open to contributions which reflect diverse points of view, and our contents necessarily reflect the views of the Faculty of Law, the Students’ Law Society (SLS), or the editorial board. We welcome contributions from students, faculty, and other interested persons. Ultra Vires reserves the right to edit contributions for length and content.

Advertising inquiries should be sent to the attention of the business manager at ultra.vires@utoronto.ca.

The next issue will be published on November 17, 2010 and the deadline for submissions is November 12, 2010. The submission limit is 850 words.

NEWS

The Grandest Moot of them all, nudism, hookers and peer mentorship...

Marshall on mooting, McLachlin, Manitoba and more While he was here for the Grand Moot, UV managed to finagle an interview with SCC Justice Marshall Rothstein, a man who never gives interviews. The spry gentleman of 69 has a firm handshake and an air of judicial reserve, broken by occasional flashes of humour. He spoke at length about the Supreme Court, his past and future, and what makes a good mooter.

AC: You’ve been on the Supreme Court for about 4 and a half years now. How does being on the Supreme Court differ from being on the Federal Court?

MR: The primary difference is that at the Supreme Court, other than criminal cases that come as of right when there is a dissent in the Court of Appeal, all other cases come by way of leave and by definition we only grant leave on the hard cases. So all the cases are hard and it’s hard work but it’s very intellectually stimulating because of that... that’s the main difference.

AC: Is it much different for you personally – do you feel you’re a rock star of the Canadian legal scene?

MR: No (laughs). It’s another job and you do the job as best you can and you’re concerned with trying to get it right and trying to write credible judgments. That’s the same as it is in all courts and that’s the way it is here.

AC: Can you tell us something interesting about your colleagues? What’s the social situation like among the judges at the SCC? MR: You can understand that in our court, because the cases are all difficult, and because there may be differences be-

BY AARON CHRISTOFF (3L) AND ABRAR HUQ (3L)

tween judges at the appeal court, and between the trial judges and appeal judges, that there are always issues in these cases and we’re often in disagreement with each other and that could lead to acrimony, but it doesn’t because – a couple of things: one is that we may be disagreeing with certain judges in certain cases and agreeing with them in another, talking about both cases in the same day, so we know that we have to get along. But the other thing is that the Chief Justice creates a tremendous collegial atmosphere in the court and in the way that we interact with each other and I give her a great amount of credit for the fact that the judges are kept on an even keel and that we carry on without acrimony. I can tell you since I’ve come there’s implicit respect for each judge’s opinion and because of that respect the judges are able to communicate with each other and get along. We have a very collegial atmosphere in our court – it’s just a real pleasure to be there.

AH: Last year we had someone who clerked for Chief Justice McLachlin write for us and he commented on her famous dinner parties and apparently she’s a very renowned cook.

Have you had the privilege of being

invited to one of these soirées?

MR: Yeah, I have... and they’re always great social events. It’s a lot of fun. I’m not saying that we don’t ever discuss serious things at one these events, but they’re social events and that’s part of the reason I believe the court is as collegial as it is. She makes a point of ensuring that we have occasions where we can meet and discuss things that aren’t deadly serious.

AC: A little more about you: what do you do in your free time?

What are your hobbies?

MR: I guess I can say this, I don’t play golf.

The Court work keeps me busy, but I think it’s important for people to have a balanced life. I do jog. I go to the gym in the morning – things like that.

AC: You’re the only Canadian Supreme Court judge who went through a public hearing as part of your nomination process. Can you tell us a bit about what that was like?

MR: Pretty scary... When I was contacted by the Prime Minister he told me that as a condition of being appointed, I had to go through that process. The preparation was excruciating because I had no idea what kinds of questions would be asked. There were no bounds

Clerking for the Grand Moot

“Excuse me, counsel...” I looked down at my watch.

Mike Laskey was about a minute into his 20-minute submission, and already he was being peppered with questions from the bench. This was the second premoot run-through that I had sat in on, and the lawyersturned-judges were being especially hawkish. One by one, Helen Burnett, Padraic Ryan and Sinziana Tugulea stood up and were equally pulled off script as the bench grilled them on their submissions. But such is the life of a Grand Mooter.

As an aspiring mooter myself, clerking for the Grand Moot was the ideal chance to see what goes on behind the written facta and oral submissions. It started with drafting the moot problem, which needed to be novel in its facts and also lend itself to highly entertaining advocacy (at least insofar as us legal junkies are concerned). I myself spent several heady days moonlighting as a Court of Appeal judge, writing the

BY ALLISON WORONE (2L)

decision that would ultimately be appealed at the Grand Moot.

Meanwhile, the mooters threw themselves into crafting their respective legal arguments, pulling together both domestic and foreign judgments to support their

AFTER THE PARTICULARLY HAWKISH RUN-THROUGH THAT I WATCHED, ONE OF THE BENCH MEMBERS COMMENTED THAT THE

MOOTERS WERE LIKE

“TEFLON®.”

submissions. The clerks helped with the odd research task as best we could, though we were never entirely sure if we were actually finding what the mooters were looking for. Run-throughs began even as the facta were

to relevance. So I worked and had assistance trying to anticipate the kinds of questions that would be asked. But you can’t anticipate everything. So it was an ordeal to prepare. As I’ve been told by some of the judges in the US Supreme Court who have been through the process, it was more of an ordeal for them. But I was fortunate – it was conducted in a very civil way. I think probably Canadians want to see these kinds of processes conducted in a civil way and I was fortunate enough to have that kind of hearing. It was a new experience for us in Canada and I know that there are people who favour the process and some who don’t, so that’s controversial. That’s political, so I don’t want to go there.

AH: You’re the first Manitoban on the bench since former Chief Justice Dickson and you were both with the same firm in Winnipeg. Did you guys overlap at the firm?

MR: No, he went to the Court of Queen’s Bench in Manitoba, I think in 1963. I started law school in 1962, and in Manitoba in those years we went to law school in the morning and we articled in the afternoon for four years. So I was articling probably for a year or so when he was still a lawyer. My firm was called Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson.

But that was the amalgamation of two firms in 1969. One was called Aikins MacAulay and the other Thorvaldson. I was with Thorvaldson and he was at Aikins so we were not in the same firm at the same time.

CONTINUED on page 6

still being drafted. Faculty and alumni challenged the mooters on almost every element of their submissions, preparing them for their ultimate presentation before three esteemed members of the bench and a classroom packed with onlookers.

After the particularly hawkish run-through that I watched, one of the bench members commented that the mooters were like “Teflon®.” No matter how adversarial the questions, the mooters responded courteously but forcefully before continuing with their submissions. Nothing stuck. For much of the law school, the Grand Moot is a night of entertainment followed by an open-bar reception. But it is also a showcase of some of the greatest oral advocates at the University of Toronto, and I am pleased to have been able to get a preview of what it is like to organize and take part in a moot.

4

NEWS

ULTRA VIRES

The Barrie nudist

BY TODD BRAYER (1L)

A Bracebridge, Ontario man facing five counts of public nudity in court is challenging the constitutionality of Canada’s nudity laws. Brian Coldin, who also owns a Bracebridge clothing-optional resort, is accused of nude hiking and going through local drive-throughs in the buff. He says the law violates section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which ensures freedom of expression.

And naturism is exactly that, said Coldin’s lawyer Clayton Ruby, to reporters in front of the courthouse in September. “This pretty clearly limits the expression of a naturist, somebody who wants to have a relationship with the world that is without impediment,” he told Canadian Press.

Coldin is charged under s. 174 of the Criminal Code, which says that it is a crime either to be nude in a public place or to be visible nude by the public on private property. This means even watching TV in the nude is an offence if the blinds are open. Its definition of “nude” clashes with the common definition – exposing one’s genitals – instead defining it as “clad as to offend public decency or order.” In practice, however, charges for public nudism are rare and must be approved by the Attorney-General.

The section itself has a chequered history. It was put on the books by Parliament in 1932 to combat unrest by the Sons of Freedom, an anarchic Doukhobor offshoot group that governments in western Canada wrestled with during the first half of the 20th century. They sabotaged rail lines, burned homes and schools and held nude protests in western Canada.

The clause was well known to be political. Then-Minister of Justice Hugh Guthrie once called it the “Doukhobor clause.” Judge Spence of the Supreme Court wrote in 1973 the section was “aimed at such conduct as was exhibited not infrequently by members of a certain radical religious sect.” The Sons of Freedom movement waned in the

1960s. With the threat long gone, there is no reason not to strike the law, said Coldin’s counsel.

They also point out that striking s.

174 would only legalize non-sexual nudity. Another section, 173, covers public sex and flashing. Those who fall under s. 173 are distinguishable from naturalists because they are often aroused by the act of exposure rather than nudity itself. At trial an expert testified that naturism made two exhibitionists “uncomfortable.”

The courts have wrestled with s. 174 in the past. In 1977, Judge MacPherson of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench acquitted three skinny-dippers who thought they were alone on the Saskatchewan River. MacPherson acknowledged the law was only on the books to combat the Sons of Freedom and not to criminalize swimming in the buff. “[The law] certainly was not aimed at nude swimming, or nudity on a shore in a lonely place, public or not,” he wrote. “If somebody comes along unexpectedly or if the swimmer misjudged the loneliness of the place the act cannot suddenly become criminal.” He also ruled there was no indecency in swimming nude — it isn’t a crime under s.

173 either. In 1975 two judgments separately determined that both ss. 173 and 174 are inapplicable to streakers.

More recently, a female university student was charged under s. 173 for walking around topless in Guelph in 1991.

The Ontario Court of Appeal acquitted her and therefore established that going bare-breasted was not a public indecency. The ruling was hailed as legalizing women going topless – but in fact s.

174 still applies. According to the Toronto Police nobody has been charged for being bare-breasted since 1996, but the law remains on the books.

If Coldin’s lawyer succeeds, this last barrier will be removed. Few women in Ontario have taken advantage of virtually legal above-the-waist nudity.

Write for UV and your dreams will come true

OCTOBER 20, 2010

Don’t bother opening a brothel just yet

“The world's oldest profession” has long been legal in Canada, and now it is on the verge of becoming full-fledged, complete with administration, marketing, and office space. In a judgment released this past September 28th, Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down ss. 210, 212(1)(j), and 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, prohibiting respectively keeping a bawdy-house, living off the avails of prostitution, and communication for the purpose of prostitution [2010 OJ No. 4057]. She held that the impugned provisions contravened section 7 of the Charter, the communication prohibition contravened s. 2(b), and none of them was saved by s. 1.

The decision was to take effect within 30 days, but now the applicants and the Crown are negotiating a four-month moratorium, giving the government time to figure out how to respond. This, in exchange for an expedited appeals process, aims to minimize potential legal chaos.

An appeal seems likely. Prof. Kent Roach noted that “the case establishes a very different record than the 1990 [prostitution] reference and [he] would not be surprised to see the SCC strike down 213(1)(c) soliciting offence, but the bawdy-house and living off the avails laws may be more difficult to strike down.”

Many fear that the striking of the prohibitions could flood the streets with unsavoury characters, and many in the sex industry itself fear an invasive regulatory response. The ruling may also trigger further court challenges across the country.

The Context

NEWS

Most of the mainstream news analyses so far are short on legal detail and make

5

BY AARON CHRISTOFF (3L)

it look like Justice Himel simply made a policy decision – that harm to sex workers outweighs any moral or protective considerations the law might have. There is certainly a policy element to the decision, but the judgment, a daunting 131page read, does its best to explore reams of social scientific data and address all the legal issues.

One of the most significant hurdles Himel faced in her decision was the 1990 SCC Prostitution Reference [1990 1 SCR 1123]. In that case, the communication and bawdy-house provisions were sent up for reference by Manitoba's Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to be scrutinized for constitutionality. The Dickson majority held that neither provision was inconsistent with s. 7 of the Charter, and that only the prohibition on communication was inconsistent with s.

2(b), but was saved by s. 1. Notably, they found that street solicitation, being about sex for money, did not lie near the heart of the freedom of expression guarantee, and that its prohibition in order to counteract social nuisance was a proportionate measure. They also ruled that any infringement of liberty rights (due to the threat of imprisonment) was in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, that the impugned provisions were not unduly vague, and that the criminalization of street solicitation but not prostitution did not offend the basic tenets of our legal system. Lamer J. further opined that s. 7 does not include the right to exercise one's chosen profession.

The dissent (Wilson and L'HeureuxDubé JJ.) found that the prohibition on communication was not minimally impairing, and therefore not saved by s.1.

Justice Himel, in light of changing context and new evidence gathered in the past twenty years, decided to “re-

visit” the s. 1 analysis in the Prostitution Analysis Reference. She also made efforts to distin- Justice Himel began by considering guish the issues in this case from those in morality as a constitutional objective, the reference (mainly the expression at and came to the conclusion that Parliaissue). ment is entitled to legislate based on Himel decided the case based on the morality, as long as it is in keeping with arguments and voluminous evidence put Charter values. Historically, the objectives before her. The applicants argued that ss. of the prostitution prohibitions were a 210, 212(1)(j), and s. 213(1)(c) of the mix of concerns about moral harm and Criminal Code public order. prevent prostiHowever, as tutes from concourts have beducting their come more tolerbusiness in a ant of diverse safe environmoral tastes, ment, violating morality has fallen s. 7 – s. 213(1)(c) out of favour and also violates s. must now be sup2(b). The reported by apprespondents arhension of harm. gued that Accordingly, the prostitution is offence of keepinherently daning a bawdy-house gerous, and is was deemed to associated with aim solely at preother harmful serving public activities like vihealth and order. olence, drug adLiving on the diction, and avails of prostitutrafficking – There ain’t no “i” in PMP, but there is one in this tion is aimed at Parliament repreventing exsoon-to-be legal profession sponded by criminalizing the most pub- ploitation and profiting by pimps, and lic and harmful aspects, and any Charter communication for the purposes of violation would be justified under s. 1 prostitution is about curbing street solic(the Prostitution Reference applies). They itation and the resulting social nuisance further argued that there is no constitu- (per the Prostitution Reference). tional right to engage in prostitution, and For the s. 7 analysis, Himel considered the prohibition of certain aspects is whether the applicants had demonmeant to protect social values as well as strated that the impugned provisions dethe human dignity of women. The judge prived them of their s. 7 rights to life, sifted through over 25,000 pages of ev- liberty, and security and whether that was idence in 88 volumes, and heard from in accordance with fundamental justice. prostitutes, activists, police officers, The evidence showed that prostitutes countless social science experts, and CONTINUED on page 6 many more.

Mentorship in law: The PMP is only the beginning

"Be like a postage stamp. Stick to something until you get there." – Josh Billings I don’t know who Josh Billings is, but I’m pretty sure he’s on to something, so he gets the honour of introducing the first ever Peer Mentorship Program column in Ultra Vires. I’ve never thought of law students as postage stamps, but now that I do it seems that we are apt to become a bit unstuck. Maybe not everybody, but lots of us have periods where we feel a little less attracted to daily readings, lectures, extracurriculars and whatever it was that brought us to Falconer and Flavelle in the first place. One of the reasons the mentorship program was set up was a general recognition that there will always be periods when we feel as if we are becoming unstuck and it is useful to have someone around to help us get to our destination.

The mentorship program is based on a desire to offer new students support and a confidential peer resource to help navigate the ins and outs of law school. It is not supposed to be intimidating and it certainly is not

BY SARAH JONES (3L) AND GILLIAN MUIRHEAD (3L)

supposed to be more work. And yet, like most things – it doesn’t always just happen. Mentoring relationships can be rewarding, but they often take a bit of effort.

The peer program did not exist when I was in first year, so my first experience as a mentee was at my summer job. My firm distributed reading material on how to foster our mentorship relationships, and the Ontario Bar Association also has material on how to prepare to be a mentee. Below are three tips I have collected that I hope will help ensure the creation of both a productive mentoring relationship and, possibly, a new friendship!

Establish Expectations

This advice applies to both mentors and mentees: Discuss your basic expectations for what you expect to get out of your mentoring relationship. For mentees, the quasi-scientific questionnaire that we had each student fill out earlier this term was our attempt to uncover what you were looking for, but your mentor has not seen your questionnaire and your expectations

might have changed now that you have a taste of law school. Communicate to each other your expectations about issues such as how much time you want to put into the relationship, what topics you want to focus on in your discussions and what help you expect your mentor will be able to provide. Remember your expectations may change over time so make sure you keep communicating with your mentor/mentee.

Ask Questions

If I had had a mentor in first year I might have avoided asking him or her “what’s a pogg anyway?” instead asking this impressive question in front of my small group. (For those of you who don’t know yet, it’s not a game that elicits nostalgia, it’s an acronym: peace order and good government.) Your mentor is someone who you should feel comfortable asking any question to, no matter how trivial or obvious you might think it is. For the record, as a mentor, I would love these questions, if only to CONTINUED on page 6

6

Rothstein - from page 3

AH: So did you have the opportunity to interact with him afterwards, though?

MR: I appeared before him in the Manitoba Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court and met him socially on a few occasions after I got to Ottawa with the Federal Court but by this time he was retired. I think he retired in about 1990 and I went to the Federal Court in 1992, but he came to some judges’ lunches and a few other social occasions.

Of course he’s a great icon and was an extraordinary judge – just the right kind of person to bring the Charter in, and I brag a little bit about my Manitoba connection with him... even though it’s a little more attenuated than I always disclose.

AH: I understand you chaired the Manitoba commission on compulsory retirement which ended mandatory retirement in Manitoba. So now you’re 5 years away from mandatory retirement at the SCC. What do you see for yourself in the future?

MR: It’s hard to know what life holds for people, especially as you get older.

You have to be concerned about health issues. Fortunately I haven’t any, at least not yet. As you know, judges who retire from the Supreme Court have gone on to do arbitration work, public commissions: Justice Major’s done the Air India inquiry for example. There are those kinds of things some judges do. There’s the possibility of teaching: not as a regular faculty member, but as a guest from time to time. So if all goes well I would hope to be as active as my mental and physical capacity allow me to be at that point.

AH: U of T has a very expansive and wide competitive mooting program even beyond the Grant Moot so maybe you could just give a few words of advice for students preparing for competitive moots in the fuMentorship - from page 5

demonstrate that I have in fact retained something in these past two years.

I found it helpful as a mentee to amass a list of questions I wanted to ask my mentor. As you may have gathered, the student mentorship program is less formal than a professional mentor, and formal preparation (which could well lead to more stress) is quite possibly the opposite of what we want to encourage. That said, thinking about questions you have before your coffee date might ensure that you remember all your questions and get the most out of your meeting.

Say Thank You

Mentors are volunteering their time to help you and it goes a long way to let them know you value the relationship.

Of course, we are all volunteers and have chosen to become mentors because we love it. We love meeting the next cohort

NEWS

ture.

MR: If there’s one piece of advice I can give, it’s preparation. If you are wellprepared you’re going to get unanticipated questions from the judges or you’re going to get some kind of surprise argument coming from the other side, but if you’re well-prepared you’ll be able to handle it. Even though you haven’t thought of that particular question, even though it takes you on a tangent, if you’re well-prepared you can either respond to the question or explain why the question is irrelevant, or why what you’re saying should be taken in account. It’s all a question of preparation.

The principal I articled with used to say that cases are won in the library, not in the courtroom. I don’t know whether students these days are going to the library or just the computer, but that’s a metaphor for saying you have to prepare.

He was probably one of the very brightest people that I ever knew. Boy did he work hard. I used to go with him on cases – he practiced transportation law which is ultimately what I practiced – we would be out of town for many cases and in that hotel room we would be working until 2 or 3 in the morning. So that’s the serious message that I’ve got.

It’s hard work. It’s very hard work and you can’t cut corners. Sometimes you will proceed with an implicit assumption about some step along the way. You can’t do that – you have to test out every step and make it explicit and that just means more hard work. That’s been my experience.

The other thing about preparation is that if a person has stage fright or is nervous about speaking in public, preparation is the best antidote. If you’re prepared, you can handle it and that’s the best way to deal with a case of nerves.

And young lawyers will tend to be nervous when they go in just because they’re inexperienced, and being well-prepared is a great antidote for that.

and passing on wisdom.

In Conclusion

Remember, these are only suggestions.

Every mentoring relationship is different and you and your mentor have to work together to figure out what works best for you both. But, keep in mind, like all relationships, mentorship takes a bit of work, so stick with it! The Peer Mentorship Program has many ambitious goals, but the most ambitious is to encourage relationships that are a benefit in and of themselves and that survive long after you learn about poggs. If you develop a strong relationship, whether with a peer mentor or a professional one, keep in touch. Let them know how you’re doing, how you’ve put what you learned into practice, or send a quick e-mail to brag about what you’ve gotten up to.

Prostitution - from page 5

face a high risk of violence – indeed, many are murdered every year (Pickton is the most dramatic recent example).

Himel found that, on a balance of probabilities, violence can be reduced though not necessarily eliminated. Things like working indoors, working at a fixed location, having other people around, screening clients, having regular clients, and having escape routes improve safety.

Many safety-enhancing techniques are made illegal by the impugned provisions: s. 210 exposes prostitutes working in-call to criminal sanction; s. 212(1)(j) prevents them from hiring assistants, bodyguards, etc.; s. 213(1)(c) prevents them from screening clients early. The provisions force prostitutes to choose between liberty and security, and thus contributes indirectly but sufficiently to the violence they face.

Justice Himel further held that the rights infringements are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice because they are arbitrary (working in concert they expose prostitutes to more violence and don't minimize nuisance), overbroad, and grossly disproportionate to state interests. In light of these findings, the provisions could not be proportionate or minimally impairing, and so are not saved by s. 1.

Following the Prostitution Reference, the communication prohibition clearly con-

ULTRA VIRES

travenes the s. 2(b) expression guarantee.

Is it saved by s. 1? Judge Himel thought not. For her, the key distinction is between solicitation for sex and screening for safety. While the former may not be, the latter is at the core of the constitutional guarantee, so the standard for justification is high. Since s. 213(1)(c) potentially captures safety-driven communication it is not minimally impairing.

The price is also too high, when violence to prostitutes is balanced against the deemed objective of alleviating social nuisance. A changing context and new evidence means that the Prostitution Reference no longer applies, though Himel still cites the reasoning of the dissent with approval. All of the impugned provisions are unconstitutional.

Epilogue

The applicants were elated by the result.

Lawyer and Osgoode Hall law professor Alan Young was thrilled to have gotten everything he was seeking. Terri Jean Bedford, a flamboyant dominatrix with a sad and colourful past, plans to get back into domination (“I'm going to spank some ass. Legally!”). Valerie Scott, executive director of Sex Professionals of Canada, plans to run a brothel catering to “physically disabled gentlemen” (and will be taking a course at Rotman).

FEATURES

In-firm interviews, tall buildings, moustaches, the lady from Grounds of Appeal and more...

Top 10: In-firm interview and call day tips

Everyone talks about the strategizing and scheming required to emerge at 5:05pm on Wednesday night with a job offer in hand. Remember, this process is a beast

BY NATASHA KANERVA (3L)

this all without getting lost in the PATH! Having taken part in interview mayhem last year, and living to tell about it, I have assembled some gems of wisdom from

It might be tempting to discuss how crazy your interview(er) was, but someone from the office could be right behind you

that you will never face again in your entire career. Sure, there may be more interviews. But never again will you have to divide two and a half days of your life into two-hour increments between four or five firms, each desperate to monopolize your time and attention to convince you why they are different and better than everyone else. You will never again wonder if you are correctly reading the signals they are sending, and if they are correctly reading the ones you are sending back. And, remember, you must do

my fellow classmates. Here’s our top ten list of dos and don’ts if you want to not only survive, but thrive through interview week with some grace, class, and a summer job.

If you are a 2L walking through the halls of Flavelle House, the 3 letters O-C-I have likely been haunting you for the past month. You’ve either been nervous about getting them, dreading the thought of speed dating in a sweaty suit, or sick and tired of hearing everybody else talking about them. As the tensions rise in the next few weeks, it becomes important that we all maintain perspective.

While certain students are set on working on Bay Street, others will choose the government route and still others will follow academic or non-law career paths. In any event, many students may be unaware of career possibilities outside of the traditional practice of law. This article profiles two women who have used their law degrees in somewhat unconventional ways.

It serves as a reminder that no matter what happens, we will all end up where we need to be.

than I wanted to work as a lawyer! After my second child was born, I got itchy to go back to work, but not as a practicing lawyer. I decided to pursue family law mediation and started by taking some training courses. I really enjoyed it and enrolled in a very intense mediation program that offered an internship with a practicing mediator. I ended up being

Arlene Blatt

Immediately after being called to the bar, I got married and then got pregnant 3 months later! I know, not the usual thing to do, but I really wanted a baby more

1. Don’t Stress the Scheduling

A lot of people worry that they have to schedule their favourite firm at 8:00 am Monday and anyone they meet Tuesday will interpret that poorly. There are conflicting reports about this. Some firms explicitly tell you not to worry about

scheduling. If they say that, believe them.

With others, you may have awkward conversations about why you waited until Tuesday to meet them. If firms ask why you met them at 12:00 on Tuesday, tell the truth: other firms called first and you scheduled them in order. Or, you wanted some practice before you interviewed with your top choice. Or whatever. The most important thing is to leave time for return visits. If you loved your Tuesday morning firm, ask if you can come back again in the late afternoon or early morning Wednesday. There’s still lots of time.

And from what I’ve heard, even if it’s super awkward, it doesn’t usually impact whether or not you get an offer.

2. Consider Geography

Even though all the firms are in the same area, when you factor in elevators, foot traffic and pee breaks, what should be a quick jaunt from the Bay-Adelaide Centre to Brookfield Place can easily take ten minutes. There’s a great advantage to scheduling back-to-back interviews in the same building and saving yourself the time and stress of running from one building to another. It also means you don’t show up to an interview sweaty and out of breath. Also – if you’re planning to travel underground, a practice run

Life beyond Bay Street

BY ANDREA TANNENBAUM (2L)

time not letting it get to me.

After my youngest was born, my father asked me to join his property management company and deal with the legal proceedings related to residential landlord and tenant disputes. So, for the next 10 years, I was the in-house lawyer for his company. I went to court often and prepared all the necessary documents. Dur-

Law and babies: Not mutually exclusive!

hired by the mediator, who was not a lawyer. He had a social work degree and a Ph.D in something, and, with me on board, he could offer his clients mediation about financial issues, in addition to custody and access. I did that for a few years and got burnt out quickly. It was very emotional and I was having a hard

ing that time, I bumped into a woman who I had met in a mediation course and she asked me if I was interested in teaching at Seneca College in the law clerk program. I loved it! After teaching for about 10 years part-time, a full time position became available. It was to teach in the law clerk program as well as in the

through the PATH won’t hurt.

3. Don’t Pull an Isaac

Most people will remember our former SLS President as an intelligent, friendly, and engaged student. There was no doubt that he would be a top pick for any firm – and indeed he was. During interview week, Isaac met with ten firms and inexplicably made it to five evening events. The problem was, firms want you to show interest in their firm by coming back two and even three times over the course of the interview period. As a result, every firm assumed Isaac was interested in a different firm and at 5pm on Wednesday, his phone didn’t ring. Fear not, the story has a happy ending - Isaac secured a summer job elsewhere and an articling position at a fantastic firm. Still, his tale yields an important lesson: accept interviews at a maximum of four or five firms. This will give you the flexibility to accept further meetings and show keen commitment to your top picks.

4. Fix Your Phone

During Interview Week your phone will be ringing off the hook with people calling to schedule further visits, confirm CONTINUED at page 12

paralegal and court and tribunal administration programs. Being a lawyer was a requirement for the position! I have been teaching full-time since 2005 and love the flexibility that teaching offers. My law degree was not only a job requirement; it also gives me credibility as a professor.

Also, now that paralegals are a licensed profession, the Law Society requires professors who are teaching in the paralegal program to be members of the Law Society. I always maintained my membership, even though it was not previously required. In addition to teaching at Seneca, I taught for a few summers at the Bar Admission course, which was very rewarding. In the past few years, I have co-authored 3 legal textbooks, which is a huge perk of being a professor! These are textbooks for courses that I have taught and the royalties keep coming in every year! It is also very nice for the students to be taught by the author of their textbook. With respect to my career as a legal professor, I wouldn't trade it for an offer at any of the Seven Sister firms! I am earning quite good money. Not CONTINUED at page 12

8

FEATURES

Long-distance relationships: Are they even worth trying?

Long-distance relationships (LDRs) can be a touchy subject, to the point where people entering into one feel an impending sense of doom or futility. Jaded friends will often make remarks about how it’s destined to fail. It seems sometimes people are reluctant to even discuss their LDRs, for fear of the gloomy reactions they’ll get from even their closest friends. I certainly saw many friends try and then fail at these relationships during undergrad. In fact, long-distance relationships are viewed so cynically that the “turkey dump” has become a common expression, where it’s predicted that at least one partner will be fed up by Thanksgiving and call it quits. Hmm… perhaps this article should have come out in September, but I hope readers whose relationships did survive the holiday curse enjoy this article!

The good news

Many of you will be trying the distance thing for the first time, and it might be a challenge to be spending so much time apart from a significant other.

The good news is that there seem to be quite a few successful LDRs in law school. I don’t have any linear regressions or sophisticated experiments to tell you why, but perhaps it relates to the maturity you’ve developed by the time you attend law school. I suggest this because I spoke to several upper year students who shared some very valuable insights about coping with distance.

BY JUSTIN NASSERI (2L)

lenging academic environment, and balancing this with a social life and extracurricular activities is difficult. It might seem like you just don’t have time to communicate with your partner.

One anonymous upper year commented on how staying in touch became an added stress in her life instead of a source of happiness. She attributed part of her frustration with feeling that her partner was not as busy as her. This created an inability for her to relate to her boyfriend and resulted in her “feeling like lashing out because [she] was so stressed out while he was taking a year off from school and having all the fun.”

This student mentioned that “maybe if I had initially made it more clear how busy I was going to be, it would have improved his understanding of my situation.”

It seems that the quality of your communication with your partner is as essential as its frequency. Quality communication includes focusing on positives and talking to each other because you actually want to. Josh Whitford, a 2L in the joint JD/MGA program, can attest to some of the difficulties with positive long-distance communication. He had been seeing his significant other for six years before moving to Toronto and his relationship endured some challenges. As Josh says, “we were both so busy and apart for the first time and that made it difficult to find the time needed to work things out, even on Skype. When the conflicts and

Distance makes the heart grow fonder... right?

Some challenges

Let’s start with some of the common challenges that students face when living in a different city from their partner.

For starters, as a law student, you’ll be extremely busy. You’re in a new and chal-

downsides absorb the bulk of your communication, you don’t have time to focus on all the wonderful things about your relationship, or the foundation you built.”

Some pointers

So you might be wondering at this point, what works? I consulted a couple long-distance relationship gurus at the Faculty to get their advice.

Atrisha Lewis, a very busy 2L, has managed to stay in a very happy distance relationship over the last fourteen months, with a boyfriend who resides in Montreal. How does she do it? According to her, an “end point to the distance is key… knowing that my boyfriend was

ULTRA VIRES

often and meet new friends instead of always hanging out with the significant other.

Just starting?

I also thought you might enjoy relating to some law students who just started the LDR thing themselves. Jared Mackey (2L) just met his partner in Alberta over the summer, and he said that “since our relationship is relatively new, the biggest challenge is to avoid being

Be thankful you have more sophisticated technology at your disposal than the telegraph. This guy looks pretty lonely, doesn’t he?

ultimately going to end up in Toronto with me made me feel confident in our relationship.” Furthermore, it seems that regular visits help, as Atrisha mentioned that “the frequency of being able to see your partner matters, and it helps that I get to see my partner twice a month and always have that anticipation of something to look forward to.”

Echoing some of the sentiments of our anonymous contributor, Atrisha mentioned that the fact that her boyfriend was very busy helped, because there was a mutual respect for each other’s tough schedules. “If one person is busier than the other, that amplifies the loneliness that you feel because you aren't able to call that person when you're bored and they are busy.”

Joanna Kyriazis (2L), also in a successful long-distance relationship, added that there are several upsides to focus on. She emphasized that “you get to work on a different dimension of your relationship when you are long-distance… my relationship has a huge intellectual component to it… you really find out if you’re intellectually and emotionally compatible.” She added that a distance relationship creates incentives to really think about your future life plans, and issues like marriage, and where you want to work. Finally, she added that both her and her partner enjoy some of the freedoms like being able to go out more

comfortable with just putting everything on ‘pause.’ Instead, we are trying to grow the relationship… planned Skype dates and regular phone calls have been important, and things have been great so far.”

Another 2L, Charlie Hatt, just engaged in an LDR when his girlfriend Natalie moved to Queen’s University for her degree. He mentioned that having a strong five-year base to build off helps and echoed Atrisha’s sentiment that having a plan as to when the distance will end is crucial. Charlie fully agrees with Jared that planned Skype dates, and being able to actually see your significant other is a huge helper, especially when you’re just starting out.

In conclusion

Well, it seems obvious that there’s no exact science to this LDR thing, but if we’ve learned anything, it’s that constant and positive communication are essential, it helps if both sides are busy, and Skype rules! Best of luck to all of you in your LDRs, and thank you so much to everyone who allowed me to quote them in this article.

FEATURES

Movember: Reasons to sport a ‘stache (ladies included)

OCTOBER 20, 2010

BY ANDREW ROBERTSON (2L)

The month of November is an exciting time for all law students. 1Ls start panicking about exams that don’t matter; 2Ls stress over the end of the OCI process; and 3Ls...well, maybe this isn’t an exciting time for everyone. But what is most important about November is the worldwide phenomenon known as Movember.

Movember is a month-long event where men of all ages and relative growing-ability (see: hairiness) cultivate moustaches – known as Mos -- in support of prostate cancer research. Started seven years ago by a few Australian men (perhaps the most creative of all peoples), the campaign has grown into a worldwide affair that last year raised $42 million around the globe in a single month. In Canada, last year’s event saw 35,000 participants raise $7.8 million, and this year Prostate Cancer Canada hopes to have 50,000 participants raise $10 million.

The classic “trucker” ‘stache The Faculty of Law Movember Team was created last year, and in its freshman year had 30+ members raise over $11,000 in the month of November. Some of the more interesting moustaches included pencil-thins, handlebars, traditional dusters and even a “Colonel” look. This year, the Law School team hopes to have 50+ participants and raise over $20,000.

The process for gentlemen and ladies to take part is very easy. “Mo Brothas” and “Mo Sistas” can register online at ca.movember.com, and join the University of Toronto Faculty of Law Movember Team. On November 1st, Mo Brothas must go clean shaven, and over the next month cultivate their own special moustache look while soliciting pledges from friends and family. Mo Sistas have an easier time, as they solicit pledges for taking pictures wearing fake moustaches from time to time.

The goal of putting up with such ridiculous facial hair is simple – raising awareness and much-needed funding for a disease that will afflict 1 in 6 Canadian men.

Of course, there are sacrifices to be made in growing a moustache over a month, and the Movember brass are well aware of this. Here are some common objections, and the answers that might help one work through their own misgivings: 1.

“Andrew, if I grow a moustache, I’m going to stop picking up at the bars.”

Well, to be blunt, you weren’t doing all that well with the ladies in the first place. If you were, then the Mo is simply another talking point. Show them your sensitive, caring side by talking about the work you are doing for cancer research. Or start hanging out at hipster bars -- the Mo kills in those crowds.

2.

“Andrew, I don’t look that good with a moustache.” Poppycock. Everyone looks good with a moustache. Don’t let the stringent social diktats of a world gone mad determine how you should feel about yourself. Be proud of your Mo. Also, (and I really wasn’t going to bring this up!) your upper lip is, quite simply put, hideously ugly. I suggest hiding it with a gracefully combed Mo.

3.

“Andrew, I can’t even GROW a moustache!” This objection is most commonly used by men who want to use one of the objections outlined above, but think that claiming moustache-impotence will somehow allow them to escape ridicule by their classmates. This is a fallacy. You will be berated and mocked, because it is actually genetically impossible for men to be incapable of growing some semblance of a moustache over the course of a month. It is SCIENCE folks. I can’t explain it, but then again that’s why I’m in law school, and not medical school.

Familiar faces: An interview with Sherry Allen

9

BY LAUREN ROCK (3L)

“No, I wasn’t scared,” Sherry Allen, the familiar face behind the counter at Grounds of Appeal, assured me when I asked if her move from O.I.S.E. to the law school had been cause for trepidation. That was five years ago.

Today, Sherry maintains that law students argue with her less than teachers, though she can confirm the stereotype that we drink a lot of coffee. Mostly, this makes work more fun, Sherry explained, too busy to notice the time passing. Strangely though, this year is busier than any of her former five, “this year is too busy”; perhaps the good will kicking in?

Sherry was born in Georgetown, Guyana, South America. She grew up as a tomboy, “climbin’ trees and fishin’ with my five brothers.” Her life changed in 1981 when she came to Canada. “NO!” is the vehement response to whether she liked Canada, at first. I should mention that it’s October 7 and the sun is shining brightly on us as we chat about her past, present and future - yet Sherry is outfitted in a formidable winter coat. The cold was a serious concern for the first couple years. After instituting the “early-fall-to-late-spring” winter coat policy, she’s since grown to love Canada. Actually, Sherry admits that between her two countries, these days she even likes Canada better. “It’s too hot!” she says of Guyana. I can’t help but chuckle as she realizes she sounds like those old, fickle O.I.S.E. customers.

If Sherry could change one thing about her café it would be the size. The next thing would be to “have more veggie stuff.” In a sense, these ideas are related, if you believe vegetarian diets can inspire weight-loss, that is. I’d make an exception for Sherry’s favourite meal though: fried salmon with Guyanese spices. She’s also not too impressed with the stream of celebrities that come through Flavelle - Bill Graham is the biggest face she’s served, and not just because of his prominent chin.

Brangelina is her favourite celebrity, by far. If Rob Ford came in, she might not serve him but luckily, I note, he would not fit.

Sherry is more interested in things like love and family than she is in celebrities, anyway. On the weekends, she goes out with her brothers to Reggae shows and drinks tequila: “just relaxin’ and havin’ fun.” Her lover is “…a cool guy, haha!” and they are not planning to have kids. Sherry’s mom raised her to “grow with love,” a philosophy of life which Sherry also adopted; just right now, to grow with love, is not to have any more babies. “Look what is happening in Pakistan, right now?! It is so horrible.” Perhaps along with this year’s inexplicably higher demand for coffee, we law students should also sample Sherry’s compassion, good heart and ‘chill’ sensibility. Even if we couldn’t scare her, she can and still does love us.

4.

“Andrew, my girlfriend/wife/mother/great-aunt Ruth won’t let me grow a moustache.” You, sir, are without hope.

In short, there is almost no conceivable reason for not taking part in Movember.

People can still sign up during the month of November if they change their minds and realize that with all their classmates growing the Mo, being clean shaven starts to look downright silly. The money that we will raise in Movember will go towards tackling a disease that has unfortunately touched the lives of many Canadians, and so I implore all of you to consider taking part. If you have any questions about Movember, don’t hesitate to contact me at andrew.robertson@utoronto.ca. This Movember, I hope you all join me in changing the face of men’s health!

The exaggerated “connoisseur” moustache was a hot trend at the World Beard and Moustache Championships a couple years ago. What will we see this year?

10

This semester I am on exchange at Hong Kong University. When arranging for the exchange, my expectation was that my education about another part of the world would take place in the classroom. Instead, my experience has been much richer than I assumed from all the learning that has taken place outside of school. The value of my exchange experience thus far extends well beyond gaining an understanding of the law in another country. Developing a sense of how another culture operates and adapting to that culture is the added benefit.

In the classroom, there are great opportunities to learn. Although Hong Kong is now part of China, its separate history has led to separate laws. However, because Hong Kong and China's futures are intertwined there are a lot of classes about Chinese law. Accordingly, I am taking classes that cover both Hong Kong and Chinese law. It is intriguing to note the Commonwealth elements that have influenced Hong Kong law, and even Chinese law to a lesser extent. The material has been very interesting, but learning it has practical uses as

FEATURES

Notes from abroad: Hong Kong

BY JONATHAN BITRAN (3L)

well. As the global community converges, this knowledge should prove invaluable.

Outside of the classroom, I have also learned a lot. Having never been to this

have thoroughly enjoyed it. At times it can be a little bit jarring to live in a society that functions so differently than one's home country. Nonetheless, over

Hong Kong: A city of almost seven million people

part of the world before, Cantonese culture has been a sea of change for me. I

time it becomes second nature. This immersion helps one develop adaptability

ULTRA VIRES

that allows for living comfortably in many situations and places. To aid with the goal of adaptability, the ease of travel to other countries in Asia while on exchange is fantastic. By the end of my term on exchange I will have learned firsthand about the cultures in a few other Asian countries, including the Philippines and Taiwan. Hopefully, this will serve to broaden my knowledge base and improve my comfort level in new places.

I would highly recommend this experience to anyone who is looking to learn about another place and to learn about himself or herself as well. I have been having an excellent time. There is plenty of opportunity both to learn a lot and enjoy leisure activities. I think there is much to gain by going to a place so vastly different from our Canadian culture. This exchange is definitely a highlight that I will always remember about my time at law school.

OCTOBER 20, 2010

FEATURES

A brief walking tour of Toronto skyscrapers

This month you may find yourself hopelessly lost among the skyscrapers of Toronto’s financial district, dodging TTC streetcars and bike couriers while attempting to make it to your next interview on time. Or maybe you take a detour on your way to St. Lawrence Market. Or maybe you’re just interested in sneering at overindulgent symbols of corporate power and greed. Lucky for you, UV has provided a quick guide to the skyscrapers of Toronto’s downtown core.

Below, I’ve listed some of Toronto’s tallest and most iconic skyscrapers in the financial district. This is by no means a complete list – my sincere apologies to the injured egos of the Royal Bank Plaza South, One King West and the Bay Wellington Tower.

For the best views of Toronto’s skyline, I recommend Toronto Island, Panorama at the top of Manulife Centre, Broadview Avenue across from Riverdale Park, Polson Street (across from the Sound Academy) or a helicopter tour of Toronto (this I have not tried personally, but I assume it provides more than adequate views).

BY ERICA YOUNG (3L)

by one metre, roughly 300-pound piece of marble fell from the 60th storey of the tower onto the third floor mezzanine. Work is currently being conducted to replace all 45,000 of the tower’s marble panels with new glass panels. The work will not be completed for the next three years, so get used to the scaffolding encircling the tower and the slight pedestrian risk. Hard hat not necessary.

Scotia Plaza

Trademark: Signature red granite and vshaped indentations marking the upper floors.

Address: 40 King Street West (at Bay and King) History: A stunning blend of classical and modern architecture. At street level, the building presents classic stone façades belonging to the former Wood Gundy building at 11 Adelaide Street, the Dunfield building at 104 Yonge Street and the historic headquarters of The Bank of Nova Scotia at 44 King Street West. The newest tower was completed between 1985 and 1992, as designed by WZMH Architects.

First Canadian Place

Trademark: Tallest skyscraper in Toronto (with 72 stories, just hope that you don’t get stuck on the 71st floor during a fire drill).

Address: 100 King Street West (at Bay and King) History: First Canadian Place (or “FCP” as it’s affectionately known) was built in 1975 and designed by Bergman + Hamann.

Notable Tenants: Bank of Montreal, Gowlings, Bennett Jones, Davies, Oslers Dining and Shopping: FCP features not a one but a multi-level food court! Visit Reds Bistro and Wine Bar and Vertical for more discerning palates.

the North Tower and into the banking hall. Embrace your inner tourist and gaze at the vaulted ceiling and gilt mouldings.

Scotia Plaza: What a hot ‘V’

Commerce Court West

Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower

Trademark: The tallest towers of yet another skyscraper cluster in Toronto. It is distinguished from the other clusters by its black colour and minimalist design.

Address: 66 Wellington Street West (between King and Wellington at Bay) History: The TD Bank Tower was completed in 1967, built by Bregman + Hamann and John B. Parkin and Associates in consultation with Ludwig Mies van de Rohe (who also designed the similar Seagram building in New York City).

Notable Tenants: McCarthy Tétrault Dining and Shopping: Some of the city’s finest Italian suits can be found consuming after work drinks on the patios of Bymark or Duke of Devon. For a great view of the city and possibly the most expensive meal you will ever eat in Toronto, try Canoe on the top floor (54).

Notable Tenants: Scotiabank (obviously), BLG, Cassels Brock, Miller Thomson

Commerce Court West

First Canadian Place

Heads up: The Carrera marble that covers all 72 stories of FCP lends a sense of majesty and grandeur to the skyscraper.

It also has proven to be a serious hazard.

In 2007, following a storm, a one metre

Trademark: This stainless steel box tower forms part of yet another skyscraper complex, Commerce Court.

Address: 199 Bay Street (also at Bay and King) History: Commerce Court West was built in 1972 and designed by I.M. Pei (think of those glass pyramids at the Louvre). It also stands along the North Tower, which until 1962 was the tallest building in the British Empire.

Notable Tenants: CIBC, Blakes, Stikeman Elliott Dining and Shopping: For finer tastes (and more ample wallets) check out Far Niente and Jump.

Need a rest? Step into the courtyard inside the Commerce Court buildings for a quiet space in the downtown core. Or step through the cathedral-like doors of

TD Towers: Welcome to the Matrix

Urban Legends? TD Bank Tower may be best known for the tragic tale of Garry Hoy. Mr. Hoy, a lawyer who worked in the tower, routinely exhibited the strength of the office glass windows by throwing himself against them. Unfortunately, one evening Mr. Hoy threw himself against the window, but it gave

11

way and he plunged 24 floors to his death.

Bay-Adelaide Centre

Trademark: The newest addition to Toronto’s skyline.

Address: 333 Bay Street History: Completed in 2009 and built

by WZMH Architects, the Bay-Adelaide Centre concludes a project that was begun in the 1980s but abandoned shortly thereafter due to the last economic recession. Decades passed with nothing but a solid concrete “bunker” on the corner. At last, the corner offers Toronto more than just another parking garage.

Notable Tenants: KPMG, Goodmans, Fasken Martineau, Heenan Blaikie Dining and Shopping: Adjacent to the Bay-Adelaide centre you can find South of Temperance, one of Toronto’s largest downtown patios.

Like one enormous energy-efficient lightbulb!

This LEED certified building produces an estimated 40% energy savings relative to other buildings.

Bay-Adelaide Centre

A note about the PATH. In the interest of speed (and possible shelter from inclement weather) you may seek shelter in the PATH, which despite the use of all capital letters, does not represent an acronym of any type. The PATH is a system of underground pathways connecting most major buildings downtown as well as TTC stations. You can walk from south of Union Station to as far north as the bus terminal at Bay and Dundas. The PATH consists of 27 kilometres of the most confusing and disorienting underground maze in the world (or at least southern Ontario). Seasoned travellers will advise you to avoid using spotty signage, drycleaners or bank machines as points of reference. On the plus side, if you find yourself lost in the PATH during business hours, you will likely be able to get lunch, see a dentist, shine your shoes and pick up toothpaste all within 50 metres! Readers are warned: use at your own peril.

12

FEATURES

a professor’s assistant, a public interest organization and a law firm. None of nearly as much as a practicing lawyer, but these jobs was quite right. Instead of arwhen I factor in the flexibility I have, it's ticling, I clerked at the Ontario Court of not bad at all. I also have a part-time Appeal. My connections at the Court put contract position with a me in touch with lawyer who represents the “Krever Insome major hospitals in quiry” (the Ontario. She prepares tainted blood and reviews clinical trial scandal).

I agreements with drug worked as a responsors and I have search lawyer for been employed by her 18 about for the past 4 years. I avmonths. I enerage about 20 hours a joyed the public month. All the work is interest nature exchanged between us of the work but electronically which is left when a posisuch a bonus. I never tion opened up have to leave home or at the U of T meet with her or her Goldberg researched for the “Krever Inlaw school to crequiry” (tainted blood scandal) clients. ate one of the first Canadian Career Development OfBonnie Goldberg fices. I stayed in the CDO (eventually beDuring law school, I experimented with coming the Assistant Dean Career a number of different law-related jobs Services) from 1997 until 2005. I loved Off Bay St. - from page 7

Interview tips - from page 7

dinner plans, let you know how much everyone liked you, etc. Make sure: 1) Your voicemail is active and appropriate and that the mailbox is empty - lawyers ramble. 2) Turn off call waiting. There’s nothing worse than trying to speak to someone while being interrupted by the beep. And really, you’re not going to hang up on one call to answer another anyway. 3) Turn on call display and save firm numbers. Firms call at all hours and it’s nice to have a moment to think about what you want to say before you answer.

It guards against the surprise attack and allows you to appear poised, polished and focused. 4) Don’t lose your phone at the SLS Halloween Party the weekend before Interview Week (but if you do, you wouldn’t be the first).

5. Don’t Talk

This one is the hardest with firms calling you constantly or bumping into your BFF at the corner of Bay and King. Be wary of talking about your interviews or about firms while in the area - you never know who is nearby, who they know or where they work. Don’t be paranoid; just keep the chit-chat on the D.L.

6. Pack Food

It’s a long day that requires lots of energy. I showed up to my interview at Torys having not eaten for five hours. I made a joke to that effect and next thing I knew they were having lunch delivered to the interview room. It was fantastic, but it was hard to explain why I was such a great candidate and perfect for their firm when my mouth was full of delicious turkey sandwich.

7. Attire

In the last edition of UV, Amanda provided some great tips on clothing. Fol-

low them. The most important tip for the ladies: wear sensible shoes. I hate this tip as I have a passionate love affair with super high heels. The problem is, many firms have internal staircases, and while walking up is not a problem, walking down can be treacherous. I’m pretty comfortable on my stilts, but between running from firm to firm and climbing up and down stairs, I probably should have opted for fewer inches.

8. Be Yourself

This sounds cliché but it’s totally true.

The point of this process is to find a firm that is a good fit for you, and you can do that only by being yourself.

Everyone knows that I am an uber-hippie who loves public international law. If I went into a firm and professed my undying love for mergers and acquisitions the interviewer would immediately know one thing about me: I was fake.

Present yourself truthfully, based on what you have to offer, and you will find a place that is suited to your skills, experiences and ambitions.

ULTRA VIRES

working with students and developing Appeals Tribunal. In 2008, I left the law programs. Under Dean Mayo Moran, I school to work full-time as an adjudicabecame the Assistant Dean, Students - tor. I spend my time hearing cases and another challenging and rewarding posi- writing decisions. In a busy month, I hear tion. But after nearly a dozen years, I about a dozen cases across both Tribunals. My relationship wondered “what’s next?” with U of T continues as an appeals consultant I had always and as a “co-chair” of been active in University govthe Discipline Tribunal.

While these are just a ernance and had been adjucouple of examples of non-OCI jobs/career dicating Unipaths, they highlight the versity appeals myriad of ways we can since 2000. use our law degrees.

This volunteer work opened The many interesting up another twists and turns that occur over the course door for me – the world of Find the world of administrative law interesting? of these women’s caWork for a tribunal! administrative reers serve as a law. I began looking for part-time adju- poignant example of the importance of dication opportunities. I ended up with seeking fit and what feels right for you. part-time appointments to the Health Let’s all try to remember this key fact in Professions Appeal and Review Board the next few weeks… Best of luck to all and the Workplace Safety and Insurance those who are participating in OCIs, and

When someone calls, don’t be tired or distracted. When the interviewer asks how the day is going, don’t say “long” or “exhausting.” Remember who you are speaking to - life at a firm involves long hours and tiring work, and they likely know exhaustion better than you! If the interviewer doesn’t think you can survive two busy days without getting worn and weary, it doesn’t bode well for your prospects at a firm. If you can remain positive, energized and enthusiastic, you will impress everyone you meet.

sion after receiving an offer. If you get an offer from one firm, but are still hopeful for another, politely tell the first firm that you would like to take some time to think about it. You are allowed.

If you are debating between firms or weighing options, take the time to do so.

Once you have made a decision, call the firms and let them know. Many firms have waiting lists and your declination could mean that one of your colleagues receives an offer. And that’s just another person to celebrate with Wednesday night, if you still have any energy left.

9. Don’t Lie

Interviews are like dating and firms will awkwardly hint at their feelings for you. At one dinner I was told, “Natasha, I’m supposed to tell you, we really like you,” to which I responded, “I really like you too.” That was the truth – they were my top pick. But if they aren’t, don’t lie.

Like dating, you don’t want to lead someone on. If you aren’t interested, politely turn down the second date. This not only allows you to focus your attention on the firms you are truly interested in, but it also allows the firm to focus its attention on another student.

10. Be Happy

This is your future – be excited about it!

These runners only had to race 100 metres in heels - you’ll probably have to run a lot further than that

Ok, you’ve made it this far; it’s 5pm Wednesday. Here’s your bonus tip now that it’s all over:

11. Saying Yes and Saying No

By the time 5 pm rolls around, you may already know who will and won’t be calling you. But remember, no matter how often they ‘wink wink, nudge nudged” you, don’t count your chickens before they hatch. All that matters is the 5 pm call. You have 24 hours to make a deci-

Which you should because the most important part of your future careers is mustering up the energy to party after 23 days at the grind.

OPINIONS & EDITORIALS Portugal out-Harpers Canada at the UN

On October 12, Canadians learned that Portugal – a basket case economy on the brink of national bankruptcy – had defeated Canada for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. The defeat marked the first time in the history of the United Nations that Canada had failed to secure election to the Security Council. At home, commentators went into overdrive, each offering his own self-serving diagnosis for Canada’s loss.

On the left, observers blamed the defeat on the government’s failure to adopt all of the left’s foreign policy preferences.

On the right, spin doctors blamed the perfidious Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, whose mild criticism of Canada’s foreign policy fatally torpedoed the nation’s bid. Government spokesmen also chalked up the loss to Canada’s refusal to compromise its foreign policy principles.

In my view, the ways in which the two countries campaigned may have had a decisive impact. The Harper government forgot the messaging principles it ordinarily brings to domestic politics, choosing instead to run a high-road campaign.

The Portuguese, it seems, were not so foolish. They appear to have used Harper-style tactics against Canada: identity politics and wedge politics. Based on reports emerging from New York, these tactics appear to have carried the day.

Identity Politics

Identity politics is a tactic designed to

Toronto is a city that prides itself on its sophistication. It is home to three universities, various museums, an opera house, and the largest film festival in North America. Its politics skew fairly far to the left (as they do in all places of culture and sophistication). Toronto is to Canada as San Francisco is to the United States. Its cultural confidence is high: go to the right neighbourhood and you will find people more snobbish towards the rest of the country than the denizens of once-restricted country clubs. An outside observer might say that Toronto the Good has been replaced by Toronto the Smug.

But a spectre is haunting this new Toronto – the spectre of Rob Ford. All the powers of new Toronto have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Sarah Thomson and Rocco Rossi, Joe Pantalone and George Smitherman, The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star.

BY STEPHEN HUTCHISON (3L)

make voters identify with one candidate, Canada contributed immensely to UNand not with another. The Conservatives sponsored missions in Afghanistan and have used this to great effect in the past Haiti. It had played a leading role in the two elections. Ottawa-watchers will rec- G8 and G20, where it helped shape ognize the style of rhetoric immediately: world economic policy. It organized the “Sure, the Toronto elite, in their ivory African maternal health initiative, to towers and corporate boardrooms, will which it contributed over a billion dolsay that this lars. Its fisgovernment’s c a l tough-onpr udence crime measand good ures are unfair sense gave or won’t work. it the most But average, stable hard-working e c o n o my Canadians in the know better.

We s t e r n We’re here to world. represent averCanada is age Canadians, a model who know that global citiviolent crime is zen with getting worse an internaA handshake goodbye and who realt i o n a l ize that tough moral immeasures are needed to combat it.” The perative. Canada’s argument was, in speaker identifies himself with the audi- short, “I deserve this.” In domestic polence – he’s an “average, hard-working itics, Harper would have recognized this Canadian,” like them. His opponent, as the argument of an entitled elite, aswho opposes the tough-on-crime meas- serting a patrician claim over other less ure, joins the “other” – the Toronto elite. successful, average, hard-working counHe’s not like you, but I am. It works like tries. a charm.

Portugal didn’t make this mistake. AcWhen it came to the UN election, the cording to reports in The Globe and Mail, Harper government appears to have for- Portugal made a simple argument to delgotten this lesson. Instead, it campaigned egates at the UN: I’m like you. To Euroon Canada’s record and reputation. pean countries, it stressed its

The Rob Ford quandary

BY BENJAMIN SHARMA (1L)

Someone you can laugh at not necessarily a bad thing?

What has happened? How is it possible that a polity of urban sophisticates (70% of the adult, non-senior residents of this writer’s ward have university degrees) is

about to choose between two frontrunners who have not a single diploma among them?

Two men can be blamed for this: David Miller and John Tory.

David Miller can be blamed because his policies have exacerbated Toronto’s worst problems. Toronto is suffering right now from its own successes: the greater Toronto area attracts about half of Canada’s immigrant population every year, and its transportation infrastructure dates from the 1970s. Instead of dealing with Toronto’s problem of too few highways and subway lines by, say, building more highways and subway lines, Miller pursued other priorities.

Miller’s ideas are not inherently bad – on the contrary, environmentalism and city beautification are quality-of-life initiatives best handled at the level of government closest to the people. It is simply that his city council concentrated

Europeanness, arguing that it could better represent European interests. To small countries, it pointed out that it was also small, and so could better understand those countries’ needs and concerns. To those countries teetering on the edge of economic collapse, Portugal stressed its own dire straits, emphasizing that it understood those countries’ challenges in a way that safe, prudent Canada could not. These arguments appear to have been no less effective in international politics than they are in domestic politics.

Wedge Politics

In Western democracies such as Canada, people are often in general agreement about the biggest challenges facing their countries. Everyone agrees that the health care system should be strengthened, wait times reduced, and hospitals given the resources they need to tend to the sick. Everyone agrees that governments should try to create an economic environment that will create jobs and attract investment. In these circumstances, how can you set yourself apart from your opponent and get people to vote for you? The answer is wedge politics.

There are certain issues, called wedge issues, which inspire passionate disagreement between people who ordinarily agree on most things. If people feel strongly enough about their side of the CONTINUED at page 15

on those and on their own perquisites while they neglected the larger problems of the city – and they did so in a way that antagonized the general citizenry.

When Miller should have been lining up support for another north-south subway line and a much-needed subway connection to the airport, he was instead pushing green roofs, preventing people from cutting down trees on their own property, and replacing traffic lanes on major arteries with bike lanes. His mass transit plans called for light rail, which would have made Toronto’s already difficult traffic even worse. Then, to top it all off, he solved a forty-day garbage strike by capitulating to union demands. That begged the question: “if capitulation is the solution, why not do it forthwith and save city residents a month of terrible smells?”

CONTINUED at page 15

14

OPINIONS & EDITORIALS

Constitutional rights in a zombie apocalypse

BY MARTY MCKENDRY (2L) AND LUCAS WILSON (3L)

ULTRA VIRES

Constitutional traditions are usually reactive, focused ISSUE 3: ZOMBIES AS PERSONS? on protecting the future from the problems of the past. ISSUE 2: MANAGING THE OUTBREAK Just as we cannot know with certainty the time and This approach risks blinding us to the threat of forgot- The cardinal rules of zombie outbreak response are no place of a future zombie apocalypse, we cannot know ten or novel catastrophic events. We have no historical mercy and no hesitation. Epidemiological studies have the nature of the zombies. Are they human? Are they record of facing a zombie apocalypse, but to dismiss emphasized the necessity of quick and decisive con- alive? Can they be cured? Do they have consciousness? the prospect is manifestly irresponsible. In an age of tainment. A by-any-means-necessary approach suggests Are they worthy of moral consideration? Are they hapcloning and super-viruses, the emergence of legions of pier than us and do they enjoy a genetically manipulated undead cannimeaningful culture? Assuming that bals is a possibility that we can no living with zombies will be inevitable longer ignore. The zombie threat is a following containment, we can ask known unknown. Indeed, it may already which constitution can best accombe too late. modate zombie interests within the The recent visit to the U of T Faculty overall rights scheme. With so many of Law by eminent German and Israeli unknowns this question is, of course, Justices Dieter Grimm and Aharon highly speculative. The real issue, Barak reminds us that different constihowever, is whether there is a frametutional traditions are better prepared to work to accommodate the substanconfront certain contingencies. With tive needs and desires of a zombie this in mind, we explore the strengths minority – or majority within the and weaknesses of the Canadian, Gerconstitutional order. man, and Israeli constitutions’ respecThe absolute German constitutive capacities to confront the zombie tional protection of human dignity apocalypse under the rule of law. We suggests potentially robust zombie focus on constitutional capacities to rights. German cases on abortion prevent zombification, manage outand the interests of the deceased breaks, and accommodate zombie interhave demonstrated a flexible interests into the legal order.

Every individual is equal before the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of pretation of the concept of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, "human.” If the unborn and the remental or physical disability, or undeadness?

ISSUE 1: PREVENTING cently dead are both deemed worthy itself.

However, it is not enough for the constitution to of constitutional protection, why not the animate unZOMBIFICATION To what extent is a constitutional tradition capable of be placed aside. A truly successful constitutional frame- dead as well? Recognition of zombie rights would not preventing harms before they arise? The zombie men- work will facilitate an effective emergency response necessarily entail legal or moral equality with uninfected humans. It would, however, involve taking zombie inace raises two sub-issues: first, whether scientific exper- from within the constitutional order.

Canadian constitutional wheels are slow to turn. For terests very seriously; echoing the abortion precedent, imentation can be managed proactively to mitigate the risk of an unholy dawn, and second, whether courts better or worse, constitutional review of any response at a bare minimum the government would likely be are capable of steeling the citizenry and government to to a zombie outbreak would likely occur only long after forced to criminalize any unjustified zombicide.

The Canadian court has shown some flexibility in prepare for the apocalypse. In both respects the Cana- the crisis had passed (assuming success). That being dian constitutional order is found wanting. Our rights said, strong federal emergency powers, the Charter over- adapting the rights discourse to accommodate different framework is largely retrospective and focused on lim- ride clause, and the proportionality analysis suggest a minority groups. Acknowledging the idiosyncratic iting state action. A Canadian litigant asking the courts by-any-means-necessary ethos could potentially be ac- needs of undead cannibals, however, will entail fundato protect fundamental rights from a perceived – but commodated within the constitutional framework. mentally reshaping moral and legal paradigms; the unrealized – zombie threat would find little redress. Valid state action might even include the mass destruc- Canadian courts may ultimately lack the intellectual creNor have the courts demonstrated the will to force leg- tion of zombies still feeding on live and unturned hu- ativity and conceptual flexibility to appropriately adislative or executive action. As a consequence, scientists mans, and the summary destruction of zombies posing dress this issue. In contrast, Israel has a robust continue to research the line between life and death no immediate threat. It remains an open question, but jurisprudential tradition of attempting to balance seculargely unfettered, and children continue to walk the our constitution might even allow for the execution of rity concerns and the interests of non-citizens in the streets unaware and unprotected from the looming a principle as profoundly uncompromising as “the only occupied territories. We might hope that any historical heavy-handedness will not find its way into a progresmenace. While a forward-looking legislator could con- good zombie is a wasted zombie.”

Canada’s approach thus risks potentially being sive and principled zombie policy. Broad rules of standceivably act, the Charter is, if anything, likely to be an obstacle to preparing to secure our fundamental rights overzealous. In contrast, if the German government ing and quick responses to factual contingencies will responds within the constitution to a zombie apoca- also allow Israel to adapt its approach as we learn more against the zombie horde.

Few spectres haunt the liberal mind more than the lypse, they will unquestionably fail. As interpreted by about our new and eccentric brothers and sisters in husloppy goose-stepping of a Nazi zombie arisen after a the court, the inviolable right to human dignity is ab- manity. long and restless slumber. Thankfully the German con- solute. You cannot sacrifice one to save a thousand. AcCONCLUSION stitutional jurisprudence provides mechanisms to cordingly, tens of millions would die.

In addition to sharing the some of the strengths of To say one constitution is better than another is a silly prospectively address the issue. Understanding that the threat is real and emerging, the German constitution the Canadian constitution, the Israeli court has shown exercise. Constitutions are contextually successful. The could potentially force the government to regulate far greater flexibility in offering real-time judicial review zombie apocalypse poses a number of unique chalzombie-generative scientific research and develop an to ongoing crises. For example, the court has previously lenges and it is clear that none of the Canadian, Geraction plan for a Z-Day type event. This is because the reviewed ongoing military action to attempt to preserve man or Israeli constitutions has all the answers. The German tradition imposes on the state a positive duty and enforce constitutional rights. This real-time capabil- zombie threat is real. Lawyers, judges, and legislators to protect the rights of the citizenry not only from state ity means that the constitution will be relevant even need to be proactive in preparing for this and other poaction but also from other threats. The Constitutional amidst the chaos of a zombie apocalypse. Alarmingly, tential catastrophes within a constitutional framework.

Court has also shown strength in compelling the legis- however, the constitutional tradition in Israel is thin and We must not be zombies today if we are to survive lature to address potential – as well as realized – threats largely personified by the court itself. Provided that the zombies tomorrow. to fundamental rights. German law, for example, cur- Court’s perimeter can be maintained, the rule of law rently prohibits the creation of abominable man-animal should survive as well. It is less clear, however, whether chimaeras. This is exactly the sort of proactive ap- the Israeli constitutional order would survive the comproach needed to stave off the rise of monstrous be- plete zombification of the judiciary. ings.

OCTOBER 20, 2010

Rob Ford - from page 13

With a record like that, it is not at all surprising that Miller chose not to stand for re-election.

John Tory, by contrast, can be blamed for taking a pass. This was an election he could have won in a walk – The Toronto Star was running articles begging Tory to reconsider as late as July.

Showing the champion-quality political brains that guided him in 1993 as head of Kim Campbell’s doomed federal PC campaign and in 2007 as leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, Tory decided that he didn’t want the job once he actually could win it – once people were pleading with him to take it.

Toronto voters have been left with three choices on the ballot: Joe Pantalone, who thinks that Miller generally had the right ideas but fell down on their execution; George Smitherman, who has had policy mood swings, who wasted a billion dollars as provincial Health Minister on an attempt to digitize Ontario health records, and who will say just about anything to become mayor; and Rob Ford, who has stood firm against the Millerites on City Council but is a buffoon.

Pantalone is polling somewhere near fifteen percent – he is a non-factor unless he drops out and endorses someone. Smitherman, as the frontrunner

OPINIONS & EDITORIALS

heading in, has clearly failed to convince voters that he stands for anything other than behaving like the last city council did with the taxpayers’ money and being slightly excitable (“Furious George”).

That said, Smitherman is the leading “anyone-but-Ford” candidate. The last poll published on October 15th in The Globe and Mail from Forum Research had him at thirty-eight percent. Ford maintains his lead at forty-four percent.

The case against Rob Ford is wellknown. He is fat. He is belligerent and ideologically confused, especially after a couple of beers at the Air Canada Centre, where he called fellow fans “rightwing Communist bastards”. When he wanted to compliment Shanghai and Hong Kong businessmen after a trip overseas, he said, “you want to see hard workers? Those Oriental people work like dogs… they sleep beside their machines… they’re slowly taking over.” He was caught for marijuana possession in Florida ten years ago and lied to the press about it. To top it off, he was caught on tape earlier this year advising an HIV-positive constituent to buy drugs illegally on the street, once he could no longer get prescriptions for his painkillers.

All of that is very well known, and yet Ford still leads. What on earth is going on?

Well, one can accuse Rob Ford of many things, but he does not support

fining a person up to two hundred thousand dollars for cutting down a tree on his or her own property (see s. 813-23(b) of the Toronto Municipal Code, adopted on 30 September 2004). He does not want to wage a war against cars. He does not want to give City Council yet another salary increase. Finally, he listens to his constituents, and to other councillors’ constituents who come to him for help – the potholes get filled and their concerns get addressed.

Toronto has a choice: stay with the status quo ante from a municipal government that wants to tell residents how to live their lives and refuses to address the major issues of the day, or take a flyer on a buffoonish character who says amazingly dumb things but will listen to his constituents every once in a while.

I’m actually going to vote for the buffoon. He’ll leave me alone for the most part, I can laugh at him every so often*, and, if citizens find real problems that need addressing, I bet he’ll listen. * - For a laugh, search YouTube for “Rob Ford fat f**k”, and watch the video “Councillor Rob Ford in action”.

Ford and Giorgio Mammoliti chase The Globe and Mail reporter John Barber around City Hall after Barber calls Ford a “fat f**k”.

UN - continued from page 13

15

wedge to cast their ballot solely on that issue, then the wedge politician will strengthen his position. For example, rural and urban Canadians who agree on most things will tend to disagree about the gun registry. For opponents of the registry, it’s a voting issue. For supporters of the registry, however, it’s generally not a voting issue.

Consequently, by vowing to scrap the registry, the Conservatives can increase their rural support without seriously risking their urban support.

According to reports in the National Post and The Globe and Mail, Portugal exploited two international wedge issues: the Middle East conflict and climate change. To Arab countries, Portugal emphasized its more Arab-friendly stance on the Middle East conflict. For those countries, that conflict is certainly a voting issue. By contrast, for many countries that are pro-Israel, the Middle East conflict may not be a voting issue in the same way. It’s difficult to imagine the United Kingdom casting its ballot on the basis of the Middle East conflict in the same way as Syria. Likewise, Portugal relied on climate change as a wedge issue. It stressed its pro-action stance to the small island countries, for which climate change is the most important issue. Countries that favour Canada’s anti-action position, such as Russia and China, seem unlikely to cast their vote on the basis of climate change.

It seems that domestic and international politics aren’t so different after all.

OPINIONS & EDITORIALS

16

Marketing Big Pharma

In the popular movie Thank You for Smoking, the main character, played by Aaron Eckhart, lobbies on behalf of tobacco companies, spinning stories and doing damage control. He regularly meets with two friends, who are lobbyists for the alcohol and firearms industries; darkly, they call themselves the Merchants of Death, or the “MOD Squad.”

There is at least one noticeable absence from the club: the pharmaceutical industry, which is potentially responsible for the hospitalization of over 6000 people in North America and the deaths of 62 people every day. A study produced by the University of Toronto in the late 1990s pinned the pharmaceutical industry’s products as the fourth leading cause of death.

Chances are you do not think “Big Pharma” deserves to sit at the table with the rest of the MOD Squad. After all, pharmaceutical funding has created scholarships and entire programs at the University of Toronto. Further, what is perhaps the most famous discovery on campus – that of insulin by Fred Banting and Charles Best – was possible only with generous financial contributions from Eli Lilly, a global pharmaceutical company.

Yet there have been fractious relationships on our campus, which have underscored Pharma’s large sphere of influence. In 1996, Dr. Nancy Olivieri learned firsthand how much power was held by Apotex, a Pharma giant funding her research, when she tried to publish information regarding a drug’s serious adverse effects. She was fired from her job and threatened repeatedly. Similarly, David Healy was received coldly by the University of Toronto when he spoke out against SSRIs, a type of anti-depressant. His job offer was revoked, most likely because the university receives ongoing funding from the pharmaceutical industry.

More worrisome than the power of Pharma in academia is the dangerous influence that Pharma holds over con-

BY SARAH JONES (3L)

at trial are considered anecdotal evidence; it was difficult to prove that a drug caused a heart attack if the patient took the drug only because of heart problems.

Merck did all it could to suggest that the patients’ underlying poor health was responsible for the heart attacks and strokes that they experienced.

The patients’ case would have been easier if there had been clinical data showing a statistically significant correlation between Vioxx and heart problems.

Unfortunately, evidence against Merck consisted mainly of personal reports from patients and doctors, and courts are likely to favour peer-reviewed The “Manufacturers of Death” - smoking, alcohol, firearms and... journals over Big Pharma? patchwork sponlion people worldwide. In 2004, it was taneous reporting. Generally speaking, discovered that Vioxx increased the risk drug companies are the only parties likely of heart attacks and strokes, and the drug to cough up the incredible costs of clinwas subsequently pulled from the mar- ical trials, meaning it is incredibly difficult ket. Other than the vast number of peo- for the patients to collect the right type ple affected, this scandal initially did not of evidence to make their case. seem to be anything new – clinical misHappily though, in March 2010, the takes litter the history of medicine.

Australian courts decided in favour of Remarkably, however, Vioxx does not the patients. Justice Jessup found that appear to have been a mistake. Merck, Merck’s failure to warn doctors about the the manufacturer of Vioxx, had aggres- risks of Vioxx, while emphasizing its sively marketed the drug despite being safety, constituted misleading and decepfully aware of its dangers. At trial, it tive trade conduct. It was also deteremerged that Merck had gone as far as to mined that Vioxx was not “fit” to be on take control of an academic journal, the market. Merck will pay out roughly using it as a reputable platform to distrib- $300 million to affected patients. ute studies showing that Vioxx was safe.

The Australian Vioxx case demonIn light of the evidence, including hun- strates that pharmaceutical giants are selldreds of thousands of people around the ing as many drugs as they can get away world claiming that their medical prob- with, while regulatory bodies are barely lems began after taking Vioxx, Merck’s putting up a fight. Consider a simple victory may have looked impossible. In problem with the regulatory system in fact, the case’s outcome was somewhat Canada: Health Canada is funded by unpredictable. Personal testimonies given drug companies. Allowing drug compa-

sumers. While the public has become familiar with the tobacco, alcohol, and firearms industries, it remains largely naïve about the ways in which Pharma operates. Fortunately, this may be about to change.

In Australia, a class action suit that had been watched around the world came to a close earlier this year. The trial concerned Vioxx, a popular arthritis drug that had been prescribed to over 80 mil-

Briefly Noted

Colonel Russell Williams Hallowe’en costumes: Still too soon

Chilean Miners emerge after 69 days of entrapment; 1Ls yet to emerge from 37 days of entrapment in LPPE Law school intramural flag football QB denies sending inappropriate texts to Dean Moran The Charter does not require common sense, fortunately for Padraic Ryan Grand Moot overflow audience saves loudest applause for napping Stern

ULTRA VIRES

nies to fund the country’s primary regulatory body has long been suspected of creating conflicts of interest, in which speed inappropriately trumps the concerns of safety and thorough testing.

A second problem with the Canadian regulatory system is that clinical trials exclude vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant women, even though such populations take drugs. A third problem involves “off-label prescriptions”: drugs are tested and approved by regulatory bodies for rare conditions, but once on the market, these drugs are prescribed by doctors for completely different conditions. For instance, Pfizer’s drug Neurontin was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for postherpetic neuralgia – not a big money maker. Once on the market, Neurontin was prescribed for migraines, bipolar disorder, and ADHD. Interestingly, off-label prescriptions are legal, though it is illegal to market drugs for off-label use. In 2004, Pfizer paid a $430 million penalty for their aggressive marketing of Neurontin. Still, prescriptions of Neurontin continue, as do class actions launched by patients who have attempted suicide while taking Neurontin.

With regard to the Vioxx case in Canada, we have only recently established the criteria for inclusion in the class action, and the process is in the midst of discovery. It will be interesting to see whether Merck will pay extra money for an out-of-court settlement, as it did in the United States with a $4.85 billion settlement. If Merck risks heading to court in Canada, it will likely require a bevy of spin-doctors for its own MOD Squad. Damage control will be necessary, lest the population catch on to the likelihood that Pharma may indeed be bad for our health.

OCTOBER 20, 2010

OPINIONS & EDITORIALS

Scrutinizing the IHRP internship program

I should state up front that I have never received funding from the IHRP to complete an internship, so my comments are those of an outsider. I should also state that I am a strong supporter of the IHRP generally, and my comments should not be construed as being critical of the organization as a whole.

Last summer, unaffiliated with the IHRP, I worked as an intern for an agricultural development and poverty reduction organization in northeast Thailand and Laos. Like most students at our law school, I have many friends and acquaintances who have received IHRP funding for internships. My experience highlighted for me an important observation about internships in faraway places that I had heard from my peers: you don’t know what you’re getting yourself into until you get there. This might mean that you are pleasantly surprised (as I was), but it also might mean that you are sorely let down. An internship might look like the experience of a lifetime on paper, but turn out to be a disappointment. I have spoken with former interns who were tasked with mind-numbing busywork for the whole summer, and others who received essentially no work at all.

The IHRP fails to mitigate these concerns in two ways. First, it actively screens information about past interns’ experiences for negativity such that prospective interns might come to the incorrect conclusion that all IHRP internships result in positive experiences.

Second, it leaves the process of finding an internship entirely up to students, giving them relatively little support or information.

The IHRP makes a considerable investment of its own in each internship (generally in excess of $5,000), and students are dedicating a crucial summer in their personal and professional development. Not only do students commit

BY ARDEN BEDDOES (3L)

their time and resources, but there is also interns were told that the IHRP was an important opportunity cost associated seeking “2-3 interns who had a positive with their decision – there are many ways experience.” Surely in an info session for a law student to spend a summer. only for students, the risk of offending With such considerable mutual invest- partner organizations by presenting negments, when students report negative in- ative experiences is greatly diminished, if ternship experiences, the IHRP ought to not eliminated. Actually, the fact of there be carefully listening to them to learn being interns who had negative experihow to avoid such problems in the fu- ences seems like exactly the kind of inture. formation that should be presented at Instead, however, IHRP correspon- such a session. dences reveal a desire to focus only on So if not online, and not at the info interns’ positive experiences. Last sum- session, where are prospective interns to mer’s interns were instructed: “[t]o the get candid information about past inextent that there were problems associ- terns’ experiences? Personally, I would ated with your strongly recTHE PROBLEM OF SOME STUDENTS ommend that inter nship, please detail anybody conHAVING NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES these in your sidering an STEMS LARGELY FROM THE CONUNcovering letter IHRP internDRUM STATED EARLIER: STUDENTS (i.e. not in the ship contact Final Report).” DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GET- past interns to The justification discuss their TING UNTIL THEY GET THERE. for this instrucexperience. tion was that the This might IHRP “would not want to publish any- seem obvious, but it is much more imthing on the website that could be po- portant given that it may be the only tentially embarrassing to our partner honest source of information. Learning organizations, the IHRP, or to any of about past interns’ negative experiences you!” Fair enough, but students’ Final will help prospective interns avoid the Reports, unlike their covering letters, are pitfalls experienced by others because published on the IHRP website, available they will know to ask incisive questions to be read by prospective students of the of the organizations with which they law school as well as prospective interns. might intern before committing.

It is misleading to present sanitized ReAs for the IHRP, how might it help to ports without a disclaimer stating that ensure that students have positive expethey have been screened for negative riences? The problem of some students feedback. Students who read them may having negative experiences stems be left with the false impression that all largely from the conundrum stated earIHRP internships lead to positive expe- lier: students don’t know what they are riences, potentially influencing their deci- getting until they get there. While an Ocsion about how to spend an important tober 4th message to the IHRP Listserv summer. states that the IHRP has “placed” nearly Attending the IHRP internship info 300 students at organizations around the session on October 4th likely would have world, this is also misleading. Many (I confirmed falsely positive impressions. would hazard to guess most) students In organizing the session, last summer’s find their internships via a process of

cold-emailing numerous organizations all around the world until finally something sticks and they get a placement. Indeed, the students place themselves. But this might not be the best way to ensure that negative internship experiences are avoided. In addition to being more candid with prospective interns about former interns’ experiences, if the IHRP maintained information about where students have had positive experiences and where they’ve have negative ones, it would be better able to at least suggest placements to prospective interns. Over time, it may be able to develop strategies to suggest to students about how to ensure that an internship will lead to a fulfilling experience before committing to a placement. Students who are unaware that they ought to be discriminate in accepting placements may simply accept the first opportunity that comes their way.

The IHRP and student interns are both making considerable investments in the outcome of IHRP internships. As such, the IHRP should be actively trying to ensure that students have edifying experiences, rather than sitting on the sidelines when it comes to finding placements. In addition, it is disingenuous for the IHRP to be screening past interns’ experiences such that prospective interns only hear the positive side of the story. Prospective interns ought to be fully informed of the potential risks associated with dedicating a summer to a relatively unknown organization, and the IHRP should be helping students to avoid the pitfalls experienced by past interns.

Not all IHRP interns have a positive experience. You won’t find this out by reading the Final Reports online, nor would you have by attending the info session. Consider this your heads up.

The juris doctor of love checks in: What up monogamy?

SEVEN OUT OF TEN ADULTS HAVE CHEATED ON SOMEONE AT LEAST ONCE Despite fabricating 107% of my statistics, I truly believe that an absurdly huge proportion of us are unfaithful, and this makes our largely unquestioned attachment to monogamy a bit of a farce.

My childhood naivety was abruptly shattered after I left home for undergrad: everyone was cheating! I realize the bias created in choosing Western and then Saugeen (no, my girlfriend didn’t jade me by suddenly blossoming into the “Saugeen Stripper”), but infidelity definitely wasn’t limited to UWO. Story after story revealed that men and women everywhere were cheating; even spouses and people’s parents were indicted by the rumour mill. The most glaring examples of the widespread hypocrisy are when our most vocal and highly esteemed “moral” leaders are the ones caught straying from the nest. Inevitably, many hypocrites “feign outrage” (read: consider running for the Democrats).

BY LEE CHITIZ (3L)

Photoshop can be hard

17

I was forced to consider: what exactly does it mean to cheat? Since time remembered (but after it was immemorial), weasels have been claiming “it’s not cheating if (we really just/never actually kissed)(her clothes were still on)(he only put it in my [insert most appropriate orifice]).” On the opposite side of the horseshit spectrum, we have those such as the Republican Senatorial candidate from Delaware, who believe even masturbating is cheating – my favourite witch exempts those of you ACTUALLY fantasizing about that special someone – the one who recently farted in their sleep next to you. Kudos. Closer to this end also resides the infamous “if you wouldn’t do it in front of your partner, you’re cheating.” This seems a little harsh, particularly when alcohol, dancing, and good-looking people are involved.

For now, let us set a sensible, generally acceptable line: anything less than sexual physical contact can be inappropriate without being labelled cheating; whereas the most reasonable CONTINUED at page 18

18

OPINIONS & EDITORIALS

POINT/COUNTERPOINT “Is getting a 2L job similar to seducing a lover?”

ULTRA VIRES

There’s an oft-made comparison that OCIs are a lot like speed-dating; in-firm interviews like an affair; and call-day, the break-up. With nervous giggles and new hair-cuts, plenty of wine and elegant attire, we examine the question: is getting a 2L job similar to seducing a lover?

Stroking the similarities

BY BRENDAN MORRISON (3L)

About a year ago, I volunteered for a program. I would sit down with various participants and we would ask each other questions, size each other up, and decide if we wanted to continue this relationship. We smiled, fidgeted uncomfortably, anxiously, laughed at each other’s stupid jokes, and tried to give the appearance that we really, really wanted to get into bed with that person. And, not just for the night, and not just for the summer, but for the long run. We were ready for commitment. Yet, not unlike my old grade school crushes, these lasses held back and refused to tell me they liked me until I told them I liked them first.

“You’re the one I want; I know that. I’ve looked around, and while I only know you from your online profile and the seventeen minutes that this game has allotted us, I am sure. You’re hotter. You’ve got the things I need that no one else around here – who looks kind of like you, talks kind of like you, smiles kind of like you, and dresses exactly like you – has. You’re special. And I want to get together.”

I wanted a job – and not the type of “job” that ordinarily comes from these types of encounters – I wanted something lasting (even if not as stimulating).

I remember sitting down with a handsome gentleman from White & Case, who leaned forward and said, “now I want you to tell me about a case. Talk slowly. Tell me about how the judge handled his dicta and stuck the law intra vires.”

After that day, a few of the handsome faces called me back and wanted to see me again. My heart broke for some of the girls who weren’t attracted to my belt buckle, but I moved on.

One morning, after a blissful dinner the night before with someone special, I went for a coffee. I reached for the milk, glanced to my left, and my heart suddenly sank. There, across the room, was my special someone from the night before. He was sitting with another – some tall dark and handsome Carlo di Carlo type – laughing as they sipped their mochatriple-venti-non-fat-chai. Our eyes met. He waved awkwardly and looked at the floor quickly. I rushed out, betrayed that he had moved on so quickly after the evening we had mere hours before.

Luckily, I rebounded fast, threw myself at the very next person I saw and put out faster than Mike Hamata on a Tuesday afternoon. It might have been a little hasty, even a little slutty, but I was feeling vulnerable, desperate, and needed to feel wanted.

After several boozy and flirtatious flings, the moment came when it was time to settle down with just one partner. They knew it, and I knew it. I was let down easy: “we had a great time together, but we’re just not right for each other”; “it was great to get to know you, you’re going to do fine”; “I’m worried your sizeable belt buckle is hiding your veiled insecurities and inadequacies, best of luck”.

And I had to make my own choices, reflect on who I was and what I needed in a partner. There is that S. Elliott fellow who is just so macho and burly; or that Tory girl who is gorgeous, classy and a lover of the arts. On the other hand, a charming fellow like Blake C. Graydon is friends with so many of my U of T friends, which is a lovely feature in a committed relationship.

Now, Hamata may think that what I’ve just described is nothing more than a sex addict’s take on everyday life. But, with respect, Mike Hamata is a straight-edged prude, who can’t figure out that a tie can be tied around the neck during the day and the wrists at night. It’s all part of the same game. Enjoy it and dive right in.

Monogamy - from page 17

definition of cheating really begins at kissing, and ends with the limitations of Tiger Woods' imagination.

Sound good?

With so many people crossing that line, is believing our culture actually values “monogamy” kind of... bullshit? In a largely secular society, why are many of us still putting on this show? How can our current social structure not constantly be called into question? Or are we just satisfied that, hey, at least it’s not polygamy? So what if a huge number of marriages are shams, at least having 2 adults & 2.1 children per household is convenient for the capitalist standard which dominates our

Keeping the bedroom out of the office

BY MIKE HAMATA (3L)

Nobody knows when it was, but at some point in his downward spiral into insanity, something snapped, and Brendan Morrison began to conflate work with sex. He hasn’t been the same since, and I’m scared to ask him to return my stapler. With apologies to Dan Savage, I will attempt to outline for Mr. Morrison why his lust is misplaced. Heed my words, young law students, lest ye suffer the same nasty fate.

I will begin with the interview process, outlining several behaviors that might help you to get a job, but would also doom you to a Kari Williams-esque existence of Roseanne re-runs and one-person tubs of Cherry Garcia: 1) When you interview for jobs, you should wear clothes. You can wear a belt buckle if you like. You should also moderate your drinking at firm events, because if you don’t, you might forget to wear clothes.

2) At OCIs, it’s customary and recommended to provide a resume.

I would advise against providing a written list of your relevant accomplishments (explicitly separating paid from unpaid experience) to any future sexual partners. If you don’t believe me, read The Dirt by Mötley Crüe and let me know if you’re still interested in Tommy Lee. 3) For the sake of efficiency, predictability and fairness, OCIs are timed. If you think you can go for 17 minutes, break for 3, and then try another 17 minutes in the bedroom, for two days in a row, then congratulations! The author is a realist.

4) At some point in the interview process, it becomes appropriate to ask about compensation and benefits. In my experience things get weird in a personal relationship when you start asking about the dental plan.

Not only should you try to keep the above behaviors out of your twisted love life, but several points could be made for the converse argument: there exist appropriate moves for hopping-on-the-good-foot-and-doing-the-bad-thing that you should not do with strangers at the Metro Convention Centre: 5) In a relationship, there are times when you should be naked. You can keep the belt buckle on if you like. With respect to interviews, see generally rule #1, supra.

6) It is essential to continuously change your bedroom moves, at the risk of boredom. Sometimes it’s a good idea to try your choreography without the encumbrance of your sophisticated blue bed sheets. However, unless you want to see a nervous Jacob Dubelaar playing imaginary African Claves for the bewildered interviewers from Blakes, the same blue sheets should remain in place for the entirety of the OCI process. I fully support anyone’s newfound interest in seeing Jake play the Claves in the bedroom.

7) Intercourse 8) Sometimes words are not enough, and in these cases a tasteful mobile phone picture can send a powerful message. The iPhone 4 has proven that “Face Time” isn’t just for faces. While it is certainly appropriate to thank interviewers for taking the time to speak with you, don’t send them sexy Brett Favre texts, unless your name rhymes with Steve Sharpless.

9) Outercourse Like Rob Ford and any kind of decision-making authority, sex and the interview process should always be kept apart. Unless you also want to have your photocopier privileges permanently revoked like Brendan, remember to keep work and sex from mixing.

life, right?

It is not obvious that human nature thrives by opting for monogamy. The film Closer was an incredibly astute and eye-opening portrayal of how often our instincts and capabilities just aren’t suited for a strictly monogamous lifestyle. Perhaps it is time more of us accepted that more honestly and openly.

In a traditional movie involving adultery, our disgust with the antagonist's supposed sin stems from sympathy for the partner abandoned on the couch at home.

And the hurt we are sympathizing with is a sense of betrayal, feeling like one is not sufficient in some particular way, and feeling unloved. Although those are real

and legitimate reactions, I believe these feelings only become necessary consequences of the act because of our allowance of society's continued moral war on the acceptance of anything outside monogamy. Because if we were really honest with ourselves as a whole, maybe we could empathize more with the needs of someone like Natalie Portman in Closer. Now if SHE had been in Saugeen...

(For the record, the J.D. of Love happens to love his girlfriend. And from time to time, he questions the choice of monogamy – as has she – but right now, they choose each other.)

Gunners, law school girls, UV cooks and more...

D I V ER S I ON S

Legal ladies lack sex appeal: A message of concern Once, I was a waitress.

I was not a student serving for pocket money, or an under-employed actress trying to make rent. I was just a waitress, full time, full stop, with no plans to be anything but a waitress as far as the future was foreseeable.

Fresh out of undergrad and feeling somewhat unmotivated, I embraced the reality of my situation. Customers would ask me what I was studying, and I would give an honest response by gesturing at the menu in front of me.

But the charms of the service industry eventually faded, at which point I left my apron behind and came to study law at this fine institution.

The change in occupation has had its benefits. Chief among them is the ability to command a bit more respect. Now, when strangers inquire about my educational status, I can give an answer that will impress their pants off. But there exists a notable exception to this rule: if the stranger in question is an eligible young male, no such effect will be had.

Far from being impressed off, the pants of young men seem immune to my choice of degree. Their pants may in fact be entirely opposed to my studies, based on the evidence at hand.

My suggestion here is merely an extrapolation of the old chestnut that men don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses. Simply put, sexy ladies don’t study law. Or, if you prefer a rhyme, gentlemen don’t cavort with girls who study tort.

It’s a bold and blanket statement I just made, but allow me to elaborate.

Back in my serving days, if I met someone new, I

Jose Bautista has just completed one of the most improbable seasons in baseball history. Coming into 2010, Bautista had accumulated 1,754 major league at-bats and hit 59 homers, or one every 29.7 atbats. This included a very strong performance in September 2009, when he hit 10 home runs in 109 at-bats. This strong month escaped almost everybody’s notice, as the Jays finished another season out of playoff contention, and during the offseason many Jays fans suggested Bautista’s $2.4 million salary could be better spent elsewhere.

To everyone’s surprise, Bautista’s 2010 was unlike anything any Jays fan had ever seen. Bautista, who totalled 13 home runs in 2009, turned into one of the premier offensive players in the league, finishing with 54 homers. He became only the 26th player in baseball history to hit at least 50 homers in a season. He led the American League in home runs by 15 and finished 12 ahead of future Hall-ofFamer Albert Pujols, who had the next

BY HEATHER BURNETT (2L)

would always fess up to my chosen career without offering any further explanation. Though I began the practice out of spite for my previous education, I continued doing so because it seemed to generate a positive reaction. As it turns out, “I’m just a waitress” functions like a pick-up line, and it reels in men of all stripes.

Now, when I tell men – with equal honestly – that I am studying law, the response is quite different. There is a lean back instead of a lean in, an eyebrow raise instead of a smile. A few further questions are asked before the flirting evaporates into small talk, and a convenient excuse is found for the gentleman to relocate to another section of the bar.

With all else being held constant, the verdict is clear. A law degree is at best intimidating, and at worse unattractive.

But this is hardly news. Feminist writers for years have decried men’s aversion to the well-educated woman. My own anecdotal evidence is backed up by data from dating websites and sociological studies. My roommate, an Osgoode 1L, informs me that there was even an episode of Sex and the City that broached the subject. And as we all know, if this problem was featured in an episode of Sex in the City, it must be a completely accurate portrayal of the way men and women do business.

Despite the facts, I don’t want to be unduly stereotyping. There may be some men out there who prefer a brainy lady. Perhaps they envision for themselves a future spent in a DINK paradise, a home overflowing with bacon and a table replete with bread. But I’ll wager that the majority of such men would be pleased with

more modest food portions if it meant retaining their intellectual, educational and fiscal superiority.

When I gave up my serving tray, I never meant to trade in my sex appeal as well. But the law degree has a chilling effect that shall not be denied.

Law ladies, how can we resolve this issue? What if it’s true that one’s chances of attracting a man are inversely proportional to one’s knowledge of liability limitations? Should we all just drop out now and forward our resumes to the local Tim Hortons, re-routing our passion for social justice to one for sour-cream glazed?

I have no answers myself, I’m afraid. I’m a columnist, not a CDO employee. But as a relentless optimist, and a firm believer in the value of combined programs, I remain hopeful about the possibility of obtaining a JD and an MRS concurrently.

Come to think of it, why doesn’t the University of Toronto create a program where both are offered together? A combined JD/MRS is the kind of permanent solution that women would surely embrace.

And the program would undoubtedly be popular.

With such a prestigious degree on offer, self-respecting parents would be all but obliged to ship their daughters off to U of T Law. And that’s not even factoring in the sons. Just imagine: future students could be shackled to both a career and a partner, all for one low price! It’s an inconceivable deal, and practical, too. Grandchildren don’t grow on trees, you know.

It wouldn’t be too difficult to arrange such a program. The OCIs are basically speed-dating – with a little tweaking, I’m sure the process could be converted back to its original form and serve its original purpose.

Dean Moran, are you reading this? Give me a call, and let’s hammer out the details. It’s time to start carving out your legacy, one happy couple at a time.

Jose Bautista’s burden

BY THOMAS AYERS (2L)

highest total in baseball. The last time the MLB leader in home runs was that far ahead of his nearest competitor was in 1965, when Willie Mays finished 13 home runs ahead of Willie McCovey.

Bautista broke Toronto’s team record for home runs in a season, which had stood since 1987, and the excitement that reverberated around the Rogers Centre with his every plate appearance in August and September was remarkable.

Bautista’s accomplishments are unprecedented, as it is difficult to recall a similar case of a useful but unremarkable bench player becoming a power threat completely unmatched by his peers. Unfortunately, some newspaper columnists decided that unprecedented equals impossible, at least without the assistance

of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). The most prominent accusers have been Damien Cox of the Toronto Star and Bob Frantz of the San Francisco Examiner, but references suggesting Bautista’s home run total was aided by PEDs can be found in smaller newspapers, as well as over internet message boards and blogs.

To their credit, several sportswriters and bloggers have spoken out against Cox and his ilk, but many baseball fans view Bautista’s feats of strength with scepticism.

There are many circumstantial reasons to believe that Bautista’s accomplishments were not aided by PEDs. Bautista had his development as a baseball player interrupted, as he was forced to spend

the 2004 season on a major league bench, when he should have still been learning and gaining experience in the minors.

After spending 2004 on four different teams, Bautista spent the next three and a half seasons with the Pittsburgh Pirates, a franchise known for being unable to consistently develop baseball talent.

He was traded to the Blue Jays, where he was a bench player until the second half of last season. Interrupting his minor league career and relegating him to a major league reserve role for several years likely detrimentally impacted Bautista’s development as a baseball player.

Perhaps more importantly, Bautista has made discernable changes to his batting stance and approach, involving standing closer to the plate and starting his swing fractionally earlier than he used to. He first tried to make this change, at the suggestion of Blue Jays coaches, during the middle of the CONTINUED at page 22

DIVERSIONS

20 You’ve heard the adage “if you don’t know who the gunner is it’s you,” right? No? That’s weird. Well, if you don’t know who the gunner is it’s probably you. Or maybe you just haven’t been looking up from plants v. zombies enough to notice the guy asking an absurd hypothetical taken from his legit, “real world” experience as president of the Queen’s chapter of the Milton Friedman Society.

Anyway, so you don’t know who the gunner is. That sucks, because it means you can’t participate in the petty and judgmental jokes that I (and other hilarious, good looking people) will be making at their expense. What else are you going to talk about at pub night... Travis the chimp? (Sorry, section one 1Ls what?)

Thankfully, this isn’t Osgoode and we are not being constantly terrorized by gunners (a huge, York-sized chip on your shoulder is key for gunner formation.) But they’re out there, and you should know how to spot them -- if only for tips on shameless self-promotion.

Good for those firm dinners, kids!

Enter UV’s gimlet eyed reporting team and their lowres blackberry cameras. Observe the following scene: See that girl up at the front? Gunner spotted! Staying around after class? What the shit? I’m usually right out

Gunner watch!?!

BY MATTHEW BROWN (1L)

ULTRA VIRES of there since I have a lonely and desperate date with some street meat. Not her -- she’s up there shooting the shit with the prof like they’re besties. I imagine that she’s the first person to tell him about “lesbianswholooklikejustinbieber” and that he’s going to take her to the faculty club, buy her some drinks, and tell her “don’t worry about this federalism horseshit.”

And who’s this dude? Class is over and people are packing up. But here he’s thinking that, “hey I haven’t got a chance to bust out that genius ‘question’ I came up with last night (read: read about in the treatise).” This is not the time to put your hand up normally, you know, like a human. You have to break out the gunner’s most powerful weapon: the backwards hand up. He wants to answer the question, but not if it means he has to put his hand up normally, you know, like an anvil. (This is what gunners call those of us bringing down the curve.

Ha, ha. Humour fail, gunners.)

You gunners might say that I’m just jealous and bitter that you are going to be a partner at Davies while I’m drawing up livestock deeds in Peterborough. That is if I don’t O.D. first. Well, you’re right... All the more reason why I have to ridicule you mercilessly now while you’re still paying attention.

The Grand Moot: a spectator’s perspective

On the 28th day of September, year 2010, I happened upon an advertisement for a “Grand Moot” while aimlessly wandering the bleak halls of Flavelle House. I had not eaten for two whole days, as I was mourning the death of my beloved goldfish, Viola. My stomach ached something fierce. It must have been half past noon.

There was nothing particularly noticeable about the advertisement: bold black letters centred on a sheet of white paper, with the event’s sponsor, I believe it was McDonald’s, featured prominently at the top.

McDonald’s. I nearly fell to my knees at the mere thought of a double cheeseburger sandwich. But, no, Viola would not have it. She never did forgive me for the unspeakable misgiving that had occurred some three odd years beforehand. The advertisement was quite obviously an omen of dark times ahead.

So, I carried on, trying to forget the dreadful Grand Moot that was to occur that evening. The weariness that comes with starvation leaked down from my gut and into my legs. Each step grew more painful as I climbed the stairs, trying to escape the oppressive wintry breath of Flavelle House. Finally, upon pushing open the doors that promised the fresh touch of autumn and the freedom with which it came, I was stopped by a classmate. She asked me if I was going to the Grand Moot. I nodded in the affirmative, knowing full well that this young woman had been madly in love with me ever since our eyes first met; to tell her otherwise may have caused her to take her life right then and there in broad daylight for all to see. She said that this was good, and she would see me there. I nodded in the affirmative, and continued homeward in dismal silence. Love is a dangerous game.

I spent the subsequent three hours attempting to part my hair in a fashion that I had once seen done in a Hollywood feature film. This initiative proved to be unsuccessful. Disheartened, but not being one to succumb to melancholy, I decided to wear my late grandfather’s bowler instead. I should note now, before I forget, that this was a fatal error. The hat was blown off my head later that night and I never saw it again.

So, now that I was fully groomed for the approaching

BY LUKE GILL (1L)

Grand Moot event, I walked back to Flavelle House. At this point the pangs of hunger had temporarily abated, and so I strode up to the Moot Court Room with utmost confidence. At the door stood a classmate of mine, who was dressed in a fine suit. He wished me a good evening and warned me that once I entered the room I could not leave for the duration of the proceed-

The main players of the Grand Moot

ings. I instructed him to watch his tone and made my way inside. Almost immediately the young woman who was madly in love with me waved from a seat near the back of the room. I grudgingly sat beside her, knowing that her tormented, loveless life was in my hands. We made small talk. I believe I said something clever about the weather.

The moot began shortly after 5 o’clock. Opening remarks were made, individuals of alleged importance were introduced, and at one point we were pointlessly told to stand only to be seated again within seconds.

The banality of it all made me question my decision to attend. But then, to my immense delight, there was great excitement.

It quickly became clear to me that the Grand Moot was an exercise in legal advocacy. The mooters, standing tall and proud before the stone-cold gaze of the three robed Guardians of the Law, heroically fought to have

their points made before the court. For each point one of the mooters made, the robed guardians would attempt to strike them down. At first I was stunned by the audacity of the robed ones. Who were they to spit in the face of justice? I posed this question to the young woman who was in love with me. She informed me that the robed guardians were in fact Court Justices. Her hair smelled like cinnamon, and so I decided to trust her.

The legal arguments continued, and the audience hung on every word. For every question or counterargument laid forth by the Justices, the mooters quickly regrouped and held the line. At one point my excitement grew to such a state that I clasped the hand of the young woman who was in love with me. She gave me a pleading look, and tried to pull away. I told her not to fight it, that this was meant to be. She looked as if to cry. I realized that our overflowing passions were distracting us from the main event and so I let go of her hand. She must have been thinking likewise, for she not-so-subtly moved her chair away from mine.

Then, just as suddenly as it had begun, the moot came to an end. The audience applauded, we stood and sat, and after some cheerful comments from numerous parties we all filed out of the Moot Court Room. I turned to ask my beloved if she would join me at the reception but, alas, she had disappeared. Love is a strange thing.

The reception was a grand affair. I made my way to the bar and ordered a glass of red wine. When I tried to pay the hostess she informed me that there was no charge; someone had gone ahead and paid for everything. I asked her if the food was also free of charge and she replied that it was. I took this as a sign: Viola had forgiven me. The past was simply that. I moved towards the tables of appetizers where I earnestly stuffed several napkins with the tasty delights to be enjoyed at a later time.

All in all, the Grand Moot was a great success.

22

BAUTISTA - from page 19 2009

season, but it took him time to learn after consistently using a different approach for years. Video evidence demonstrates a difference in Bautista’s batting stance between early 2009 and 2010. He and the Blue Jays coaches have spoken repeatedly about this adjustment and the impact it has had on his ability to pull the ball with power. His home runs demonstrate that this adjustment seems to have had its desired effect, as 53 of his 54 homers were hit to left or leftcentre field. It is even more evident when one considers that, of Bautista’s 74 hits at the Rogers Centre this year, only 5 were to right field.

I could go on about how Bautista’s batting eye makes his approach even more effective or about the lack of changes in Bautista’s physique from 2009 to 2010. However, the point is not that there is circumstantial evidence to explain his accomplishments, as it wouldn’t be any different if there was no ability for outsiders to speculate as to why Bautista was able to achieve what he did this season. The issue is that damning Bautista because of the sins of his peers places an unfair evidentiary burden on him that he will never be able to satisfy.

Baseball’s drug enforcement policy is tough, but admittedly not perfect. It does not test for Human Growth Hor-

DIVERSIONS

mone and there will likely always be some PEDs that can avoid the most stringent of drug detection policies.

Even if there aren’t, people will assume there are. The fact that Bautista has reportedly passed four randomly administered drug tests this year means nothing in the eyes of his accusers, as one can always argue that he is using the latest undetectable drug. Of course, none of his accusers has ever explained either why Bautista has exclusive access to this drug or why it improves his ability, but seems to have little effect on any other players that have chosen to take it.

Prior to September 2009, Bautista had 49 home runs in 1,645 career atbats. In his last 7 months of major league baseball, he has 64 home runs in 678 at-bats. This is precisely the sort of unexpected result that makes being a sports fan so wonderful. However, on this fact, and this fact alone, Cox and others believe we have to “ask the question” of whether Bautista used PEDs. For this, he suggests we blame baseball’s previous drug policy and past steroid users. However, if you can’t accept Bautista’s accomplishments as clean until proven otherwise, don’t blame big bad Barry Bonds. Blame your willingness to subject Bautista to a test that he can’t possibly pass and willingness to act as the judge while discarding the burden of proof.

ULTRA VIRES

UV cooks: pecan brittle

BY JEREMY ABLAZA (2L)

This is one of the most delicious snacks you can make, mostly because it is basically 50% sugar. I've given the basic recipe here, but you can really go crazy with the sweetener. You can go really high-end with some Demerara sugar, or you could go in a different (and easier, because you don't have to go through the process of making the syrup) direction by using honey or maple syrup. The only drawback with this recipe is that, while being conceptually simple, it's technically difficult to execute because everything relies on "feel." Once you start to smell the pecans burning, chances are that you're not going to be able to stop it from burning completely. Also, this recipe is not as messy as it sounds.

Just make sure you use a big bowl, lots of parchment paper, and clean up as soon as you're done cooking before any spills have a chance to dry.

Ingredients

Whole raw pecans (1-2 lbs) 1-1.5 cups of sugar per pound of pecans 2 tablespoons butter (optional) a few drops of vanilla extract (optional)

Instructions

1. Line a baking sheet with parchment paper and spread the pecans out on it.

2. Toast the pecans at 300° F for about 10 minutes. Keep an eye out -- you want the colour to just begin to turn.

3. While toasting the pecans, add the sugar (dry) to a non-stick pot and place over medium heat. Add butter and vanilla (if using) and stir constantly as the mixture liquefies. If it takes too long or is too thick, add water little by little until you get a nice, syrupy, but not overly thick consistency. Be careful because this can burn easily.

4. Once the pecans are toasted, put them in a big glass bowl. Pour the syrup all over them and stir vigorously so that all the pecans are coated. Move quickly because you don't want the syrup to harden in the bowl.

5. Once the pecans are well-coated, pour the syrup-and-pecan mixture back onto the parchment-lined baking tray and put it back in the oven at 300° F for another 1020 minutes. Again, keep an eye on it to make sure they don’t burn.

6. Take it out and let it cool. Be very careful touching it until it's fully cooled and hardened because it is HOT. 7. Break up the brittle and enjoy.

DIVERSIONS

OCTOBER 20, 2010

23

UV cooks: vegan pumpkin brownie pie

BY CAMILLE LABCHUK (2L)

This recipe is a fun new take on an autumn classic – pumpkin pie. While pumpkin pie is awesome enough on its own, the addition of a chocolate brownie layer plus a crispy pecan crust takes this familiar dessert to the next level. As an added bonus, this recipe is completely vegan – animal-friendly, cholesterol-free and delicious!

A note on ingredients: I use coconut oil in this recipe, but you can substitute it out for another mild-flavoured oil, like canola or safflower. Coconut oil is firm at room temperature, so you'll need to melt it first.

Ingredients

Pecan crust 1 cup pecan halves 2 tablespoons melted coconut oil 2 tablespoons brown sugar Brownie layer ¾ cup whole wheat flour 1 tablespoon corn starch ¼ cup cocoa powder ½ teaspoon salt ½ teaspoon baking powder 1 cup pumpkin purée ½ cup sugar ¼ cup melted coconut oil 1 tablespoon vanilla extract ½ cup chocolate chips Pumpkin pie layer 1 cup pumpkin purée 1/3 cup sugar 2 tablespoon corn starch 1 teaspoon vanilla extract ½ cup non-dairy milk (my favourite is almond) 2 teaspoons pumpkin pie spice (1 ¼ teaspoon cinnamon, ½ teaspoon ginger, ¼ teaspoon nutmeg)

Instructions

1. Preheat oven to 350° F. 2. For the pecan crust: Pulse all ingredients in a food processor until crumbly. The largest pieces should be no bigger than lentils. Press the crust into the bottom of a greased pie pan.

3. For the brownie layer: Sift flour, corn starch, cocoa powder, salt and baking powder in a large bowl. In a smaller bowl, combine pumpkin, sugar, coconut oil, and vanilla until well-combined. Add the wet components to the dry, and stir well to combine. Fold in the chocolate chips.

4. For the pumpkin pie layer: Combine all ingredients well in a bowl.

5. Spread the brownie layer into the pie pan, on top of the pecan crust. Smooth with a spatula. Pour the pumpkin layer on top of the brownie layer. Smooth with a spatula if necessary.

6. Bake for 35-40 minutes, or until the top of the pie appears firm. Remove from the oven and allow to cool on the counter for at least an hour. The pumpkin layer will continue to firm up as it cools.

7.

Top with your favourite non-dairy ice cream, and enjoy!

Match the Paycheque!

It’s that time of year again... time to peruse the 2010 Ontario Public Sector Employee Salary Disclosure! Match the lovable U of T Prof to their sizable 2009 salary! See all salaries above $100,000 at http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2010/univer10b.html

(1) $119,655.04 b)

c)

d)

(3) $176,790.00 (5) $197,074.98

e)

f)

g)

h)

(6) $257,814.98 (7) $261,264.54

(8) $273,443.04

Answer Key:

(4) $184,118.02

a) Prof. Trebilcock - $261,264.54 (7); b) Prof. Anand - $152,788.68 (2); c) Prof. Iacobucci - $257,814.98 (6); d) Dean Moran - $273,443.04 (8); e) Prof. Stewart - $184,118.02 (4); f) Prof. L. Weinrib - $176,790.00 (3); g) Prof. Rogerson - $197,.074.98 (5); h) Prof. Fernandez - $119,655.04 (1)

a)

(2) $152,788.68

24

DIVERSIONS

Overcoming the curiosity impulse

Whether motivated by competition or more benign reasons, every 2L who is going through the On-Campus Interview (OCI) process is somewhat curious about how other people are doing. Fair enough. The problem is that not everyone wants to talk about it, or they do want to talk about it but only with select people. How do you go about dealing with your curiosity on the one hand and respecting other people's privacy on the other? And how do you know if you're on someone's "no OCI talk" list?

The best answer is to just mind your own business. This rule is somewhat more relaxed for your close friends, but it still applies. If someone wants to tell you about their OCIs, they'll initiate the con-

BY ANONYMOUS

versation. Of course, human nature being what it is, very few people can resist the urge. Curiosity gets the better of you and before you get a chance to stop yourself the words come out: "so, how did you do?" If you're lucky, the person will want to talk to you about it. But what if they don't?

The conversation will go one of two ways. The person whose business you're minding will start to look really uncomfortable, look away and give you a very vague answer. This is a very clear indication that you are on the list. CEASE and DESIST. Change the subject to something less private, like the lousy bathrooms in the building, Professor Stewart's awesome ties, or the meaning

of life.

The other likely scenario is that he/she will tell you that they don't want to talk about OCIs and you'll feel a bit embarrassed for bringing it up. Not to fear, you can save face by apologizing quickly for your indiscretion and change the subject.

If they aren't satisfied, well then there isn't anything else that you can do. You were wrong for asking, but they are also wrong for not forgiving you and moving on.

Of course there is the other situation where people come up to you and start talking about OCIs even if you don't want to. How you react will depend on the situation. If the person is rattling on, with no regard for how they are making

ULTRA VIRES

you or other bystanders feel, then quickly excuse yourself and go as far away from them as possible. If, on the other hand, the person is upset or has a legitimate concern, then you should be a good friend and colleague and hear them out.

You never know. What they have to say might even help you out.

The bottom line is that you need to be perceptive and considerate this OCI season. Think before you speak, but if you screw up, fix it. Your friends and colleagues will love you for it. This advice holds true for exams, grades, and any other kinds of personal information that someone might not want to share with you. Happy Job Hunting!