Ultra Vires Vol 12 Issue 5: 2011 February

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

ULTRA VOLUME 12, ISSUE 5

www.ultravires.ca

VIRES

February 28, 2011

Follies gunner group gag grips guests

L-R: Matt Brown (1L), Emma Costante (2L), Lee Chitiz (3L), Brian Unger (1L) and Patrick Hartford (1L) were among those who took the stage at Law Follies.

For more Law Follies photos, see the centre spread from pages 9-11. For photos from Vagina Monologues, see page 12!

UTSU apathy hits new low

Professional students must empower themselves at U of T

By Daniel Bertrand (2L)

This month the whole university will be abuzz with student union electioneering, except for the law school as no one is bothering to run.

During one of the first Student Legal Society (SLS) meetings last academic year, the question was posed: are law students a part of the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) or the Graduate Students’ Union (GSU)? We didn’t know for sure despite the fact that each full time law student annually pays $299.34 to the UTSU as compared to the $70 which goes to the SLS. In order to find out where this money was going, I took up the position as the Faculty of Law Representative on the UTSU Board of Directors for 20102011.

Most of the money goes towards a group medical and dental plan; however, $75.86 is for other UTSU expenses.

According to the 2009-2010 Operating

Budget, expenses included $166,000 for orientation and $180,000 for clubs.

Of this, our clubs and orientation at the Faculty of Law received nothing.

Meanwhile, $76,000 went to campaigns, projects and events. Some of these benefit all U of T students. For example, over the last year lobbying has resulted in the discounted TTC Student Metro Pass, athletics have just opened up bookable space for UTSU clubs, and UTSU has voiced opposition to Maclean’s U of T “Too Asian” article.

However, most of UTSU’s campaigns, projects and events are directed towards causes which are largely unrelated to the interests of law students.

For example, last semester, UTSU successfully mobilized the undergraduate student body to defeat the proposed cancellation of cultural curriculum in the faculty of Arts & Sciences with the amalgamation of the different de-

partments of language into one megafaculty. Currently, UTSU is working on a campaign to halt the implementation of a flat-fee tuition structure in the Faculty of Arts & Sciences whereby students paying for as little as three credits of coursework would have to pay for five. Another campaign seeks to raise opposition to the University’s agreement with Peter Munk for the financing of the School of Global Studies. UTSU points out that Munk’s company Barrick Gold has used libel suits to silence academic criticism of human rights abuses alleged to have been perpetrated by it in its foreign mining operations, and that a clause of the agreement which would require the University to “report” to Munk on academic research at the centre constitutes a significant string attached to the mil-

CONTINUED on page 4

UV INDEX - Copthorne panel................3 - Israeli Apartheid Week......3 - Law school grading...........5 - Merril Randell profile.....6 - Law Library invaders.........7 - Napping Society.................8 - Law Follies photos..........9-11 - CRTC controversy............13 - Veganism..........................13 - Rankin vs. Robertson........15 - Gunner Q&A....................16 - Anonymous Ranter...........17 - Law school babies!!!♥♥♥...17 - Comics........................19-20

Masthead Letter(s) to the Editor

Holy shit, we actually got a letter to the editor!!!!

Dear UV editors, This is in response to Jared Spindel’s article “Valentine’s Day Advice” from last month’s issue of this newspaper. I can only assume Mr. Spindel merely has a vivid imagination and has never actually attempted his second Valentine’s Day suggestion (“wake her up with oral sex”), because if he had, he would have been kicked in the head. Or perhaps he did attempt it, and his article was the result.

Jennie Morgan, 3L

Something weighing on your mind? Got beef with something in this month’s issue?

Want Matt Brown’s home address and phone number? Send a letter to the editor to ultra.vires@utoronto.ca

Scandals from once upon a time, and an actual letter to the Editor!

7 years ago in UV Ex-premier gets nude Nelson pics Radical Lawyer likely not an actual law or MBA student

On Jan. 29, in an apparent attempt to make a point to Bay Street elites, someone impersonated Goodmans LLP articling student Jill Nelson (U of T 2003) and sent former premier Mike Harris, now a partner at the firm, nude pictures of Nelson from her pictorial in Playboy’s 2002 “Girls of Canada” issue. The email was blind copied to lawyers at several Bay Street firms, some of Goodmans’ clients, a variety of U of T Law and Osgoode Hall graduates, and to some student organizers currently at U of T and Osgoode.

Many have attributed the email, which also features a link to Ultra Vires’ story last month on the controversial online forum Law Buzz, to Radical Lawyer, a vocal, colourful, and at times vulgar poster on the board. UV put these allegations to Radical himself, who agreed once again to be interviewed on condition of anonymity.

When asked about the email sent to Harris, Radical responded, “As much as the Radical name and phenomenon that has been attributed to the so-called alleged notorious email... me and/or any Radical has absolutely nothing to do with it... such activities do not in any way shape or form assist the Radical’s social justice and public interest agendas.”

In a surprising development, UV has discovered that despite posing in his innumerable online postings as a JD/MBA at the U of T, the individual known as the Radical may not be registered at either the Faculty of Law or the Faculty of Management.

U of T celebrates reaching $1-billion fundraising milestone Birgeneau still “very worried” about funding implications of tuition freeze

1, 2, 3, 4, 5... 6. Six issues of UV! Ahaha!

Count on writing for the final March issue.

ULTRA VIRES

the independent student newspaper of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law

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

Aaron Christoff & Abrar Huq Ashley McKenzie Brendan Morrison Amanda Melvin Caroline Samara Matthew Brown Joshua Whitford & Todd Brayer 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

On Jan. 29, the University of Toronto held a news conference announcing that the fundraising campaign had successfully reached the $1-Billion mark. The donation that put it over the top was a $10-million contribution from Michael Lee-Chin, Chairman and CEO of investment company AIC Limited. His commitment is tied to the creation of the AIC institute for Leadership at the Rotman School of Management, as well as a chair to be held by the dean of the Rotman School.

Present for the announcement was U of T President Robert Birgeneau, Rotman Dean Roger Martin, and campaign chair and Chief Executive Financial Officer of BMO Financial Group, Tony Comper. Lee-Chin addressed the conference via video-communication from Calgary.

Contributors Jeremy Ablaza, Arden Beddoes, Daniel Bertrand, Matt Brown, Josh Chan, Aaron Christoff, Michael Collinge, Wayne Cunningham, Brauna Doidge, Leo Elias, Abrar Huq, Ian Kennedy, Amanda Melvin, Geoff Metropolit, Jennie Morgan, Aaron Rankin, Natalie Reisman, Andrew Robertson, Matthew Scott, Michelle Segal, Michael Serebriakov, Erin Simpson, Andrea Tannenbaum, Drew Valentine, Josh Whitford

Ultra Vires is an editorially autonomous newspaper. We are open to contributions which reflect diverse points of views, and our contents do not 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 interest 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 March 30, 2011 and the deadline for submissions is March 25, 2011. The submission limit is 1500 words.

News

The latest in controversy, featuring the General AntiAvoidance Rule, and also Israeli Apartheid Week

Tax panel explores the mysteries of the GAAR

By Michelle Segal (3L) and Geoff Metropolit (3L)

Recently the Tax Law Society presented a very well-attended event entitled “A Panel Discussion on Copthorne Holdings.” The topic was a recent appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada which found that the general anti-avoidance rule (‘‘GAAR’’) in section 245 of the Income Tax Act was applicable to a series of transactions which culminated in the the tax-free redemption of shares in Copthorne Holdings Inc. The panel consisted of five well-recognized tax law thinkers in Canada, sporting a lovely collection of mustaches and bowties, and was mediated by U of T’s own Professor Benjamin Alarie. The panel members were asked to predict the outcome of the appeal as well as reflect on its basic merits and the possibilities for generalizing the result to other GAAR cases.

The Honourable Donald G.H. Bowman Q.C., currently Counsel to FMC’s National Tax Group and former Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada, described the GAAR as a statutory codification of a smell test. He described two stages of GAAR application: first, a visceral reaction to the transaction at issue, and second, a cerebral analysis. He suggested that juristic clarification on the meaning of the word “contemplation,”

as found in the deeming provision of s. stubstance.” He offered odds of 6:3, al248(10) of the ITA, would be useful as most 7:2, in favour of a decision for the the lingering interpretation – that a sub- taxpayer in Copthorne. This was despite sequent transaction can be completed in his further comments that “taxpayers prior of a prior one – is not justified by have less rights than criminals.” ordinary English. He called on the SCC Wayne Adams, the director general of to clarify how the Crown is supposed to the Income Tax Rulings Directorate at prove abuse of a provision. He further the Canada Revenue Agency and chair pointed out that this case is an opportu- of the GAAR committee, was eager nity for the SCC to provide guidance on to take up Professor Krishna’s bet. He the unanswered quesalso spoke about the tions relating to whether taxpayer’s concern for the GAAR is intended certainty and predictto fill in policy gaps ability in tax law appliremaining in the ITA, cation. He argued that which is replete with there are many similar specific anti-avoidance examples where a taxrules. payer has little certainVern Krishna C.M., ty as to the application Q.C., Professor of Comof rules found within mon Law at the Univerthe ITA. Importantly, sity of Ottawa and au- A dapper Professor Vern Krishna the application of the thor of much important C.M., Q.C. (Pay luxury tax of $75!) GAAR has not been scholarship in Canadian erratic or capricious Tax Law, specifically addressed the stu- throughout the approximately 600 apdents in the audience. He put the GAAR plications of the GAAR by the CRA. into historical context by outlining a Throughout the history of the GAAR brief history of tax avoidance, spanning he claimed that the CRA has considered from Mesopotamia to Copthorne. He also its application around 900 times, and has pointed out that “substance prevails therefore found that it does not apply in over form except in those cases where a one third of these cases. court will tell you that form prevails over Clifford L. Rand, partner of Stikeman

Elliott LLP in the firm’s tax group, responded to Wayne Adams’ discussion of predictability by pointing to the reality that tax planners are very concerned about the uncertain application of the GAAR, which results in restrained tax planning. He also pointed out that Canada Trustco. cut down the scope of the GAAR, in that the SCC required that the government identify a specific provision of the act and show how that provision has been abused. This approach sought balance between preventing abuse while allowing for a certain amount of predictability. He argued that in Copthorne, the Crown pointed to three separate provisions but was unable to explain sufficiently why the transactions constituted abuse of these provisions.

Deen C. Olsen, a lawyer at the Department of Justice, Tax Law Services Branch in Ottawa, argued the appeal at the Supreme Court. She explained her opinion that the correct application of the GAAR focuses on whether the result of the transaction was intended by the Act. She pointed out that the SCC did discuss certainty, predictability and fairness in Lipson and has acknowledged that the GAAR will introduce some un-

CONTINUED on page 7

A UV foray into Middle East politics

By Daniel Bertrand (2L)

I’m not trying to be controversial in writing this article.

On this topic, I’m perfectly content to be vanilla, boring, and grey. However, due to the seriousness of the subject, and my position on the Board of Directors for the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) in the capacity of the Faculty of Law Representative, I feel that I’m obliged to seek direction from my constituents and to keep them informed as this issue develops.

The UTSU Community Action Commission is a delegated body of the union whose purpose is to further the interests of students by building alliances with various individuals and organizations. Typically, an organization will approach the commission with an endorsement request which is then voted on by the members of the commission. While membership in the commission is open to all UTSU students, it is conditional on a student having attended at least one commission meeting prior to the one in which he or she wishes to vote. Historically, the Community Action Commission has been a positive space of solidarity for various groups seeking to ameliorate the situation of marginalized peoples on campus.

In principle, this sounds productive and uncontroversial. However, practice may prove the contrary.

Last month, the commission was approached for endorsement by the organizers of an event called Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) which will be held between

March 7th and 11th at the University of Toronto. IAW is an international annual event; its organizers hope to establish global boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel in order to dissuade it from continuing to commit what they consider to be the international crime of apartheid against Palestinians. <www. apartheidweek.org> Since 2005, IAW has been held

on campus with the authorization of the university administration. This year’s speakers include filmmakers, activists, and academics including Judith Butler.

Former speakers include Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein.

The decision before the commission was whether the students’ union ought to endorse IAW. Although it could not affect whether the event will be held – as this decision was already made by the University – an endorsement would allow IAW to claim it had the backing of the 40,000-member-strong student union, and potentially use some of its communicative or human

resources. More importantly, an endorsement would amount to a declaration by the student union that it agrees with IAW that Israel is an apartheid state which should be subject to boycotts, divestment and sanctions.

After some discussion, the commission voted to endorse IAW. I was one of a handful of persons present at the meeting to oppose the endorsement. In my opinion, a student union which represents and collects money on behalf of students should not adopt policies which are foreseeably provocative and offensive to students on the basis of national affiliation. UTSU should be a force of solidarity between students, not an agent of alienation and division between students, their union, and their campus.

An endorsement for IAW does not benefit University of Toronto students qua students. If anything, taking provocative policy stances which are tangential to the issues facing U of T undermines UTSU’s credibility as a student bargaining agent. Not only do some of our fellow students self-identify with Israel, but so do some officials in the university administration and the provincial and federal government. Last year, all the political parties of the Legislature of Ontario condemned IAW. Supporting IAW may seriously damage organizational CONTINUED on page 14 relations between

4 UTSU - from page 1 lions he has offered in funding.

Unfortunately, UTSU also advocates for causes which are directly contrary to the interests professional faculty students. The opposition to the Munk agreement is an example of UTSU’s general hardline anti-corporate policy.

While UTSU has raised valid concerns regarding academic freedom with this particular agreement, a general stance against the “corporatization” of the university may put the various financing partnerships that our school has made with law firms at risk. Where would Downtown Legal Services be without Faskin Martineau putting up funds for the Faskin Martineau Building? Or the Cassels Brock Cup without Cassels Brock? If anything, corporate partnerships have enabled the law school to increase the breadth of its academic research and extra-curriculars for the benefit of access to justice and human rights.

More concerning is a recent lobby document titled Students Aren’t Money Bags claiming that “students in the Faculties of Arts and Science... subsidise students in Management, Law, Medicine and Dentistry.” While it is true that funding has been shifted in recent years to the professional faculties, this shift is in our interests as law students!

News The costs of running an adequate law or medicine program are substantially higher than running a philosophy program; we require more funding. UTSU is our student union as much as it is that of undergraduate students – we should not permit it to advocate policies which will disinvest our program and possibly lead to further tuition fee increases.

As it stands, law students are effectively subsidizing undergraduate clubs and parties through the payment of UTSU membership fees. While UTSU calls for the lowering of undergraduate tuition fees, our tuition fees as law students now stand at over $24,000 and continue to rise.

So why the imbalance in UTSU’s advocacy? I argue it is because professional faculty students are institutionally disempowered within UTSU. This is a bizarre state of affairs given our abilities and ambitions.

Law students have a single representative on a board of 45 which includes an elected and salaried full-time executive of six students. Professional faculty students are ineligible to run for executive positions as UTSU’s bylaws limit the amount of courses an executive director can take to one.

Board members serve on various committees: Budget, Elections and Referenda, Policy and Procedures, Executive Review, Professional Faculties, St.

George Clubs, Organizational Development and Services, and Student Accessibility. There are also five commissions which are open to all student members of the union: Campus Life, Social Justice & Equity, Community Action, Academic & Student Rights, and Sustainability.

It is simply impossible for a single representative from the Faculty of Law to serve on all of UTSU’s committees and commissions to keep them accountable to law students. This year I have done what I can. The Professional Faculties Committee has met twice so far this year, and intends to meet one more time. While this doesn’t sound like much, it can be compared to the single meeting held last academic year. UTSU events are now advertised in Headnotes.

Executives have come by the law school on several occasions to distribute free goodies characteristic of undergraduate student life. In March, we intend to give out free International Student Identity Cards. I’ve also encouraged our clubs to apply for funding. Unfortunately, the few who have taken up the opportunity have noted the duplication and complexity involved in applying for both SLS and UTSU clubs funding.

UTSU can greatly benefit from increased law student participation and empowerment. Personally, I find the board of directors and executive very

Ultra Vires friendly and easy to get along with. On more than one occasion my law school training has come in handy when the board of directors has had to think about things such as “conflicts of interest,” or, in trying to understand its own bylaws and constitution. There are also UTSU-funded clubs with very similar interests and goals as the ones we have at the law school. Law students can also act a moderating influence against UTSU’s occasionally overly polemic and radical policy stances.

In order to build upon the modest gains in communication between law and UTSU into next year, we must reevaluate our relationship with UTSU and the other professional faculties.

Currently professional faculties are fractured between the UTSU and the GSU. While law and medicine are in a largely undergraduate organization, MBA and education students are stuck with thesis-orientated academic programs. Next year, the SLS should look into ways in which to decrease unnecessary duplication and costs between student government organizations generally, as well as ways in which to increase their accountability.

For more on UTSU Politics, see my other article in this issue of Ultra Vires: “A UV Foray into Middle East Politics”

Features

Grades & feedback, Bora invaders, and we confirm that yes, Merril Randell is actually human...

Learning and grades in law school

By Amanda Melvin (2L)

Since coming to law school, we have been taught plenty about the current state of the law, both in terms of substance and procedure. However, there seems to be a large disconnect between what is taught and what is learned.

Evaluation often occurs only once per course, in the form of a final exam or paper. How many students can honestly say that they know with certainty that they applied their legal analysis correctly on an exam? Does a B or B+ grade tell you this? I don’t think so. How many students even pick up their exams and seek feedback from professors? My suspicion is not that many.

For final papers, the status of learning is even worse. Students can write on any topic they please, often only minutely related to one aspect of the course. After asking my upper year friends about their experiences with papers, many have noted that the only feedback they receive is a grade. Therefore, at least at a base level, students are seemingly not given the opportunity to learn from their experiences or analyses. It has been suggested that if students write the professor and ask for more detailed feedback then they are able to get more information as to why they received their grade and what improvements could have been made, but few students tend to follow up once a grade has been assigned. This system causes an even greater gap between the teaching that goes on here and the substance of learning that actually occurs.

Therefore I’ve come to the conclusion that the grading process for final papers at the Faculty of Law should be more transparent.

In the Academic Handbook, under Written Work, the Feedback and Evaluation for Upper Years - Expectations and Guidelines section reads as follows:

petitioning to have it changed. Rather, my first thought was of curiosity: Was my grade the result of my writing style, or my use of substantive law? Or, was it a determination based on the curve and in comparison to other students?

By virtue of the line “with comments after grades are released,” grades are clearly distinguished from comments in the Academic Handbook. Students legitimately expect more than just a grade on the paper. However, after further contemplation, I found myself in a strange position. Although I was very curious about my paper, it was not as if I wanted to have my grade changed.

I decided to inquire a bit further into the issue of providing comments. I spoke with Leslie McIntosh, an expert in the Administrative law field and current Adjunct Professor of Administrative Law. She said that there is no duty of procedural fairness at issue in this case, but that the rationale behind the duty to provide reasons, which is part of the duty of fairness, is relevant.

For instance, the fact that some professors (such as small group professors) provide constructive feedback on papers, as well as the mention of “comments” in the Academic Handbook, suggest that students could have legiti-

Further, I was hesitant to solicit feedback from my practitioner professor, for fear of pestering him.

By way of comparison, in Rotman’s MBA program, a grade distribution is released for every class offered in each semester. Even for classes where the predominant portion of the grade is based on a final paper, professors provide students with a marking rubric (explaining how they will grade a student’s

mate expectations for feedback on their work. Additionally, there are strong bases for providing reasons for why a given decision (such as a grade) is made:

Comments are actually required in the grade appeal process, as the first step involves meeting with a professor to discuss the deliverable and requires that the professor explain the reasons for the grade in writing.

However, for students who are not seeking a grade appeal, reasons can be important for students interested in submitting their work to a publication, by pinpointing the key areas of weakness.

2) Improved Student Learning

“All research papers which constitute a majority of a grade in a course will be made available to students with comments after grades are released... Students are encouraged to pick up their completed work.”

[Emphasis added.]

After reading this policy, I was quite disappointed that the sole piece of “feedback” on a final paper I submitted in December was a scrawled grade, with no discussion of how my grade was determined. I was left feeling more than a little confused. For the cynical reader, I want to clarify one point: I am happy with my grade and have no intention of

1) Identifying Weaknesses

submissions and/or what they are looking for) before the submission is due, and detailed written feedback after the final grade is released.

As the grading distribution is kept secret in law school, students often hypothesize that no matter how hard or how little they work on a deliverable, they will always end up riding the curve. Reasons would allow students to learn from their submitted work, both in terms of substance as well as structure and style. For instance, comments could provide students the ability to take pride in their B+ if the professor suggests the paper is strong,

or they could understand a B as deriving from weaknesses in analyzing substantive law.

3) Better Decision-Making

The necessity of providing reasons has a strong salutary affect on the decision-maker, causing them to think through the factors of their decisions to provide a coherent, objective and transparent explanation of the given grade.

4) Promoting Academic Excellence

Providing comments would be important to public perception. As mentioned above, the law school curve means that students have little incentive to try to be outstanding, as they have no context with which to evaluate their grades. Providing feedback (both positive and negative) could also further enhance the perception of the faculty as an academic institution, through actually fostering learning (rather than just testing) to improve the quality of writing in law graduates. Creating a stronger culture of learning could perhaps even lead to more academic recognition, as more students successfully submit their papers to journals or competitions after making the suggested improvements.

In a paper Professor McIntosh completed as a student, she rebutted the presumption that more substantial feedback is not provided for other academic purposes: She wrote, “A more serious objection to the requirement for reasons in the university context is that there are processes other than reasons, such as discussion or debriefing or model answers, that are better learning/teaching tools. However, a requirement for reasons and the use of other tools are not mutually exclusive… the importation of the requirement for reasons from the immigration context into tenure and grading decisions would not interfere with academic freedom.”

With these considerations in mind, it is clear that the Faculty of Law would more fully deserve its appellation as an institution of “higher learning” if it began providing thorough and transparent feedback by default for all submitted work.

6

Features

Ultra Vires

Delectable diversity: a semester abroad in Singapore

By Natalie Reisman (3L)

Congee for breakfast, udon for lunch, saag paneer for dinner and…Ben & Jerry’s for dessert. The options for eating your way through the island-nation of Singapore are endless and drool-inducing. But the mixture of flavours and diversity of choices represent more than just delicious solutions for a grumbling stomach; the culinary panoply is a reflection of the country itself.

After only six weeks on exchange in Singapore, it is evident that this country is as much a figurative melting pot as it is a literal one. With a resident population divided between Chinese (75%), Malays (14%), Indians (9%) and Eurasians (2%) (and, yes, Eurasian is a recognized ethnic group here, representing the descendants of Europeans who intermarried with Asians), and a non-resident population that is a mix of everything from British investment bankers to Indian construction workers, a day in Singapore can feel like a whistle-stop tour through Southeast Asia and beyond.

In some ways, the ethnic diversity is reminiscent of home. Singapore, like Toronto, has thriving cultural neighbourhoods including Chinatown, Little India, Arab Street, and Holland Village (an ‘expat’ locale).

There is easy daily interaction between people from a multitude of backgrounds, despite the fact that few share a mother tongue. Conversations between friends, strangers and colleagues may take place in one of Singapore’s four official languages (English, Malay, Tamil and Mandarin), but more often than not, the language of choice is an accented, slangy version of English known fondly, and somewhat self-deprecat-

ingly, as “Singlish” (it is difficult enough to understand as non-Singaporean that local bookstores sell SinglishEnglish translation guides).

Classrooms at the National University of Singapore are like an amplified microcosm of the rest of the country. Local and foreign full-time students flood the halls, as do an almost overwhelming number of exchange students hailing from virtually every corner of the earth. Each class seems to have enough representatives to hold an impromptu Model UN meeting.

When asked the other day how I was enjoying studying in Singapore, I replied that classes were great, but

the best part was being able to interact with students from so many different jurisdictions. My response prompted laughter from a nearby friend who said that of course a law student would comment on the number of jurisdictions students came from instead of the number of countries. Law-dorky or not, there is something undeniably cool about being able to discuss legal issues with ten students from ten countries in one room. In fact, one of my favourite times on campus

is from noon to one every day when the law campus lunch canteen turns into an informal study session on comparative corporate law (with food that puts the U of T sandwiches to shame…though I do miss the cookies).

While lunchtime chats and heated classroom debates are one way to get to know countries in this part of the world, nothing beats traveling to those countries yourself. A perfect blend of geographic proximity to all of Southeast Asia and access to tens of regional budget airlines with insanely cheap flights (22 USD to Kuala Lumpur…on a Friday night!) makes Singapore a budget-conscious jetsetter’s dream. In my short time here I have already had the chance to visit Indonesia and the Philippines. I leave tomorrow for a spring break full of hiking, caving, scuba diving and beach exploration in Malaysian Borneo. And, in case you weren’t jealous yet, trips to Cambodia, Indonesia (different island this time!), Sri Lanka, Japan and Hong Kong are in formation.

On that note, I think it is about time to wrap this travelogue up and start packing for Borneo! I hope that as you read this article, back in Toronto, shivering through another below-freezing day (it has been a particularly cold winter, or so I’ve heard), you think of me, doing my reading on a picnic bench in the middle of a sun-drenched, lusciously green law school quad, and start filling out an application to go on exchange next year.

Familiar faces: an interview with Merril Randell

By Ian Kennedy (2L)

I’m sure you already know Merril. You must. Remember back in October when you came scrambling into the Records Office to hand in that pesky ExamSoft form just in time? Remember the woman on the other side of the counter? Wellcomposed and well-postured, shortish hair and tasteful glasses? Perhaps a little purse-lipped at your tardiness? Her earrings would have matched her necklace, which would have matched her blouse.

When she thanked you, you may have identified whispers of South African veldt amongst her vowels. That’s Merril.

She’s our Academic Program Coordinator.

I met with Merril recently in Falconer 4 – the little room with wall paintings of bearded men conversing under vine encircled columns. She remarked that the room had once served as the SLS office.

Merril knows this kind of thing about our Faculty of Law; she’s been working here for 20 years. That’s long enough to remember a time when it wasn’t illegal or even improper for professors to go rifling through their secretary’s desk drawers. Merril happily recounted how a vigilante colleague once set a mousetrap in a drawer to discourage this kind of behaviour, and how soon afterwards a professor came screaming down the corridor, the mousetrap locked to his

index finger. nadians are entitled to so few vacations; Merril was born in Johannesburg, it still does. So she found an institution sometime before 1979. As a young that appreciated the value of a fourwoman, she travelled from South Africa month summer, and she got herself a to Australia by boat, nipping in at Bom- job. bay (now Mumbai) and Ceylon (now Sri Merril doesn’t usually work in the ReLanka) en route. In Perth she worked cords Office where you saw her in Ocbriefly in a Coca-Cola factory, extracting tober. In the fall she was covering for used straws from Celia Genua, but now empty bottles. She she’s back up in her went on to travel second-floor headthe great expanse quarters. There she of Australia from is visited by staff and west to south to faculty, as well as stunorth to east, even dents: Merril’s responhopping over to sibilities stretch to all New Guinea at one corners of the law point. In Sydney school. Of her many she met a “fellow”; roles, perhaps her four months later most visible is Listserv she married him.

Warden. It’s unlikely He was South Afthat anyone sends rican and they re- What do Merril Randell, coke and a large more emails to your turned to Jo-berg amount of used straws have in common? utoronto account where they had The connection is more innocuous than than Merril does, but you may think. two children (her as an MAIR student son is now a proand a victim of the fessional cyclist; her daughter is a law- Political Science listserv’s excesses, I yer). In 1979, fearing political violence, can tell you that she does a damn good they all moved to Toronto. job of keeping your inbox manageable.

Toronto was fast-paced. For all her Merril finds it difficult to say no, but she travels, Merril had never seen such busy can’t be emailing the whole school every highways before. It upset her that Ca- time someone misplaces a wallet.

Merril told me that she loves her job. She is proud of the students, and remarks that at least one has gone on to become her boss. When she retires, Merril sees herself getting into nutrition – advising people how to eat well instead of how to transfer exchange credits. Somewhat paradoxically, she also plans to spend more time making wedding cakes, a hobby of hers. But Merril isn’t in a rush to retire. “The grass isn’t always greener on the other side,” she believes. For law students tripping over themselves in their hurry to be done with school, this struck me as particularly sage advice. I asked Merril if she had any more. “Read Headnotes,” Merril counsels. “The students don’t know the opportunities they’re missing.”

February 28, 2011

Features

Law library invaders

7

By Amanda Melvin (2L)

Ever since we started 1L, it has been clear to many students at this school that we have ourselves a library intruder problem. To paraphrase Internet sensation Antoine Dodson, they’re sneakin’ past the front desk, snatchin’ the good spots up…trying to cram, too, so y’all need to grab your books, spread ‘em out, and take all the spots, ‘cause they’re crowding everybody out there.

While law students are often overheard complaining about the lack of space in the library, especially during exam periods, many still wonder: just who is that person sitting beside you in the spot you’d hoped to reserve for the classmate you were hoping to bang for stress relief ?

Who are these library intruders? These SNAILS (Students Not Actually In Law School)? The UV Investigative Journalism team endeavours to find out.

you see a number of them arranged neatly beside a digital timer, you’ll know you’re in the presence of that most bizarre creature in the law library habitat, the anxiety-feathered LSAT-studier (Latin name: Hopulus Li Factum). Easily distinguishable by their armload of Kaplan or Princeton Review prep books, these students have often set aside a number of weeks or months dedicated to diligent LSAT study, and somewhere

minister the LSAT don’t declare them intellectually fit for law school, the delusional tendencies they exhibit with this kind of behaviour should be all the evidence a law school needs to decide that these students have what it takes to pursue a legal career.

THE OSGOODE INTRUDER

The most stealthy of all the law library intruders are not in fact SNAILS at all. Interestingly, a distinct subset of the Bora users and abusers are actually Osgoode Hall law students. While there has always been a longstanding practice of law libraries being frequented by fellow travelers, over at Osgoode the practice of studying in Bora appears to be spreading faster than an outbreak of syphilis at a freakum dress party.

THE NON-LAW UNDERGRAD AND The typical reason these students GRAD STUDENTS provide for coming to Bora is that Many students come to Bora for the usual they live downtown, so it is more reasons – they live nearby and need a relativeconvenient for them to study here ly quiet place to study free from distractions. than it would be for them to study One of the students we interviewed refused to at their own school. And, frankly, if comment, mumbling angrily about an upcomyou’ve ever tried to bus from Toing linear algebra test. Others described findronto to Winnipeg with stopovers ing the dark green carpet and wooden cubicles of Bora a comforting throwback to their elder This alleged invader, who refused to allow UV to reveal his/her true identity, calls a Bora in Thunder Bay and Calgary, you should be able to sympathize. But family members’ homes. These types prefer this study carrel home when he/she is reading about options, futures and derivatives in conversation with students from “home-y” feel to the sleek and modern alternaour own school, some other sustive in Pratt Library across the street or the granpected reasons for their presence deur and intensity of a Robarts Library reading have emerged, including wanting: room. One invader insists that he was initially - To study with their friends at U of attracted to our library specifically because the T Law name “Bora” sounded exotic and exciting com- To make new friends at U of pared to the science student alternative (GerT Law, before those prospective stein). He has since dropped the “Laskin” from friends become successful the title, colloquially referring to the library as - To get the real U of T experience “Bora Bora.” Another invader, a Ryerson stufor a fraction of the price dent, reported coming to the library to spend time with his girlfriend (a diligent U of T law student). Finally, another student (who probably THE ACCUSED WHO doesn’t qualify for the title “invader”) comes WANTS TO REPRESENT here to study because she likes the library and HIM or HER SELF works at the circulation desk. She studies before Finally, the most un-stealthy of work and then she saves transportation time by invaders, these people are typically already being here when her shift starts – demmuch older than the typical law stuonstrating the kind of smart thinking that keeps dent and have a tendency to wander one from falling into the trap of law school in around looking lost and occasionthe first place. ally tapping a smart-looking law stuThese invaders don’t fuckin’ procrastinate Other students divulged “nightmare” stories dent on the shoulder to ask for adof their experiences in other faculties on campus. vice. They are seeking obscure old case law that they One set of students was recently “chased” out of the along the way have gotten it into their naïve, other- figure will help them fight their latest traffic ticket or Rotman School of Management, by an enraged MBA wise-overly-crammed heads that studying amongst law break and enter charge. However, as legal insiders, we student no less, for daring to study in the study rooms students will provide, at worst, inspiration, or at best can’t help but feel especially sorry for the butchering and study tables available for MBA students only. osmosis. No doubt these creatures’ law school aspi- that most of these people are going to receive at the Thankfully (or not so thankfully), law students haven’t rations are reinforced by glancing around to see law hands of the legal system, so we urge restraint from students so thrilled by and committed to their hours further ridicule. developed quite such a territorial reputation! of law readings that they look like they live in the liWhat do you think about the library intruders at brary. Of course, it should come as some consolation Bora? What should we do about it? UV urges you to THE LAW STUDENT WANNABES Remember pencils? Not us either. But the moment to these overeager tykes that, even if the folks who ad- write Letters to the Editor with your suggestions!

COPTHORNE - from page 3 certainty for taxpayers. Parliament has placed trust in the CRA to determine whether the results of a transaction are

abusive or permissive.

The Tax Law Society’s first-ever event was a huge success as it was attended by about 40 students, and over 100 tax practitioners from the GTA, and indi-

cates the Society is off to a good start in working towards its goal of enhancing opportunities available to students interested in tax law. Those who wish to know more about the TLS’ initiatives

can find out more by emailing uofttaxlawsociety@gmail.com.

8

Features

Napping society: an unequivocal travesty

Ultra Vires

By Matt Brown (1L)

I bet you thought the Napping Society was some kind of sick joke. So did I, until I got roped into writing a news piece on them. The only news here is that U of T Law has reached a new low--and that is hardly news.

Maybe you haven’t heard of it? Read the name again. That is as far as you need to go in trying to interpret the meaning of this club. I reached out to the founder of this travesty, Patrick Hartford, to get some kind of sympathetic take on it (everyone who has read my previous articles will note my unfailing journalistic integrity) but I really just got angrier the more I talked to him--and it wasn’t (only) because I had just found out I’m sitting alone at an empty table for ten at Law Ball.

So you don’t have to spend too much effort reading this, I’ve put the reasons why the Napping Society sucks in a handy bulleted list.

- The word “society” is in their name. You know a society: like the Humane Society, or the Abolitionist Society, or the Royal Society of Arts and Letters. Yeah, Hartford, it is perfectly reasonable for you to place your club in the company of people who, you know, do things or advance causes. I’ll be generous with the word: I’ll give it to anyone--so long as they do more than organize a room where maladjusted social lepers can discreetly dry hump.

- You know how people sleep at school? Look to the right. Terence Fong doesn’t need anyone to tuck him in/clean him up when he wets the bed and neither

should you. If you need some extra help with those kinds of things, just sleep in your sugar daddy’s suite at the Four Seasons. Like I do.

Has the Napping Society found a faculty mentor candidate?

- Do these people not realize how next-level nerdy our class already is? Leo Elias’s haiku, everyone in healthy supportive relationships--the last thing we need is a room full of droolly pillows. Patrick says, “It’s been mostly 1Ls, but we’re trying to branch out.”

Mostly 1Ls--really?? You mean you couldn’t convince any upper years to take a break from laughing at each other’s hilarious jokes and having casual but satisfying sex to get out a snuggie and be lonely together in FLA? Obviously as median LSAT increases, so does inability to function socially. Next year’s 1Ls will no doubt have the “Check Our Blood Pressure Club” meeting raucously at the nearest Pharma Plus.

- I wasn’t invited.

I don’t know why I’m getting so worked up about this. I guess it’s lack of sleep.

LAW FOLLIES 2011

photos by Josh Chan

Vagina Monologues Photos by Josh Chan

Opinions and Editorials

Has the CRTC failed Canadians?

By Matthew G. Scott (3L)

The recent controversy regarding the decision of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to permit Usage-Based Billing (UBB) has created many questions in the minds of consumers. Citizens took to various forms of social media to ponder openly about whether the CRTC had perhaps outlived its usefulness and failed to protect the interests of Canadians.

In determining whether deference should be accorded to the CRTC, it is useful to consider its mandate and the role it is supposed to play in Canadian society. According to their official materials, “Parliament has given the CRTC the job of regulating and supervising the broadcasting and telecommunications systems in Canada.”

With respect to the first head, broadcasting, the CRTC believes that Canadian broadcasting should reflect “Canadian creativity and talent, our bilingual nature, our multicultural diversity and the special place of aboriginal peoples in our society.” In the case of the second head, the CRTC is supposed to ensure Canadians receive reliable telecommunication services at affordable prices.

With regard to broadcasting, there is little doubt, in my view, that the CRTC has been fairly successful at protecting Canadian programming. Many consumers are familiar with CRTC rules which prioritize Canadian programming during

peak viewing hours (between 7PM and 11PM), that switch Canadian commercials for U.S. ones even for U.S. television shows, and that require a certain percentage of music played on the radio to be by Canadian artists. Without these types of policies, it is doubtful that shows such as Corner Gas or Royal Canadian Air Farce would get the airtime they did, let alone become the domestic hits that they were.

Unfortunately, this is only half the picture. The CRTC is supposed to be responsible for regulating telecommunications as well, and in this area, the CRTC has, at least in my view, largely failed. Consider the Canadian cellular market, which has only three national providers, namely: Rogers, Telus and Bell. In addition to these, there are several “discount” carriers, such as FIDO (owned by Rogers), Koodo (owned by Telus), Solo Mobile (owned by Bell), and Virgin Mobile Canada (owned by Bell). It should hardly be surprising that Canadians continue to pay ridiculously high cellular bills compared to other developed countries.

In 2007, Canada was 23rd among the 30 OECD countries for cellular prices.

By 2009, Canada had fallen to 28th. As

of 2010, Canadians now rank as the world leader in expensive cellular bills among OECD countries.

It is quite the alarming trend if you are a Canadian consumer, despite the recent introduction of many discount carriers to the Canadian cellular market. These new carriers are often reliant on the national carriers – Rogers, Telus and Bell – to purchase wholesale time on their cellular towers. There is little reason for these companies to permit or desire this new competition, and I am certain that they would gladly stifle it if they could.

Returning to the original controversy, in the context of Usage-Based Billing, Rogers and Bell managed to successfully lobby the CRTC to permit them to implement a system that will effectively guarantee their continued monopoly on the provision of telecommunication services.

Should Usage-Based Billing be permitted to stand, these companies can and will charge between $1 and $5 to wholesale purchasers like TekSavvy for each additional GB of data used, despite the cost being mere pennies to provide it.

The best evidence that they will in fact do this given the chance is that they already do it to their own consumers.

It must be remembered that the CRTC in 1999 studied the Internet and decided not to regulate it, largely because access to Internet services was competitive. It would be ironic indeed if, twelve years later, a CRTC decision on Usage-Based Billing made access to the Internet a monopoly for a select handful of companies. As we have seen with the cellular market, there is no doubt that in the end, it would be Canadian consumers who would pay the price.

In short, I do not agree with the proposition that the CRTC serves no purpose or has outlived its usefulness. There is no doubt that with respect to traditional broadcast mediums, it has done an excellent job at ensuring Canadian content is given the attention it deserves. However, I do believe that given the failings of the CRTC in successfully regulating the telecommunications industry, it is perhaps time to re-imagine the scope of the CRTC’s responsibilities. My suggestion would be that the CRTC be rebranded and refocused as the “Canadian Radio and Television Commission,” while creating a new agency, perhaps the “Canadian Telecommunications and Technology Commission,” to handle the issues of the 21st century. This reorganization would enable these vital regulators to better serve their Canadian consumers.

A case for veganism

By Arden Beddoes (3L)

There are three broad categories of support for veganism: health, environment, ethics.

Health

Dieticians of Canada states that a vegan diet is “safe and healthy” for everyone, including “pregnant and breastfeeding women, babies, children, teens and seniors.”i The American Dietetic Association takes the same position.ii There is very strong evidence that a vegan diet is actually much healthier than the traditional Western diet. The American Dietetic Association states that a vegan diet has been associated with “health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.” A vegan diet has been associated with a decreased risk of heart disease.iii Oxford University’s health unit found that “lowering meat consumption in the UK would prevent 45,000 premature deaths a year” and “[save] the [National Health Service] £1.2bn.”iv That research, according to Dr. Mike Raynor

of Oxford’s Department of Public Health, “demonstrates the clear health benefits of cutting down on meat and dairy in the UK and quantifies this more comprehensively than ever before”. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) actively promotes veganism, stating that “[t]he leading killers in the Western world – heart disease, cancer, and stroke – can often be prevented and even treated with dietary and lifestyle measures.”v The PCRM website includes a “21-Day Vegan Kickstart” program: http://pcrm.org/health/veginfo.

The EPAvi in the U.S. and the International Agency for Research on Cancer vii have recognized dioxin as a major carcinogen. 96% of human exposure to dioxin occurs via the consumption of animal products.viii Moreover, animal products are replete with growth hormones and antibiotics, contributing to the decreased effectiveness of those antibiotics in humans.ix

In spite of the evidence, entrenched interests and the inertia of social norms have caused our civilization to engage in some curiously irrational conduct. Consider for a moment the multi-billion dollar cholesterol-lowering drug industry.

Now consider that cholesterol is only in animal products. Instead of curbing the activity that is causing high cholesterol (eating animal products), the West has spent billions developing a massive drug industry so that people can consume meat and drugs, instead of neither. We chose the expensive option rather than the healthy one. Worried about cholesterol? Forget the prescription. Go vegan.

Worried about your health? Go vegan.

At the very least, reduce your consumption of animal products.

Environment

far more GHG emissions than plantbased alternatives.x As a result, it advocates a shift to a vegan diet to save the world from the worst impacts of climate change.xi Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has exhorted the public to “please eat less meat – meat is a very carbon intensive commodity.”xii Producing one kilogram of beef creates emissions equivalent to 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide. Raising and transporting that meat requires the amount of energy it takes to light a 100-watt light bulb for three weeks.

If you do things for the environment like turn off your lights, try not to idle your car, use public transit, etc., I’ve got great news for you: you can have a much larger positive environmental impact by reducing (or eliminating) your consumption of animal products.

The consumption of fish also causes

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) notes that animal products, including both meat and dairy, CONTINUED on the next page require far more resources and cause

Opinions and Editorials

14 Veganism - from page 13 extensive environmental damage.

Shrimp trawlers, for example, essentially clear cut 25 to 30-meter-wide and several-kilometre-long swathes of the ocean floor. Over 90% of their catch is “bycatch” (i.e..: not shrimp), including dolphins, sharks, rays, squid, coral, etc. xiii Generally, all die. So when you consume shrimp, you are doing much more environmental damage than you might have realized.

Worried about the environment? Go vegan. At the very least, reduce your consumption of animal products. None is best.

Ethics

Let’s begin with a proposition: it is wrong to cause animals to suffer unnecessarily. If you don’t agree with that proposition I can only assume you are a sociopath. If you do, let’s continue with an observation: eating and wearing animals isn’t necessary. One proposition and one observation - could the logic be any simpler?

The only two ways to attack this logic are under the words “suffer” and “necessary.” I think the notion that eating animals is necessary was sufficiently undermined under “Health,” above. And I don’t think anyone can credibly argue

that wearing animals is necessary.

But do animals suffer? Yes, they do.xiv All animals, including humans, have the capacity to suffer both physically and psychologically.xv Intuitively, this makes perfect sense – the evolutionary reasons for the human capacity to suffer pertain equally to virtually all sentient beings. To learn more about how animals suffer in factory farms, which produce more than 99% of all animal products consumed in North America, you could start by reading about debeaking.xvi Egglaying hens are debeaked at a very early age to stop them from pecking each other to death – a practice they develop due to overcrowded conditions which cause them to go insane. A chicken’s beak contains a huge concentration of nerves because it essentially acts as its hand. It uses it to pick things up and investigate its surroundings. Debeaking, which is performed without anesthetic, has been shown to cause excruciating pain both immediately and chronically.

We do it so that more hens can be kept in smaller spaces so that eggs, which we don’t need to eat and contain high levels of cholesterol, are cheaper. To learn

UTSU and other bodies which can deliver real benefits to students.

I’m not saying that IAW should not be allowed expression. As we know, freedom of speech is an expansive right in Canada. All I’m saying is that it is inappropriate for UTSU to express such views in the name of the students of the University of Toronto.

After the vote, I did what any good law student would do after a vote didn’t go his way – I referred to the union’s constitution and bylaws. It turns out that contrary to what was believed by the commission at the time of the vote, all resolutions of the commission must be ratified by the union’s board of directors.

IAW - from page 3

Ultra Vires

about the countless other practices that are just as cruel as debeaking, feel free to Google “battery cages,” “gestation crates,” “teeth-clipping,” “tail-docking,” “the separation of mother and calf at birth in dairy production,” “mulesing,” etc. You could also research transportation methods, intensive confinement, and how selective breeding causes suffering to be built into an animal’s DNA. Basically, they really, really, suffer for u s to taste certain flavours and wear certain fashions.

As for human ethical concerns, the UNEP advocates a global shift to veganism as it is vital to reducing global hunger.xvii Want to help alleviate global hunger?

Go vegan.

Worried about the suffering of sentient beings? Go vegan.

For more on the philosophical foundations of veganism, Google “Tom Regan,” “Peter Singer” and/or “Gary Francione.” For an excellent philosophical piece, see http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/ the-meat-eaters/, as well as its followup: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes. com/2010/09/28/predators-a-response/.

Due to the upcoming UTSU election, the board can’t have another meeting until after IAW. I notified the UTSU President that pursuant to this, the decision of the commission is not binding and IAW can’t advertise UTSU’s endorsement. He has since notified the organizers of IAW that they must remove their claim to our endorsement which at the time of writing this article was advertised at http://toronto.apartheidweek. org/ Nevertheless, the endorsement will come up for a vote on ratification at UTSU’s March board meeting.

After consulting with law students who have overwhelmingly approved of my actions thus far, I have decided to continue my opposition to such an en-

Conclusion

Veganism is the responsible choice ethically, for your health, and for the environment. This is probably why Cass Sunstein, currently on leave from Harvard Law School to work in the Obama Administration, has written that “every reasonable person believes in animal rights.”xviii It is also probably why veganism is spreading so rapidly, as people like Chelsea Clinton have all-vegan weddings and convince their parents to adopt a vegan diet. Personally, I strongly believe that animal rights/veganism will be one of the most prominent social movements of the next half century. In the meantime we all have a choice: be an early adopter, or become a late follower.

i. http://www.dietitians.ca/Nutrition-Resources-A-Z/Fact-SheetPages%28HTML%29/Vegetarian/Eating-Guidelines-for-Vegans.aspx ii. http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357 iii. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16441942 iv. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/healthnews/excessive-meateating-kills-45000-each-year-2110289.html# v. http://pcrm.org/health/ vi. http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/nas2006.pdf vii. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Meetings/100F-introduction.pdf viii. A.K. Liem, P. Furst, C. Rappe, Exposure of populations to dioxins and related compounds, Food Addit. Contam. 17 (2000) 241-259 ix. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/news-update-farmanimals-get-80-of-antibiotics-sold-in-us/# x. http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/documents/pdf/PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report_Full.pdf xi. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-reportmeat-free-diet xii. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIVBkZpOUA9Hz3Xc2u61mDlrw0Q xiii. Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals (New York: Little Brown and Company, 2009) at page 191. xiv. http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/aaws/aaws_international_animal_welfare_conference/phylogeny_of_cognitive_development_and_the_capacity_to_suffer xv. http://www.jonathanbalcombe.com/pops/second.html xvi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debeaking xvii. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-reportmeat-free-diet xviii. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/157.crs_.animals.pdf

dorsement.

However, in debating about IAW, the commission’s endorsement, and the broader and more serious issues which the commission’s ultra vires foray into Middle East politics raise, I think it is important that we as law students remain conscious of the need to preserve the school as an open space for critical and civil discussion. In responding to what may seem like a provocative event such as IAW, we must be respectful and tolerant in order to preserve U of T as a welcoming place for people of all national affiliations; it is this spirit which motivates my opposition to the endorsement request.

Opinions and Editorials

February 28, 2011

15

Point/Counterpoint

“Is the International, Comparative and Transnational credit requirement worthwhile?”

The SLS’ Curriculum Working Group is looking at the International, Comparative and Transnational Requirement (ICTR) of the upper-year curriculum, and wants to know what your thoughts are. To kick off debate, SLS caucus members Andrew Robertson and Aaron Rankin discuss whether the requirement should stay or go. (Disclaimer: Aaron and Andrew did not come to blows in the publication of this article… at least not yet!)

The case for... keeping it

Trashing it

By Aaron Rankin (2L)

By Andrew Robertson (2L)

Should the ITCR be part of the curriculum? (Having a curriculum, which Mr. Robertson thinks is “paternalistic,” is here to stay.) Let’s note that the ICTR doesn’t constrain choice all that much.

It’s not a course, but a course category.

You can satisfy it by taking Private International Law or International Taxation — both of them eminently practical courses.

Mr. Robertson opposes the ICTR because, he says, the purpose of law school in Canada is to teach Canadian law (his bolding). By championing Canadian law, Mr. Robertson is not just draping himself in the flag (though he so seldom dons a shirt, he must need something in which to drape himself). He’s implicitly assuming that the Canadian law course displaced by the ICTR improves one’s lawyerly skill and market competitiveness more so than the ICTR course itself. This is the MBLBC: “more black letter, better career” assumption.

Is the MBLBC true? Are ICTR courses less “necessary”, to use Mr. Robertson’s word? I know nothing of practice, but the CBA’s deluge of email, along with seemingly every judicial speech, and the exhortations of this Faculty, suggest that foreign law is increasingly relevant to practice. Moreover, the foreign cases we read in 1L, and the frequent citations to such cases in appellate judgments, show that what’s foreign law today might be Canadian tomorrow. Aha! says Mr. Robertson. If ICTR courses are so desirable, then they needn’t be mandatory!

It is, at first blush, contradictory to argue that ICTR courses are desirable enough that they would be chosen by well-informed students in the absence of the ICTR; surely, the more that’s true, the less the ICTR needs to be a requirement. However, making the ICTR mandatory aids the school’s branding efforts by contributing to this school’s reputation for “internationalism”, which aids recruitment. Post-convocation, even those who resent the “paternalism” by which the “brand” of the school is maintained benefit from it. Other great schools, whose best practices we imitate in other ways, have similar requirements (yes, there’s a correlation-causation problem here). Our faculty have a comparative advantage in ICTR-area expertise, which the ICTR “leverages”.

More importantly, in considering the incentive effect of ICTR, we must ask not whether ICTR courses have academic value/marketplace value (compared to that additional “Canadian” law

course they displace), but whether students are well-placed to appreciate that value (i) while they are still in law school, and (ii) before taking an ICTR course.

With great respect for my colleagues, I confess that I’m not sure we are. The fear that having one fewer black-letter course undermines one’s competitiveness is not uncommon, yet this assumption, as noted above, persists despite the bar’s and the bench’s advice.

So, it seems the ICTR operates to correct the distortive effect of students’ imperfect information about what the legal talent market values.

The ICTR means no U of T law grad can be differentiated by whether they took one ICTR-type course, and thus quashes the fear of a market reaction to one’s course selections. The effect of this standardization is best evidenced by imagining the behaviour of three groups with/without the ICTR. X: Students who would take an ICTRcourse even if it weren’t mandatory.

Group A is moot because the ICTR doesn’t alter its behaviour. Y: Without the ICTR, Group B would wish to take an ICTR-type course, but would let the unfounded MBLBC assumption deter them. Under ICTR, they are free to spend 4% of their law school course time on the ICTR without having to overcome rumour and become informed about the fact that doing so is, by professors’, judges’ and lawyers’ accounts, salutary for one’s education and, at worst, has no impact on one’s career.

Z: Without the ICTR, these students would take that 15th positive law course, so the ICTR most constrains Group C’s choice (and, perhaps it should be possible to opt out of the ICTR ‘with cause’).

But if the preference is based on the flawed MBLBC assumption, then these students are actually made better off by ICTR “paternalism”, despite being unable to appreciate that ex ante due to the persistent but unfounded MBLBC myth.

So, colleagues, I humbly suggest that the ICTR makes the majority of us better off.

The SLS has currently mandated that the Curriculum Working Group look into the International, Comparative and Transnational Requirement (ICTR) in the upper year program. Suffice it to say, this has become a contentious issue among the SLS, as I’m sure it is among the student body as a whole. On the one side are people, such as myself, who believe that when paying $23k/ year, students should not have to enrol in courses in which they have no interest. On the other side stand gentlemen such as my esteemed SLS colleague and

fellow Working Group member Aaron Rankin, who, because of superior intellect, knows better than you about what courses you should be required to take in upper years.

Mr. Rankin will point out that students are already required to take mandatory courses in 1L—so, what difference does it make to require 2 mandatory courses in upper year?

However, such an argument is misleading for the simple reason that 1L courses are designed to teach the fundamentals of Canadian common law.

Which is exactly my point – students going to law school in Canada should be required to learn the basics of Canadian law, and be taught the skills of advocacy and research that are required of lawyers. I’m pretty sure that Critical Theory and Global Law: Resisting Economic Globalization is not going to be examinable on my Bar exam, nor come in handy when I’m working at a Canadian firm.

Mr. Rankin might also attempt to mislead you with ad hominem attacks on me (too easy, Aaron), stating that I am simply a domestic corporate law hack with no appreciation for international law. People want to take these

courses, Rankin will tell you! While I may be a philistine, it does not mean that everyone is – these courses will not disappear if people unwilling to take them are no longer forced into enrolling. People who care about such matters – and there is a large group of students that are – will still enrol.

And what if these courses disappear because nobody enrols? What does this tell us except to say that nobody wanted to take them in the first place?

Yes, Mr. Rankin might be right when he states that this is typical libertarian drivel coming from me, and yes, I have been complaining of the paternalistic nature of education since I was expelled from Suncrest Elementary School for insisting that sometimes, 2+2=5 (which, I still insist, can be the case under the right circumstances). But in that case I may have been in the wrong, partly because mathematics is arguably a fundamental skill needed for society but, perhaps more importantly, the taxpayer was funding my education.

Today, I am paying for my legal education, and am expecting to learn a great deal about how to be a lawyer in Canada. And, there is no better place than U of T to do that.

However, keep in mind that in upper years, 1/8 of your courses over the 2 upper years will be dedicated to your ICTR and Perspective requirements.

Put into dollars, that’s $6000.

Personally, I’d rather spend my $6000 on courses such as Tax, Securities Regulation, Secured Transactions, etc., because that is what I want to learn. Do I think The Law of War sounds interesting? Of course I do. Am I going to want to pay $3k to take it when I can take another course that I will actually use in my life? Probably not, but it should be my choice, not someone else’s.

So yes, I’ll admit it: I find proxy solicitation rules REALLY sexy. And yes, I am a libertarian blowhard who doesn’t like to have a paternalistic system in place. I do not want the system to save me from myself – I can decide what is best for me. Courses such as Private International Law do sound applicable, and I can thus take them if I want; but not because I am told to do so. Let’s keep in mind that this is my – and your – money. Shouldn’t we get to decide how to spend it?

Diversions

We’re talkin’ gunners, babies, and haiku ....

Interview with a gunner

By Matt Brown (1L) and Gunner (?L)

Matt Brown: Hello Gunner, how are you today?

Gunner: Hello Matt Brown, I’m doing fine. Can I call you Matt Brown?

MB: Yeah, that’s a definite improvement over what you were calling me last time we talked. So let’s get right down to business, your December exam results, how did you feel about them?

G: Terrible. The same way you felt when the Star confirmed that you would never amount to anything, basing it purely on your effeminate jawline. Realistically, I feel the researcher should have taken your hair into account as well.

MB: No. How did you feel about the rest of Law Follies?

G: Uncharacteristically terrible. I’m glad I brought some readings to do to bide the time.

Though I will say that I really appreciated Brian Unger’s character in the “Gunner” skit as the unsung protagonist in a sea of worthlessness trying to take what was rightfully his.

MB: I hate you.

G: I’m sure I’ll hate my superiors too if I ever meet any of them.

MB: ...

G: Don’t pout, Matt. It actually makes you look even more like a girl. I know, shocking, I didn’t think it was possible either. But yeah, the exams went terribly. An unmitigated disaster. I got a B+.

MB: A B+ average is pretty amazing.

G: Shut the fuck up. What is wrong with you? I got a single B+, which is unacceptable. Average? In what world would a B+ average be okay, let alone amazing?

All aboard the mediocrity train, first stop, Matt Brown’s chin. Besides, it was total bullshit, my answer was perfect.

I went to talk to the Professor about it, explained to him his mistake, but he absolutely refused to concede his error, patronizingly telling me that a B+ was an excellent mark. Don’t get me wrong, it’s only a minor setback – I’m still receiving interviews at all the major firms offering 1L summer jobs, but this debacle has left a sour taste in my mouth. I mean, if the University of Toronto could make such an egregious mistake hiring one professor, how many other terrible professors do they have in their roster? I should have gone to Yale, which I also got into.

MB: Moving right along. How have you been able to maintain a school-life balance?

G: I don’t understand the question. Are you asking me how much time I spend going out and “like, oh my God, I got soooo drunk last night”? Never. I went to Law Follies the other night, though, against my better instinct. I figured I should at least see what this mating dance you people call Pub Night is. Some guy in the theatre sitting next to me offered me a sip of his illicitly smuggled in whiskey, so I had to alert the attendants about the situation. The most ridiculous part is that after he was removed, a few of his friends tried to make me out to be the bad guy, as if I was the criminal, flagrantly drinking in public. Absurd, don’t you think?

Besides, what kind of philistine drinks whiskey out of a bottle?

A snifter of scotch with just a drop of water to help bring out the aroma, sure, but whiskey? Plebeian.

MB: I don’t know what to say.

G: You don’t have to call me a hero, but I wouldn’t mind hearing it.

short copper-red hair brushing past my shoulder and I realized it was infatuation. Excitement rushed through me at the novelty of the experience. Enamoured, I told her what she had to do to get an ‘A.’ Since then, we’ve fallen madly in love. And the crazy thing is that it was all due to giving her advice, to doing something I felt was completely abnormal in the first place – helping someone beat the curve. But it was the right decision.

My time with her has enriched my life and made me a better person. It’s why I’ve only insulted your babyish face a few times thus far.

MB: Fine, I’ll bite. Who is she? What advice did you give her?

G: My advice to her was as simple as her beauty is breathtaking: “Be smarter.”

And, Matt, she’s the prettiest girl of all – her name is Mike Warfe. No, but seriously, shut the fuck up, love is for the weak.

Nobody gets to Skadden tied down. That’s my advice to your readers – stop emotionally bonding with your classmates, as they are likely worthless to your future career in New York.

MB: I’m speechless.

G: Apology accepted and you’re welcome.

We can’t confirm nor deny that Brian Unger is a gunner

MB: My… my editors… they want me to ask you… I can’t do this. I can’t. I feel dirty. Forget it, let’s just end this interview here.

G: Your editors want you to ask me if I have any advice for struggling law students who want to get better grades? That’s fair. I’d like to share an anecdote with you, Matt Brown. Last week, a young lady approached me with her hat in hand, begging for advice. “Oh [name removed to protect the innocent gunner asshole],” she said, “you are so brilliant and filled to the brim with all things manly.” I nodded approvingly and tried to break away, as even though doctors have not yet successively proven that mediocrity is contagious, one can never be too careful. But still she followed me unrelentingly, “look, you did so well. Can you just give me some advice?” I won’t lie, I was stricken aback by the ludicrousness of such a request. How dare she? Did she not understand the curve and that the Supreme Court of Canada has a clerkship just for me on the implicit understanding that she never improve? But the expression on her face drew a strange emotion out of me. I couldn’t place my finger on it just right then – it was not jealousy or anger, hunger or contempt; those emotions I understood. And then she touched my arm, her

The eternal hope glistening from the Statue of Liberty stands for all that is great in New York City and the United States. It also provides all the motivation that a gunner could possibly need.

Diversions

February 28, 2011

The summer OCI process Attention 1Ls! Your first year at law school is almost at an end. If you’re anything like me, when you wake up the day after your last exam you might find yourself thinking, “What is this feeling? It’s as if the weight of the world has been lifted off my shoulders...

Fuck, I can’t take this anymore, I need something to stress about!”

Well fear not, for just around the corner are your OCIs – short for On-Campus Interviews, and as their name implies, they take place off campus. Though the applications aren’t due until the beginning of September, you will probably spend an inordinate amount of time researching firms on their respective websites and NALP Canada, creating spreadsheets comparing all your favourite firms, and talking with your friend about your first choice of firm.

Then, towards the end of May will come your first year marks. Yes, those 14-16 hours you spent writing exams in April will have a tremendous impact upon the next few years of your life. As we all know, this is entirely fair, because if you can’t write a decent legal analysis in three stress-filled hours, you’re clearly going be a pretty shitty lawyer.

By The Anonymous Ranter

6 or more A’s:

Have you heard of New York? The Big Apple? The City That Never Sleeps? Apply there! You’re going to get a job – no BJs required! In your interview, when they ask if you have any questions, don’t forgot to ask the big one: Will your name be added to the firm name immediately, or are they going to wait until you start next summer?

3-5 A’s:

It’s very possible for you to get a job in New York.

It’s almost a certainty that you would get one in Toronto as well. With marks like these, the firms want

You had great December marks and you have a job at a law firm job this summer:

Well look at you Mr. Fancy Pants. You figured out how to write a decent exam in December and firms wanted to interview you on the basis of marks that don’t count for shit. It’s as if a company had signed a sponsorship agreement with Tiger Woods when he was two because he could swing a golf club on the Mike Douglas show. And how would that have turned out? That’s right, the company would have made millions and Woods would still have been boinking gorgeous women behind his wife’s back for years. That’s right, that’s going to be you. (Note – try not to crash your car, because that’s when everyone is going to find out about all those women.)

you might still be able to get a job at one of Seven Sisters (Blakes, Davies, Goodmans, McCarthys, Osler, Stikeman, Torys). Unfortunately, you may not have as much leeway to be yourself in those interviews. What was your favourite first year class? Do Say: Contracts!

You fucking loved contracts. Don’t Say: Anything other than contracts. What do you do for fun? Do Say: Travelling, running, reading. Don’t Say: Grabbing my “Big Butt Sluts #15” DVD, a bottle of whiskey, and a box of Kleenex.

Mostly B’s:

While you probably aren’t at the top of anyone’s list, and you probably will not be getting interviews at any of the Seven Sisters, there are other firms out there. Don’t take it for granted that you will get an OCI though – two or fewer is very possible. Hype any relevant experience you’ve got and get ready to kiss some ass. Do you have a favourite area of law? What you practice! Where do you see yourself in five years?

At your firm! Who is your role model? You!

No A’s, One or More Grades Below a B:

Based on your marks, here is my advice on OCIs: Doris...cancel my lunch with Mr. Jobs. I have a 9 o’clock tennis game with Justin Bieber.

you. They want you bad. Don’t be surprised if their pants are a bit wetter at the end of the OCI than when you went in. What you can expect the interviewers to say: “So what sort of law do you think you want to get into? Admiralty law issues arising in the process of Aboriginal mergers and acquisitions? We were just planning on getting into that too! You’d be a perfect fit at our firm.” Don’t forget to pick up your iPad on the way out.

Mostly B+’s:

While you are probably a shoo-in for some of the smaller firms and firms practicing in specialized areas (assuming you have an appropriate background),

I’m going to be frank with you. I would be shocked if you were to get more than an interview or two. When you receive the last of your rejection letters, pick out the one from the firm that you most wanted to work at and send them this: “Thank you very much for your recent letter explaining that, despite the fact I am a wonderful person and have impressive qualifications, you were not able to offer me an OCI interview and/or a position as a summer law student. I regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your refusal to offer me a position as a summer law student/OCI interview.

This year I have received an unusually large number of rejection letters, making it impossible for me to accept them all. Despite your outstanding experience in rejecting applicants, your refusal does not meet my needs at this time.

Therefore, I shall initiate employment with your firm in May of 2012. Best of luck in rejecting future candidates.”

Birth Announcements!!!!!!!!! ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ Brauna Doidge (3L) and Paul Nahme are proud to announce the birth of Elias David Nahme (Eli) this January 29, 2011. Proud aunties and uncles include Amanda Melvin, Erica Young, Emily Bala, Christina Doris, Kate Hunt, Jessica Lithwick, Nick Businger, Tuca Bihari, Sarah Jones and Dana Doidge.

Erin Simpson (2L) and her partner Aaron Freeman welcomed their son, Noah Simpson-Freeman (pictured right), into the world on November 18. Everyone is happy, healthy and enjoying the first few months of new family life. Erin promises a visit to the law school before the semester is out!

17

18

Diversions

UV eats at Mercatto

Ultra Vires

By Andrea Tannenbaum (2L)

Location: 101 College St. (University and College)

There are few greater joys in life than eating a delicious meal with good friends. This Valentine’s Day I dined at Mercatto Restaurant in the MARS Building on College Street with five of my closest friends. It happens to be my friend Dani’s birthday on February 14th, and we could not think of spending the evening doing anything other than loading up on carbohydrates, cheese, and some good wine. Mercatto seemed to fit the bill seamlessly.

While the restaurant looks modest from the outside, it certainly has an authentic feel when one steps inside.

The restaurant is dimly lit, with dark, wooden tables.

We were seated at a large dining-room style table surrounded by shelves of wine bottles. The restaurant was not too busy considering it was Valentine’s Day, but the location is somewhat remote. Yet that was part of the allure – the restaurant had the perfect level of busyness to seem both intimate and good enough to attract a solid crowd.

Mercatto is known for its extensive wine list, which was quite intimidating for someone who generally opts for the $8.50 bottle of Santa Carolina Chardonnay at the LCBO. Luckily our server had a hunch we were not wine aficionados, and pointed out a bottle of Vino Nobile di Montepulciano priced at $52. It was delicious, full-bodied, and at the right price-point. They offer a variety of reds and whites, ranging anywhere from $40 to $400, as well as a wide variety of Italian beers.

One of my only complaints was that the service was a bit slow at the beginning. After we ordered our wine, we waited 20 minutes before the waitress came back to take our order. I can appreciate allowing us to chit chat and enjoy our wine, but 20 minutes is excessive at 7:45pm, after we’ve finished all of the bread on the table.

As appetizers, we started with complementary bread and olive oil – fairly standard fare for an Italian restaurant, and certainly nothing to rave about. We also opted for the warmed mixed olives ($6) marinated in olive oil with jalapeno peppers, and the Arancini ($9).

For those of you who do not know what Arancini is, it is fried risotto balls. These particular ones are filled with mushroom risotto, pecorino, and truffle oil. My mouth salivated at the thought of one of my favourite Italian dishes being deep-fried. Yet, they were somewhat disappointing. They lacked any sort of distinct flavour, other than the truffle oil, and the mix of fried batter and risotto is not as scrumptious as it sounds.

For the main course, we all ordered either pizzas or pastas. The tagliatelle ($16) served with almond pesto, semi-dried tomatoes, and arugula was delectable. The pesto was freshly made, and did not have too much oil or garlic to make a person feel sick afterwards, which is often the downfall of pesto dishes. The ravioli ($17) served with goat cheese, wild mushrooms, arugula, and truffle oil was another hit, and definitely something I would recommend. In terms of pizzas, the one downfall of Mercatto is that it is not very vegetarian friendly.

Every single pizza (ranging from $13-16) other than

the Margherita contained some sort of meat – predominantly prosciutto. Luckily, Mercatto does substitutions without a fuss (unlike Terroni, where substitutions are strictly forbidden). The Quattro Stagioni pizza consisting of prosciutto, artichoke hearts, olives and mushrooms was the table favourite. Each quarter provided a different flavour sensation, with the perfect amount of cheese and tomato sauce. As far as authentic Italian thin-crust pizza goes, I would place Mercatto right below the ranks of Queen Margherita Pizza and Pizzeria Libretto.

Then came dessert. I am someone who prefers sweet over savoury, chocolate over fruit. And I am certainly the type to want to order dessert after dinner whenever I get the chance. Therefore, I have tasted many a good desserts in my day. And the chocolate lava cake that Mercatto served was definitely up there as one of the best. It was served in a Crème Brule bowl, which prevented the molten chocolate from spreading across the entire plate. The cake was perfectly baked, and consisted of exactly the right proportion of cake to melted chocolate. On the side was a dollop of fresh whipped cream and berries. My only complaint was that I didn’t get the dessert entirely to myself.

Overall, I would rate Mercatto at an 8.5 out of 10.

The ambience was romantic and unpretentious, the service was great, and the food was delightful. It is the ideal mid-priced restaurant that can serve as either a cute date spot or an enjoyable place to dine with friends.

Matt Brown’s birthday: great law school party or greatest?

By Drew Valentine (1L)

Awake. Your eyes open to find yourself face down in a powdery, white substance. “Amazing you fell asleep at all,” you say to yourself. The cold of the whiskeycovered linoleum floor is mitigated only by the warmth coming off the circus clown who has been spooning you for the last who-knows-how-long. Unfortunately for you, said clown is the outside spoon. You ask yourself in a panic, “Are my jeans still on?” No dice.

“Please God tell me I’m still wearing underwear.” A sigh of relief hits you at precisely the same moment you notice the odd creature hobbled over in the corner devouring fried chicken. You aren’t sure whether it’s a 1L or some sort of zoo escapee – Travis the chimp perhaps. You wonder if this is some surrealist, David Lynch inspired dream, or if this is real. Your splitting headache reminds you, to your chagrin, that this is your stark reality. You remember where you are - Jones Street. You look for the keys to your car and remember that in a wanton moment of complete disregard you threw them into the swinger key-bowl.

You race over to the entryway and see the empty bowl.

Fuck! Maybe that goddamn clown pulled them, hence the snuggle session. After a brief search of his polkadotted one-piece you realize you’re out of luck. You open your wallet in hope of cab fare or, at minimum, enough to get on the TTC, but your colourful Canadian cash has been replaced by what at first glance resembles the dull American greenback. You pull out the bills only to see a face staring back at you that isn’t Washington, Lincoln, or Hamilton, but Matt fucking Brown. Where the note normally would have read “United States of America” now reads “Booze, Porno, Top 40, KFC, Pot, Etc.” This is your morning after the “Vice” leg of the two-

night “Virtue and Vice” celebration of the 25th anniversary of Matt Brown slithering from his mother’s womb. Promises were made and delivered upon. Living up to its name, “Vice” was a 12-round heavyweight bout with an undercard that included walls covered in porno, the aforementioned swinger bowl, a house cocktail of champagne and Jim Beam – aptly named

“the Jimbosa,” fried chicken and doughnuts, magical blown speakers with the power to transform even Kelly Clarkson pop hits into something more resembling Death From Above 1979, and Matt himself making it rain with his own currency upon a packed house. For the main event, in one corner wearing non-existent

trunks, was a “performer” who probably began her career “putting herself through university” but looks like she has long since finished her PhD. In the other corner was Matt, wearing ruffled panties over spandex ass-pants and shin high hot-pink socks. In the beginning it seemed as if the bout would have to be decided on points, but in the end she beat his ass… literally. It was brutal to the point where Matt’s young sister had to flee the venue, only to be consoled by his girlfriend, in what became a tender landmark moment in their relationship (I’m actually not making that up).

At this point you may be saying to yourself, ”Booze, fried foods, a swinger bowl, a stripper, porno on the walls, and Jim Beam? Sounds like a bro-deo.” I must admit I had similar reservations. Normally a lineup like that would almost certainly lead to enough sword play to satisfy both Indigo Montoya and Errol Flynn.

Not the case at all. Not only was there a solid M/F ratio, but the women were either Rhodes Scholar law student types, or hipster chicks in borderline skanky Halloween costumes – an unheralded, but welcome pairing in such circumstances.

If there were any nagging doubts as to Matt’s manhood resulting from his future-success-predicting facial analysis, after the “Vice” half of his party, Stephen Hawking would have better legs to stand on. At very least, if he was a boy prior, this gig was the 21st century gentile bar mitzvah, slamming the door of boyish innocence shut permanently in a manner that would have made Hunter S. Thompson, the patron saint of fear and loathing (RIP) very proud. This author gives this shindig full marks and highly recommends any further MB-planned outing. And to those that missed it – poor form.

Diversions

February 28, 2011

19

UV cooks: roast chicken thighs

By Jeremy Ablaza (2L)

I like this recipe because: (1) it scales up really well, (2) it’s devilishly easy to make, and (3) it’s really good. Also, one of the most underrated qualities of this recipe is the fact that you can season four or six or ten chicken thighs at a time (it takes only 5 minutes) and stick them all in the freezer almost indefinitely, then defrost them if you know you won’t have time to prepare anything complicated in the next few days. Liberally season the thighs that you’re not going to eat immediately with kosher salt and black pepper, then put them in a Ziploc bag, and feel free to add in whatever fresh herbs strike your fancy - rosemary and thyme are great examples, but feel free to experiment. Freeze the bag full of chicken (these should keep for at least a couple months - start defrosting them in the fridge as much as a week before you plan to actually make them).

The problem with most chicken dishes is you have to choose between crisp, flavorful skin and tender, moist meat. Here, you get the best of both worlds. This recipe is not quick - it takes an hour in the oven to make but like most of my cooking, does not require much more than patience, although you can really dress it up if you choose to do so. The no-preheat method allows the fat from under the chicken’s skin to render out, moistening the meat and allowing the skin to crisp simultaneously. You can also choose any combination of hearty vegetables that lend themselves to roasting, changing it up to keep it exciting. I personally favor a combination of carrots, onions, and fennel. The sweetness and tenderness of the vegetables really sets off the crisp skin and savoury meat. That’s all you really need if you wanted to go low-carb, but you could dress it up by serving it with a baguette and good butter, and maybe a nice red.

Ingredients: - Bone-in, skin-on chicken thigh(s) - One medium onion, cut into eighths - One large carrot, peeled and cut into sticks - One bulb of fennel, cut into large chunks

Recipe: - Season each thigh with kosher salt and black pepper (yes, I know you already seasoned it before putting it in the bag – trust me, this makes a difference, and it’s not nearly as much sodium as you would get from eating a Lean Cuisine or some other atrocious packaged “food”).

- Put the thighs skin-side up in an oven-proof pan or skillet and put it in the cold oven. Set the oven to 425 ° F and the timer for 40 minutes.

- While the chicken is cooking, put the cut-up vegetables in a bowl and toss with salt, pepper, and olive oil. Go do something else for the next half hour or so.

- After the chicken has been in there for 40 minutes, take it out of the oven and place the vegetables around/ underneath the chicken in the same pan. Try to maximize surface contact between the vegetables and the pan for more caramelization.

- Put the whole thing back in the oven for another 20 minutes at 425 ° F. This is a great time to decant a red or chill a white (if that’s what you’re drinking alongside it), cut up some bread, and take the butter out of the fridge so it softens up a bit. Then simply take the chicken out of the pan and eat.

Briefly Noted For Offer: First-born for Law Ball ticket. But seriously, this is prom. We are trapped in high school, aren’t we?

The word vagina still makes 1L men feel awkward Law Follies was really funny, no, seriously it was. But honest, I mean it, it was really funny Fuck you, Will Morrison Horrified Cubans watch as Karim strangles unicorn to death with his bare hands

Diversions

20

Stopping from reading on a lonely Laskin evening

By Leo Elias (1L)

This ruling here I think I’ve read And think I know what will be said With logic sound and outcome clear I muse on trifling thoughts instead.

My student peer must think it queer To sit in Laskin staring here At rows of books with thoughts perplexed When our exams are coming near.

He takes a glance up from his text As if to ask why I seem vexed My musing quits, I smile in jest And move on to the case that’s next These thoughts are fun, a welcome guest But all my schedules are stressed And hours to work before I rest And hours to work before I rest.

Ultra Vires

A handful of haiku

By Leo Elias (1L)

All my food choices are influenced too much by Stare Decisis Other provinces Are openly mocked in class But mostly Quebec

Perhaps our new mayor Dislikes Toronto’s streetcars Because he can’t fit

Despite my efforts I still can’t properly spell L’Heaureaux-Dube J.

We share a few drinks We share my bed together We share syphilis

Criminal Prof thinks Possession charges are dumb.

Supreme Court doesn’t

When Contracts Profs speak Of unconscionable breaches, I think ugly pants I wish that I could Excuse poor life choices with Policy concerns