Ultra Vires Vol 12 Issue 6: 2011 March

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

ULTRA VOLUME 12, ISSUE 6

SLS discovers massive surplus

VIRES March 30, 2011

www.ultravires.ca

Remember Law Ball? We kinda do too

Estimates $30-$40K in previously neglected funds

By UV Staff

In a stunning development that comes at the tail end of a school year with unprecedented scrutiny on the SLS budget and subsequent club funding, the SLS has discovered a balance termed as “a substantial surplus of cash” that had previously been neglected in the SLS’s annual budgeting. Although the exact amount of the surplus discovered in the sole bank account of the SLS will not be definitively determined until the organization’s income statements are released in May, an initial estimate from an SLS executive member at a recent SLS Affairs meeting suggests that the neglected surplus ranges from $30,000-$40,000.

According to SLS co-treasurers Eileen Rhein (3L) and Azim Remani (2L), the surplus may have gone ignored due to a deficiency in past accounting practices.

Rhein noted that the SLS acquired accounting software for the first time just two years ago, and prior to that, accounting was done by hand, making it difficult to track what has been done in past years.

This difficulty was exacerbated with the many accounts receivable and payable throughout the calendar year - outside of the academic year - making it difficult

Patric Senson (3L) was in awe of the spectacle at Law Ball at Atlantis Ballroom. Check out our Law Ball spread from pages 16-17 for more!

Rankin ascends to SLS presidency UTSU connection ignites debate

CONTINUED on page 9

UV

INDEX Financial aid upDate.........3 water polo recap................5 mooting madness!...........6-7 Prez farewell & hello...8-9 The learned band........10-11 quick #winning.................13 bill graham interview...14 law ball photos...........16-17 law skul reflection....19-21 election excitement!..22-24 dubber tweets....................25 upper year tips....................26 UV Crossword....................29 personal statements........30 poetry....................................31

By Todd Brayer (1L)

The ides of March have now seen the charismatic Aaron Rankin (2L) ride the crest of roaring victory to the triumphant position of SLS president.

It was a hard-fought battle as the three other candidates Atrisha Lewis (2L), Dan Bertrand (2L) and Sam Green (2L) made valiant but ultimately fruitless efforts to decisively snatch the reins of power. Such was evident no better than on the March 16 debate, in which the candidates fought tooth and nail to win the hearts and minds of U of T law students.

Rankin’s was a platform of moderate reform. He promised to increase SLS transparency and better accommodate student clubs by allowing them to use the SLS office, which often sits empty and locked. Perhaps mindful of the groans relating to certain Thursday Pub Night choices, he was also a proponent of a “people’s choice” system.

He also promised to work with the faculty to improve the curriculum.

“They have criminal procedure every

year. We need a yearly civil procedure too,” he said. “We need to let the faculty know we want these courses.”

The most significant issue in the eletion was the University of Toronto Students’ Union, spurred by an article written by Bertrand, who was acclaimed for a 3L caucus position, in UV last month. All law students are members of the UTSU, whose stated mission is to represent its members to the university, paying almost $300 into their coffers.

About $225 of that goes to the medical/dental plan, with the rest going to club funding and UTSU projects.

The problem is that while the UTSU spent lavishly on undergraduate OWeek events and undergraduate clubs, law school O-Week and clubs received nothing.

“It’s not that they refuse to fund law clubs — they simply created a bureaucratic nightmare,” said Atrisha Lewis.

Part of her platform included appointing a student to liaise with the UTSU so that law school clubs are not excluded

next year.

The UTSU also uses our student fees to pay for highly politicized projects. In 2009 they paid $1,000 towards the legal bills of a woman arrested for being involved in the Tamil Tigers protest that blocked Gardiner Expressway for five hours. The woman was not a U of T student and she wasn’t representing U of T in protesting. (They also seem to be involved in a campaign to reform copyright law.)

UTSU campaigns also may be at cross-purposes with law students. One of their campaigns centres on protesting that undergraduate students are “subsidizing” professional degree programs, including law, implicitly arguing that tuition fees for law students should increase, rather than those for undergraduate students.

Since only about 9% of eligible voters voted for the current UTSU president, some students voiced concerns that the UTSU was not representative of the

CONTINUED on page 8

Masthead Letter to the Editor Dear UV Editors, This letter is to provide notice, pursuant to section 5 of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

L-12, that I have been libelled by a statement in your previous issue published February 28, 2011.

Your statement on page 19 was both defamatory and malicious (for simplicity’s sake let’s call it “delicious”). The statement aforesaid has caused me to suffer damage and has brought me into public odium, scandal, and contempt, lowering my reputation in the community.

I recognize the possibility that a court could find your statement to be a fair comment. I also acknowledge that it may be difficult for me to establish that I have a reputation worthy of protection, or one that is capable of being lowered any further than it already is. Nevertheless, I maintain that I have been libelled and demand satisfaction.

Specifically, I demand that the recipients of this Notice publicly apologize and publish a retraction with respect to this statement. For unrelated reasons, I am also responding to your offer to provide Matt Brown’s home address and phone number, and would accept that information as part of your settling of this matter.

Tearful goodbyes and an actual letter to the Editor!

So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, adieu “We not ballin’, shot callin’/We take it back to the days of yes “Nothing lasts forever. Even the longest, most glittering reign must come to an end someday.” - The Rt. Hon. Francis Urquhart y’all-in/We holdin’ on to what’s golden” - Jurassic 5

Much like myself, UV grew from a humble abode. The first issue from 1999 was a relatively straight-laced paper that discussed judicial activism and the Supreme Court. It contained a congratulatory letter to the editor from then-Dean Ron Daniels that was graciously accepted by the then editors. This year, we discussed gunners, bestiality and oral sex. To the left of this space lies a letter to the editor in which we are accused of defamatory content. We then tell him to go fuck himself.

Some have termed UV this year as the “golden age”; others, “reasonably palatable reading for when I use the men’s washroom on the 2nd floor of the library.”

Whatever you want to call it, the paper has evolved throughout its history much in the same way that I have in my time at law school. From a mild-mannered, eager-to-learn 8 page/180 pound whippersnapper to a jaded, svelte 32 page/199 pound behemoth with morals that have long been lost. Some would say this evolution is negative, even bordering on depressing. I say it’s necessary. Although UV does strive to bring you the news, it is also important that it always stay an enjoyable read. As current and future readers, contributors and editors, I’m eager to see you help the paper evolve into an even better and stronger publication.

Govern yourselves accordingly, Aaron and I cannot solely take credit for the direcWill Morrison tion the paper has taken this year. Ashley, Amanda, Carol, Brendan and Matt: This paper wouldn’t be half Dear Will Morrison, of what it is without you guys. Josh squared, Andrea, Annie, Robin and Yingdi ended up doing a lot of the Go fuck yourself. non-glamorous gruntwork behind the scenes and do not get nearly the credit that they deserve. Aaron and Sincerely, I would certainly not have lived past the year in our UV Editors mold and asbestos-laced office without you guys. Aaron’s unparalleled dedication to UV (I’m almost certain he sleeps in the UV office 3-4 nights a week) will be Something weighing on your mind? Got beef with something in this month’s issue? Got a problem with the missed. It’s been a great time both here at UV and at Editors in Chief? Too bad. We’re graduating, suckas!!! law school in general. But evolution is necessary.

- AH

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 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

Here stands the final issue of Ultra Vires for the 2010-11 academic year. It represents not only the pinnacle and ultimate fulfillment of the glorious twelfth volume of this paper, but also the pinnacle of my own involvement at U of T Law. In the circumstances, I am bound to be somewhat reflective.

I entered this school amazed by the intelligence and overall calibre of each and every student, and I leave unchanged. When I’m asked to describe the U of T Law experience, I often say that the greatest challenge and blessing is that I’m literally surrounded by geniuses. If this school were a village, I would be the idiot. It’s hard on the selfesteem, and is not helped by the fact that my pseudonym in 2L was “capon” (literally, castrated cockerel) and now is an invertebrate sea creature (not divulged to protect finals!). Fortunately, everyone has been unfailingly kind and patient with me, contrary to what one might expect from U of T stereotypes.

If I have a complaint about this institution, it would be that it is culturally sterile. As individuals, students and faculty alike are all tremendously impressive, but coming together we seem to have few traditions and often little in common beyond the law. I hope future generations will build a stronger common heritage on the foundations we have laid. I, for one, believe that Ultra Vires is and will be one of the great cultural repositories of this school.

I would like to thank all those who have contributed to UV this year, all of them individuals of impeccable taste and discernment. Special thanks go to our noble council of editors: Brendan, Amanda, Ashley, Carol, and Matt, for their ceaseless labours. I am also deeply indebted to Robin, Joshs Chan and Whitford, Yingdi, Andrea, and Annie.

Many thanks go to Abrar, who has put his blood, sweat, and tears into this paper. Finally, thank YOU the reader for giving us purpose. Enjoy the final issue of the Golden Age, and wish the best of luck to the overseers of the lucky thirteenth volume!

-AC

Contributors Jeremy Ablaza, Karim Amlani, Daniel Bertrand, Todd Brayer, Matt Brown, Heather Burnett, Josh Chan, Aaron Christoff, Leo Elias, Mike Hamata, Steve Hutchison, Abrar Huq, Rhea Karvanis, Camille Labchuk, Atrisha Lewis, Matt Literovich, Brendan Morrison, Will Morrison, Justin Nasseri, Sonja Pavic, Andrew Pfleiderer, Lauren Posloski, Aaron Rankin, Matthew Scott, Michael Serebriakov, Benjamin Sharma, Robert Szollosy, Annie Tayyab, Josh Whitford, Lucas Wilson, Chris Yung 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 in September 2011. The submission limit is 1500 words.

News

Presidents: incoming and outgoing, water polo, crazy cabbies and more...

The state of tuition and financial aid

By Daniel Bertrand (2L) and Robert Szollosy (1L)

Over this school year a diverse group of nine students contributed to the SLS Financial Aid Working Group. They included non-SLS members, self-identified mature students, and students not even receiving financial aid. Our original mandate was to determine how our financial aid program compares with others and how it could be improved.

This mandate changed upon the release of the External Report and our rediscovery of former Dean Ron Daniels’ “Raising our Sights Plan” and its surrounding controversy. While we encourage you to read our full 26-page report, as it details how other schools consider parental income and has many other points of interest, our findings are summarized below.

The Governing Council of the University of Toronto made the implementation of his plan conditional on steps being taken to ensure that fee increases during the Mike Harris era did not result in declines in front-end accessibility or back-end career-choice due to financial pressure. To satisfy this requirement, Vice-President and Provost of the University of Toronto Shirley Neuman conducted a study into accessibility and career choice at the Faculty of Law. Her conclusion was that these indicators had not been negatively affected in a statistically significant way. Governing Council approved the increases accordingly.

• Tuition at U of T law in 1995: $2,451.

In 2010: $23,508.

• Harvard tuition: $45,450 • UBC tuition: $11,000 • U of T law tuition is roughly 25% higher than that of Osgoode Hall • Financial aid programming funding: roughly $2.4 million • Since 2004, tuition fees have increased by 68% while financial aid programming funding has increased by 26% • Aboriginal enrolment at U of T law has gone down since the period of 1995-2003.

• In the period between 1995-2003 “Visible Minority” enrolment at U of T law did not exceed 25% except for in three academic years • In the period between 2007-2010 “Visible Minority” enrolment at U of T law was between 27.3% and 31.6%

A Brief History of our Tuition and Financial Aid Program:

In the 2002/2003 academic year former Dean Ron Daniels tabled his “Raising our Sights Plan” which called for increasing tuition from what it was then at $14,000 to $22,000 by the 2007/2008 academic year. In his view, such an increase would finance the Faculty’s climb to rank amongst the best law schools in the world.

1. Conducting a larger lateral study in collaboration with other schools or in collaboration with the Law Society of Upper Canada on the effects of the tuition increases since 1995 on law school accessibility in Ontario and back-end career choice.

We recommended this principally due to the lack of data available. We shouldn’t rely on anecdotal evidence and speculation.

Disclaimer: the summary provided below is based on the SLS Financial Aid Working Group Report which was approved by the SLS and is reflective of its stance towards financial aid. This summary, however, has not been approved by the SLS and should not be considered to be reflective of the views of the SLS.

Quick Facts:

nancial aid program has the capacity to succeed in its goals against further tuition fee increases.

Fortunately, Dean Mayo Moran and Faculty Council were very receptive of the Working Group’s Report and informed us that Faculty and the SLS will work closely next year in considering the following recommendations:

Going to U of T Law? Say goodbye to that gold house and rocket car

A considerable factor in Neuman’s report was the effectiveness of the financial aid program. Funding for the program increased almost nineteenfold over the five years previous to the 2002/2003 academic year. At that time, funding for the program stood at $1.9 million.

U of T’s Post-“Raising our Sights” Era

Today, tuition has surpassed the recommendations of Ron Daniels’ “Raising our Sights” plan. Tuition fees might increase further as indicated by conclusions of September’s External Review Report which suggested that current budgetary pressures should be addressed by raising tuition fees. This can be inferred from the following statements: [T]he high standards in the Faculty depend on financial resources which call for fees as high, or higher, as the current fees.

At least compared with the legal education in America, Toronto is dramatically underpriced.

Given this, we should question whether front-end accessibility and back-end career choice have actually been sustained against the tuition fee increases of the past decade, and whether the fi-

2. Decisions regarding tuition fee increases and the funding of the financial aid program should be made with an effort to reconcile the goals of: • Increasing front-end accessibility regardless of personal circumstances; • Increasing back-end career choice regardless of financial pressure; • Ensuring the financial capacity to further develop the excellence of academic instruction and programming.

3. For potential students unable to obtain a ScotiaBank Student Professional Line of Credit due to pre-existing high debt loads, the Faculty of Law should consider acting as a guarantor. Or, perhaps the Financial Aid Office should recommend another financial institution.

This is an aspect of Queen’s financial aid program–by guaranteeing tuition debt they put their money where their mouth is. This recommendation was motivated by anecdotal evidence that some students are declined the ScotiaBank Line of Credit shortly after their offer of acceptance and are consequently put into a very difficult position.

Some other schools use the Royal Bank of Canada instead.

4. The admissions committee should develop an online questionnaire to be submitted to those persons who decline an offer of admission so that anecdotal evidence of inaccessibility due to high tuition fees can be investigated. This would allow the financial aid program to

be tailored to the actual barriers people face in accessing the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. Unlike other schools, at U of T there is currently no systematic attempt to determine why people choose not to accept offers of admission.

5. Seek testimonials from people currently accessing the Back End Debt Relief Program so that it may be tailored to deal with the particular financial challenges suffered by graduates. This would also increase the publicity of the program.

6. Consider adjusting the way particular financial resources affect deemed bursary and loan amounts as is done at Harvard. (See page 17 of our report for the way Harvard uses this, particularly in regards to parental deeming and external scholarships).

7. Include a list of external scholarship databases which are relevant to law students on the Financial Aid website and Policy and Procedures booklet.

Personal Thoughts from the CoChairs:

With over 40% of students receiving assistance from the financial aid program, we should feel comfortable talking about the program. Unfortunately, all of the candidates in the SLS election who openly campaigned about these issues – Dan Bertrand, Robert Szollosy, and Mary Phan – were defeated. We are professional students who can speak with the faculty about our concerns in a mature manner without raising the spectre of student activism. Developing an informed and rational approach to financial aid and tuition at our school, which is the nation’s “leader” on these issues, is important not only for the future of our institution, but also for the future of the legal profession more generally. Unfortunately, at the moment we do not have adequate data to make reasonable decisions that would take into account the actual experiences of prospective, current, and graduated students. This is not a “left-wing” issue; the recommendations of the SLS Financial Aid Working Group point forward to making the system more rational and accountable. Perhaps the financial aid program is wasteful or ineffective in whole or in part, but without collecting adequate data and debating these issues, we’ll never know.

4

News

Osgoode: Teaching UofT how to ball since 1989

If you’re old enough, you remember the days when a little model of the new law building sat in the atrium, competing with the “trailblazers” exhibit for confused looks. In this economy, however, the faculty could no longer afford luxuries like little models. It was sold and “trailblazers” awaited a buyer on Craigslist.

Fundraising for the new facility softened prior to the financial crisis, but after Lehman fell and Michael Jackson died the project was put on hold indefinitely.

Two years later, however, the world is a different place. Since the project was shelved, GM went public and Taio Cruz released “Dynamite.” And Trailblazers is holding up better than ever and going into its second halfdecade.

And, of course, our Dean now has five more years at the helm. She has the same hair, but a new swagger. 2011 is the year: it is time for a new building before someone catches cholera in the basement bathrooms.

The expansion is

By Matt Brown (1L)

a $55-million project. Since there are few more compelling philanthropic projects than lil’ lawyers, donors have committed $47 million so far. But what notoriously deep-pocketed group will step in to fill the $8 -million gap?

Law students. Obvi. Get Scotiabank on the phone because money bags Moran wants students to contribute $100,000 to the endeavor. To motivate us, she uttered the magic words. The phrase that everyone seems to think gets our blood pumping: must beat Osgoode.

Apparently, when fundraising for their new digs, their SLS contributed $70,000. But Osgoode students

Ultra Vires

didn’t organize an improbably successful bake sale or move summaries by the kilo. Instead, like the North York hedge fund brain trust they are, they sold some stock. I know--weird. While we’ve been pissing our money away on 2-4-1 Pizza and public interest fellowships, Osgoode bought Google at $100 or something.

If we want to win this latest competition for empty prestige and benefits we will never enjoy, we have to get moving. We need to wash cars and sell magazines while investing our pizza money in a low-fee ETF. We could also just sell out and name the entire faculty after Davies. Or did we already do that?

Litigation Association sensation

By Justin Nasseri (2L) and Atrisha Lewis (2L)

This year has been extremely successful for the Litigation Association. The club has organized a variety of events, providing students with opportunities to network with litigators as well as hone their oral advocacy skills. Given the success of the club and its notable presence on campus, many have been surprised that this is the Litigation Association’s first year in existence.

The idea for the Litigation Association dawned on us (Justin and Atrisha) in our first year of law school. After witnessing clubs such as the Business Law Society organize firm tours and events for students, we were both surprised that there wasn’t a club for aspiring litigators. As we were very interested in litigation, we found this gap in student clubs disconcerting. We then decided to make a positive change for the incoming crop of 1Ls at this school. Over the summer, we devised a plan for the new club: the Litigation Association.

The Litigation Association has three mandates: 1) To provide students with the opportunity to practice their oral advocacy skills; 2) To provide students with the opportunity to network with actual litigators; 3) To educate students about what it means to be a litigator.

We were able to provide students with an opportunity to practice their oral advocacy skills through two workshop and simulations. Members of the club were able to make submissions in a mock family law court and to make criminal sentencing submissions before

DLS review lawyers. The 1L feedback from the workshops was very positive, as most students sincerely appreciated the opportunity to get their feet wet in a low-pressure environment in their first semester of law school. As club presidents, the most inspiring thing to see was the improvement the participants

scenes aspects of cases. The event provided us with a perspective on cases not often showcased in law school. Three prominent litigators from McCarthy Tétrault, Lenczner Slaght, and Paliare Roland discussed the cases they were working on and gave an overview of some of the tactical decisions they made.

We mean business, but not real business - we’re litigators after all.

made over the two workshops.

We also organized three firm tours to two full-service firms and a litigation boutique (Lenczner Slaght, Davies, & McCarthy Tetrault). The tours allowed students the opportunity to ask their burning questions and network with some of the best litigators on the street.

Our major speaker event this year was called “Strategy Behind the Cases.” The idea for “Strategy Behind the Cases” stemmed from the fact that students are exposed only to the reasoning of the judges and rarely to the behind-the-

Finally, this year we made several key partnerships that we plan on continuing next year. For instance, Fasken Martineau regularly hosts an advocacy workshop for 1Ls, and this year we worked with them to organize informal runthroughs with the participants. The runthroughs allowed students the chance to practice arguing their submissions before they presented their real submissions to Fasken lawyers.

The Litigation Association wants to be a centralized source for students interested in litigation, and this is mo-

tivating us to seek partnerships with activities such as the Mediation Advocacy competition and the BLG Client Counselling competition. Essentially, we want to be a one-stop shop for everything tangentially related to litigation at this law school—either through organizing or through promotional efforts.

There have been many challenges associated with starting a new club. For instance, there is no precedent system in place, meaning that we had to create workshops materials and a constitution from scratch. The second biggest difficulty in starting a new club is that every activity we organize is new; thus, we don’t have previous experiences to learn from. There is no litmus test and we often plan events blindly hoping that students are interested in the club offerings.

We have laid the foundation, and we are very excited to pass the torch to Elizabeth Park and Sameer Nurmohamed, the two co-presidents for next year. Please feel free to get in touch with them if you have any ideas for next year.

After all, we are only in our first year and we welcome any suggestions.

The key takeaway from our experience is the value in being entrepreneurial! If you sense a gap in the club offerings or if you really wish an activity or event were at this school, please start it! We need students like you to take initiative for the sake of the entire student body. We would be happy to talk to anyone who is interested in starting a new club next year so we can share some of

March 30, 2011

News

Just keep swimming - Law represents at waterpolo

5

By Heather Burnett (2L)

On March 27th, the Faculty of Law’s inner-tube water polo team competed for the university-wide championship.

Though they fought like tigers and splashed like bears, the ‘Law A’ team fell prey to some unfortunate referee calls in favour of the admirable Physical Therapy/Occupational Therapy (PT/OT) team, scourge of the intramural league, losing the match 10-8.

What follows is the unlikely story of how a rag-tag group of law students came together and actually made something of themselves. Missing were all the typical ingredients of the law school recipe for success. There was no competition between law students, no “assistance” from the CDO, no lukewarm letters of reference from small-group professors, no upper-year summaries handed down from on high. Only two vaguely familiar elements were at play: water and heart.

Our tale begins on January 26, 2011.

Exhausted from a long day of lectures, thirteen disheveled law students stumbled onto the Athletic Centre’s pool deck. Only half of them had obeyed the signs in the dressing room, which mandated pre-swim showers to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. The other half figured hygiene was for suckers. This lack of unity manifested itself throughout the game that was to follow.

The competition was the PT/OT team, who had spent the day stretching and working out (they do gym for a living). PT/OT strutted out onto the deck like they owned the place, an attitude that was justified within the first five minutes of gameplay. The Law A squad was a mess, embarrassingly struggling to get into their tubes, let alone stay there.

After the slaughter was complete, Captain Tamara Nachmani pulled the team aside and called them out on their terrible play, perhaps drawing inspiration from an early ‘90s film series: Tamara “Bombay” Nachmani: You didn’t listen to a word I said. I said keep your heads up; you put your heads down. I SAID HUSTLE; YOU WENT SLOWER. That was the sloppiest playing I’ve ever seen! Why the hell don’t you just listen to me?

Diego Beltran: Why the hell should we? [Ed. note: Beltran has since been ‘promoted’ to the 2nd line] TBN: I don’t care. You wanna lose?

Fine. You’re the ones who look like idiots out there.

Unable to bear this criticism, Law A hit the gym (read: library) hard that week. The next week, the inner-tube water polo referee bore witness to the wrath of a newly energized team. An unsuspecting Pharmacy team was shocked

by Law’s heroic comeback in the second half, which destroyed their 5-2 lead.

Law A followed with three straight wins, outstripping Victoria College, Engineering, and Medicine, ultimately finishing the regular season 4-1. A few highlights from the regular season: • Chris Lewarne breaking the nose (and heart) of a female opponent.

• Michelle Folliott staring down Pharmacy’s largest (and hairiest) player, yelling, “Yeah, that’s right, I’m talking to you! I know you can hear me!”

• Power forward Christine Wadsworth regularly embarrassing the opposing defence, a feat often achieved via cutesy, PDA-like plays with Joshua M. Stark.

• Tara McElroy dunking someone 4 times her body weight.

In the quarterfinal match, Law A defeated a talented Engineering team whose spirits deflated in the face of Folliott and Andrew Max’s tag-team defencemanship. In the semi-finals, Lane Krainyk’s epic goaltending sunk Innis College’s dreams of victory.

Although this aggrandizing report may make it sound easy, Law A overcame many setbacks on their way to the finals. An errant elbow to the head gave Wadsworth a concussion and a six-day headache (nice work, Lane!). Perhaps more harrowing, Lewarne was forced to come to terms with his accidental omission from the official team photograph.

Even the final match was, strictly speaking, a setback. Originally scheduled for March 16, the game was postponed due to a “chlorine problem.” It is commonly suspected that when PT/OT got wind of the expected number – and

guaranteed ferocity – of Law-side spectators, they unintentionally “fouled” the pool during their practice swim, making a round of super-chlorination necessary for health and safety purposes.

Despite all the hold-ups, injuries, doubts, and naysayers, Law A had a season for the record-books. The team has already begun planning for next year, scouring the internet for places to buy pink mankinis in bulk. Just kidding, of course – the team colour is green.

‘Law A’ team members pictured below [L - R]: Back Row: Heather Burnett, Lane Krainyk, Christine Wadsworth, Diego Beltran, Michael Portner-Gartke, Sabrina Radia-Bramwell.

Front Row: Andrew Max, Tamara Nachmani, Joshua M. Stark, Michelle Folliott, Tara McElroy, Peter Blanchard and Christopher Lewarne.

6

News

Ultra Vires

The MCC renders its judgment

By Lauren Posloski (3L) and Chris Yung (3L)

Mooting is probably the highlight of law school for many Perry Mason wannabes. It also happens to be an integral component of a well-rounded legal education. Participating in a moot is a great way to deepen understanding of a discrete area or point of law, hone factum writing and research skills and find out how much work it takes to make it all look easy on the big day.

And the winner is...

This year has been a huge success for U of T mooting. The combined efforts of the many mooters (and coaches) who worked tirelessly to represent our school were met with acclaim, as U of T fared particularly well in this year’s inter-school competitive moots.

These include the Niagara Moot on International Law (in which U of T formerly competed), the International Alternative Dispute Resolution Mediation Tournament, the Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot, and the International Criminal Court trial competition (in which U of T participated this year on an exceptional basis). The most glaring deficiency, however, is in first-year mooting opportunities. Currently, U of T 1Ls can compete only in the Baby Gale Moot, which is restricted to 20 spaces. By contrast, other schools offer 1L moots as part of a first-year course such as legal process (Osgoode) or legal research and writing (U of A). Osgoode also offers two intramural moots that are open to all years, including the Lerners Cup and FOOM (February Osgoode Open Moot). It is also notable that U of T previously offered 1Ls an opportunity to participate in the “Baby Jessup” (formerly the Faskens International Law Moot). Unfortunately, when the competition moved from Toronto to Syracuse, NY, U of T decided it did not have the funding for the competition, though Queen’s and Osgoode still send their teams.

Credit: U of T offers 3 credits for all moots, which places us on par with most other schools. However, several other schools allow mooting teams to have a dedicated research member, who also receives full credit for his or her participation.

For moots such as the Jessup, which involves researching a wide body of international law, this creates a competitive edge in the higher quality of legal arguments the team can jointly compose. Osgoode also requires students to participate in an Appellate Advocacy Workshop for some moots, which results in an additional 2 credits for a total of 5. It is also worth noting that where credits are not awarded, such as first year moots, some schools offer a transcript notation (e.g. Queen’s for the Baby Jessup).

Administration: Many schools have a formal system for administering their advocacy activities, with a mooting program headed by a dedicated director and a dedicated administrator. At U of T, the process is more patchwork, with responsibilities divided among the student-run Moot Court Committee (MCC), the Office of the Associate Deans, individual student coaches, and individual moot Chief Justices/administrators (e.g. Grand Moot, Callaghan, Client Counselling Competition, Aboriginal Law). This system is often improvised from year to year, which has resulted in a few slip-ups due to a lack of institutional memory.

Recognition: Starting in 2009, the school began hosting a mooting appreciation luncheon, and this year it has made an extra effort to recognize students’ accomplishments through emails sent to all students. Unfortunately, the school has yet to establish a system for displaying these achievements around the school, and most trophies students win are destined to collect dust in the cardboard boxes of the MCC’s office. This contrasts sharply with Osgoode, which prior to its construction project would manufacture its own banners proclaiming mooting achievements that were hung in its moot court room.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more

Though our participation in inter-school competitions offers us the opportunity to pit our very best against whomever the (dare I say, lesser) schools can scrounge up, it also gives us an opportunity to consider how we compare to other schools in terms of the effective administration of our mooting program.

The grass is always greener…

When assessing U of T’s mooting program, one cannot help but compare ourselves to what other schools are up to. After all, U of T often touts itself as offering the best legal education in the country, and we would not expect to be outdone by our competition. In terms of performances, U of T generally does well in interschool competitive moots (particularly this year!). However, as Dan Stern (a past winner of the Wilson Moot) remarked, “this is not because of, but in spite of faculty support.”

Advocacy opportunities: Most Canadian law schools participate in a similar set of competitions; however, there are several moots not offered to U of T students.

This is certainly not the first UV article to decry the shortcomings of the mooting program, and to be honest it likely won’t be the last. Mooting has been a recurring source for complaints among our students, and it seems that year after year the same issues are repeated in refrain: “not enough administrative support, not enough faculty involvement, not enough credit.” A first step to understanding the issues and moving forward is to take stock of the recent history, so that when we gripe yet again, we might do so in the most constructive fashion possible.

On March 4, 2009 an SLS Town Hall was held to consider mooting at the school.

The scene was described by UV as “a mob…practically brandishing torches and pitchforks while airing their complaints” (UV – Jan 2010, p.5). The administration did lend its ears, and the strong turnout and opinions at the Town Hall resulted in a number of important changes. Among these were the granting of 3 credits for all moots, which was a 1-credit increase for many moots, and the formation of a Mooting and Advocacy Committee to make recommendations to the Dean regarding the mooting program.

Despite these positive changes, a number of serious concerns continued to be expressed during the 2009-2010 academic year. Principally, it was felt that the improvements failed to address a wider structural and cultural problem with U of T’s mooting program. This was best summed up by former MCC Chief Justice Joe Heller when he told UV that there was a wide perception that, with some notable exceptions, the faculty and administration “could care less about advocacy.”

The point was echoed by former Grand Mooter Karen Ensslen, who felt that the school lays the burden of the mooting program entirely on student coaches and the MCC, leaving the program’s fate to the initiative and work of student volunteers.

A number of these concerns were presented by the MCC to the new Mooting and Advocacy Committee, which presented its final report on March 24, 2010.

News

March 30, 2011 The report glumly noted that “there is a consistent impression that mooting is not particularly valued or supported by the Faculty, and that the quality and rigour of moots is uneven.” The report outlined a number of suggestions to address these problems, and noted that “(w)hile the ideal remains a full-time faculty member serving as a coach to a competitive moot…we like the idea of…qualified practitioners…sharing… the coaching responsibilities.” This led to the appointment of several practitioner coaches to moots, some of which have been very helpful to their students.

During this academic year, the MCC noted that while practitioner coaches have been helpful, the goal of “sharing” the coaching between faculty and practitioners remains unfulfilled. In some ways, the use of practitioners appeared to even reinforce the perceived disengagement between the faculty and the mooting program. To that end, the MCC has attempted to re-involve faculty through an informal faculty coaching program. While students have always been free to approach faculty on an individual basis for help in moots, the MCC feels strongly that this arrangement places students as supplicants for faculty’s assistance and results in uneven and inconsistent support for the mooting teams.

Going forward...or maybe not

To put it rather bluntly, U of T’s mooting program still suffers from a chronic lack of faculty and administrative support and interest. Though there are dedicated faculty whose assistance is invaluable in ensuring the ongoing success of the program, the school as a whole has not developed a system for continuity and institutional memory. That is to say, student coaches (who usually do most of the work) make the same mistakes year after year and don’t benefit from the lessons learned through past experience. It has also led to several close calls for disqualifications — for example, by nearly missing registration deadlines.

The Mooting and Advocacy Committee (established in 2009) would seem to be the ideal body to deal with these issues, but little action has been taken so far. Last year’s report (dubbed the “Sossin Report”) has mostly been collecting e-dust on the back corner of someone’s desktop. As noted, the recommendation to increase the use of practitioner coaches has been implemented; however, the report highlighted several problems with the program that have not yet been dealt with. The report includes a suggestion for the creation of a “new judicial/alumni advisory group to capitalize on expressions of interest and support from some judicial alumni, such as Justice Michael Code and Justice

Robert Sharpe.” It also notes that the waning interest in serving on the Moot Court Committee may be remedied by offering credit (which was compared with the policy of giving credit for the academic/administrative roles for Law Review). Neither recommendation was implemented this year.

Part of the problem may be that the committee meets only once per semester, and so is unlikely to be able to quickly respond to issues identified in a given school year. Another problem may be that the committee is very far removed from the administration of the mooting program; there is no one so likely to push for follow-through on recommended courses of action as those faced with the practical realities of the problems they are aimed at remedying. The MCC is the group with the best feel for the lay of the mooting land, and you would expect that the faculty would be interested in having a continuous dialogue with the group. Unfortunately, while the MCC has been granted an audience to present its concerns, the administration feels that it would be inappropriate to have non-democratically elected members on the committee. These concerns of “fairness” and compliance with the current bureaucratic regime have led to an unfortunate situation in which those individuals who are responsible for the administration of the mooting program must play broken telephone through

7 SLS reps, and are precluded from engaging in the debate that results in the ultimate recommendations and undertakings decided upon by the committee.

Simply put, without a seat at the table, the MCC cannot be as effective as the students want it to be.

A lot is demanded of U of T law students; in terms of entrance standards, workloads, and tuition, we are second to none. So perhaps it’s not surprising that the law students make a lot of demands themselves, especially argumentative mooters. U of T law students have high expectations for their school, and we want nothing less than the very best mooting program in the country. We should take great pride in our mooting accomplishments this year, and let our victories remind ourselves of the great potential that’s housed in the school.

That potential needs nurturing though, and at present we do not have the best practices to ensure our successes in the future. The goal of developing those practices now falls to a new generation of MCCers, who are now ready and willing to work with the students, the faculty, and the administration. We sincerely hope that our parting thoughts in this article will help make their job easier, and we wish them the best of luck!

- Chris and Lauren (exiting members of the MCC)

Montreal’s crazy cabbies

The SCC checks in on defamation in Bou Malhab v Diffusion Métromédia CMR Inc.

By Annie Tayyab (1L)

Anyone who’s ever taken a taxi in Montreal can attest that those cabbies are (just a bit) insane. They barely slow down at stop signs, and swerve so frequently in their haste to make the next yellow that you would think you were on a Wonderland ride.

Such comments about taxi drivers in general probably wouldn’t be egregious enough to attract the attention of the Supreme Court. However, consider the following statements, made by André Arthur, a radio host known to be provocative, on his radio show: [Translation] Why is it that there are so many incompetent people and that the language of work is Creole or Arabic in a city that French and English? ... I’m not very good at speaking “nigger.” ... [T]axis have really become the Third World of public transportation in Montreal. ... You can’t have such incompetent people driving taxis, people who know so little about the city, and think that they took actual exams. When I see something like this, I can only think of corruption ... Taxi drivers in Montreal are really arrogant, especially the Arabs. They’re often rude, you can’t be sure at all that they’re competent and their cars don’t look well maintained.

Mr. Arthur also tolerated, and even encouraged, similar remarks made by a listener who phoned in and identified

herself as a taxi driver. In the face of these remarks, Mr. Bou Malhab, a taxi driver in Montreal who speaks Arabic, brought a class action on behalf of taxi drivers in Montreal who speak Creole or Arabic. In the recent case of Bou Malhab v Diffusion Métromédia CMR Inc, the Supreme Court decided that the action could not be sustained because no injury could be established.

The one main difference between this case and other defamation cases was that this case was a class action: usually, defamation actions are brought by individuals, and so it was interesting to see what the court thought of a group defamation suit. To sum it up: the court wasn’t particularly supportive. The main problem with group cases, according to the court, is establishing that each member of the specified class suffered an injury.

Deschamps J, writing for the majority,

emphasized that a personal injury must be sustained by each member of the group. In an effort to be original, she laid out a non-exhaustive list of factors that could be used to determine whether a personal injury has been sustained.

These included the size of the group targeted (larger group targets make it less plausible that a particular individual will suffer harm); the nature of the group (a highly heterogeneous or unorganized group would raise a smaller possibility of personal injury); and the seriousness or extravagance of the allegations (serious allegations weigh in favour of establishing harm, but extravagant or identifiable exaggerations would be obvious to the ordinary person).

Unfortunately for Mr. Bou Malhab, the group he was representing was found to be too large and heterogeneous, and Mr. Arthur known too widely as a sensationalist, for personal injury to have been established. The court stated that an ordinary person would not have formed a less favourable opinion of each Arab or Haitian taxi driver in Montreal.

Defamation laws involve a balancing act between freedom of expression and the right to protection of reputation. Accordingly, this case could be

seen as either a triumph for freedom of expression or a loss for the protection of people’s reputations. The CCLA seems to think it’s the former. As intervener, they argued that allowing this action may seem warranted in this case, where the remarks were clearly racist, but would open the door to more limits on freedom of expression. Abella J in dissent seems to think it’s the latter.

She problematizes the characterization of the ordinary person by the majority, stating that they had in fact used an ordinary third year law student, i.e. more informed and critical than the ordinary person. The fact that a listener called in and agreed with Mr. Arthur seems to be a case in point.

No matter what your thoughts, there has been a trend in recent Canadian cases: freedom of expression seems to be given more and more weight, as defamation laws are seen as relics of an era where a person’s honour was of utmost importance. But cases like this remind us why defamation laws may be relevant in a different era, and why the court should not be too hasty in constantly reaffirming freedom of expression. After all, if I were a taxi driver in Montreal whose mother tongue was Arabic, I’d feel pretty defamed right now.

8

News

Ultra Vires

Straight from the top: An honest appraisal of the year

By Karim Amlani (3L)

The recent SLS presidential debate invoked in me feelings of excitement for the candidates, pride in the SLS, and sadness that, very soon, nobody will call me “El Presidente.” These past eight months as President of the SLS have been exhilarating, intense, and even frustrating at times, but they have all been incredibly rewarding. With that being said, I thought I’d use this article to express what we’ve accomplished, and also outline areas where the SLS can improve moving forward.

What I Hoped to Accomplish

When I bamboozled 50% + 1 of you into acclaiming me as President, I set out four major policy objectives for the year. First, I promised to create a working group to review our financial aid program. This working group was created in September and nine students put forth a tremendous amount of work to create the SLS Financial Aid Report which was presented to Faculty Council on March 23, 2011. The report undertook a comparative analysis of Canadian and American law schools, and represented precisely the type of methodical and considered advocacy that, in my opinion, will drive change at this school.

Other working groups, meanwhile, worked with the CDO to improve services and analyzed our upper year curriculum.

Second, I endeavoured to revamp the defunct SLS website and reshape how the SLS communicates with students.

On this front, I must admit, I’ve only been half successful and there is plenty of room for improvement. We managed to bring back the website (www.studentslawsociety.ca), but without ongoing maintenance it remains underutilized.

Ideally, the website would be the first place students turn to for anything they need to know about the SLS. Fortunately, Eddie Kang (1L) has volunteered to keep the SLS website current next year, and he definitely has the drive to take it to the next level. The SLS also launched a wiki (http://slstoronto.wikidot.com) this year which houses course summaries and a used book marketplace. The wiki could be expanded next year to include, for example, a broader mar-

Election - from page 1 student body as a whole in pursuing these programs.

All of the candidates spoke out on seeking to get more out of the UTSU. Bertrand took the hardest line, questioning whether the UTSU should be entrusted with representing the interests of law students. Rankin, in his platform, cautiously noted that he would look into “reviewing our relationship” with the UTSU.

ketplace or message boards on course terms of my initial four policy objecselection and career advice. In general, tives; however, three other major areas there is a pressing need for the SLS to of improvement consistently arose and consolidate information and provide it should, I believe, be addressed next year. to students in an accessible format.

These include our financial management Third, I wanted to improve the diver- of funds, internal organization, and relasity of social activities at the law school. tionship with the UTSU. This year we partnered with charities Helping manage the SLS’ funds has during pub nights, pioneered a wildly been particularly challenging because of successful karaoke night, provided fund- an institutional lack of succession planing for the Vagina Monologues, held ning. This year, the SLS executive did not two coffee houses emceed by Professors gain access to the SLS’ bank account unJim Phillips and Tony Duggan, contin- til well into October, which made budued our financial support of Law Fol- geting immensely difficult. Moreover, lies, and kicked the budget is Law Ball up a based on revenotch at Atlannues levied on tis. That being JD students at said, the annual the Faculty of Osgoode basLaw; however, ketball game again due to a didn’t happen, lack of succesand we couldn’t sion planning, find an affordsurpluses from able ski trip previous years location. Next are not caryear, it would ried forward. be great to see Based on this an overall inyear’s expericrease in sportence, it seems ing events that the SLS always Sic Semper Tyrannis bring people runs a surplus together, and particularly a resurrection because of income generating events of the Osgoode basketball game which and unclaimed club reimbursements. Aleven brought professors into the mix. though there are accounts payable and Bringing the ski trip back would also be receivable still outstanding, the SLS is fantastic, as would organizing trips to likely sitting on excess funds running concerts, plays, and other cultural events. into the thousands of dollars. Due to Fourth, I set out to advocate for im- the unrelenting efforts of our co-treaproved facilities. I must say, this objective surers Azim Remani and Eileen Rhein, was truly embraced by members of SLS tremendous progress has been made Caucus’ Quick Wins Working Group in organizing the SLS’ accounting acwho literally rolled up their sleeves, taped tivities, and the co-treasurers will be up serrated modesty panels in FLB and creating a thorough succession binder.

FLC, hammered down protruding nails, Furthermore, this year Affairs passed and tightened loose screws around the a bylaw mandating publication of the law school. Additionally, a number of SLS’ budget and financial statements, SLS representatives met with the Dean which should further strengthen instito discuss how facilities can be improved tutional memory. These improvements before the new building is constructed. should enable the SLS to carry forward future surpluses effectively and project Stuff that Came Up Along the its revenues more accurately. That being said, there is a surplus in the SLS’ bank Way Hopefully the above gives you an account which should be allocated for idea of the progress the SLS made in some purpose. Ideally, proposals for the use of that money would come from the The other big issue was financial aid.

According to an SLS financial aid report, U of T law tuition now stands at about $23,000, nearly ten times what it cost in 1996. Since 2003, tuition has increased at double the speed financial aid has, sparking fears that many students will be priced out of being able to attend U of T. In comparison, Osgoode tuition is about $18,000 and UBC, $10,000.

Rankin has advocated negotiating with the Law Society of Upper Canada to secure additional financial aid for stu-

dents. Bertrand supported a review of the system to ensure accessibility.

The traditional end-of-year SLS “bouncy castle” was also the subject of much heated debate.

This election saw a strong turnout with 63 per cent of eligible voters casting a ballot. The voting was tabulated by SLS Chief Returning Officer Mike Laskey, an election clerk and three external scrutineers. Nonetheless, Laskey refused to release voting

student body and Affairs, and culminate in a referendum. Some ideas might include allocating it to club funding over a period of years, contributing some of it to the new building (as was done by the Osgoode student society), creating a conference fund, or investing it.

Related to the SLS’ financial management are the organization’s governance documents, which could use re-evaluation. Some aspects of our constitution and bylaws appear contradictory, and there is little guidance on allocating club funding, selecting recipients of the Public Interest Advocacy Fund, or administering the vote for 3L graduation awards. Another idea may be to elect our representatives using a transferable voting system as was instituted by CRO Mike Laskey this year for the 3L graduation awards. The fact of the matter is that our bylaws have spawned in an ad hoc fashion, and comprehensive evaluation of our entire governance system would immeasurably improve how the SLS serves its constituents.

Finally, I believe law students underutilize services offered by the UTSU. Many clubs at the law school duplicate campus-wide clubs, and nobody takes advantage of UTSU’s club funding opportunities. Moreover, the UTSU plans diverse activities and provides deals for students that remain untapped by law students. This year the SLS tried to build a stronger relationship with the UTSU, and this should be continued next year.

Adios, Sayonara, and Goodbye

With that, I hope I’ve painted an accurate picture of the SLS this year and going forward. Overall, we made some solid gains that can be built upon in the future. Having worked with all the members of next year’s executive, I am confident they have the skills to do an outstanding job. While I’ve definitely made mistakes along the way, I hope I’ve done justice to the trust you showed in electing me to office. I’ve had an unforgettable time as President of the SLS, and I sincerely thank you all for bringing so much drive and enthusiasm to this wonderful institution.

results by candidate.

News

March 30, 2011

9

Straight from the top: An honest appraisal of next year

By Aaron Rankin (2L)

Dear Colleagues, Let us salute the hard work and leadership of the outgoing 2010-11 SLS Executive, as well as the students who sat on the Caucus and Affairs branches. Particular thanks goes to outgoing President Karim Amlani for leading with characteristic good judgment. The year was a productive one, with initiatives on transparency, financial aid policy review, the 1L writing program, and the upper-year curriculum.

Let us also commend all those who stood for an SLS position in the recent election. The depth of interest has injected the coming year with a sense of dynamism. I took careful note of all candidates’ ideas and look forward to incorporating some of them into policies for the year ahead.

I stood for SLS President because I think the SLS is the best conduit for canvassing and representing students’ views on all issues related to the question: “What kind of law school should this be?” I realize that the Faculty, to its credit, also undertakes consultation (as for example, when it reviews the 1L Curriculum next year). Nonetheless, when students speak to students, they do so on equal footing, with some shared perspective (remembering that there is also a plurality of views here) and against a backdrop of institutional memory.

The quality of the deliberation and the decision or recommendation reached on any given issue is better for it.

Therefore I urge you to take seriously the SLS’s interest in your views — whether you agree or you disagree with a policy at this school. I will be holding weekly

Surplus - from page 1 to ascertain the existence of the surplus.

As of yet, the SLS is unable to definitively determine what the surplus arose from and how long it has been accumulating, and are working with their bank managers at Scotiabank to determine these facts.

Where did this money come from?

One of the theories floated by co-treasurer Eileen Rhein is that the amount came from conservative budgeting for SLS events in the past, with actual spending falling short of the budgeted estimates from the beginning of the year, and a desire to leave subsequent SLS regimes with a financial cushion. Rhein also posited that some of the surplus may stem from amounts budgeted for clubs that ultimately went unspent by the clubs.

Co-treasurer Remani stated that the SLS was in the process of determining exactly how long these funds have been accumulating. However, according to audited SLS financial statements obtained by UV, the SLS reported a -$137 cumulative deficit at year-end 2006, a cumulative $6,324 surplus at year-end 2007, a $10,601 cumulative balance at year-end 2008, and a $19,959 cumulative balance at year-end 2009. If initial SLS estimates are correct, this surplus has since ballooned to $30,000-$40,000.

The co-treasurers note that the genesis of the surplus is from student fees and other traditional sources of SLS revenue.

Rhein emphasized that the SLS “budgets

office hours, and the Vice-Presidents Rhea Karvanis (Affairs) and Justin Nasseri (Caucus) and your year representatives are eager to hear your views.

Turning to the year ahead, on the Affairs branch, SLS will again be working to increase the quality and frequency of our opportunities to connect. One small step will be the addition of a people’s choice pub night, but we will also explore excursions as well as in-school events that allow J.D., graduate and NCA/Exchange students to interact.

Genie in a bottle..rub for granted wishes

Affairs also makes tough decisions about how to allocate our tuition levies amongst student club applicants. Affairs made great strides over the past year in establishing clear criteria for funding decisions; this year, we will ensure these policies are communicated to all applicants before Orientation Week.

to spend 100% of the money received each year” and that a surplus is never intentionally budgeted for at the beginning of each school year. Rhein speculated that previous SLS regimes did not spend the surplus amounts arising each year due to a difficulty in ascertaining their existence.

The current SLS executive has not determined what will happen with the surplus. The SLS co-treasurers stated that the determination of what happens with the excess cash is a matter to be determined by the incoming SLS council.

Rhein suggests that initial discussions have centred around investing the money in something permanent in nature given that the surplus “does not belong to our class alone (having built up over time).”

The discovery was simultaneous with one of the most heated SLS presidential races in recent memory, with extensive discussion of club funding and potentially superfluous spending by the SLS on things such as a “bouncy castle” dominating the presidential debate. The discovery of the surplus also comes in a year with much student interest in the SLS’ finances, as the Society’s annual budget was made public for the first time.

A $30,000-$40,000 injection into the finances of the SLS for the upcoming year would be a boon for the organization, which had a budget of $51,170 in 2010-11 with just $14,510 earmarked to fund the law school’s student-run clubs.

In another budgetary matter, the SLS has over a number of years accrued a large surplus. This surplus arose because, as I understand it, unspent club funding remitted to the SLS in past years has not been reallocated to the disbursement pool. We need public deliberation on the issue of how to allocate this surplus.

We will canvas your thoughts to generate a shortlist of worthy possible allocations; we will hold a town hall meeting; then we will turn the decision over to you via referendum.

Speaking of another kind of resource, I think the SLS’s office itself has been underutilized. As we await the construction of a new building, we will do our part by implementing a policy of allowing clubs to book the office.

On the Caucus branch, we will work to see an Advanced Civil Procedure course option offered annually, assuming there is sufficient student demand. We will also monitor the new changes to the 1L writing program; as a pilot project, ten ungraded hours of instruction/practice (including the chance to have a do-over of an already assessed assignment) to be taught by Legal Research and Writing Fellows have been added to the 1L program. Caucus will also study whether there is a feasible alternative to our students’ membership in the undergraduate students’ union, UTSU, or whether we would be better to focus on getting more out of our affiliation with UTSU. It should be a busy and productive year on SLS. My colleagues and I look forward to hearing your ideas and your concerns. aaron.rankin@utoronto.ca

Election Notebook Premature Facebook event earns wrath of CRO

The election fireworks began even before presidential nominations were in, as election chief returning officer Mike Laskey (3L) shut down a Facebook event that was created by a group of enterprising 1Ls promoting Andrew Robertson (2L) as a presidential candidate. The illicit promotion of Robertson’s candidacy turned out to be for naught, as Robertson ultimately did not submit his name for the presidency.

Prof. Sossin removed from 3L graduation award ballot

As 3Ls went to the polls to vote on graduation honours ranging from Valedictorian to Top Professor, a few eyebrows were raised as former U of T Law professor and current Dean of Osgoode Hall Lorne Sossin was absent from the ballot for the Hail & Farewell Speech. Prof. Sossin, who left U of T to become the Dean at Osgoode last year, received the requisite three nominations from students and was listed as a nominee for the Hail & Farewell Speech in an e-mail sent

by CRO Mike Laskey to the 3L class in which he announced the award candidates.

However, prior to voting, Prof. Sossin was stricken from the list of nominees and was absent from the final ballot. Nearly 1/3 of this year’s graduating class had Prof. Sossin as a professor for Legal Process in 1L.

Heated election races spur significant voter turnout

With a heated four-way presidential race and 11 current 1Ls running for 5 2L caucus positions, U of T Law students flocked to the polls last week. According to figures obtained by UV, 136 1Ls (72.4% of eligible 1L voters), 148 2Ls (63.2% of eligible 2L voters) and 111 3Ls (53.1% of eligible 3L voters) cast ballots for the election. In total, a robust 62.6% of eligible voters exercised their right to vote, including 67.3% of non-graduating students (i.e. eligible 1L and 2L voters).

3L graduation award winners

UV salutes the winners of this year’s 3L graduation awards: Class Valedictorian: Lwam Ghebrehariat John Willis Award for Spirit: Karim Amlani Hail & Farewell Address: Prof. Tony Duggan Mewett Award for Teaching Excellence: Prof. Tony Duggan

Features

The Learned Band, Bill Graham, Quick #Wins and more...

An interview with The Learned Band

By Will Morrison (3L)

Bathurst Street: The Learned Band’s Abbey Road?

L-R: Noah Craven (3L), Ian Minz (2L), Mike Hamata (3L), Mike Collinge (3L), Jake Dubelaar (3L), Geoff Metropolit (3L)

Thursday, March 31st marks the end of an era, as The Learned Band plays the final show of their three-year reign of terror atop the law school’s pop charts.

As befits a project so ambitious and so transcendent, The Learned Band began in the clouds, high atop Bay Street in the Minz-Hamata sky palace. The earliest band practices mostly involved frontman Mike Hamata struggling to fit into pants so tight they’d make David Lee Roth feel like MC Hammer, while Ian Minz quietly took the bassline for a lonely walk. Pretty soon, though, the band’s succulent siren songs seduced both Geoff Metropolit, who picked up his axe to join as lead guitarist, and Jake Dubelaar, who was eager to brush up on his drumming skills in order to have a talent to perform for interviewers at OCIs. Eventually, multiinstrumentalists and all-around degenerates Mike Collinge and Noah Craven were also brought into the fold in order to de-sanitize the band’s goodie-two-shoes public image problem.

Over the ensuing years, the band has struggled through numerous lineup tinkerings (including the extended absence of Noah Craven due to a severe case of Bieber Fever) and name changes (their one-off performance as “Russian Sex Party” was so mysterious and subversive that it earned a “Best New Music” rating from Pitchfork) only to emerge stronger and more together than ever. It’s basically the plot of Toy Story 3, except with more mature subject matter and less mature characters.

Now, to celebrate the band’s triumphant summit of Mount Bro-lympus, The Learned Band will be hosting and performing live at the final pub night of the year, with support from other student talent such as Dana Doidge, Chords of Appeal, and Dan Goldbloom and the Dan Goldbloom Five. Recently I sat down with three members of the band at the Artful Dodger to drink beers, narrowly dodge darts to the head, and collect the band members’ concluding thoughts as they prepare for their final bow on stage at the Annex Wreck Room. The show starts at 9:45 pm, and there is free cover for law students until midnight.

UV: I want to start by asking the obvious – how many of you got into this to meet girls?

Jake: Not me!

Hamata: Not me [winking].

Noah: None of us did.

Hamata: Actually Minz did so he wouldn’t have to spend so much time driving around trying to meet them.

UV: Have you, in fact, met any girls?

Hamata: Look, we really can’t talk about this stuff. I do want to let everyone know, though, how much Dana Doidge has done for us as a band. She’s confirmed for singing three songs at our show. And in fact, one of our earliest songs was inspired

by Dana Doidge. It was called “Time to Say Good… DIE.” Jake: It was a mashup of “Time to Say Goodbye” by Andrea Bocelli and “Freedom” by Rage Against the Machine.

Hamata: Kari Williams has also been trying to fight Jake for a long time so she can be the band’s drummer.

Jake: I will fight her. For real.

UV: If this band doesn’t work out, do any of you have fallback career options?

Jake: We’re not thinking that far ahead.

Hamata: I definitely don’t. But I do have an electronic music side project. It’s with Minz. It’s called “Meat’n’Girlz.”

UV: You’ve had a room at Sound Academy that serves as the band’s headquarters on the rare occasions when Minz isn’t shuttling you and your gear around the city. Can you tell us what really goes on at “band practice”?

Entire band: No comment.

Jake: It was all there in UV for you to read about in Jared Spindel’s Valentine’s Day article.

Hamata: We actually consider Jared something of a muse in our songwriting process. He definitely inspired one song we’ve been working on for a long time, called “My Baby Don’t Give No Rimjobs.” It’s about a guy whose girlfriend’s a drummer who refuses to play off the rims, ever.

Noah: She never gets off the toms.

UV: Okay, but I still really want to hear more about what goes on at practice. I’ve been to every single one of your shows. You can’t convince me you’ve been spending that time rehearsing.

Hamata: Unfortunately we have this “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. It was a concession to Minz.

March 30, 2011

Features

UV: Well, fair enough. Let’s talk about the band’s sound. What can your fans expect to hear when they attend a Learned Band show?

Hamata: I always tell people it’s like the 90s high school garage band that never stopped playing… but I don’t know if that’s true…

Jake: G-Funk, Big Shiny Tunes, ...and timelessness.

Noah: Big Shiny Tunes 1.

Hamata: Yeah! Nobody even owns 1. It was still street at 1.

Noah: I had 1.

Hamata: If our sound was a drink it’d be a White Russian.

Noah: With a splash of Olde English 800.

Jake: And a rimmer of timelessness.

UV: What other band names did you consider before you picked a stupid legal pun?

Hamata: “The Reasonable Men.” “Pap and the Tape Worms.” We also wanted to be “Falcor and the Good Luck Dragons,” but Geoff thinks The Neverending Story is the worst movie of all-time, which really upsets me because I watch it once a month.

Noah: “LazerCatz.”

Hamata: Jake still thinks our band is called “Jake and the Boyz.”

Entire band: [nodding] Hamata: “TBTBT.” Too Bad To Be True.

Noah: “Grounds of Appeal.”

Entire band: “Mayo’s Mad Muffins.”

UV: I’ve also always wondered who came up with this running joke of Hamata being the frontman, and why do you still think it’s funny?

Hamata: It was my idea.

Noah: Hamata’s the frontman?

Hamata: [defensively] Minz faces the bass amp when he plays! Jake’s always sitting down!

UV: Looking back, what’s been the band’s best moment?

Noah: For me it’s you guys finding those snuggies in Honest Ed’s for our show last year. [Ed: snuggie-clad Learned Band pictured below] Hamata: Yeah, those were great. But only Jake and I took off our clothes underneath.

Noah: Jake was sitting down the whole time so he doesn’t count!

Jake: I was also the only one who had to show his ass!

Hamata: I was wearing my fanciest underwear, so I was really just looking for an excuse.

Jake: Just tell the readers to come to our show and they’ll see our best moment.

11

UV: Exciting. Now as long we’re looking forward, when will the band’s long-awaited debut album “Detox Democracy” finally see the light of day?

Noah: The whole album was on Collinge’s MacBook. So I guess it’s lost forever.

Hamata: It was a lot like “Smile,” a real Brian Wilson piece. We made a new thing called “window of sound”… you can open it or you can close it.

Noah: We’re really feeling the Phil Spector influence. Before he went nuts that guy was a musical genius; Beethoven never surrounded himself with so many talented women.

Hamata: I just saw the movie Walk Hard. I think The Learned Band should be a lot more like that.

UV: Is there any truth to the rumour that Ian Minz has already made plans to form a breakaway group called Minzy’s Snakepit when he returns to school for his victory lap in the fall? What’s Minz going to do without you guys?

Hamata: He’s probably going to be really happy. I don’t even think he likes being in the band. But we like him being in the band.

Jake: The band has a sure vision, but Minz’s is the most focused. He’s going to be spending a lot of time playing Red Hot Chili Peppers bass lines in his spare room.

Noah: I thought he was going to be rejoining Crystal Castles on the road?

Hamata: He is, but only because the spare room’s still filled with Jared’s old teddy bears and sex toys.

UV: [shuddering] Noah: The real answer is this band is transforming into The BJ Learned Band.

Hamata: We’re only going to be available on iPads.

UV: Speaking of law firms, should any of yours be worried about you one day having a Charlie Sheen moment, a day when you just get tired of pretending you’re not a total rock star from Mars?

Entire band: We’re not pretending.

Noah: All the best litigators have tiger blood.

Hamata: I don’t know what a “seven gram rock” is, but it sounds like it involves music, so we probably do a lot of that.

UV: Last question: once you’re gone, will Dan Goldbloom be able to fill The Learned Band’s shoes all by himself? The guy is fucking tiny. Know what I mean?

Hamata: He will and then some.

Noah: He’s a creative giant.

Hamata: But doesn’t he have some policy against doing anything fun anymore?

Jake: Oh yeah it’s getting so close to his exams or something?

Noah: He might pull out if we’re too rough on him.

Hamata: We like the guy.

Jake: But that question kind of presumes we won’t get the impetus from this show to make a real go of it.

Hamata: We’re coming back next year for LLMs.

12

Features

Pirates of the Bay (Street)

Ultra Vires

By Todd Brayer (1L)

In the Yellow Sea, despite the best efforts of its crew, a ship carrying thousands of tons of iron ingots collides with a freighter laden with scrap. The entire cargo is lost. Most of the crew drown. A day later all that’s left is an oil slick.

Both ship owners lost millions. The cargo owner has lost millions. Where is the inevitable arbitration and litigation settled? Beijing or Tokyo? No. Perhaps Singapore, or even London, the world capital of admiralty law.

Such is the nature of admiralty law, one of the final vestiges of the global British mercantile empire of centuries past, upon which the sun never set.

It is a field of law worth a second look by law students choosing a career.

Steeped in even more tradition than property law, admiralty law has been around as long as there has been commercial shipping – easily over three millennia. It is also the origin of insurance, as mariners of Hammurabi’s time worked against the risk of piracy or sinking.

Doctrines found nowhere else are alive and well here, developed for the expediencies of maritime trade. The General Average, for instance, distributes loss among all merchants on a vessel if the captain has to throw something overboard to save the ship. It was decided long ago that it was inequitable for the ship owner and the other merchants to retain anything, but the merchant who lost everything to come away with nothing; the other parties must pay a portion of his losses.

It is the realm of the bill of lading (contract), steve7071_ultra_vires_mar11.ai 1 1/7/2011 2:08:57 PM dore (unloading company), and bareboat charter (rent-

ing a ship without a crew). Speed is measured in knots.

Crew is counted in hands.

And although Toronto may be several hundred kilometres from the ocean, there is admiralty law work here. Marc Isaacs’ firm Isaacs & Co focuses on it, handling everything from salvage to contracts of affreightment.

“There’s less here than in Halifax or Vancouver, but there is work here,” said Issacs, also an adjunct professor at U of T law. Several firms have admiralty or

maritime law departments, and several sole practitioners also work in the area.

He did acknowledge that the market was small, but stable. “The reason is technology,” he said. With modern technology, such as radar and GPS, there are simply fewer collisions and other incidents at sea.

Insurance market Lloyds of London still keeps the Loss Book, “a record of the commercial ships lost to the mighty oceans,” according to their website. In its modern form there are often several days in a row with no entries at all. Its 19th century counterpart, however, lists endless sinkings, collisions and other mishaps, in-

cluding such events as the Battle of Trefalgar.

That is not to say that incidents, particularly interesting ones, do not happen in the modern day. If two ships collide on the Fraser River, admiralty law plays its part. The Supreme Court hears admiralty law cases from time to time, such as Isen v Simms, which Isaacs worked on at the appellate level. The parties, after a day of boating, were securing their boat on the ramp when a bungee cord slipped, injuring Simms in the eye.

The court had to consider whether it was a maritime incident that would allow Isen to limit his liability under the Canada Shipping Act. The court ruled Parliament does not have jurisdiction over pleasure craft per se, only navigation.

In another incident, 40 machines in good condition shipped from Quebec in containers arrived disastrously and mysteriously rusted when they arrived in Germany.

“It was a bit of a whodunit on what damaged millions of dollars of machines,” said Isaacs. “The containers weren’t damaged at all.”

The case involved flying in ship captains and experts from Germany and New York. There was a technical inquiry into whether condensation was to blame, particularly with wood used in the packing process involving moisture. In the end the court decided the machines had been improperly packaged.

Isaacs is a graduate of Osgoode and earned his LLM at Tulane University in New Orleans, a major maritime law hub due to its position on both the ocean and the Mississippi River.

At our f irm, the team always rises to the top.

Collaborative. Cooperative. Collegial.

March 30, 2011

Features

The little committee that could

13

The two law students that were #winning before Charlie Sheen made it cool

By Matt Literovich (2L)

I don’t really know what the SLS does most of the time. That’s not their fault. My attitude toward them is a combination of trusting them to do their jobs well and not really caring what their jobs really are. That changed when I learned about the SLS Quick Wins Committee, which immediately became my favourite committee in the law school.

The hypostatization of the adage that the little things make the biggest difference, the Quick Wins Committee is dedicated to making small changes around the law school to make all our lives a little bit better, often without any acknowledgement or thanks.

That second part ought to change.

Our story begins when I arrived as a first year in 2008. Some of you may know that there is a pool table in the basement of the law school. A small number of you have likely used it as a place to put your bag while you get books out of your locker. One or two of you may have even played an actual game of pool on it, likely because I came up to you at some point and said, “How about a game of pool?”

Anyway, when I arrived in 2008, one of the sixteen standard-sized pool balls had been replaced with a dwarf ball that was about half the volume of a standard ball. Someone had clearly lost a ball at some point and replaced it with a sad substitute that simply didn’t belong. At the time, I considered the notion of losing a pool ball to be a tad ridiculous. I then cleverly discovered that there was a hole in one of the nets of the corner pocket that dropped down into the hollow leg of the pool table and promptly lost two pool balls in it over the course of my first year. I mentioned it to a member of the SLS at the time and started playing 9-ball to avoid the issue of the missing balls.

Two years later, nothing had changed. On a Thursday night, as Securities Regulation was winding down, I mentioned to SLS member Cameron Funnell that

All Cameron Funnell (left) and Lee Webb (right) do is win.

there were now three missing pool balls for the pool table and that at least two were in the leg of the pool table. I expected that Cameron would say that he would look into it and that I could carry on knowing that I had communicated that information to someone who could do something about it. Cameron, despite the fact that the weekend beckoned, told me that we should go take care of it at that moment. We did.

Cameron crawled under the pool table, stuck his arm down another hole in the hollow leg, and fished out the two pools balls I had lost in first year. He also found a piece of newspaper that he deduced was someone’s attempt to prevent pool balls from dropping all the way to the bottom of the leg. The paper was dated “January, 2007”. At that point, we realized that the original missing pool ball was likely at the bottom of that stack of newspapers. Within another five minutes, we had retrieved the pool ball that had been

missing when I’d first arrived. Cameron grabbed some nearby paper and used it to fill up the leg to save future pool players from needing to reach all the way down the leg (or, in my case, playing 9-ball for two years and then dumping the issue on someone else). Problem solved? Yes. Time elapsed? 20 minutes.

It was then that Cameron let me in on one of the best-kept secrets of the law school: the SLS has a two-man body called the Quick Wins Committee that is exclusively dedicated to dealing with small but maddening problems like that. Have you ever wondered why you no longer chew up your pant legs on the unfinished sidings in FLA, FLB and FLC? Quick Wins put duct tape along the parts of the siding that tended to catch. Ever wondered how to print double-sided in the library to save paper? Quick Wins put up signs next to the printer walking you through how to make it happen. I am told that their next major project is to go around and synchronize all the clocks in the building so that you never question whether you’re actually late or if the clock is just wrong. (For the record, chances are that you’re actually late.)

Student politics aren’t really my thing. I’ve never shown a lot of interest in them and I doubt that will change anytime soon. That said, the notion of a committee that goes around fixing little things to make our days just a bit better is appealing. It’s a simple and underappreciated notion that the little things we do for others can make all the difference. I, for one, am glad that the SLS has decided to take action on it.

The SLS Quick Wins Committee members are Cameron Funnell (3L) and Lee Webb (2L). Next time you see them, take a second to thank them for their hard work.

Getting to know the 2011-12 SLS exec Aaron Rankin, SLS President

Rhea Karvanis, VP Affairs

Justin Nasseri, VP Caucus

Undergrad: History & political science at U of Alberta Hobbies: singing with the Chords of Appeal (check us out at 9:00 p.m. at the year’s final pub night); dating my high school sweetheart; taking intramural sports too seriously.

Favourite colour: taupe Favourite book: Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy Favourite childhood TV program: The Simpsons Something unusual: I once answered this question in an OCI interview by saying “I’m funny,” and then, in the ensuing expectant silence, utterly failed to make a joke. It was terrible. I did not get a callback. I barely got a handshake.

If you were an animal, what animal would you be, and why?: Easy: a bear. There is a bear at the Berlin Zoo with the exact same haircut as me (no, not the late, great Knut). Plus the first three letters of “Aaron” rhyme with “bear”.

Undergrad: English lit & classical civilizations at U of T Hobbies: reading, writing, painting, running, biking, skiing and video games.

Oh, and trying to motivate myself to learn guitar.

Favourite colour: forest green Favourite book: A Song for Arbonne by Guy Gavriel Kay (a U of T law student!)

Favourite childhood TV program: Bugs Bunny (He was just so sneaky!)

Something unusual: My middle initial is “X” If you were an animal, what animal would you be, and why?: Definitely a lion. Mostly because I really like them rather than for any profoundly insightful reason. Really, it’s the hair.

Undergrad: Economics & political science at U of Alberta Hobbies: fashion, movies (have over 1000), NHL hockey pools Favourite colour: purple Favourite book: For Whom the Bell Tolls Favourite childhood TV program: Gargoyles Something unusual: I lived a year in Wilmington, North Carolina during which I snapped my right femur into two pieces (it is now lined with a titanium brace).

If you were an animal, what animal would you be, and why?: Obviously a peacock: loud & stylish ;)

14

Features

Ultra Vires

“It was kind of crazy, but it was really interesting”

U of T alumnus and former minister Bill Graham talks about U of T Law, the Libyan crisis, failed retirement, and more

By Aaron Christoff (3L) and Brendan Morrison (3L)

On a snowy March 23rd, UV had the privilege of speaking with the Honourable Bill Graham, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Defence and interim leader of the Liberal party. We were awed by his TO office, which features an impressive collection of effects, including Asian vases, European antiques, West Coast art, blown up magazine covers, and a huge gavel presented to Prof. Graham by the MCC of 1986. Mr. Graham himself was relaxed and in good spirits, occasionally dangling his glasses from his mouth as he shared wide-ranging insights and anecdotes on his time at our law school, the international order, Canadian politics, and his current engagements.

UV: You graduated from U of T Law in ’64. What memories do you have of your time here?

BG: Law school was a very different place when I went there. To begin with, it wasn’t competitive to get in. I went to Trinity and I had sort of a high B. You just sort of walked across Philosopher’s Walk, and went to the law school because you thought it was a good place to go. It wasn’t the drama it is now to get in.

It was not a kinder, gentler place, but because of its size it was a lot cozier and it was more familiar. You could walk up to Bora Laskin and go and have tea with him. Dean Caesar Wright was a rather authoritarian figure, not as approachable – he ran the faculty with an iron hand. I was told that, several years before, there was only one telephone in the faculty, and if one of the professors wanted a phone, he had to ask the secretary to use it – it was such a different place. You had lunch with Bora or any one of the professors who were around. People were much more accessible. Classes were smaller: we were only 75 per class.

The other incredible thing was there were virtually no women: no women in my year, two in the year before us, one in the year subsequent, so it was really quite a different place. The law practice itself was different. This is a little touchy to raise now, but in those days, there were Jewish firms and non-Jewish firms. My Jewish friends said, “We’re going to go to this firm and you’re going to go that firm.” It was understood. It’s crazy today – how could that be? But that’s the way the practice was in Toronto in those days: no women, kind of funny divisions. But we had a great class – a very cohesive class because we were small.

UV: What kinds of extracurriculars were you involved in?

BG: I was involved in the Law Review quite extensively – I was one of the editors. I wasn’t very much into sports – Paul Martin played a lot of hockey when he was there – there was a fairly good hockey team.

(You were there at the same time as him?) Yes – we had a very political year. There was Paul Martin, myself, John Sewell who became mayor of Toronto, Ed Roberts who became leader of the Liberal party in Newfoundland and Lieutenant-Governor, and John Broom who became a member of Parliament. There was definitely a highly political component to what we were up to.

UV: Were you involved in student politics?

BG: I wasn’t so much involved in student politics at law school – I was as an undergraduate at Trinity. That was probably the one thing that was no different from you guys – when you go to law school, you gotta buckle down. There’s a different rhythm of work: you couldn’t just write a paper and shove it under the professor’s door at 6 in the morning. It’s a very different perspective. A lot of people ask me why I was so successful at

it. The reason for me being more successful than I was as an undergraduate was I discovered I really liked it.

It was kind of crazy, but it was really interesting. I remember taking Glanville Williams criminal law – I took it home for Christmas. We were in Banff, after skiing, and my father asked me, “What on earth are you doing reading this enormous thing? What are you doing?” It was really fun and interesting. You gotta like it. If you like it, it’s a great career. The same is true in practice.

When I went to practice, I was Walter Willis’ junior for years. We did litigation all over the country, and we did international litigation. It was fun. Walter was a great boss, and we’d go to the Supreme Court Friday, go skiing Saturday, and drive back the next day. The law practice in those days was much more relaxed. There was far less pressure than on you guys. The demands were different, and there was a very different rhythm of law practice, much as the law school itself.

Then at the time of the first referendum, suddenly EU law was the “sujet du jour” because the separatists in Quebec were saying they were going to have sovereignty-association and it was going to be like the EU. I worked with Claude Ryan at the law school. Some bureaucrats from the Ontario government came in and sat in on the course because they wanted to know what the future of Canada was going to look like if the separatists won the election. Students were coming in. Then the crisis in Quebec receded, and the interest in EU law with it, but I stayed on. I taught that course for many years. It was great; I liked doing that.

At one point, in the lead-up to 1980, Frank Iacobucci was the dean. He phoned me up and asked if I would consider teaching full time, and at that point in my law career I was doing a combination of domestic litigation and commercial international. I did the international commercial largely because of my French – clients wanted someone who could go to French civil law jurisdictions to negotiate in civil law so I was doing a lot of work in Niger, Chad, Africa, Lebanon, and various countries where either Fasken’s had clients or clients came to me – they were largely mineral companies doing mineral negotiations in those countries. For 5 years I travelled a lot in Africa to do that but at the same time I was doing my litigation so I was involved in Baker Lake, a big Aboriginal case, and at the same time I was occupied in Niger trying to negotiate a mineral agreement about a uranium mine, so that was a bit tricky to fly between Baker Lake and Niger, so when Frank said, “Why don’t you come teach at the law school?” my wife said, “Yeah, why don’t you go teach at the law school.”

At that time Frank was very anxious about improving the spectrum of offerings at the law school in terms of international law. He saw that with the integration taking place in the world, we needed more international courses, a broader perspective, and it was helpful that I was a former graduate, that I did have a doctorate, but also I had the practical experience, so I was someone they could bring in. So I did that for 13 very happy years, and it was a great experience.

UV: Throughout your career, you’ve been an advoUV: Eventually you ended up coming back to U cate of collective human security and the responof T Law to teach. What led to that decision? sibility to protect. What do you think about Libya BG: Well, I did my doctorate in Paris which I enjoyed – has the international response been sufficient? a lot, and when I came back Ron Macdonald, who reBG: I think the Libyan situation is a really interesting placed Caesar Wright as the dean said, “Look, come test of the responsibility to protect doctrine…. and teach something.” I said I don’t know if I’m that When I became foreign minister, it was just beginknowledgeable. He said he’d like me to come. Caesar ning to be discussed and accepted that the two big always said I was going to teach. It was actually quite issues on the agenda were the Statute of Rome for the funny when I got the gold medal: we had an interview, International Criminal Court and the responsibility and he said, “I’ve arranged for you to go to Harvard.” to protect, and they obviously dove-tailed. Canadians I said I’m going to Paris. “Paris?! You can’t go to Paris, were extremely involved in both. When I became foryou’re throwing your life away! You have a great future eign minister Kofi Annan asked me personally if I ahead of you. You have to go somewhere serious, like would spend a lot of time trying to promote the reHarvard or Yale like the rest [Law school] was not a kinder, gentler place, sponsibility to protect doctrine, of us!” I said, well, I want but because of its size it was a lot cozier and which I did... to perfect my French and go There are huge issues around it was more familiar. You could walk up to somewhere international, [R2P’s] application, so without Bora Laskin and go and have tea with him. and I decided Paris was the getting into the nitty-gritty of place to go. He was horrified that, my view is that the docthat I didn’t go to Harvard, the centre of the universe. I trine has been recognized by the General Assembly, came back from Paris and Ron was there; he asked me and I think in the Libyan situation it is a classic example to teach something. I agreed to teach a course in Euro- of the responsibility to protect doctrine being applied, pean Community law, which was kind of peripheral to and applied correctly… anyone’s concern. There were always courses offered So when you look at Libya... a dictator was choosby downtown practitioners, and I always had about 10 ing to massacre the citizens. As I said, my son Patrick, or 12 students. he’s presently there, in Benghazi. He was out there the

March 30, 2011 morning after they destroyed the tanks coming into the city, he said if that action didn’t happen that night, 12 hours later it would have been too late, those tanks would have been there, embedded in the city, with rocket launchers and everything, they would have been blasting the hell out of the place, it would have looked like Sarajevo, and this would have been total destruction, total mayhem. So it was a close thing that they got their military there when they did.

So then the big question is, what is the end game, how do you get out? What’s the solution? I think that’s one of the dimensions of the responsibility to protect doctrine you have to recognize. Somebody was saying on the CBC last night, that you have to know the end game and what you’re doing, but responsibility to protect, that is the end game: protect the civilian populations that are about to be massacred! And maybe you don’t know exactly what’s going to be the result of that. We didn’t know in Kosovo. We went into Kosovo to stop the massacre, but nobody said we’re going to create a separate Kosovar state, I don’t think a lot of people did want that to be the end game, and it took a long time for the international community to accept that, so this is tricky when you go in and intervene in the internal affairs of another country for the sake of protecting civilian populations. You don’t know what the end game is going to be. Just like the no-fly zone in Iraq for the Kurds, who knows in 20 years – we may see a separate Kurdish state but we had to do it at the time.

UV: Assuming we agree that the application of the responsibility to protect is appropriately made in the case of Libya… what is different about Bahrain or Yemen that stalls its application there?

BG: I think that’s a fair observation, but in international politics we’re seeking for the moment to develop a series of legal principles that will constrain the actions of states, but we have to recognize in the area of international political we’re not in the domestic area where law constrains the individual because of the police, judges, etc. So the international legal regime is much more porous, much more complicated. Therefore there are always going to be comparisons of this nature: responsibility to protect applies here but why not to Tibet and China?

When Lloyd [Axworthy] was foreign minister I remember saying, “We’re going to Kosovo, but why not Chechnya to protect the Chechens from the Russians?” Because I’d just come back from Moscow. He said, “Well, because the Russians have an atom bomb.” There are certain considerations, so within the international legal framework it seems international law is a part and policy of international politics as well, so this becomes a problem for international law because it’s never going to be applied to-

Features tally objectively in all circumstances, so we’re going to go some places, but not others. Sometimes it’s in our interests, other times not. You wonder why Libya at this particular time? I think Libya is located in the Mediterranean basin, right beside Europe, which saw what took place in Kosovo, and the soft underbelly of Europe destabilized if you like, that whole area of Europe. So there’s

termine whether these are false or not false legal arguments. It doesn’t make the use of law bad because bad people try and make stupid arguments. I’ve seen some stupid arguments in court to justify all sorts of unjustifiable conduct.

They don’t succeed. So the fact that people use the law doesn’t make the law inappropriate. I think law, compared to when I went to law school, and when

[R2P], that is the end game: protect the civilian populations that are about to be massacred! And maybe you don’t know exactly what’s going to be the result of that. the Mediterranean basin concept which makes it the interest of a series of European states to want stability in Libya and that principle does not apply so much in Yemen. I think more troubling is the question of Bahrain because it is a situation where I think one could legitimately reflect that the presence of the US fleet at the base there makes it virtually impossible for the US at least to overthrow the Bahraini government, on which the presence of their fleet depends. So this is a constraint on their ability to do that.

But that’s the thing about international law: there are some constraints about what you can do, and there are going to be constraints on our ability to apply these doctrines in any one circumstance as well.

Dean Atchison said at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis – it was suggested that given the law of sea, it was inappropriate to intervene to stop the Soviet ships from supplying nuclear missiles to Cuba, the Dean commented that there are times in the lives of nations when international law has nothing to do with it. I don’t think anyone would make that comment anymore... they would have international legal arguments buttressing them, but because of the nature of the international legal system there’s no court that can give a definitive answer on these issues, and no police that will enforce a court judgment.

UV: What do you think about the current Canadian political situation?

BG: I think no doubt about it, I think Jack made up his mind, rolled the dice, and that was it. The dice have been cast…

I think Jack was playing pretty cagey, but I’m sure he was getting calls from all over from his base, saying, if you prop up Harper under these circumstances, morale of the troops will really go down, and the Liberal party felt that. They were seriously impacted by two years of having to vote or not vote on issues, because the Liberal party was not ready for an election. I think they’re more ready – not as ready as the Conservatives, it doesn’t have as much money, and hasn’t been putting up all sorts of negative ads, but it’s geared up to fight an election... I’m not privy to the internal discussions of

UV: So you accept that even despite the idealistic principles that underlie these international legal doctrines, state interests still very much fuel their application?

BG: Absolutely. That’s the point that one has always had to recognize about international law. There’s a question as to what extent it really constrains states and to what extent it is used by states as part of their armour for what they do.

As David Kennedy, professor at Harvard said in his wonderful book Law and War, are we using law to beat swords into ploughshares, or are we beating law books into swords? There’s no question about that – given the nature of it, as I said, if you can get the Russians using the same legal concepts we My wife says I’ve failed retirement. “You’re used to justify going to Georgia as we use everywhere else.... now supposed to be retired, and you failed!” She they didn’t have a Security Coun- said I’ve decided to burn out rather than cil resolution – we had one. But rust out. the really tricky business for the application of the doctrine intellectu- the Liberal party, but I think everyone’s ally is if the Chinese and Russians had accepted the fact there’s an election, and vetoed that resolution. Could we have they welcome the opportunity. Anything just stood back and said we can’t do any- can happen, anyone can slip on a banana thing? I don’t know. This would have peel, one bad statement in a debate can made the legal case much less strong, change the whole dynamic. It can hapbut maybe the political case would have pen to Mr. Ignatieff, but it can easily been made. I can’t answer that ques- happen to Mr. Harper, or one of the tion. Where I think it’s changed is that, other guys. as David Kennedy put in his book, the language of law is now the language of UV: You’ve been out of politics for legitimacy and in armed conflict legiti- some time now. Do you still feel parmacy confers power, so legal arguments tisan kinship? are an essential part of buttressing what BG: I do, but I’m out, so when you’re doing and people are able to de- you’re out you’re not interested in hav-

15 ing someone from the past all the time with their point of view. Bob Rae is the Member of Parliament here in my riding; I think he does a wonderful job and would make a great foreign minister, but I’m not up there saying this or that on foreign policy – that’s his job. I just do my own thing, and say what I think, so I’m a lot freer to have my own views about things. The nature of politics does constrain what you can say at any time, and that was certainly true when I was foreign minister.

UV: What do you do now? You’re Chancellor of Trinity College, you’re involved in a lot of organizations.

What does that entail?

BG: Well, I’ve got kind of two dimensions to my life. One is Trinity – I taught a course with John English at the Munk Centre in the spring on foreign policy, I’m vice-chair of the Canadian International Council, I’m doing some work in Mexico for the government on CanadaMexico relations, I’m chairman of the Atlantic Council, which is a NATO organization, so for things like that we have a couple conferences per year.

I was in Spain last week, speaking at a conference organized on defence issues, I’m defence issue conference in April, so I get asked to speak a lot on those foreign policy and defence issues. I like to keep my hand in doing things at the university and Trinity’s a great place to be Chancellor because it has a big IR program there. I taught a course yesterday for a professor, and so I go in and teach a course, maybe with Stephen Clarkson, but that’s all volunteer stuff.

Then I have a fairly active business career here with my colleague Brian here.

We have some investments in various things here in Canada, United States, Mexico. My wife says I’ve failed retirement. “You’re supposed to be retired, and you failed!” She said I’ve decided to burn out rather than rust out. I’m trying to write a book... well, it’s sort of hard to know [what it’s about]. People want a kiss-and-tell book, what so-and-so said, but I’d really like to read a book that would have enough interest in it that the general public would read it, but where it would kind of be instructive about how foreign policy decisions really are made, and the players. I mean, when you read, it’s just Chretien’s doing this, but in fact Parliament itself is very active, there are a lot of things that go on that most people don’t know anything about or pay any attention to and the press doesn’t bother, so I’d like to write a book, say this is how this really works, and have people to read it, and read it from that perspective. I don’t need to sell a lot of books. I’d just like to get a platform where people could understand how the system works better, particularly the parliamentary system. People don’t appreciate the life of a parliamentarian.

Someone must have just made a joke about Matt’s thick lower lip

law

Josh Chan’s night coloured by early hits of acid

photos by josh chan

Interview

Overcompensating, much?

Coors Light? Your man card, I’ll take that.

ball 2011

w with the Vampire meets Catwoman

Who invited Ewanchuk?

Amit reuses high-school prom outfit

intramurals

photos by josh chan and aaron rankin

Opinions and Editorials Reflections on Isaac Tang’s ‘call to action’ Did he have a point?

By Lucas Wilson (3L)

Exactly one year ago today, outgoing SLS president Isaac Tang made a series of “disturbing observations” about the current and future state of the law school community. His list of concerns and complaints was long. A central focus of his article, however, was his contention that my class — the then-2L class, and current 3Ls — was both apathetic and disconnected.

The reaction at the time was anything but apathetic – Tang’s comments created a mild shitstorm. Many dismissed the article with a combination of ad hominem attacks and anecdotal rebuttals. I recall one usually mild-mannered student commenting that she’d not had a single positive experience with Isaac Tang. Other students highlighted the achievements of the 2L class such as founding the Law and Development Society.

Yet in many ways the vehemence of these reactions was simply indicative of a collective sense of vulnerability on the issue.

Most people liked and respected Isaac Tang. While the tone of his article was mildly douchey, the article made a number of reasonable observations and backed them up with hard facts. It was fairly clear, empirically speaking, that my year simply wasn’t quite as involved

Obesity is a significant problem in today’s modern world. There are many competing explanations for why this is the case, but rarely does a day go by when we do not hear about it in some form. Sometimes what we hear is intended to be beneficial for all parties, such as initiatives to attempt to address the alarming increase in the rates of childhood obesity. My “beef,” so to speak, is not with what I would class as “informational” discourse like the aforementioned circumstance.

What I really want to address is why, in 2011, it is still acceptable to ridicule people on the basis of obesity. It is far too common for my liking. As an obese individual, I dislike reading a headline on statistical evidence that Mounties are increasingly overweight that says, “Mounties must ‘tighten their belts.’” I am even less impressed with television shows, such as “The Biggest Loser,” which don’t even attempt to hide their contempt towards people with weight issues. It is no accident that the title has a very negative connotation to it. However, I do not become outraged until I watch things like Ricky Gervais Live IV – Science, in which Gervais lampoons obese people for a good ten minutes.

His central premises are that people get fat by their own choices (taking in more calories than they burn off, eating

in the non-academic law school community as some previous years. Even if Tang were being condescending, one sensed that he was genuinely worried about the sense of community at the school.

A year later his concerns seem almost completely absurd. Pub nights are well attended. Intramural teams are more popular and successful than ever. Productions of Law Follies and the Vagina Monologues both sold out. Ultra Vires has been edited extremely well.

Extracurricular student life is clearly flourishing.

And yet….

I can’t help but feel that the current strength of the law school community might be, to at least some degree, in spite of my year and not because of it. The recent SLS election is illustrative. Current SLS president Karim Almani, in addition to being competent, outgoing and genuinely nice, has also been objectively determined to possess “very good qualities in terms of looking dominant and mature.” So it is perhaps unsurprising that his election was uncontested. However, I believe that this year’s SLS election was far more reflective of strong community involvement.

In virtually every student activity I’ve been involved

in this year, 2Ls have outnumbered 3Ls. This is, if anything, in spite of the selection bias that tends to distort this type of anecdotal reporting (as a member of the 3L community, I am more likely to participate in activities that other 3Ls are attending). The soccer team, which is headed to the intramural finals as this article is headed to press, is captained by a 2L. Law Follies, in spite of very significant contributions from some 3Ls (and 1Ls), was largely a 2L production. Pub nights have often had a similar feel, although I confess I may sometimes be guilty of conflating, and thereby doubling, the 1L and 2L groups.

This isn’t to suggest that many individual 3Ls haven’t made enormous contributions to the school. It isn’t even to suggest that we aren’t a friendly, cohesive class.

It does suggest, however, that for better or worse (and probably better...), the 2Ls are objectively more involved in the school.

I leave the school confident that the law school community is now stronger than it was when I arrived. If only I could convince myself that I deserve any of the credit.

Battle of the bulge

By Matthew G. Scott (3L)

cakes and pies, and a lack of physical ac- recognizing that sexuality is not a choice, tivity) and it is their own fault. Perhaps whereas in his mind obesity is. What if he is correct, and every obese person he’s wrong? What if we all are? What if would not be so without their own bad we find out obesity is not a choice? habits or eating too much. Before conI am not going to suggest to you that tinuing, let me add that I do realize, by people should bear no personal responthe way, that sibility in the Ricky Gercase of obevais is a cosity. The pomedian, and sition would it is his job be absurd. to make peoThere is ple laugh. If obviously you want to some demake peogree of perple laugh, sonal fault. maybe those That’s just premises are one comporeasonable. nent though.

O n c e There is upon a time a genetic it was accompoceptable in nent, a preBig cat is contemplating historical battles society to disposition make fun of towards storpeople on the basis of sexual orienta- ing fat as opposed to burning it. There tion; it was just a choice. We gradually is a societal component, in not only the came to the realization that it wasn’t cost of certain foods, but the manner in quite that simple. Very few people would which they are manufactured using sugbe willing to put forward the perspective ars and complex carbohydrates to target that sexuality is a choice, today, in 2011. specific demographics. There is a human With that, our behaviours changed. component, in that suppressing the urge Ricky Gervais of course deftly steps to eat when you are hungry is somewhat around the similarities on this issue by similar to telling a dehydrated individual

not to drink. Given these things, in my view, only a fool would propose that a problem as complex as obesity was the by-product of a mere single causal variable.

That said, I’m not asking you accept that my obesity, or that of anyone else, is caused by factors outside of their control. You, like Ricky Gervais, do have the right to form whatever opinion you believe is correct. What I would ask for, however, is that in your personal life, you take the positive and proactive effort to stop regarding it as appropriate to utilize an individual’s weight as a source of laughter.

I would even ask you to take that a step further, and to consider whether movies like Shallow Hal or Just Friends, or bits like Ricky Gervais, are really more offensive than they are funny. Then perhaps one day, children will grow up without knowing a society in which parents find it acceptable to make fun of them for what they look like.

That’s the real battle of the bulge.

Only after we do this, will the substantial portion of our population that qualifies as obese not have to be second-class citizens. More importantly though, only then will we have the credibility to have the critical, educational and positive discussion about what the causes of obesity are, and more importantly, how to fix it.

20

Opinions and Editorials

In a land where human rights matter

By Sonja Pavic (2L)

The humid Kampalan heat was a con- man rights lawyer in the field. Through ness is a golden ticket. Looking at my fusing greeting for my Jessup-ed out and my U of T Law eyes, being a lawyer agenda, with its 1-hour slots and even sun-deprived body. I was still somewhat was highly technical. The research, the coffee breaks with friends scheduled in, shaken by Justice Binnie’s closing speech analysis, the watertight advocacy — it I wasn’t sure whether to laugh or cry. in Calgary about how international law all came down to textbook instructions Life was not scheduled in here. “African is a joke and at the end of the day comes and abstract rules. We’re programmed time” (as the locals and foreigners alike down to money, oil, and cocktail par- to think in terms of case law, precedent, call it) works on a wholly different clock. ties. Over-exposure to the yellow light structure, and logic. The key to success, Even during our litigation strategizin Bora and grey Canadian winters had I thought, was in formulating an argu- ing, the most difficult issues that came not improved matters. Hints of jaded 2L ment that was precise and flawless in up in our discussions were not academic thoughts crept their way into my days. law. But in actuality, that was not the se- or legal; they were social and practical, The truth was, the exhaustion of moot cret to a successful constitutional chal- and required creative and human-orientresearch, clinic work, and never-ending lenge in Uganda. Being a good lawyer ed solutions. They concerned the safety deadlines had begun lulling me into a there meant having empathy, charisma, of possible complainants, the ability to state of apathy. It’s not that I was unhap- networking skills, and the ability to earn access them once they were released py; I had just forgotten why I was here. trust and to be liked. I watched in awe from prison, the possibility of torture And then, there I was, in sun-filled, as my colleagues won over Executive after our interviews with them, and the green and alive Uganda, smack in the real effect this litigation would middle of the semester, only weeks behave on their lives. We debated fore exams. I had taken the plunge and over whom we should partgone in to the field to work on a human ner with and whom we could rights project with Avocats Sans Frontrust, which lawyer to have tières (ASF) that I had been involved take our case and how to conin since September. I first became invince them to give up a payroll, volved with ASF’s work on pre-trial deand whether in the end law retention through the International Huform would even be enough. man Rights Program’s (IHRP) clinical After my transcript informing course last semester. ASF had collected me that my legal writing and more than 2000 entries worth of data exam-taking skills were pretty on prisoners who were awaiting trial, Kampala, Uganda: far from the exotic land of Bay Street average, it was nice to know I sometimes for years on end. My partwas endowed with other skills ner, Joanna Kyriazis, and I were respon- Directors of NGOs and MPs with their that made the cut here: personability, sible for analyzing the data and writing smiling eyes and senses of humour. That empathy, creativity, and initiative. a report based on our findings with was the key. The substance came later, In the end, what was most rewardrecommendations to the Ugandan gov- once both parties were ready to listen. ing was finding a place where passion, ernment. We both continued the clinic Clients came back when they felt safe compassion, and law fused together to project into this term as practicum stu- and comfortable; we never saw them pump out real-life results. The amount dents, at which point discussions on the again when they didn’t. of cross-border, cross-cultural symbiopossibility of test-case or constitutional I also learned that working in the field sis was energizing. Expats and Ugandans litigation began to take shape. That’s requires a special kind of advocate — work on cutting-edge issues together, why I was in Kampala — to strategize one who has mastered the art of flex- going into slums, fighting malaria, prosthe perfect case. ibility. It’s not something we’re taught ecuting child traffickers, rescuing refuThe next ten days were an insightful, in law school, and certainly not some- gees, and freeing detainees. Every intern productive, and energizing snapshot of thing for which we’re rewarded. But and worker I met came to Kampala with what it means to be an international hu- on the ground, adaptability and open- their own unique motivation, a differ-

Ultra Vires

ent background and set of skills, ready and open to contribute their piece. It was extremely refreshing to see the very many dimensions a legal career can have; all the fluidity and vibrancy that doesn’t make its way into the CDO’s 10 easy steps to securing a job on Bay Street.

And yet, I’ll be on Bay Street this summer. I’ll be in a suit, drinking my latte, and I’ve come to feel good and excited about that decision. What I resent is that that must be such a paradox—that the private, business sector is constantly pitted against the plight of the human rights hippies. What does it say about our profession that we have so severely detached the concepts of corporate law and public interest?

In Kampala, I met people who left their careers or just put them on hold for a cause that moved them or an opportunity that excited them. They were not only making a real difference to people’s lives, but gaining invaluable skills, becoming better advocates, and making cross-border connections. Most of them weren’t googly-eyed idealists and didn’t necessarily want to do human rights or field work for the rest of their lives.

They were there because they had a skill and wanted to play their part in the pursuit of bettering humanity. I know that Kampala is just one city and that development work may not be enough. I get that I was in a small microcosm that is not representative of the legal population. And yet still, I’m grateful for the experience and to Uganda because it allowed me to feel, even just for a few days, that I am one among many, that human rights matter, and that law can fight on the side of the good guys.

The semiotics of campus life

By Benjamin Sharma (1L)

One of the benefits of being associated with a top research university like the University of Toronto is the great opportunities students are presented to expand their minds – to see the world as they never thought to before – and to transcend their prior existence as children of privilege, the beneficiaries of structures of oppression.

I’m particularly grateful, myself, for the chance I’ve been afforded to revisit my understanding of political language. In one of my classes this semester, for instance, I learned that our previous conflation of the word “autonomy” with the idea of “independence” was outmoded, and the most up-to-date thinkers now understand that true autonomy can come in a situation of dependence on the state. Before coming here, that thought never would have occurred to me – and it is a profound one indeed.

But it’s in the rich intellectual life outside the classroom, however, that one can find the best that the campus has to offer. Take, for instance, an event advertised to us through Headnotes and the weekly SLS e-mail:

the University of Toronto Students’ Union’s “eXpression Against Oppression Week”. The keynote speaker – “back by popular demand” – was Angela Davis, Professor Emerita of History of Consciousness and Feminist Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Her presence was sorely needed on campus – for, as the Vice President (Equity) of our students’ union, Danielle Sandhu, put it, “In the face of austerity measures and campus unrest globally, we anticipate lively discussions throughout the week to end systemic oppression that compromise the values of equity, justice, and human rights enshrined in our University’s mandate.” I could not have phrased it better myself.

Professor Davis has lived a life dedicated to expressing herself against oppression. When she bought shotguns to defend her local “Soledad Brothers Defense Committee” headquarters, two days before her thenboyfriend took said shotguns, walked into a Marin County courtroom, and blew a local judge’s brains out – why, she was striking a blow against our oppressors.

And, of course, she was found not guilty of any in-

volvement in the crime – if it can be said to be a crime.

Old-fashioned, ignorant sorts might have been horrified by those events and asked themselves whether they had taken a wrong turn somewhere, but not Professor Davis. Feted by all justice-minded people in the English-speaking world – why, Mick Jagger and John Lennon wrote songs in her honour! – she then went to Cuba to continue pursuing her revolutionary principles.

Looking back at the 1980s, we can see the value of the principles enshrined in eXpression Against Oppression Week. Before I came to study at U of T, I was ignorant – I would have thought that the words of the worst of all American presidents, Ronald Reagan, were the ultimate in expressing oneself against oppression – “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev,

CONTINUED on page 29

Opinions and Editorials

March 30, 2011

21

POINT/COUNTERPOINT

Over the course of 3 years in law school, many months have been spent at the books, countless coffees consumed, endless arguments endured. We are probably a little fatter, likely a little balder, and certainly a little more blind; but, now, as the 3Ls pack up their lockers and wind down their academic careers at Flavelle, we reflect on…

“Have I actually learned anything at Law School?”

Lessons learned in legal education

I did not learn what you think I learned

Despite the repeated shouting from my moot coach to the contrary, I believe I have learned something at law school. If nothing else, three years of sitting in the library all day every day has taught me that one can rarely get laid by sitting in the library all day every day. Who knew? It turns out that if it weren’t for the need to temper the fevered anxiety of 1L exam cramming, even a chance encounter in the basement stacks wouldn’t satisfy anything more than the search for a dusty Jack Batten book.

Tough lesson, and one that has cost me $70,000, but I learned, and I’m better for it.

As he sips his regular Tuesday morning whiskey and reviews the time he has wasted at law school, Mike Hamata is trying to convince you that students don’t actually learn anything valuable or lasting during law school. And it’s true that the only thing truly lasting that Mike has attained over the past three years is that case of the clap he picked up at the WreckRoom. But this is no more the necessary nor the typical law school experience than attending a conference is part of hitting an open bar in the Rowell Room. They’re separate and altogether disconnected affairs.

Just ask Simon Stern.

How can one question the learning experience at this school when our talented professors employ innovative visual techniques to convey the law’s most fundamental principles? How could we understand the relationship between intra and ultra vires without Ian Lee’s Venn diagram to lay it out for us? Two unconnected circles.

Genius. And could there be any better way to internalize the way in which our law belittles property than by Jim Phillips wearing only one outfit each year?

Unparalleled dedication to our learning.

Sure, I’ve probably had more interactions with the mustachioed security guard at the Halloween Party than I have with most of my professors, but he has a formidable mind, and plenty to bestow.

I have similarly learned an incredible amount from the knowledge I have gleaned over coffees and pints with my peers. As I depart my lifelong career in academia, I will forever be guided by the words of Emily Bala. One day when I was gloomy and requesting some enlightenment, she leaned over her laptop, looked at me calmly and counseled, “Bitches, man, fuckin’ bitches…You know?” That type of wisdom can only be found inside these walls…(and hopefully feature in a McLachlin judgment next year—fingers crossed).

I remember being a 1L, frantically trying to learn everything, to know everything; and I remember observing the 3Ls stumble around with bed-head and goofy expressions of tranquility on their face. I remember thinking that expression, which can otherwise only be found on Hindu cows, must come from the type of sheer enlightenment one reaches at the end of this three year marathon of education.

Now, as I saunter lazily over the finish line, I realize I misread the expression entirely.

What I assumed to be the tranquility that comes from pure and perfect knowledge was actually the tranquility that comes from pure and perfect ignorance. While 1Ls race to remember every ratio and obsess over absorbing every obscure obiter, the 3Ls reside in the understanding that the more you know, the less you know. Too many cases driven by overwhelming facts; too many principles distorted to accommodate them. The path of learning that we are on at law school is a simple one that eventually arrives at the simple conclusion that we know nothing. And that is the lesson learned.

So, drink up that beer and smoke that L’Heureux-Doobie, and relax. You may still have much to learn.

First of all, I have a very thick head of hair. It’s the kind of hair you could get your fingers lost in, or accidentally set on fire when you’re trying to make lunch. Law school has not affected my hair. If anything, I have more hair now. I make lunch less.

Did I “learn” anything in law school? Sure. I mastered the law; I mastered pretty much all of it; I mastered it most days before noon under my duvet with the lights on. I even invented some new law; it was pretty much like that movie where the Gladiator is super good at math. That’s no big deal, and frankly speaking, that’s not the kind of learning that we pay for at this school, because I’m pretty sure you can learn the law for less money elsewhere. We agree to pay outrageous fees at U of T so we can meet outstanding people, who will likely one day be future leaders of our country. We pay to meet them, so we can quietly watch them, so we can collect their secrets, and so we can blackmail them when they are successful lawyers, politicians, and internet pornography sensations.

For example, I have learned that Lucas Wilson is pretty much the best dancer you’ve ever seen, and that Will Morrison is so jealous that it makes his ears bleed.

I’ve also learned that Lucas Wilson has strong views on bestiality. I have not learned if these traits are related.

I’ve learned that Yingdi Wu might be the best athlete, pound for pound, anywhere, any time. If you could only scale him up to a regular size, he’d be like LeBron and Tonya Harding rolled into one: unstoppable.

I’ve learned that Haddon Murray and Chris Lewarne bench-press each other in the stacks in the library basement. I’ve learned that they have a secret plan, and if they ever catch Yingdi they’re going to try and eat his heart to steal his power.

I’ve learned that Sarah Jones is in the 98th percentile of pint drinkers. Michael Collinge claims to be able to pour out a drink faster than you can drink one. No one has the heart to tell him that he’s got it backwards. I’ve learned that Jess Lithwick often gets a pint poured on her faster than all of the above.

I’ve learned that Jared Spindel has a heart of gold, underneath his perverted, gruff, and arrogant exterior. I’ve also learned that pretty much no one cares how nice you are on the inside, when on the outside, you’re kind of an ass.

I’ve learned countless other tidbits, something about all of you, but there’s not enough space for all of that here, and I’m kind of running out of jokes, if I ever had them in the first place.

Mostly I’ve learned that I loved going to school with all of you, and no matter how fat and bald you get, you’re all OK with me. Except Brendan. Godspeed.

By Brendan Morrison (3L)

By Mike Hamata (3L)

Farewell from opinions

I am extremely grateful for the efforts of all of you who have devoted time and energy to contribute to UV this year. I view this paper as an immensely valuable part of our community here at the Faculty. It is fundamental that we communicate news, share our opinions, celebrate our achievements, and even mock and satirize one another—this dialogue ties us together. Every day I am struck by the eloquence and insight that pervade the classrooms and pass through the hallways at this school. I urge lower years to use UV to harness your talents and contribute whatever you care to share. Those of you who want to write an article, a comment, a survey, a poem, a story, or anything at all, do it; those of you who want to draw a picture, take a photo, make a crossword, go for it. The paper is only as strong as the sum of the student body’s interest in making it so. Thanks to Aaron and Abrar for ushering in “the Golden Age”. It was a pleasure working for you guys.

- BMO

22

Opinions and Editorials

Ultra Vires

End of the Jedi Mind Trick: How the upcoming federal election is a closer call than you might think By “Gary Neupane”

Disclosure: the author of this piece is a fully paid-up member of the no-longer-so-vast right-wing conspiracy, and a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party of Canada. That does not inform the analysis provided, which is made solely in his personal capacity; nevertheless, the reader may wish to keep it in mind. *** So it looks like we’re heading into Canada’s forty-first general election. It also looks like a pretty easy election to call: Stephen Harper’s Conservatives hold a comfortable (read: double-digits) lead on Michael Ignatieff ’s Liberals.

This writer has already seen media personalities as diverse as the CTV news room and The Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson airily predict another Harper minority government, if the Tories don’t manage finally to pull off their majority government. Whatever happens, unless the Tories stumble badly on the campaign trail, this country is in for three or four more years of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Everything they “know” – everything you have been told – is wrong. It’s actually a coin-flip as to who will be the Prime Minister of Canada at the end of the year. This is so even if the current party horse-race polls are correct, and their results hold steady till the end of the campaign.

How can this be? The answer lies in one semi-magical word: Coalition.

To understand why an increased minority (150 seats, say) might not be enough to keep Harper in office, it’s necessary to understand what has been going on in Canadian federal politics since he was sworn in as PM in February 2006.

Early stability

The reason why Stephen Harper became Prime Minister of Canada in 2006 is this: Gilles Duceppe put him there.

Duceppe’s Bloc – following public opinion in Quebec, which had soured on the Liberals and warmed considerably to Harper – made it clear that they would not support the Liberals in government, and then supported the 2006 and 2007 Conservative budgets. Thus, for his first eighteen months in office, Stephen Harper had a regular supporting actor in Duceppe.

This continued until the Quebec byelections in September 2007. The Montreal by-election, in Outremont, got the lion’s share of the press coverage, but it was actually the other two that has had more of a lasting effect on Canadian politics. In one seat – Roberval-LacSaint-Jean, which contained portions

of Lucien Bouchard’s old seat – a local mayor won the formerly BQ seat for the Conservatives; in the second – SaintHyacinthe-Bagot – the Conservative candidate came within 1478 votes of stealing another seat from the Bloc.

This changed everything: as Harper seemed to be eating his lunch, Duceppe withdrew his previous support of the Conservatives. He has consistently not supported them ever since.

liamentary crisis of December 2008, and Harper’s one-off escape From September 2007 to March 2011, there has been only one episode wherein all the opposition leaders avoided going along with Prime Minister Harper – December 2008. Harper overreached in an economic update and, in so doing, managed to unite the opposition against him.

Dion, Layton, and Duceppe made a couple of tactical errors. First, they had Duceppe appear with the group on stage, thus inflaming public opinion Long-term Instability After losing Duceppe’s support, in English Canada. Second, they anHarper has had to govern using his wits. nounced that they would be defeating It isn’t stretching the truth to say that the government, rather than just getting it done and setting up the rest of the coalition arrangement afterwards.

Harper was able to exploit these errors thusly: first, he argued (correctly) that Dion had explicitly rejected the idea of a coalition during the campaign; second, he claimed the presence of the Bloc Quebecois as a required affirmative vote on every confidence measure was unacceptable to most non-separatist Canadians; and third, he declared that the consequence of the first two points was that Dion had a moral obligation to get his coalition ratified by voters – anything else, while constitutionally permissible, would nevertheless be illegitimate.

This argument did not originate with the PM – Election 2011: Rebel Coalition vs. the Galactic Empire?

Harper was tempted at first simply to toss the keys he has been governing using Jedi mind to the other party leaders – let them tricks. The typical exchange goes thusly: try to govern and fail, and then win a crushing majority a few months later.

HARPER (waving hand): “These aren’t It was his caucus, and his party’s supporters, who insisted he do otherwise the elections you’re looking for.”

D I O N / I G N AT I E F F / L AY T O N : – prorogue Parliament and let things “These aren’t the elections I’m looking calm down for a few weeks; then, either pass a budget or (if defeated) go to the for.”

HARPER: “You will abstain. Ordinary Governor General. With polls in hand Canadians don’t want an unnecessary, showing 60% of Canadians preferred a snap election over a coalition governearly election.”

DION/IGNATIEFF/LAYTON: “I ment, and given the precedents of the will abstain. Ordinary Canadians don’t two-election years in Britain (1910 and 1974), he would seek a dissolution. The want an unnecessary, early election.”

This, or something like it, has pre- latter prospect – which probably had served the Tory ministry through almost about a 50/50 shot at success – is what every confidence vote, even though they most likely persuaded Ignatieff to abanhave had no ideologically simpatico sup- don the coalition in January 2009.

This was a one-off heading-off of an porting partner in the 39th and 40th opposition coalition government.

Parliaments.

Why Harper’s 2008 escape trick canThe mind trick breaks down: the par-

not work again Harper’s December 2008 tactics will not work in the 41st Parliament if an opposition coalition is tried again.

For the reason why, we can take a look at a statement made in January by one Prime Minister Stephen Joseph Harper: “Last time they waited too long and it was too late. Next time, they will do it right out of the gate.”

This is a curious statement. What does “it was too late” mean? Simply this: throughout the next campaign, the Tories will bring up the spectre of the “coalition-of-the-losers” at every possible opportunity. The party line in their campaign ad is, “THEY DID IT BEFORE; THEY’LL DO IT AGAIN”. There is no way to argue, as was done in 2008, that the electorate was hoodwinked into not electing a Conservative majority. A defeat of the Harper ministry could and would take place on the Throne Speech opening the first session of the 41st Parliament – thus, there would be no opening for the PM to go to the GovernorGeneral.

Harper would be done. An impeccably legal and politically legitimate coalition government will have taken his place.

Ignatieff ’s task

My Liberal friends are in despair over the coming campaign – they think that their leader is an uncertain, inept oaf who cannot possibly connect with the voters in sufficient numbers to defeat Prime Minister Harper.

They should be more confident: all that Ignatieff – an accomplished journalist, historian, and public intellectual – needs to do is lose by less than twelve points, hold Harper to a minority, and strike a deal with the other parties for a stable anti-Harper coalition government before the Throne Speech.

If he can do that, he’ll be the 23rd Prime Minister of Canada.

Harper’s task

Harper’s task is this: let everyone know that this election isn’t a foregone conclusion – that it is actually very easy, and even likely, for there to be a change of government if the Tories fail to win a legislative majority.

For it’s very difficult to imagine selfrespecting Liberals and New Democrats allowing Stephen Harper to continue to govern by Jedi mind trick. That humiliation takes its toll daily. They no longer are interested in paying the price, and who can blame them?

Who will win that fight? I still say it’s a coin flip.

March 30, 2011

Opinions and Editorials

23

Attack ads destroy democracy

By Camille Labchuk (2L)

Nearly two months after reading Benjamin Sharma’s defence of political attack ads, I remain hopelessly unable to wrap my head around his assertion that attack ads are somehow good for democracy. And now that the Harper government has been found in contempt of Parliament, triggering what promises to be a vitriolic election, the topic is worthy of more attention.

The truth of the matter is that attack ads contribute nothing to the national political discourse. Neither do they play a meaningful role in election day deliberations, and voters most certainly do not need political attack ads to help them make sophisticated, informed decisions at the ballot box.

No. The effect of these ads is decidedly detrimental.

There’s no question, of course, that attack ads work – otherwise, politicians wouldn’t pay big bucks to air them. It’s how they work that is the problem. Political attack ads chip away at the essential underpinnings of any functional democracy: citizen engagement and participation. They don’t simply provide voters with helpful information upon which they can assess their political options – attack ads encourage voters not to vote at all, and trivialize political discourse.

But how does driving down voter turnout help a political party? Look again to the last election – the nastiest ads were run by the Harper Conservatives.

The function of these ads was not to encourage voters to support the party that ran them. Rather, the point was to discourage voters from casting a ballot in the first place. An Angus Reid poll found that Conservative “roll-the-dice ads” on then-Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and his green tax shift plan may have persuaded 11% of Canadians not to vote at all. Even though some of those who stayed home were Conservative voters, the ads still delivered electoral advantage to the Conservatives, because about half a million more Liberal voters than Conservative voters didn’t bother to vote.

US researchers have linked exposure to negative ads with lower turnout in both local and national elections.

This trend has appeared in Canada, too. Attack ads first became prominent in Canada in the 1993 federal election, when voter turn out was 72%. Only 15 years later, we see that voter turn out has plummeted to a record (and disturbing) low: a mere 58% of eligible voters bothered to exercise their democratic right to vote in the October 2008 federal election.

And recently, the use of poisonous attack ads has ceased to be confined to the writ period. The Harper

Conservatives have perfected the art of going negative between elections, and without election-time spending limits in play, the sky’s the limit. They have also pioneered the use of personal attack ads against their Liberal opponents, as a pre-writ, offensive move – an attempt to shape public opinion not simply on issues, but on personalities. Whatever your political leanings, I hope we can agree that the Dion “Not A Leader” ads, and the Ignatieff “Just Visiting” and “He Didn’t Come Back For You” television ads were slanted personal attacks that were at once an embarrassment and did nothing to inform voters about the actual issues.

Presenting an idea for honest discussion has intrinsic value, but personal attacks are merely attempts to divert attention away from real problems.

So why do political parties get away with it? You may be surprised to learn they are exempt from broad-

cast advertising standards. That’s right – Tim Horton’s couldn’t run attack ads against Starbucks the way Harper can against his opponents. Shouldn’t political parties be held to a higher standard than coffee vendors?

Higher standards might help, but there’s a better solution. We should follow the lead of other countries like the UK, South Africa, Belgium, Chile, Sweden, Ireland, and more, and disallow political parties from buying TV ad time in the first place. If we don’t do something about attack ads soon, it won’t be long before Canadian politics looks even more like the vitriolic brand of politics we see south of the border – an atmosphere we see fueled year-round by biased, misleading, and personal attack ads.

The Canadian public is clearly ready to rid our airwaves of vitriol and spin. Take, for instance, the recent Green Party attack on attack ads. The Greens launched an anti-attack ad campaign, and within mere days, the ad had racked up nearly 50,000 hits on YouTube. The Conservative anti-Ignatieff ads, on the other hand, have been online for several months, and are stuck at around 20,000 views. The idea of ending attack ads has been met with overwhelmingly enthusiasm. The disgust Canadians express toward the sensory and intellectual assault of attack politics is equally strong.

People around the world are taking to the streets to take back democracy. Yet in Canada, our own democracy is being manipulated by backroom political operatives and spin doctors who seek pure partisan advantage, rather than dialogue on real issues. Democracy cannot function without an engaged electorate capable of honest debate on topics of importance. Attack ads are antithetical to this goal, and it’s time to send them packing. Let’s tell the federal political parties that we’ve had enough and demand that this election campaign remain focused on dialogue and ideas, not personalities and attacks.

A quick reference guide to Conservative scandals

By Steve Hutchison (3L)

Now that we’re officially into an election, you’re going to hear a lot about the Conservative Government’s ethical failings. In case you haven’t been following politics closely, here’s a quick guide to the various scandals of the past few years.

The Contempt Scandal

Earlier this year, a committee of the House of Commons ordered the government to produce documents pertaining to the cost of the government’s proposed prison building, fighter aircraft procurement and corporate tax reductions. The government refused to comply with this order. Last month, the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that, in refusing to disclose these documents, the government was prima facie in contempt of Parliament. The government provided additional documents, but not all of the documents set out in the committee’s order. On March 25, the House of Commons voted 156 to 145 to hold the government in contempt of Parliament for refusing to

comply with the order. This marked the first time in the history of the British Commonwealth that a government has been found in contempt.

The In-and-Out Scandal

In the 2006 election, the Conservatives moved funds between their head office and their local riding associations in order to skirt election spending limits.

This allowed the Conservatives to spend beyond the legal limit in that election.

Four conservative organizers, including two senators, now face criminal charges for wilfully violating election law.

The Bev Oda Scandal

Last year, the government decided to de-fund a religious NGO called KAIROS. Speaking in Israel, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney claimed the government made this decision because KAIROS was anti-Semitic. In Canada, on the other hand, International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda stated that the decision to de-fund KAIROS arose from bureaucrats at the Canadian Inter-

national Development Agency (CIDA).

However, an access to information request revealed that CIDA had recommended continuing to fund KAIROS, but that someone had inserted the word “not” into the document by hand. When questioned in the House of Commons, Oda claimed not to know who inserted the “not.” Later, she admitted that she had ordered the word “not” inserted into the document. Last month, the Speaker ruled that Oda was prima facie in contempt of Parliament.

The Bruce Carson Scandal

Until 2008, Bruce Carson, a disbarred former lawyer and convicted fraud artist, served in the Prime Minister’s Office as an adviser to Stephen Harper. Shortly after leaving the PMO, Carson lobbied the Ministry of Indian Affairs on behalf of a water filtration company. Carson’s fiancée, a 22-year-old former escort, stood to make a 20% commission on the contract. The RCMP is currently investigating Carson for influence peddling.

The Access to Information Scandal

Investigations have revealed that ministerial aides interfered with access to information requests on behalf of the press. In some instances, aides ordered departments to “un-release” information that might cause embarrassment to the government. The RCMP is currently conducting a criminal investigation into this political interference in the access to information process. A committee of the House of Commons has issued subpoenas to several of these aides to answer questions about interference with access to information requests. At the government’s instructions, the aides have ignored these subpoenas.

The Afghan Detainee Scandal

In 2009, diplomat Richard Colvin alleged that Canadian forces had, contrary to international law, transferred Afghan detainees into Afghan custody, where they were tortured. Colvin stated that he

CONTINUED on the next page

24 had repeatedly attempted to warn Defence Minister Peter MacKay of these abuses, but that his warnings fell on deaf ears. Journalistic reports suggested not only that Canadians knew that Afghan authorities were torturing detainees, but that the purpose of custody transfers was to allow for this torture. A committee of the House of Commons ordered the government to disclose documents related to Afghan detainee transfers. The government refused to comply with this order, citing national security. A Liberal MP moved to find the government in contempt. Before the motion could be heard, the government prorogued (suspended) Parliament. When Parliament returned in 2010, the Speaker found the government prima facie in contempt of Parliament for failing to comply with the committee’s order. The government subsequently referred the documents to a committee of three MPs, with disputes between them to be decided by a panel of experts chaired by Frank Iacobucci.

Scandals! - from page 23

Opinions and Editorials The Naming Scandal

Recently, a directive from the Prime Minister’s Office ordered government departments to refer to the Government of Canada as the “Harper Government.”

Similarly, from 2006 to 2007 the government ordered bureaucrats to refer to the Government of Canada as “Canada’s New Government.” If the government intends to rename itself, it should at least sell the naming rights. The TD Canada Trust Government of Canada has a nice ring to it.

The Government Advertising Scandal

The government has so far spent over $120 million promoting its “Economic Action Plan,” including high production TV ads. These ads are partisan and selfpromotional. In a similar vein, the government distributed grants and money using large novelty cheques.

These cheques bore the Conservative Party logo, rather than the logo of the Government of Canada, despite the fact that it was taxpayers’ money.

Ultra Vires The (First) Prorogation Scandal

In 2008, the government introduced legislation to remove the per-vote subsidy to political parties, a move that threatened to bankrupt the Liberal Party.

In response, the opposition united to form a governing coalition and brought forward a motion of nonconfidence against the government. The government prorogued (suspended) Parliament to avoid this nonconfidence motion and remain in power. This was the first time in the history of the British Commonwealth that the government used prorogation to avoid a vote of non-confidence.

There are some others, but these are the most notable. Of course, the Conservatives will refer to the “sponsorship scandal.” A quick reminder on that one: the Liberal government gave advertising contracts to firms who performed little to no work and then donated large chunks of that money back to the Liberal Party. It was, in other words, a textbook kickback scheme.

Ethics doesn’t appear to be a strong suit in Canadian politics, unfortunately.

Friday, Friday, gotta get down on Friday Everybody’s looking forward to the election

By Aaron Christoff (3L)

Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff, and Jack Layton are ready for some serious partyin’

This past Friday, Canada’s 40th government went down on a motion of non-confidence. The motion, passed 156-145 by a united opposition, cited their historic finding of contempt for the Conservative government. Prime Minister Stephen Harper promptly obtained dissolution from the Governor-General, dropped the writ, and we now find ourselves facing another election on May 2nd. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, on the subject of the upcoming election, said “we we we so excited,” or something along those lines. Jack and Gilles are equally keyed up. (Even the Conservatives are kind of excited, with current polls showing their legendary “majority” within reach - the Tantalan fruit.) The election is necessary, as the opposition trio says, but mostly it is necessary for the opposition parties themselves.

This election is necessary because, let’s face it, being in opposition is demoralizing. It was demoralizing for the Liberals to vote for Conservative measures, or even to abstain. It was demoralizing for the NDP and Bloc to prop up the Harper government. It’s demoralizing enough to be out of power, but the minority situation makes it even worse because the opposition parties have to actually take turns supporting the government. They have had to support a government with which they are ideologically opposed (a right-wing government) so they can stay out of power with their left-wing cousins. It’s a very awkward situation, and one that has been very hard on the Liberal, NDP, and Bloc bases. But now everything has changed. Or has it?

The Three Caballeros have convinced themselves that this government has to go: it is contemptuous of democracy, as shown primarily by its failure to disclose financial information to Parliament, but also by a raft of mini-scandals like the Oda affair. Harper just seems to constantly thumb his nose at democracy. He kind of hates democracy, like the terrorists hate freedom. Far be it for me to absolve the Conservative government of its many sins, but the fact is that governments of all stripes have been guilty of these kinds of things. It takes a special magnitude of scandal to arouse the Canadian public and justify an otherwise unnecessary election, and the only sufficiently egregious scandal of our era is the Sponsorship Scandal. That was lots of Liberal partyin’ partyin’.

So we’re left with an election, which will cost quite a bit of taxpayer money and eat up our national time and attention. But it’s necessary from the point of view of the opposition, so they can let off some steam. Maybe they can even make some gains - they’re already busy figuring out “which seats can I take?” Likely not many, with polls the way they are now. But as Bill Graham artfully put it in this issue’s interview, “anyone can slip on a banana peel.” So let’s try to enjoy the election, even though the campaign coincides exactly with our month of papers and exams.

FUN FUN FUN FUN.

Diversions

Dubber’s tweets, tips for surviving upper years, a crossword puzzle and more...

Markus Dubber’s tweets: a purposive approach

By Matt Brown (1L)

Professor Markus Dubber is a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in cargo pants. When his Twitter account first appeared, I shat myself. My classmates had a more unusual reaction - disbelief. Could this actually be Markus Dubber? Is this a chance to connect disparate little tidbits about the man and his oeuvre and assemble a coherent whole? Yes, it is. Just without the part about the coherent whole.

To aid you in the interpretation of this ever-expanding body of work, I offer this interpretive guide to Markus Dubber’s tweets.

But seriously - ARE THEY? This tweet starts making less sense the more you think about it. So I suggest you just take a perfunctory glance and move on. Like Crim. I will add this though: Flavelle has foosball and pool, but no pinball. You may say that is just by chance. Markus says: pinball is all about the distinction between law and police.

If you are in Markus’s Crim class, you already know what the criminal law is.

Obvi. For the rest of you:

Admin is real shit! Admin balls out of control like you wouldn’t believe. Admin kicks in the door, grabs the yayo AND the money and, while Admin reaches for the sawed off and little shorty, grabs the ice pick...

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Magic Mirror?? What the shit? Least gangster area of law ever. No one has ever called Contracts a “magic mirror.” Waddams would shoot you in the face.

Oh hell no. Markus--not cool.

It’s law school humor, Markus. If I were socially well adjusted enough to tell funny jokes I wouldn’t be here. Also, I wouldn’t be trolling through your Twitter in one tab and jdate in the other at 8:00 on a Saturday. I also wouldn’t have written that last sentence. Markus, help me out here--

Um. I’ll pass. Unless, Markus, if you’re not doing anything...

Babushka cat says “model penal code.” It’s in German - obviously it’s genius.

Many of Markus Dubber’s tweets are academic, but occasionally you get a few that shine a little light on just who he is as a person.

That’s right Napping Society. You wanted a couch? Oh, well, DLS was just going to use that couch FOR ORPHANS TO GRIEVE ON. But you wanted it so you could spoon with that girl you’re too afraid to talk to like the upper-middle-class social leper you are. That’s fine I guess… EXCEPT MARKUS DUBBER DOESN’T PLAY THAT SHIT. Markus Dubber + Twitter = A match made in comedy heaven.

26

Diversions

UV Eats at Mother’s Dumplings

Ultra Vires

By Todd Brayer (1L)

Mother’s Dumplings has quite possibly the best dumplings in Toronto.

The dumplings are handmade by an army of chefs standing behind a clear plastic barrier so patrons can watch. They make steamed, broiled and fried dumplings. Some are then frozen so customers can take them home.

They are also very cheap. Twelve dumplings typically cost about $6-7, which is usually enough for a filling lunch.

We ordered the steamed shrimp, egg and chives dumplings and fried pork, shrimp, and melon dump-

lings ($7.30 each). They were crisp, freshly made, not too oily, and tasted like they weren’t cutting any corners. If you were wondering, “melon” refers not to sweet cantaloupe, but a type of Chinese bitter melon.

They also have a number of non-dumpling entries in the menu. Because it’s a Chinese restaurant, we ordered “Korean-style noodles” ($7.75). It was cold noodle soup with a variety of toppings including cucumber, kimchi, egg, beef and sliced apple.

They also do good smoothies.

According to their website, the recipes are based on those of the owner’s mother from the old country, in this case Shenyang in northeast China. This may explain the care and love put into the food.

The restaurant itself has decent decor, although it’s better to get a window seat where you can watch the streetcars go by instead of far at the back.

My only complaint is that the service end of the restaurant can be lacking. The waitresses aren’t very good with crowd control and on my most recent visit, they forgot my order. It helps to be a bit more aggressive than many Canadians are in restaurants — individuals from Asian countries or those who have traveled there would be right at home. They also tend to run out of materials on busy nights.

All in all, the food is very cheap and very good.

It’s a great downmarket place to pick up dinner and I’d certainly go back.

Website: www.mothersdumplings.com, Address: 421 Spadina Avenue, 416-217-2008; open Mon-Sun 11AM – 10PM (though best to arrive before 8).

The second-year itch: tips for survival

By Andrew Pfleiderer (2L)

It is the end of the final semester of your second or third year. The summer is coming; OCIs and 1L exams are a distant memory. If you are like most law students, you have been in school for more than two decades. 1L likely set the standard for the hardest you’ve ever had to work at anything, and everything seems to get a lot lazier afterwards.

We all want to excel academically, but for many upper years the “me” time has taken over. For most of us -- whether or not we’ve found jobs or articling positions -- the goal is to coast through, getting by on the minimum required to ride the curve. Maybe we’re just burnt out; more likely we’ve realized deep down that this is the last opportunity we have to take it easy before we enter the rat race of articling and careerbuilding. Second and third year are a time to take the courses you want, become executives in clubs you like, and generally enjoy the last of your youth. Many of us will never get a chance like this again until we hit our mid-life crises.

So for those of you who are committed to not giving a damn about academics for the rest of your law school career, here is a list of six various habits and vices that you may have already, or that you can take up to help pass the time. Some people might not want to think of themselves as lazy do-nothings, so we’ve also included handy rationalizations you can use to convince yourself that these are worthwhile choices.

you should be doing school work, the hobby beckons.

You’ll find yourself sinking all your time into your new pursuit just to avoid school work, but it is neither as satisfying nor as productive as masturbating. There’s no feeling of accomplishment quite as absent as when starting (and hopefully finishing) an assignment the night before it’s due because you spent the entire previous week shopping or playing videogames. Think I need to spend at least a few days studying to pass this course? Challenge accepted.

2 - Watch premium TV for free on the internet all day long in your underwear.

Convenient rationalization: We’re going through a golden age of television. Sometimes you just need to put down your work and be part of the zeitgeist.

Besides, you can learn a lot about criminal law from shows like Dexter and The Wire, and about business organizations and family law from Mad Men, torts from Damages and entertainment law from Entourage.

The well-portrayed truth: You’re watching actors repeating things some fat bearded guy wrote in a musty, windowless basement LA office, instead of doing work that could help distinguish you academically and professionally from your overachieving peers. Keep it up!

1 - Finding a new, complex hobby. The more socially awkward, time consuming and expensive it is, the better.

Convenient rationalization: By having yet another hobby, you can take a much needed break from school that will help you feel confident, refreshed, and energized.

The obsessive truth: Whenever you think that

So there is a market for a JD/MBA

3 – Go to an average of 2/3rds of your classes because you’re tired, hungover, or you are already out drinking.

Convenient rationalization: You have a life outside of school! By partying frequently, you’ll minimize test anxiety and perform better than your stressed colleagues. As long as you can keep up with the reading, the lecture is really sort of ancillary.

The stumbling truth: You’re sauced most of the time and even by frat-house standards you now qualify as an alcoholic. If you’re working on Bay Street, you shouldn’t seek treatment: you’ll need to fortify your tolerance just to survive. Close the blinds, Wednesday is the new Friday, yesterday was Tuesday, and we we we so excited to sleep off another hangover. Drinks tonight?

4 – Do an average of none of your readings.

Convenient rationalization: Readings are timeconsuming and you get the same content by just taking thorough notes from class. It’s more efficient and you might learn the subject better by just hearing the lecture and studying your notes.

The illiterate truth: When combined with #3, you’re going to be getting only a fraction of total course content. Oh, and you spent $500 on textbooks that you’ll never open. Good luck on your exams. Think I need to do at least a few readings to pass this course? Challenge accepted.

5 – Let yourself go. Just eat whatever you want whenever you want, take up smoking, cut out exercise entirely, and allow your body to become the slothful wasteland that your mind already is.

CONTINUED on page 30

Public lecture by

Professor Alan Young counsel in the Ontario case Bedford v. Canada Thursday, June 9, 2011 6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

NOvOtel tOrONtO ceNtre 45 the esPlaNade, tOrONtO ON ReceptiOn tO fOllOw. fRee ADmissiOn.

Litigating

3RD

change

Law & Human RIgHts

for

3rd Symposium on HIV, Law & Human Rights Thursday, June 9 – Friday, June 10, 2011 8:00 a.m. – 5:15 p.m.

20 11

SympoSium on HIV,

junE 9 - 10, 2011

NOvOtel tOrONtO ceNtre, 45 the esPlaNade, tOrONtO ON

$50 registration fee for students Join us for this great opportunity to learn about hiv-related legal and human rights issues, explore new skills to advance human rights in the response to hiv, and develop new partnerships.

Symposium topics include: • The role of litigation in addressing issues related to human rights and HIV in Canada • Criminal prosecution of HIV non-disclosure cases • Constitutional challenges to Canada’s prostitution laws • Application of Canadian drug laws to supervised injection sites • Health policy issues in the media, and the use of social media tools for community engagement in law reform and public policy debates.

RegisteR tODAY At www.AiDslAw.cA/sYmpOsium

Diversions

28

Ultra Vires

CALL FOR EDITORS Join the 2011-12 UV Masthead as: - NEWS EDITOR! - OP/ED EDITOR! - FEATURES EDITOR! - DIVERSIONS EDITOR! - PRODUCTION EDITOR! -PHOTO EDITOR! - COPY EDITOR! - BUSINESS MANAGER! - IT/WEBSITE MANAGER!

Back seat or front seat? Which seat will YOU take? Kick it with UV next year.

No experience is required.

Let us know at ultra.vires@utoronto.ca

Get connected with Torys Download our free app for iPhone/iPod Touch View our student videos on YouTube Follow us on Twitter Download our podcasts on iTunes www.torys.com

| www.youtube.com/torysmedia | twitter.com/torysllp

TORONTO | NEW YORK | CALGARY

Diversions

March 30, 2011

29

The UV Crossword

Test your memory of 1L cases in puzzle form!

By Todd Brayer (1L)

1

Across:

2: Women are “people” 3: Court of Chivalry’s Latest Case 7: No Domestic Assault 10: Appointing retired judges 11: “It was bluebell time in Kent” 12: Learned 13: “Guilty doesn’t mean he did it” 14: He got ahead 18: Negatives Consent 19: Bloodletting 20: The delight of everyone 22: Lord Denning’s Name 24: Pettkus v Becker 26: Smoke 27: Immaculate Tax Redemption 29: Denning dissent now (somewhat) law 32: …She declined to agree that “the law’s an ass” 33: No Sunday reading 35: “Fuck the Draft” 36: Disappointing Yodler Evening 37: Reproductive Rights

2 4 3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 15

16

17

18 19

20

21 24

22

23

25

26 27 28 29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

27

Down:

1: Daughter’s boyfriend a crook 4: Highest court of the cook islands 5: Doesn’t have to reside in Canada 6: “Unreasonable” 8: Speciality of the C.J.O. 9: A Trumpeter of the highest quality 14: Langill strikes out 15: Me v Me for $5 million 16: Statue of Malborough 17: Harrison v Carswell 19: The Flies of Doom 21: Lord Denning’s House 23: Old Peter Beswick 25: “No Dogs” provisions 28: Lost out to Stephen 30: Bandai advertisements 31: Boiler didn’t boil 34: Longest serving SCC justice Answers on Page 31!

Campus life - from page 20

tear down this wall!” [“Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate,” West Berlin, 12 June 1987] I am embarrassed. How could I have been so ignorant? Professor Davis was right. She stood for peace, and against oppression. This can be seen by the fact that she stood as vice presidential candidate for the Communist Party of the United States in 1980 and 1984, and was awarded the Lenin Prize for her humanitarian and civil rights work by the East German government. It was senile old warmongers like Reagan – who we’ve just learned almost certainly was suffering from Alzheimer’s by 1987 –

who nearly destroyed the world. Had it not been for the activism of people like Davis and the Nuclear Freeze Movement’s most able advocate, Dr. Helen Caldicott, I shudder to think about what might have happened in that decade of moral darkness.

I am just so grateful that my (mandatory) student union fees could go to a consciousness-raising activity like Professor Davis’s speech. For, as Ms. Sandhu, our UTSU vice president (equity), says, “We are pleased to open eXpression Against Oppression with powerful and inspiring speakers. Students at the University of Toronto face significant challenges and barriers every day related to racism, sexism, and ableism.” I

was so inspired, I went to the campus bookstore to see if I could find Professor Davis’s 2003 book, Are Prisons Obsolete? It’s a useful question to ask – after all, if we had no prisons, there would be no systems of oppression that force us to take up shotguns and blow the heads off of those tools of oppression, judges.

Intellectual history is perhaps the most important subject taught at our universities. For, after all, if we did not look at the struggles intellectuals of previous generations have gone through, we might inadvertently make the same mistakes they did. And so, I should like to close this article by thanking the students’ union for putting on such an in-

spiring event – where else would I have the privilege of seeing such a magnificent speaker who was so right about so many things? eXpression Against Oppression Week was money well spent!

30

Diversions

Ultra Vires

The class of 2011: selling out since September 2008

By Will Morrison (3L)

Over the past year I’ve had the pleasure of sitting as a student member on the Faculty’s Admissions Committee. The job entails poring over the applications of hundreds of excellent candidates, to ultimately pick out only a select few who will receive offers of admission. It is a difficult process, and one which (contrary to everything that follows here) we did not take lightly.

But as the end of my own time at this school lazily, drunkenly ambles ever nearer, I’ve wondered what happens to all those bold proclamations, lofty ambitions and altruistic dreams after the O-Week tents come down and the lunches start to come back up over the ensuing three years of exams and job interviews. So I asked some of my fellow 3L classmates if I could look over the personal statements they submitted way back when they applied, and - using real excerpts from those statements - have prepared a little match game for you to judge for yourself how some of our most esteemed students’ paths have developed.

THE STATEMENTS:

THE STUDENTS:

(1) “I would like to learn how to use legal tools to ameliorate the living conditions of oppressed populations.”

(a) This student, who has never applied for any job related to international law, is articling in a government office which practices Canadian constitutional law exclusively

(3) “A law degree provides me with the assurance that I can assist individuals in commercial and international matters, and in effect help represent them justly in a foreign setting.”

(4) “Working in international law is the obvious and only possible career choice.”

(5) “My ambitions shifted and instead of becoming a criminal attorney, I pictured myself working for an NGO as the tireless crusader improving the quality of life for those in need.”

(6) “The language and oratory skills I have acquired in both my academic and professional experiences will allow me to articulate insightful contributions.”

(7) “I believe that I am a much better … candidate for law school than an applicant who merely demonstrates ability in the classroom, and I hope you agree.”

(8) “Perhaps, at the very least, it will allow me to escape the dusty, top floor office that I once longed for.”

(9) “The degree itself … could potentially open doors to many fields never initially considered as possible career choices. … Personally, I have a keen interest in environmental law (particularly globally) as well as international human rights.”

(10) “A study by Johns Hopkins University found that of more than a hundred occupations, lawyers had the highest rate of depression. Other studies have found that in comparison to the general population, attorneys have substantially higher rates of stress, alcoholism, substance abuse, divorce and suicide. I know many lawyers, young and old, and have had the misfortune of seeing some of these trends manifested at a very personal level. When surveyed recently by the American Bar Association, forty-four percent of lawyers said they would not recommend the profession to a young person.”

Upper Year Tips - from page 26 Convenient rationalization: By not spending so much energy maintaining society’s false beauty and health standards you’ll feel lower-stress, and have more time to study and focus since you won’t be at the gym so often. An A average is sure to follow.

The wheezing truth: Through constant indulgence you can turn your fit young body into a shameful, prematurely-aged wreck. Your self-esteem might falter, but your grades certainly will. By becoming a squishy hedonist you are really just reflecting the sordid truth at the center of your empty lawyer being. Embrace it!

6 – Start a drug habit. Begin abusing antidepressants and sleep medication. Also, it’s never too early to start banging 7 gram rocks, but it may be too late to make Charlie Sheen jokes.

Convenient rationalization: I need the Dexedrine because of my narcolepsy, and I need the Rhovane because of my insomnia.

The awful truth: You will probably do pretty well if you take the abovementioned mix. It should allow you to take up all of the above habits and still get some As. The candle that burns twice as bright burns twice as long, right?

[Ed: Please don’t take up #6.]

(b) This student can currently be found at all hours of the day in a dusty, dishevelled office on the top floor of the law library (c) This student bravely chose the mystery option behind Door #3, and discovered that it was full-service corporate commercial practice at a Bay Street firm (d) This student is articling at Blakes (e) This student did not take a single course in business law or international law in his three years at law school (f) This student began her split summer at a Bay Street firm in Toronto before her ambitions shifted to New York City, where she worked for “Wall Street’s most powerful law firm” (Forbes Magazine) (g) This student is articling at Oslers (h) This student has been so determined to prove his out-of-the-classroom abilities that he has, when not simply regularly skipping classes, taken time out during law school terms to travel to Poland (twice), BC (twice), Colombia, Morocco, Paris, and Dublin, each trip for at least one week (i) This student took precisely one environmental law course in his entire time at law school (though, in fairness to him, it was the only one offered this year) (j) This student once based his whole UV Point/Counterpoint argument on the characterization of his debate opponent as a “degenerate scumbag” Answer Key: 1 – g; 2 – i; 3 – e; 4 – a; 5 – f; 6 – j; 7 – h; 8 – b; 9 – c; 10 – d

(2) “The environment is an area which I am academically and emotionally invested in, and the University’s strong reputation in environmental law makes it an apt law school for me.”

Briefly Noted In historic election, racial diversity prevails as white guy finally elected as SLS president Dubber’s Twitter fetish goes too far after he assigns Admin paper with 140 character limit Votes for the Federal Election e-mailed to Mike Laskey after March 31, 2011 will NOT be counted Enchantment Under the Sea Dance a huge success; later that weekend, students emerge one hour in the future Bouncy castle becomes lightning rod for political controversy at SLS Prez forum Squirrel files Section 9 violation after being arbitrarily detained in Bora Laskin Law Library, asks for damages as per Ward.

Correction: Mike Hamata has had a girlfriend throughout law school

Diversions

March 30, 2011

31

UV cooks: Guinness and ginger stew

By Jeremy Ablaza (2L)

This is a really easy, really tasty braise that works really well if you make a large batch in advance, then keep in the fridge so the flavors meld and mature. Also, this is a great time to make this, since there’s gotta be at least one person you know who’s got a can or two of Guinness that they can’t stand to look at anymore after some St. Patty’s Day festivities. The ginger gives a nice twist, and will caramelize nicely in the cooking process. My version assumes you have a pot that can go from stovetop to oven. If you don’t, you can either do the whole thing on the stovetop, or do the initial searing on the stovetop and transfer everything to a deep roasting pan that you then cover tightly with foil, then put in the oven. If you have a slow cooker, you could also do the first steps of the recipe in a pot and then put all the ingredients in the slow cooker, then walk away from it. Finally, when peeling the ginger, just take a spoon and scrape it roughly against the skin. You will take off the rough bark without losing too much ginger.

Also, I acknowledge that this takes quite an investment of time up front, but an hour’s work and a couple hours’ waiting-around time at home pays off later. If you’re in a rush to reheat this for dinner just pop it in the microwave and serve over some rice or with bread. If you aren’t in too much of a rush, roast up some potatoes and pop this in the oven at high heat for fifteen or twenty minutes to further develop a nice crust on the meat.

Ingredients:

• Beef short ribs • Half a can of Guinness • Beef broth • A few cloves of garlic, finely minced • A large chunk of ginger, peeled and sliced into thin disks • Carrots

Recipe:

• Preheat the oven to 350°F. • Sear the short ribs in canola oil on at least three sides. This will take probably three minutes a side. Make sure not to crowd the meat in the pan. I know it’s a bit of a pain, but don’t take shortcuts because it’s all downhill after this.

• Take out the ribs, and in the same pot, brown the garlic, ginger, and carrots.

• Pour in the Guinness a little bit at a time, stirring vigorously to loosen the tasty goodness at the bottom.

• Put the meat back in the pot and then almost cover the meat with an equal mix of beer and broth.

• Put the pot in the oven for two and a half hours. Halfway through, take the pot out of the oven, stir the whole thing around, and season to taste. Make sure that any meat sticking out of the liquid is submerged and any meat that was submerged for the first half of the cooking is exposed to the air in order to get that nice brown crust.

Legal limericks

By Leo Elias (1L)

Ode to a library

When running for the SLS The candidates seek out success (With issues created And plans overstated) And forget in campaigns more is less

Supreme Court in Butler was torn ‘Twixt freedom and ethical scorn But a core value test Of what was expressed Revealed “self-fulfillment” in porn

Oh Robarts!

You juggernaut,

A man whose addiction entices Display of his sexual vices Upon an arrest In court he’ll contest It’s just sexual stare decisis

A lawyer made out with one Sondra Adversely possessing her donned bra As she asked its return He said with a yearn I though it a Profit a Prendre

Nay!

There once was a pompous solicitor Whose marriage dissolved and he missed her But she always hated When wrong, he debated That he was just reasonable simpliciter

By Dan Bertrand (2L)

They call you a cubist Peacock whose spread wings reveal an abundance of books; pages fluttering like feathers...

I say you are a concrete turkey, sinking into the Earth as no architect could predict the weight of your pomposity.

Yet secretly, I wish to burrow into your stacks and learn your hard lessons.

Cruel mistress, dominatrix! I acquiesce!

Take me within your bowels and teach me.

It’s exam time.

Tribute to the class of 2011 A R D S U F F E

M R U C S O T A B A L L S P H S T M A S

V I C T O J A R V I S I A

W C R A I G O H E T

We did more Than survive trials Found our place

M

Not all work Remember Follies Thursday pubs

C L A S A B O U B O R A A N P K I C R I C K E U K P E T T

Made our mark Created memories With us always

M

Long exams Challenging papers Sleepless nights

S

Found the time To foster friendships Gave back too

M A P E R S O N V A N C H E S O I C F U T P T O E H I N O R H A N D T B R O C K N O S T T O H I V E S E O L I A D I R K W N E C H R I R U E D W N I A N T R O Y

Three years ago Our journey began Studying law

P T E R I V Y C U P E Z O U N C U P E I L

By Matthew G. Scott (3L)

32

Diversions

Ultra Vires