Ultra Vires Vol 13 Issue 4: 2012 February

Faculty Report Card

MPG’s Law School Dating Guide

Our second annual report of student ratings of U of T Professors

Resident romance expert describes what it’s like to be rejected again and again

ULTRA VIRES

Features, Page 8

Features, Page 22

First Edition

February 15, 2011 Vol. XIII, no. IV ultravires.ca

LAW FOLLIES

The Independent Student Newspaper Of The University Of Toronto Faculty Of Law

Alarie: LRW Feedback Positive Associate Dean says preliminary results show program highly rated by first years

T

By Jessica Lam (2L)

he legal research and writing program for 1Ls wrapped up earlier this month, and according to course evaluations collected by the Faculty, the feedback has been “incredibly positive,” said Associate Dean Ben Alarie.

“I’m not saying that every form we received was positive, but overall it’s very good feedback, said Alarie.

“The program was highly rated and stands up with the other elements of our first year program.”

BENJAMIN ALARIE Assistant Dean Associate Dean of the Sara Faherty is First Year Program in the process of putting together a memo on the feedback that will be released next month, but the evaluation forms remain confidential.

For SLS Vice President Justin Nasseri, the faculty’s insistence on keeping the evaluations ‘private’ is a barrier to information and yet another example of the faculty failing to engage in student consultation.

“There is a Dean’s Committee that has rightfully appointed student membership, and the committee has been meeting without students being involved. The SLS has been kept completely out of the loop,” said Nasseri.

Nasseri also said that there was a discord between Alarie’s claim of “incredibly positive” feedback, and the stories of 1L

For More, See “LRW” on Page 8

CARY FERGUSON PHOTO

Louis Tsilivis (2L) and Patrick Hartford (2L) prepare for their big debut in Law Follies 2012: Patently Unreasonable

Faculty: Don’t Publish Our Grades Administration throws up obstacles to publishing faculty evaluations in Ultra Vires.

Ultra Vires Staff

Would you want Ultra Vires to publish your grades? That’s the question the Administration is asking UV. Last year, UV published faculty evaluations for the first time. Previously, this information was available at the reference desk at the library where few stu-

dents accessed it. Furthermore, it is presented by class rather than by teacher.

This newspaper compiled that public data and assembled it into a ranking by professor to give students an objective metric to compare teachers.

It was not a move popular among the Administration.

On May 19th, 2011, the Governing Council adopted the following policy on

the disclosure of faculty teaching evaluations: “As the general norm, course evaluation data will be shared with students.

This data may include numerical data and/or written comments.

Individual instructors may opt not to release data for their course(s).”

For More, See “Grades” on Page 8

2

NOVEMBER 23, 2011 ultravires.ca

ULTRA VIRES

LETTERS

Letters to the Editor

Look at this I’m all the way over here

Faculty Perspective on New Grading System Dear Editor:

By Matt Brown, Editor-In-Chief (2L)

L

ook at this. There’s no room for a photo of me. Now look down. This is barely a hundred words. There is no more room for me in this paper.

I don’t recognize the place. There are serious articles about politics. I fought to keep Point/Counterpoint about sex and pointless bullshit. My sacred cow remains, but two young 1L upstarts are trying to eclipse it with a column about politics. POLITICS! I never thought I’d see the day.

UV has gone soft. What? We have crosswords now? What are we The New York Times? Listen up, Maureen Dowd-the UV I know and love does not ask you to put words into boxes. It asks to sit down, shut up, wonder aloud why-oh-why firms continue to advertise here.

But those days are over, a new day is dawning.

And I am not sure how much strength I have left to fight the change that seems inevitable.

So, to all those poor spellers out there with no ideas for content, an unremarkable sense of humor and a crazy dream: UV needs you more than ever.

PS: Sorry, Josh Madryk. The position’s been filled.

Aaron Rankin and Justin Nasseri raise substantial procedural concerns about the law school administration’s proposal to change to a new grading scheme (Faculty Scores “LP” in Consultation, Ultra Vires, January 25th issue). While they make a very good case, it is equally important to note that procedural concerns cannot be separated from substantive ones.

It is crucial that student opinion be sought, and that that opinion be fully informed.

To this point two crucial issues are missing from the debate and from any consultations that have taken place.

First, as the Rankin/Nasseri article indicates, we do not know what distribution rules will accompany any change to new letter grades.

Distribution rules are necessary because a grading system without them would likely result in considerable unfairness to students, as grading profiles will look different from course to course.

This is a particularly acute problem in first year, when students are placed in sections with no course selection, but it will also be harmful throughout the programme.

Here it is worth noting that our current grading rules were brought into being in the 1980s at the request of the students, to deal with exactly this problem.

Consistent grading profiles across courses are highly desirable in any system, but also difficult to achieve at the University because section II.5 of the University Grading Practices Policy states that “The distribution of grades in any course shall not be predetermined

by any system of quotas that specifies the number or percentage of grades allowable at any grade level.” There is a qualifier to this, in the further statement that “a division may provide broad limits to instructors setting out a reasonable distribution of grades in the division or department.”

Before any new grading system can be implemented we need to know what limits are proposed, and whether they conform to the “broad” limits noted above.

To take an unlikely example, a rule that stated that between 10% and 50% of a class could get an A would surely be within the definition of “broad” limit but it would hardly prevent the unfairness problem already mentioned.

Conversely, a rule that stated that between 10% and 15% of students in a course should receive an A would ensure very substantial equity between courses, but is unlikely to pass the “broad” limits test.

Second, it is difficult for students to assess whether a new scheme is desirable without a clear understanding of what the current system is and how it works.

By specifying an average mark for all courses the current system does provide considerable equity.

It is not perfect, and could be improved, and will certainly need to be made more transparent.

But it is far from clear to many faculty members that the proposed new system is preferable or necessary. And, more importantly, any student consultation, to be made meaningful, needs to include consideration of whether the current system, amended, would be preferable to a change.

At the end of the day the proposal to change to a new grading system ought to be one that is fully debated by Faculty Council.

- Jim Phillips Professor, Faculty of Law

ULTRA VIRES Editor-in-Chief News Editor Features Editor Opinion Editor Diversions Editor 1L Content Editor Production Editors Business Manager Web & Photo Editor Copyeditors

Matt Brown Jessica Lam Patrick Hartford Andrew Robertson Drew Valenine Josh Mandryk Bhuvana Sankaranarayanan Todd Brayer Giselle Chin Jonathan Bega Cary Ferguson Annie Tayyab Andrea Wong

Love UV For What She Is, Be Thankful She’s Here At All Dear UV Editors, Amidst all the “controversy” over female involvement in the paper, I couldn’t help but notice no one mentioned that Ultra Vires was in fact founded by a woman, one Melissa Kluger (of Precedent Magazine).

Kluger started the paper over a decade ago on sheer female willpower: it was simpler, black and white, but had much the same amusing and self-referential tone (if memory serves correctly, the first headline was “Law students found school paper,” or somesuch rubbish).

We have carried on in that vein ever since.

But I will add a word of caution: UV should take care not to become too selfabsorbed, lest it implode.

No one (except maybe JD/MBAs, who are checked out, jaded, and largely friendless in their 4th year) presently at the law school would remember what happened in my first year, the spectacular “UV Implosion of ‘08,” whereby UV disintegrated in a vortex of self-pity.

So I say, “beware,” and focus on doing what you do best: in your own words, donuts, dick jokes, and I would add a little bit of law school news as well.

- Aaron Christoff Editor-in-Chief for Ultra Vires 2010-11

Ultra Vires is an editorially independent publication. We are open to contributions which reflect diverse points of view, and our contents do not necessarily reflect the views of the Faculty of Law, the Students’ Law Society, or the editorial board.

Errors If you find any errors in Ultra Vires, please email ultravires@uto-

Advertising Advertising inquiries should be sent to Business Manager Jonathan Bega at ultravires@utoronto.ca

Submissions If you have an article submission or a tip for us, please contact us at ultravires@utoronto.ca. The deadline for submissions is October 12, 2011. Ultra Vires reserves the right to edit submissions for brevity and clarity.

ultravires.ca FEBRUARY 15, 2012

ULTRA VIRES

3

NEWS

OCA Allows Contentious Cert Investors can sue mutual funds even though fund managers already settled with OSC OSC proceeding was the preferable procedure” in the case.

The appeal to the Divisional Court was allowed, and the certification was granted. The Divisional Court wrote that the motion judge had “lost sight” of the fact that issue in the proposed action was the recovery of damages over and above the amounts recovered through the OSC settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but criticized the Divisional Court’s reasoning, writing that the “Divisional Court did not ask itself the right question” and that its focus on whether the OSC settlements provided investors with the relief sought by the class proceeding was not properly considered during the preferable procedure analysis.

According to the Court of Appeal, the conclusion that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure was supported by the facts that the OSC’s jurisdiction is protective and preventative rather than compensatory and that the proceedings of the OSC “did not provide comparable rights of participation to the affected investors as the procedural rights enshrined in the CPA” would.

By Liam Churchill (2L)

In a decision released late last month, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the certification of a class action by investors in mutual funds whose managers had reached a settlement with the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) for more than $200-million related to the use of “market timing.”

In order for a proposed class action to be certified, Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act (CPA) requires that a class proceeding be the preferable procedure for the resolution of common issues in a proposed class action, and it was this issue on which the appeal in Fischer v IG Investment Management turned and on which the Court provided guidance to lower courts.

The Court of Appeal held that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure for the resolution of the common issues, even though the proposed defendants had already reached a settlement with the OSC. Chief Justice Winkler, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, wrote that, in assessing whether a class proceeding is the preferable procedure, a court must

Osgoode Hall, also known as the Ontario Court of Appeal

PHOTO COURTESY of OSGOODE HALL

The motions judge had denied the application for certification, holding that a class proceeding would not be the preferable procedure but that all the other requirements for certification were met.

Justice Perrell indicated in the absence of OSC proceedings, he would have granted certification, since the other requirements of a cause of action, an identifiable class, the presence of common issues, and the existence of appropriate representative plaintiffs were met, but that “the

examine “the fundamental characteristics of the proposed alternative proceeding, such as the scope and nature of the jurisdiction and remedial powers of the alternative forum, the procedural safeguards that apply, and the accessibility of the alternative proceeding” and compare a class proceeding with the proposed alternative to determine which of the two will better meet the CPA’s goals of judicial economy, access to justice and behaviour-modification.

advance with confidence Share our vision of what’s possible. At Gowlings, we help make your ambitions your realities. You’ll know where you’re going, and you’ll have the resources to get there ahead of the pack. To learn more about our student program, go to iwantgowlings.com

expect teamwork resources flexibility expect mentoring respect growth

montréal

•

ottawa

•

toronto

•

hamilton

•

waterloo region

•

calgary

•

vancouver

•

moscow

•

london

•

gowlings.com

4

FEBRUARY 15, 2012 ultravires.ca

ULTRA VIRES

NEWS

Asper Centre Retention of Women in the Law Seeks Standing How can the profession improve the rention of women?

Asper Centre fo Constitutional Rights advocates for looser test for standing at SCC

O

By Vincent Wong (2L)

n Thursday, January 19, UofT Law professors Kent Roach and Cheryl Milne intervened on behalf of the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights on the Supreme Court case of the Attorney General of Canada v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, et al.

The David Asper Centre advocated for changes to the current test for public standing – a test that has been heavily criticized by opponents as being overly strict and needlessly rigid. Renowned Toronto-based lawyer Douglas Elliott refers to Charter litigation as “the Dom Perignon that’s locked behind the door at the LCBO.” The ‘lock’ analogy refers to not only significant financial burdens placed on potential claimants, but also to the barriers posed by the test for public standing.

The case originated in British Columbia as a constitutional “[Charter challenge of a variety of crimiLitigation is] nal provisions the Dom Periagainst prostitution (similar gnon that’s to the Bedford locked behind case in Ontario, the door at although slightthe LCBO” ly different in substance and scope).

Douglas Elliott However, the Attorney General successfully petitioned for the case to be dropped for lack of standing. The plaintiffs went all the way to the Supreme Court to try and get standing, while offering the Court a chance to revisit the much-maligned Canadian Council of Churches test for public-interest standing.

Canadian Council of Churches lays out a threepart test for the granting of public interest standing: (1) there must be a serious issue of invalidity of legKENT ROACH islation, (2) the U of T Law Professor plaintiff must be Criminal Law Genius directly affected by the legislation or have a genuine interest in its validity, and (3) there must be, on the balance of probabilities, no other reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the Court.

Most of the criticism has been directed toward the third prong of the test, which has the effect of denying standing for many public interest organizations be-

“

cause an individual claimant would always be preferred. The third prong has also had the unintended effect of bogging down the courts with lengthy and expensive preliminary litigation, as was the case here with the Sex Workers Society being frustrated from making their substantive claims in Court.

The Society asked for a relaxation of the third prong to take into account financial and contextual burdens on claimants, particularly for the systemically vulnerable.

The David Asper Centre proposed an innovative approach, emphasizing the “right of the citizenry to constitutional behaviour by its government.” Furthermore, the Centre proposed that remedies should play a part in determining standing, since section 24(1) remedies are personal in nature as opposed to section 52(1) remedies which are systemic in nature and go to the heart of the constitutional validity of legislation.

For now, though, all public interest groups, including the embattled sex CHERYL MILNE workers who have Executive Director of travelled all the way across the the Asper Centre country, wait with bated breath on the Supreme Court’s verdict.

The Current Public Interest Standing Test: (1) There must be a serious issue of invalidity of legislation; (2) The plaintiff must be directly affected by the legislation or have a genuine interest in its validity; and (3) There must be, on the balance of probabilities, no other reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the Court.

Proposed Changes: (1) Emphasize the “right of the citizenry to constitutional behaviour by its government.”

(2) Remedies should play a part in determining standing.

(3) Loosen the third step of the current test.

By Krista Nerland (1L) And Maya Ollek (1L)

O

n Monday, Women in the Law and the Feminist Law Student’s Association co-hosted a panel discussion on the retention of women in private practice.

The event brought together a group of Bay Street lawyers – Kirby Chown, who retired as regional managing partner at Mc McCarthy Tétrault LLP; Linda Rothstein, a partner at Paliare Roland; Ruth Promislow, a partner at Bennett Jones; and Darcy Legros, an associate at Bennett Jones – to discuss some of the challenges to the retention and advancement of women in private-sector firms. Josée Bouchard, an Equity Advisor with the Law Society of Upper Canada, served as moderator.

Let’s start with a disclaimer: these are some remarkable women.

The panelists were intelligent, extremely hardworking and confident—the kind of lawyers that many female (and male) law students aspire to be.

And it made us pretty happy that one of the panelists described herself as an “old school feminist.”

It felt sort of like getting a high-five in the middle of the panel.

Still, we left the event feeling a bit disheartened. The panelists offered stories about how they “made it” in a male-dominated Bay Street firms. They assured us that it was possible for women to succeed if they “work hard,” and “work with the right people.”

This is useful advice, but it doesn’t get to the heart of the problem. Monday’s discussion focused on how to balance traditionally female roles (such as childbearing) with large-firm work. For example, panelists shared stories about taking advantage of maternity-leave policies while staying connected with colleagues and files. But the panel did not substantively address the systemic issues that continue to exclude women from the top echelons of private practice.

For instance, the traditional law-firm structure is based on a model that rewards lawyers who have a stay-at-home partner (or, at least, a partner who is willing to sacrifice career for family) to support their long hours.

This model systemically discriminates against women, who continue to do a disproportionate share of work in the home even when both partners work full time, and who are much less likely to have a spouse who will put their career on the backburner to focus on work inside the home.

For single parents—who are, again, more often women—this model is nearly impossible.

Although we may be moving towards a society where men and women share equally in household labour and professional success, we are a long way from achieving that goal. When we do, this model of a firm will be unworkable for nearly everyone. Until then, it dispropor-

tionately excludes women.

You might argue that this system rewards the hardest workers (read: people who put in the longest hours).

You might also argue that women who want to work less could choose a different job.

But these arguments miss the point.

Our profession creates and sustains a structure of success that is built on the exclusion of women.

This hurts women, and it hurts firms. As The Economist recently noted, “study after study has shown that companies with lots of women in senior positions are more successful than those with few or none.”

(Note: For more on this, see: “All Aboard; Women Will Get a Lift to the Top” in the November 17, 2011, issue.)

The panelists had a room full of (primarily female) law students, trying to figure out how to shape their careers.

They also have a substantial amount of power in the big firms.

On Monday, we all missed an opportunity to talk about the kind of structural change that is really required to make law a more equitable profession.

Krista and Maya are proud members of the FLSA. But also, the opinions in this piece are entirely their own.

PHOTO COURTESY of PALAIRE ROLAND

Linda Rothstein, Partner at Palaire Roland LLP.

PHOTO COURTESY of BENNETT JONES

Ruth Promislow, Partner at Bennett Jones LLP.

ultravires.ca FEBRUARY 15, 2012

5

ULTRA VIRES

NEWS

UV’s Five Ultimate Ultimate Moments of Fall Semester Lane Krainyk now hopes to unseat MPG, the reigning 10-point column champion, by writing a 5-point column about that most manly sport, Ultimate Frisbee. Can he?

Reilly Pollard’s short shorts.

Mastering the art of the default win.

The UT Law Ultimate teams (both the Saturday and Sunday teams) collectively won six games by default last semester.

Our ability to show up was, perhaps, the only thing we did better than any of the other teams.

3

The post Halloween party game. Ten hungover law students (painfully) played an awesome game to take down the opposition. We truly believe that Michelle Folliott’s tattoos, Emily Shepard’s glitter and my Tigger stripes

contributed to our big win (and no, this was not one of the defaults).

2 1

Breakfast caesars after the aforementioned game.

Winning the Division 2 Championship. The Sunday team overcame tough overtime games in the quarter and semi to face OISE in the final. OISE had beat out a very talented Law Saturday team to make the final. In the final, the Sunday team got revenge, beating OISE in a hard fought game.

Lane Krainyk is well-known as the most famous Varsity Ultimate player named Lane Krainyk in the history of the University of Toronto. His exploits are sung far and wide. Just a look at this titan of ultimate Ultimate skills makes him a shining beacon at the law school.

PHOTO COURTESY of INTERMURAL ULTIMATE TEAM

The U of T Law ultimate team won many games through default this semester.

GO OFF-LEASH

YOUR PHONE, OR GO TO OUR STUDENT WEBSITE.

SCAN TO SEE MORE ON

5 4

By Lane Krainyk (2L)

SAME LAW, DIFFERENT FIRM. Love your job at one of the most dynamic legal practices in Canada. Contact our Assistant Director of Student Programs, Leigh-Ann McGowan, at lamcgowan@casselsbrock.com or visit us at students.casselsbrock.com

© 2011-2012 Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP. All rights reserved. | casselsbrock.com | 416 869 5300

Ultra Vires student ad Go off-leash (“husky”) Quarter page, b&w

CB_UV_QuarterPage_b&w_1201.indd 2

Cassels Brock - 2011/2012 season

Designer: Heather Murray hmurray@casselsbrock.com 416 869 5782 -

Please PRINT a hard copy of 1/5/2012 1:45:24 PM the file and either FAX it or SCAN and EMAIL it back to

6

FEBRUARY 15, 2012

ULTRA VIRES

ultravires.ca

FEATURES

Travelogue: Law students too sensitive?

Osgoode Hall

By Dan Bertrand (3L)

A

subterranean passage north, opening to suburban streets rarely serviced. A mall the size of St. George Campus. New houses spaced against old houses. Poor urban planning and architecture, but, some say this is still Toronto. I call this exile. On a good day, it takes one hour with the TTC, by metro, then bus; on a bad day, it takes two.

Yeah...but I was not one of those banished from the inner city for not having performed well on undergraduate and LSAT exams, left dreaming of Bay Street. No, I chose exile, for something that I couldn’t find at U of T: an advanced labour and employment law course in first semester. I wasn’t the only one there. On my first day, I found another like me, taking a class in Native Rights.

Welcome to the Ignat Kaneff Building, still under construction. An obvious victim of a naming rights fundraising campaign. Inside, one can find the MacMillan LLP Reading Room, the Goodmans LLP Bistro.

There’s a goofy picture of Dean Sossin of U of T Fame with other faculty holding up jumbo-sized red letter blocks spelling “TRANSFORMATION”.

Near the front door are copies of the students’ satiric newspaper “Obiter Dicta.” I understand that you, the reader, may not believe this account of a parallel universe. Believe me, I was there. Although I found myself as a stranger in a strange land, this is no science fiction account of a dystopian future.

It is an account of today’s Osgoode Hall.

Actually... the title of the physical hall has also been sold. I sat myself down in Gowlings Hall which is lined with service offices such as a Help Desk, the Office of Clinical Education, Admissions & Financial Aid, and something called the Centre for Innovation in Dispute Resolution. The first thing I noticed about the students was how diverse they were. Not too far away I noticed a female security guard wearing what appeared to be a bulletproof vest.

Turning to the middle aged woman sitting next to me I asked: “overkill, don’t you think?” She responded, by politely informing me that her grasp of English was limited. I was getting culture shock, so I got up to search for something familiar, and for a bit of water. I found a BRITA water fountain, and some WASPs milling

about, which assured me that I was at a Canadian law school.

Nonetheless, I’m sure that if Obiter Dicta were to have a competition for the “WASP of the Year” like Ultra Vires, they would have an easy time due to a lack of eligible candidates.

The question hit me: was this really Osgoode Hall? I knew the sign outside this building said so, but, what did this place have to do with that venerable institution?

The modern school seemed to be making a desperate attempt to connect with its past. There were video terminals with the slogan “Osgoode: Then and Now,” juxtaposing class photos and achievements from different eras.

On some of the walls are photocopies of old class photos.

Presumably, the originals from the 19th Century are too valuable to place in hallways frequented by contemporary students.

Osgoode Hall exemplifies the philosophical problem presented by the Ship of Theseus. If every piece of wood that makes a ship were replaced over time, would it still be the same ship?

Likewise, if, over time, Osgoode Hall changes locations, building materials, faculty, student body, and curriculum, is it still Osgoode Hall, or, Wasgoode Hall?

I don’t know. I saw a painting, hung proudly in a student common area, depicting various Osgoode students with the line “#1 Law School in Canada... Again” What does that mean? Was the painter under the impression that Osgoode is currently the best law school in Canada, or, was this some sort of nostalgic hope for the future?

Nonetheless, I was particularly impressed by two of Osgoode Hall’s practices. The first, is the availability of A+’s.

That’s right reader, if you want an A+ on your U of T Law transcript, don’t donate a million dollars to the new building fundraising campaign, try taking a crosslisted class at Osgoode Hall instead. The second, is the ban on SNAILS [Students Not Actually in Law School] in the library during exams.

Most surprising were the students.

They were very welcoming, and there were so many of them! Although I often introduced myself as a student from U of T, I experienced no hostility. Sincerely, I would like to thank our distant northern cousins for their hospitality, but, I hope to never take the bus up there again.

I

By Atrisha Lewis (3L)

t appears to me that we live in a society of hyper-sensitivity and political correctness. But what baffles me is the inherent contradiction of it all.

Nowadays, you can’t dress up as Mulan, Pocahontas, or Princess Jasmine without offending someone, but somehow Snow White and Cinderella are acceptable costume choices for Halloween. Isn’t this all about dressing up as Disney characters?

Davies can’t parody themselves without offending who knows…slaves…but students call Davies lawyers “slavies” on a daily basis without comment.

You can’t throw a fundraising feast without offending a law student, but fundraising galas are acceptable. If it is rude to feast when you are raising money for the hungry, shouldn’t it be equally rude to wear extravagant clothes and drink champagne to raise money for the poor?

For that matter, shouldn’t it be offensive to throw a fundraising walk for Multiple Sclerosis (MS) when many afflicted by MS lose motor function?

As a woman and a visible minority, I consider myself hyper sensitive to issues of discrimination, prejudice, and general bad taste. But there are simply some things I just cannot wrap my head around. It seems to me we live in a society (or at least a law school community) that jumps at the potential offensiveness of everything. But we also irrationally let other things go. There seems to be no consistency in the outrage; perhaps because the outrage is misplaced in the first place.

I’d like to suggest that we give our peers and those around us the benefit of the doubt (when possible). The white girl who dressed up as Mulan probably adored that movie as a kid and wants to celebrate Japanese culture. The feast organizer just wanted to raise money for a good cause.

Davies probably just wanted to take ownership of a nickname that has plagued them for years. In all of these potentially offensive cases, it is clear that there is evidence of good intentions. I appreciate that good intentions cannot in and of themselves absolve you from being ignorant, rude, and offensive. However, I think we’ve reached a point where everything can be framed as offensive and we need to stop attacking everyone for everything.

Over-hyper-sensitivity can have a chilling effect on good deeds and creativity. For example, the last issue of UV featured only generic hand-holding type law firm ads (*cough* Blakes and Norton Rose). The only creative ad in the issue

was Cassels Brock’s ad which featured a dog wearing a suit and the tagline “go off leash.” I could easily prevent any future creative ad attempts if I framed this seemingly harmless ad as offensive. I could argue that Cassels offended me because they likened law students to dogs and suggested that other firms treated their students like kept animals. Not only would that be wholly unfair to Cassels, but Cassels would probably apologize for being insensitive and change their ad for the next issue to feature some generic hand-holding.

I am not advocating that we let everything go. For instance, I don’t think for a second that Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak should escape scrutiny for his offensive remarks and actions. Tim Hudak called Canadian citizens not born in Canada “foreigners” and used rhetoric that suggested “foreigners” were not worthy of any affirmative policy. Hudak also published ads that played into homophobic stereotypes.

While Hudak’s comments have been denounced by liberals and conservatives alike, he has for the most part escaped scrutiny and he remains the PC leader. All of this leads me to believe that the outrage targeted at charity organizers and costume wearers would be better spent in a case such as this.

So the question remains, when do we scrutinize and when do we walk away?

I think the difference is one of intention and blatant offensiveness. While these two criteria for drawing the line may not be helpful in every case, I think they provide a starting point. Davies, Mulan-girl, and the charity organizers didn’t have any malicious or divisive intent.

Moreover, their actions are not blatantly offensive. In all three of these cases I needed someone to explain to me what was so egregious about the action. On the other hand, Hudak’s remarks strongly suggest bigoted sentiments and are inappropriate for an elected MPP and aspiring provincial leader. While he may not have intended to offend, he explicitly offended vulnerable segments of our society and this is simply unacceptable.

We need to stop actively looking for the offensiveness in everything because everything can be framed as offensive. We also need to start giving good people the benefit of the doubt. Equally importantly, we need to stop letting truly offensive things go.

For every breath, article or rant wasted on a light-hearted gesture, a Tim Hudak is able to escape well-deserved scrutiny.

And if you’re not going to listen to anything I say, at least start being consistent in your outrage.

ultravires.ca FEBRUARY 15, 2012

ULTRA VIRES

7

FEATURES

U of T Law Faculty Report Card 2010-2011 Professor Name Anthony Duggan Mayo Moran Arthur Ripstein Ernest Weinrib Peter Benson Hamish Stewart Stephen Waddams Mariana Mota Prado Kent Roach Edward Iacobucci Jim Phillips David Schneiderman Abraham Drassinower Benjamin Alarie Brenda Cossman Catherine Valcke Michael Trebilcock Bruce Chapman Lisa Austin

Grade A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

Score 1.05 1.06 1.12 1.18 1.18 1.20 1.21 1.23 1.32 1.32 1.33 1.40 1.41 1.43 1.48 1.49 1.50 1.50 1.50

Professor Name Ayelet Schachar Ed Morgan Audrey Maclin Patrick Macklem Anita Anand Ian Lee Simon Stern Karen Knop Andrew Green Brian Langille Lorraine Weinrib Jeffrey MacIntosh Denise Reaume Mohammad Fadel Trudo Lemmens Ariel Katz Kerry Rittich Jennifer Nedelsky Markus Dubber

Grade A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B C C

Score 1.56 1.56 1.66 1.69 1.79 1.95 1.97 1.98 2.00 2.03 2.11 2.12 2.16 2.33 2.34 2.41 2.43 3.00 3.55

Overall, the instructor is an effective teacher” 1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree

T

Methodology he data come from the 20102011 Course Evaluation Report (available in the library), which provides a one-page summary of the evaluations from each course offered last year.

For each professor, we took their score on the question “Overall, the instructor is an effective teacher” and averaged them for each course they taught, weighting the courses by the relative number of evaluations submitted in each class.

This prevents the views of a small class negating the views of a very large class, e.g. if a professor teaches two courses and receives a favourable score in a class of sixty students and an unfavourable score in a class of fifteen students, the overall score would still reflect the fact that the majority of students found her/him to be an effective instructor.

Additionally, to ensure robust scores, not unduly affected by the views of a small number of students, we only included the results for professors for whom the total number of course evaluations filled out

exceeded thirty. To reflect the fact that miniscule differences in scores are statistically insignificant, we divided the scores into broad categories (A = 1.00-1.99, B = 2.00-2.99, C = 3.00-3.99, D=4.00-5.00).

Why Ultra Vires Publishes This Information UV publishes this information because we want to provide a value-added service in accordance with our mandate as the student newspaper at the U of T Faculty of Law. We process the raw data from the course evaluation reports, which are nearly 200 pages, and present it in an accessible table that allows students to see what their peers are thinking. Our decision to print this table was made in large part due to the positive feedback we received from students (and some staff).

We recognize that the data are sensitive and we take this task very seriously. This is not a popularity contest, it is not about shaming anyone, and it is not about creating an antagonistic relationship between students and faculty.

Our goal is simply to process and present available information for the benefit

of staff and students. We are simply reporting on one particular metric that students find useful when picking courses.

This table is not about being a ‘good professor’ or a ‘bad professor’.

The table only captures how effective students perceive them to be at teaching.

We believe this data to be useful for faculty and students alike, and we readily acknowledge its limitations.

Ensuring Fairness After we began working on the professor rankings for this month’s issue, the UV Editorial Board was informed that the new policy of the administration asks students not to reproduce or republish the data from the course evaluation reports in any way. While we have published this data against the wishes of the administration, UV has taken several steps to mitigate the concerns of the administration and to ensure that a proper balance between open information and professor privacy is struck. This information is not included in the online edition of Ultra Vires – only the print edition – thereby ensuring that it is disseminated

to the people who already have access to this data from the library.

This is not a ranking and there is no curve. Rankings are misleading, as they do not account for clustering of scores.

Consequently, we have divided the range of possible scores into letter grades to reflect the fact that students think that the vast majority of full-time professors at our school are effective teachers.

The use of these broad categories circumvents the problem of distinguishing professors based on statistically insignificant differences in the scores – i.e. a difference of 0.01 between two professors’ overall scores does not suggest that one professor is a more effective teacher than another, so giving them both an ‘A’ ensures that they are both. We specifically chose the question “Overall, the instructor is an effective teacher” because we consider it a particularly relevant metric for students and because it is a variable over which the professor has a significant amount of control (as opposed to an overall course ranking, which is heavily influenced by the content of the course).

8

FEBRUARY 15, 2012 ultravires.ca

ULTRA VIRES

OPINION

The Wright Man | Louis Tsilivis “Professor Rankings” Need to be Promptly Jettisoned A

t around this time last year, I can still remember picking up a fresh copy of Ultra Vires from the usual spot near Bora’s Head. Of course, this type of issue (so I am told) always generates a little more buzz because it had a ranking of marks – professors’ marks.

Based on student feedback from course evaluation results, UV has traditionally published “professor rankings,” which give professors both a “score” and a numbered ranking.

As a student of economics (the purest and most beautiful of all the social sciences), I am normally head-over-heels for any proposal that gives customers — in this case, law students —more information on which they can make future decisions. However, this information is so convoluted and vague so as to be meaningless; it does not result in better student decision-making or better teaching, and is deeply offensive to professors.

The first thing you should know about these rankings are that they only gauge one student response: what bubble they filled in on a Scantron card when asked to evaluate their professor.

The results of this single question are hopelessly vague and do not capture nuances such as: quality as a lecturer;

SLS Says LRW Feedback Poor From Page 1 students who say that they got very little out of the program.

In particular, a town hall meeting was held last month on the issue and there was “unanimously negative feedback,” said Nasseri. “There wasn’t a single 1L who had something positive to say.”

There were about 15 students who attended the town hall meeting out of a total class of 199 1Ls. According to Alarie, the students there represented a selective and biased sample.

“If you have a session and you advertise it to students who are busy, you’re going JUSTIN NASSERI to have a biased Vice-President of the sample of students SLS Caucus who show up.

“Those who do show up have an axe to grind,” said Alarie.

Nasseri admits that the town hall was sparsely attended, but remains committed to finding out whether these student voices are the minority of the 1L class

likeability or friendliness to students; the helpfulness of office hours; how well lectures prepared students for the final; course reader quality; dryness of the readings; and the difficulty of the final.

Third, even if there are some students who do use the UV rankings as a factor in course selection, then it is still a good idea to get rid of the rankings. Basing what classes you will take based on a vague, meaningless score is a monumentally foolish idea, and so shielding this information from the public is the kind of paternalism I can really get behind.

If the rankings will be unused or used poorly, then why not get rid of them and do everyone some good?

F

Won’t Someone Think of The Professors?

W

Current Rankings are “Unused” or “Used Poorly”

irst, I am inclined to say based on the experiences of my peers that no one actually uses the ranking to select which classes they take in upper-years. Students will take a class based on a combination of prerequisite necessity, interest, timetable calculus, (ease of) workload, or the Divine Providence of the Waitlist God (Behold! He is a vengeful and merciless Deity!)

Second, even if students do factor the professor into their course selection strategy, they will not do so on the basis of UV list rankings. They will probably ask an upper-year who has taken the class before, so that they can get a much more nuanced and clear picture of that professor. or whether negative responses are more widespread.

On Thursday, the SLS will be conducting a consultation exercise with 1Ls to collect more thorough feedback and explanations as to the strengths and weaknesses of the program.

It won’t be until next month that the faculty’s memo on the evaluation forms and the results from SLS’s survey will be made public.

Until then, Nasseri hopes that the faculty will make efforts to keep the SLS informed and updated about all developments.

Alarie said that the SLS will unquestionably be invited to the Dean’s Committee meeting.

“There just hasn’t been one yet. It’s not like there’s a clandestine meeting somewhere, where you have to wear cloaks and it’s in the basement of Falconer.”

hat about the positive feedback that these rankings give to professors?

Professors already have access to the full course evaluations, with answers to much more focused questions about class workload, student engagement, and difficulty of the material.

Publishing the most un-nuanced question in UV does not give faculty any additional insights into how to improve

classes.

Faculty are smart enough to know that these rankings are hollow, and are also motivated to be what they think a good professor is.

While students may prioritize class engagement, a professor may think that covering more material is preferable, and would likely be keenly aware of the tradeoff between the two aims.

Ranking our faculty members is deeply offensive. It invariably means we tell some of our professors that they are “below-average” in terms of how students feel about them.

Some professors have the benefit of teaching interesting material in small group classes.

Others have to feel the scorn of 1Ls filling in Scantrons after they have had a dry administrative law lecture.The current UV rankings that number our professors based on a single, arbitrary, and unhelpful dataset is good for neither students nor professors.

While public information that is based on the full course evaluations could be useful for students, the current system – of both scoring professors on a pointless question and then public ranking them – needs to go.

Evaluations “Confidential Employment Data,” Says Faculty From Page 1 Editor-in-Chief Matt Brown argues that “Publishing these data in an internal student newspaper is consistent with the policy of the Governing Council—a policy that was clearly developed in the interests of transparency.”

Since the publication of the Faculty Report Card last year, the Administration affixed a covering letter to the data asking students “not to reproduce or republish this data in any way.” The have further prohibited students from taking the data to a study carrel; students wishing to view the data must do so while standing at the reference desk.

Assistant Dean Sara Faherty defended the policy by pointing to the great deal of weight the Faculty places on teaching evaluations in performance reviews.

ULTRA VIRES.CA

“We use it to help determine who gets reappointed, who gets tenure, who gets promoted to full professor.”

As a result, Assistant Dean Faherty argues, the evaluations, as employment data, should be not be public.

Most people using this employment data for internal faculty staffing decisions already have access to the data.

Assistant Dean Faherty argues that, by publishing the data online, UV is making the evaluations available to institutions other than U of T who may be interested in hiring our faculty.

To respond to this concern, the 2010-11 Faculty Report Card will not be included in the online version of the newspaper.

“Although I think reasonable people can disagree about whether this information should be online, I think this is a fair way to respond to faculty concerns,” Brown said.

Now you can get all the excitement of Ultra Vires online!

More News! More Content! More Vires!

ultravires.ca FEBRUARY 15, 2012

ULTRA VIRES

9

OPINIONS

Point /ActuallySeriousPoint 1Ls emulate long-running feature. It’s about Obama. It’s actually serious.

The Pragmatic The Neo-Liberal Progressive War Hawk P

By Adam Shedletzky (1L)

olitics is hard. Especially when you have a 60-vote Senate filibuster, a remarkably united wall of Republican opposition, and an army of powerful lobbyists working against you.

Oh – and coming to power in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression doesn’t help either.

Many on the left argue that Obama had a mandate for transformational change – and if only he had made use of his ‘bully pulpit’, taking his show on the road to convince the American people to support his bold proposals, politicians would have had no choice but to stand with him.

I disagree. I’m not sure about you – but over the first year of Obama’s Presidency, I recall him doing so many town halls and Presidential press conferences that people stopped paying attention. Anyone else remember the media questioning whether Obama was “overexposing himself”?

Let’s review Obama’s record. He began his Presidency by bringing America back from the brink of complete economic collapse.

He passed a stimulus package (that the left said was too small and the right said was too big), bailed out the auto industry (what a socialist!) and expanded Bush’s bank bailout to ensure that credit didn’t completely dry up (which nearly nobody agreed with, but was the right thing to do).

He then took on health reform – a monumental policy objective that Democratic President after Democratic President has attempted and failed for 60+ years.

Obama’s natural instinct to make incremental progress rather than shoot for the moon and fail was clear from the beginning.

He constantly sought compromise, merging the best Republican ideas with modest Democratic proposals in the hopes of achieving bipartisan consensus.

While he did fail to appreciate the depth and breadth of Republican opposition, he eventually got the job done.

It was a grueling battle that nearly destroyed Obama’s Presidency and sucked up almost all of his political capital. He tried passing admittedly weak climate change legislation, and failed.

He passed financial regulatory reform, but only after an army of lobbyists watered it down.

He couldn’t convince any

States to take Guantanamo detainees, and the facility remains open. He tried to repeal the Bush-era tax cuts on the rich but had to back down at the last minute to prevent the country from defaulting on its debt.

Yet notice what he has been able to accomplish. He ended torture. He made massive investments in clean energy technology and substantially increased fuel-emission standards. Gays can now openly serve in the military.

He managed to save America from defaulting on its debt while securing $500B in military cuts over the next decade.

He also effectively ended two wars, united a previously divided world against a dangerous Iranian regime, dismantled Al-Qaeda and supported popular revolutions around the world.

Is Obama perfect? No. Could he have done more? Perhaps.

He also could have fell flat on his face (in fact, he nearly did).

Given what he was up against – he gets a pass from me.

A

By Danny Barret (1L)

s the reality-show Presidential campaign of 2012 hits its stride, simple truths are swept away by a maelstrom of mythmaking. While Obama was elected in 2008 on a mandate for change, in three major areas his presidency has been marked by striking continuity with Bush: the War on Terror, commitment to a top-secret national-security state, and guardianship of corporate and financial interests.

Obama has become comfortable at the helm of what MLK described as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” ruthlessly prosecuting the War on Terror through the expansion of drone strikes that regularly kill Muslim civilians in multiple countries; engaging in an unauthorized war in Libya; tripling the troops in Afghanistan while destabilizing a nuclear Pakistani state; adopting Bush/Cheney policies of indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition and secret prisons; and celebrating in extrajudicial assassinations of official enemies, including US citizens.

While few in the West have paid attention to the unsavoury facts, the perennial victims have but little choice.

A recent poll showed Obama has lower approval ratings in the Arab world than Bush, with pluralities citing “US interference” as the “greatest threat to

peace and stability” in the region. Obama now proudly touts these “successes”, alongside a mounting campaign for war against Iran, as major elements of his reelection campaign.

Domestically, Obama has quietly normalized a powerful, top-secret nationalsecurity apparatus that has readily suppressed civil liberties.

Far from repealing the Patriot Act, Obama has renewed and expanded its powers, recently enshrining into law indefinite detention without charge or trial of American citizens.

Warrantless wiretapping and constant surveillance (the NSA intercepts and stores 1.7 billion communications per day) has been enthusiastically intensified.

And while campaigning on the idea of “transparent government,” Obama has routinely invoked ‘state secrets’ to preclude legal challenge of executive acts, using secret evidence via secret warrants to arrest, detain and convict individuals in secret courts.

Obama has also acted as the guardian of big corporate and financial interests, filling his cabinet with devoted neoliberals and Wall Street financiers such as Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Robert Rubin- all of whom played critical roles in fomenting the 2008 crisis.

Unsurprisingly, this team has done little-to-nothing to re-regulate the financial sector or prosecute the most egregious examples of fraud; instead choosing to impose the notion of ‘individual responsibility’ on the 25 million unemployed and 14 million families who’ve lost their homes.

And while recently introducing the largest military budget in American history, Obama now seems poised to make substantial cuts to Social Security and Medicare (cuts Bush was unable to accomplish).

As for Obama’s biggest campaign promise- a public health-insurance option- it was quickly abandoned for a plan written by the right-wing Heritage Foundation following secret negotiations with Big Pharma and the insurance industry.

Even more, Obama has quietly engaged in record-setting deportation of immigrants (double Bush’s annual average), 97% of whom are Hispanic.

Simple truths matter. And it’s a simple truth that if one examines how he has governed, rhetoric aside, Obama is not progressive- but a neo-liberal war-hawk devoted to unconstrained executive power.

It’s up to progressives to push progressive causes and demand Obama adopt them, rather than to push Obama’s causes and demand progressives adopt them.

10

FEBRUARY 15, 2012

ULTRA VIRES

ultravires.ca

OPINION

SlutWalk at the OBA: A Feminist Legal Analysis Movement against sexist ways of thinking has growing pains

By Krista Nerland (1L) And Mallorie Malone (1L) And Stefania Zilinskas (3L)

Y

ou have probably heard the story. On January 24, 2011, after a series of violent sexual assaults on campus, students at Osgoode Hall gathered to hear two police officers discuss campus safety. One officer suggested that if women wanted to avoid sexual violence they should “avoid dressing like sluts”.

This comment sparked a global movement, SlutWalk, which has generated controversy not only in the media, but also among feminists.

On November 3, the Feminist Legal Analysis Section of the OBA held a panel discussion reacting to this global movement.

Sonya Barnett, co-founder of SlutWalk, kicked off the event by recounting how SlutWalk began. Although sparked by the police officer’s comment, the movement came out of a longstanding sense of outrage with “slut-shaming” faced by survivors of sexual violence (remember Manitoba Judge Dewar?).

Responding to criticisms of the use of the word “slut” she argued that the term ought to be “slung back” to remind people that sexual assault has nothing to do with attraction, and everything to do with power. She and her co-organizers felt that by using the word as part of the movement, they could begin to reclaim it.

Brenda Cossman, Professor of Law at the Faculty of Toronto, offered a historical analysis linking the current debates about SlutWalk to the “Sex Wars” within feminism. On one side of the debate are feminists who campaign to ban prostitution and pornography, arguing they are

inherently violent towards women. On the other side are feminists who maintain that overcoming patriarchal oppression involves the sexual liberation of both women and men. Aligning herself with the latter, Cossman critiqued the notion that women are participating in their own objectification by walking under the banner of “Slut.”

Karin Galldin, partner with Galldin Law, a feminist legal practice that provides representation to sex workers, pointed out that victories in the courtroom may not change things on the ground, particularly for vulnerable and marginalized individuals. She congratulated SlutWalk for transcending this complication by forcing a spotlight on the conduct of the police officer through the media rather than expensive litigation.

We believe that SlutWalk offers an important opportunity to challenge the dominant conversation about sexual assault. It reminds us that sexual assault is not about sex, but about power. Arguments that women can and ought to make themselves safer through changing how they dress and where they walk ignore the overwhelming evidence that most sexual assaults happen not between strangers in dark alleys, but between people who know each other. More than that, for some women at least, the movement can offer an empowering critique of mainstream portrayals of sexual assault, such as that offered by the Police Officer at the York meeting, which place blame on survivors of sexual assault and obscure important conversations about consent, power and sexism.

SlutWalk, however, faces a major challenge. Audience members at the panel, and groups such as Black Women’s Blueprint, shared a serious concern about the movement, a concern which has been en-

demic to feminism since the first wave: the effective exclusion of women of marginalized and racialized communities. As the Black Women’s Blueprint stated in an Open Letter to SlutWalk, “As Black women, we do not have the privilege or the space to call ourselves “slut” without validating the already historically entrenched ideology and recurring messages about what and who the Black woman is.”

Many women with disabilities, likewise, argue that SlutWalk excludes their experiences and concerns. “Slut,” they point out, cannot be reclaimed by women whose sexuality has been systematically erased and ignored. As commentator Jennifer Scott states, “While women all over the world are waiting for people to stop seeing them as sex objects, women with disabilities are still waiting to be seen at all.”

SlutWalk is about changing the way we think about sex and sexual assault: high heels and short skirts have nothing to do with whether a woman does or does not consent to sex.

We urge the organizers of SlutWalk, and other like-minded organizers, to work in partnership with other women’s groups, including those that represent women from marginalized communities, to move forward in way that is inclusive of a broader range of experiences and concerns.

A note from Andrew Robertson: This article was supposed to appear in the November issue of UV, and subsequently in the January issue. It failed to appear in either because of a complete lack of competence on the part of the Opinion Editor, the Editor-in-Chief and Josh Mandryk.

For this, and the many other egregious errors that this section commits on a monthly basis, I apologize.

The Case For Fucking D This article is fucking terrible and I wish Josh would get raped by a U of T progessives

U

By Josh Mandryk (1L)

nder our current editor-in-Chief, Josh is a fucking shitpile. I wish he died and transparency. When confronted about this at the last editorial board meeting, Matt Brown told us that Josh needs to be eaten by an enormous baboon. I hope he fucking dies ‘cuz god damnit he is annoying. I hope he fucking dies ‘cuz god damnit he is annoying. I hope he fucking dies ‘cuz god damnit he is annoying. I hope he fucking dies ‘cuz god damnit he is annoying openness. Fucking fuck fuck shit shit cunt rapist progressive death machine raping babies. Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck out in the open.

PHOTO COURTESY of JOSH MANDRYK Josh Mandryk is the 1L Content editor. He must long walks on the beach and likes to eat indeed. He often writes absolutely terrible articles that have to be heavily edited.

He is far less right than he thinks. I secretly hope that he dies, so that I don’t have to lay out any more of the shit that he writes. Brown smells bad. The measurements combination to his locker is censorship I think he’s full of shit and fucking fuck and he likes it hard in the ass and money baboon fucking large bacon breath a dfrk wk dlldls llldldd sojgoiwhjg opwjegpojweg failed at waxing eee wkkwkk ekekek e a s s sd d d d d tort law asdofaosjdfojasodjf jfpojapofjpojewfpjawepofj Professor Teak aweirohjawoiehr allegations of impropriety grossly exaggerated. aiohwoi ieieie Hohoho dndonodf. awerhaw are re awer e ra wer aw er e ar awe r awe r w r wa ra wr aw er e r er e re ee w we;;r;;.

Three Interesting Things about TO Exchange student offers an outsiders’ perspective on our school. Hint: neither UV nor Matt Brown is mentioned

By Victor Katheyas (Exchange Student)

I

t’s incredibly daunting to attempt to write about what’s interesting about Toronto after being here for only one month. It’s even more daunting if you’re writing for (primarily) law students – an extremely sophisticated and intelligent audience.

Therefore, I must preface this with a little portion on my background, so as to give some perspective on, well, my perspective. I’m a third-year student at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law, on exchange here at the University of Toronto for one semester. I’ve lived in Singapore all my life. Law school in

Singapore is generally a four-year undergraduate programme – so, as you might expect, I’m quite a bit younger than some of you.

It was a long flight here, and as the plane prepared for landing at Pearson, I felt an odd mix of excitement and anxiety.

What would Canada be like? Would people be friendly? Would they understand my accent? (I had anticipated to-may-to/ to-mah-to problems.) How cold would it be? (I come from a place where 22˚C is uniformly considered cold.) What would school be like? (People had told me that school would be intense.)

One month later, I daresay that I’ve settled comfortably in Toronto (well, somewhat anyway.) People are generally

friendly and they get my accent most of the time. I’ve gotten better acclimatized to the cold, and, fortunately or otherwise, this has been one of the milder Toronto winters.

I’ve got a better idea of what the demands of law school here are like (and hopefully I deliver on those demands later on in the semester).

And so, these are three of my favourite things about Toronto so far: 1. Multiculturalism Toronto is an incredibly multicultural city. In the one month that I’ve been here, I’ve heard so many accents and languages being spoken – Korean, Chinese, Indian,

Japanese, Spanish, French and Swedish etc. The list goes on.

One consequence of this multiculturalism is that I’ve tried so many types of food during my relatively short stay in Toronto. Some of these types of foods are, quite frankly, entirely new to me. For example, I wouldn’t even know where to find Ethiopian food back in Singapore.

The other consequence is that I’ve learnt so much about other cultures and countries by talking to people from backgrounds different from mine.

For example, I’ve heard one perspec-

See “Ta-Ranna,” Next Page

ultravires.ca FEBRUARY 15, 2012

ULTRA VIRES

11

OPINION

LRW Floundering Hey Look At Me, Most 1Ls are unhappy with the program

I

By Bhuvana Sankaranarayanan (1L)

t may surprise first year students to know that the Legal Research and Writing course was a response to upper year student requests for a regimented, stand-alone course in this field.

Most current first year students, at best, do not take the program seriously (for example, discussing – only halfjokingly – handing in the second revision of the memo after changing nothing more than the date); at worst, they consider it to be a waste of time and of school resources.

In neither scenario do students seem to feel that they have learned anything of note.

On January 19, the SLS hosted a town hall discussing the concerns of first year students about this course. During the course of the town hall, there were some major concerns addressed about the delivery of the course, including concerns about timing, methodology, upper year students, and grading.

One of the main concerns was timing.

As one student pointed out, it may be cute to dismiss these concerns by saying that students should ‘grow up’ or be more serious about school if they don’t like to come in Fridays for just one class, but this becomes more of a pressing issue when you realise how far away some students live, or their commitments to family.

Commuting for an hour and a half to attend one course, which half the students chose to forego, is not cause for

celebration. But the bigger problem that 1Ls had was that the classes themselves were not seen as useful. For one thing, much of the material simply repeated things said in other classes.

Also, a short hour spent watching a nervous grad student deliver steps on a slideshow was not seen to be as effective as immediate application of the relevant skills, which only occurred in some of the lab sessions.

Another major concern was that of incentives. Students expressed the desire to be recognised for this extra course.

The thought that students would do this for personal development was seen as too optimistic. Few people advised them about the actual merits of learning legal research and writing, and by the time the memo assignments rolled around, many felt overwhelmed by other commitments and couldn’t take a nongraded assignment seriously.Upperyear and part-time students said that if the course remained non-graded, then they should be allowed to take it. One more contentious concern referred to the teaching quality of the course, which was generally regarded as poor. A good many students requested that instructors get better training or have a professor do it.

The Legal Research and Writing course teaches important skills. Students should hardly be sent off to the workforce without understanding the first thing about writing a memo. But a course that students don’t take seriously, don’t attend or find useless is generally not very effective.

Interesting Ta-Ranna From Previous Page tive of what its like to be a Quebecer in Canada from a graduate student at the University of Toronto who grew up in Quebec City.

I’ve also had dinner with a French exchange student and learnt more about modern French politics. I know I’ll continue to benefit from similar opportunities over the next few months.

city as well. usually un(or even More often sense to

2. Environmental consciousness Toronto is incredibly environmentally friendly.

Firstly, it’s very convenient to deposit recyclable materials into appropriate drop-off centres.

It’s just so easy to recycle here.

I even have recycling facilities at my dorm.

Secondly, it’s an extremely walkable

r

Therefore, it’s necessary to drive take the TTC). than not, it makes simply walk from point to point.

On a deeper level, I’ve sort of sussed out an environmentally conscious mindset amongst people in this city.

To be fair, I haven’t met that many people here to generalise accurately. However, many of those whom I have met do take recycling se-

i ously.

While they do not pontificate on the importance of recycling, it’s obvious that they appreciate the importance of conserving resources, and their mindset rubs off people who are new to this city – such as me.

3. Tim Hortons

I’m a UV Woman

Fidelia Ho answers Atricia’s Lewis’s call for more female representation in our campus newspaper. It’s, uh, OK. Really.

F

By Fidelia Ho (2L)

irst came Atrisha Lewis’ provocative argument (“Ensure Ultra Vires is Reflective of the School Community it Serves”), the gist being that UV underrepresents the female student body and that women students have a duty to contribute.

Then came Lauren Heuser’s response (“Are Women Ultra Vires?”), radiant as it was with super sleek economics jargon (cost-benefit analysis, what?).

Like most third instalments, I can promise you sex, little to no cohesion, and a bad taste in your mouth.

(See: Batman Forever, Spider-man 3, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, etc.)

As compelling as Atrisha Lewis’s call to duty was, my failure to respond until now can only be explained by laziness or apathy.

If I’m being really honest, then ok. Fine.

I feel pretty inadequate when confronted by the accomplishments of my fellow classmates. (I can eat 6 Krispy Kremes in a sitting). If I’m being really, really honest, costbenefit analyses befuddle me.

I credit Lauren Heuser’s article for spurring me on to write this ill-considered “opinion piece.”More importantly, it made me engage in my own cost-benefit analysis.

Unfortunately, I think I need a bona fide economist to help me out here.

When I consider the list, the costs seem to come out on top of the benefits and yet here I am.

All this time and effort and almost certain social trauma cannot be offset by some set of benefits I can’t imagine.

But since I am writing this article, the benefits, by definition, must outweigh the costs.

Am I doing this wrong?

I am amazed that these analyses can be done so intuitively that making decisions in life isn’t normally so painstaking Economics is like magic! Whatever.

Now I’ve lost interest in this train of thought.

SEX. PARTYING. SEX. Apparently this is what “sells” Ultra Vires.

PHOTO COURTESY of FIDELIA HO Fidelia Ho is a twotime Pulitzer Prize winner for excellence in journalism. She likes Fencing, Dancing and superhero movies.

She can eat a large quantity of donuts in a single sitting. She is also quite good at art and has an affinity for advantageous avenues of applied precepts in the realm of alternative applied admiralty law.

In typical Canadian fashion, I propose a compromise.

Female law student: check.

Sex and ribaldrous miscellany: check.

As I continue to write this piece, I can feel the costs increasingly outweighing any phantasmagorical benefits (fascinating feeling), but I am bolstered by rule 10 of Michael Porter Gartke’s “Top 10 Rules for Writing for UV”: that my article and any article purporting to be funny will suck.

(Low expectations are where I live.)

Sex is super fun if you can get it.

Unfortunately, as most law students either live in the library or a clinic or some dark, disgusting den drinking away their distresses, I’m going to hazard a guess that the having of it is slightly rarer than the frequency of A’s administered at each exam period.

That leaves partying.

But since I am caught by the previously identified group of students, I can’t say much on this count either.

This is depressing.

It does, however, make me realize that UV may be the only outlet for many of us to fulfill whatever sex/partying needs we may have, whether we are contributors or readers, and therefore, UV may, arguably, be serving an important social purpose. (It’s not the prettiest of raison d’etres but we all gotta poop too.)

This is also, somewhat serendipitously, the love issue. In the spirit of hijacking this “personal PR machine” of our male student body, I invite you, random law student, to look me up on stalkerguide, if you are so inclined to rectify our respective deficiencies in student life.

I like superhero movies.

I also have boobs.

As you finish skimming this “article,” you may wonder where the sex was? What about the partying?

Wasn’t there something about cost-benefits analysis promised?

BAZINGA! If there is any redeeming feature of these few hundred words, it’s that it delivered as all third instalments do: with a whimper.

Now onto more socially constructive activities.

12

FEBRUARY 15, 2012 ultravires.ca

ULTRA VIRES

OPINION

Point /Counterpoint

Who Can’t We Sleep With?

The (soooo not) Dynamic Duo are back with yet anouther crucial career question: as articling students and young associates, should we sleep with our colleagues?

By Pete Smiley (3L)

T

his past month has seen some harsh words directed at this august publication. Allegations of misogyny.

Accusations of juvenility.

The bizarre suggestion that making fun of the pudgy and emotionally fragile Andrew ‘Young Gingrich’ Robertson is somehow unfunny. Juvenility, misogyny, and Robertson-bashing being my raison d’etres, I fell into a spiral of depression and self-doubt. With a heavy heart, I reached out to my esteemed counterpart.

“Andrew”, I said, “this column needs a new direction.

Let’s do a point-counterpoint in which we talk about the gibbering incoherence of contemporary conservatism versus the intellectual exhaustion of contemporary progressivism. We can argue about whether it is the Occupy movement or the Tea Party that best represents the possibility of a new politics, untethered to the atrophied parties of the past, whose total acquiescence to corporate and union money have rendered them incapable of confronting the challenges of the 21st century.”

“No,” replied Andrew Robertson. “Matt Brown wants an article about banging your colleagues.”

So here we are. Should you sleep with your colleagues? No you should not. I know it’s tempting.

I know you spend half your classes mentally dividing your cohort into “would sleep with voluntarily”, “only post-Armageddon if necessary to rebuild the human race” and “not even then” (i.e. the Andrew Robertson residual category).

I also know that most of us are social incompetents whose only hope of ever experiencing human companionship and intimacy lies in finding someone as pathetic as ourselves. So I don’t blame you if you’ve woken up on a Friday morning beside that person who’s always asking professors about weird hypotheticals set on the space station.

We all make decisions we’ll regret until we die sometimes. But here’s why you should try not to do that:

1. Because word gets around You don’t need me to tell you that Andrew Robertson weeps uncontrollably during sex. You already knew that. Likewise, if you’ve ever done anything to anyone in law school, then rest assured that approximately 70 percent of your fellow students now know all about your sexual proclivities and are currently telling them to the other 30 percent. Also Dan Goldbloom is writing a hilarious ukelele song about them, and Matt Brown is working them into a graphic and misogynistic UV expose entitled ‘Matt Brown’s Law School Confidential, by Matt Brown’.

2. Because awkwardness It’s not just that you’ll be squeezing past your huge mistake to get to your locker for the next three or so years.

There’s also a chance you’ll be encountering them in court for the rest of your professional life, and if there’s one thing that won’t help your case it’s getting into screaming arguments with opposing counsel about how those photos ended up on the internet.

3. Because frankly, you can do better.

Evolutionary biologists speculate that hot cave-people didn’t need to be smart to procreate.

If the Andrew Robertsons of the paleolithic wanted to breed, however, they had to be really good at tool use (or document

By Andrew Roberson (3L)

I

n answer to our critics’ slanderous accusations of frivolity, and in our finest tradition of bringing you concrete, hard-hitting answers to pressing questions that plague law students, we ask this month: should you sleep with your classmates?

The answer, obviously, is that you most definitely should, it’s the greatest thing you’ll ever do.

And don’t take the word of all your classmates who are happily dipping their pen in the school ink. Let me explain to you how great it is by using a numbered list.

Why? Because of the greatest psychological phenomena of all time: Law School Goggles.

The longer you roam these halls, the more you adapt to your surroundings and learn to survive with whatever provisions there are.

One way of doing this is Law School

1. Because Word Gets Around If you decide to get your nookie where you get your cookie, one of two things happens: 1) word gets around that you’re awesome in bed, in which case you can keep fishing off the school pier; or 2) word gets around you have some very strange peccadilloes.

Now, number 2 actually isn’t a bad thing – instead of no one even knowing who you are, at least now they’ll know your name, even if it is only because you weep uncontrollably during sex. Any press is good press. It’s the UV motto.

2. Because Awesomeness

PHOTO COURTESY of PETE SMILEY There was more to this piture. The production editors were forced to crop it because it was way over the top insufferable.

review).

In consequence, there’s still an inverse relationship between intelligence and hotness, as a quick visual survey of our faculty and student body illustrates.

Fortunately, the world outside of law school is full of really hot people who are also stupid enough that they think of law as a prestigious occupation, rather than as a morally bankrupt monopoly run by self-important and poisonous nerds.

Sprinkle a little high-falutin’ law talk on these people and they might even be convinced to sleep with you!

In conclusion, your classmates are like the forbidden fruit, the difference being that if you eat them you won’t be given the knowledge of good and evil, but instead the knowledge of just how low your self-esteem is. Avoid them at all costs.

Every time two people sleep together, there is a “Reacher” and “Settler”. The Reacher is reaching above their level of beauty; the Settler is settling for someone uglier than them.

Obviously if you’re the Reacher, you can forever say that you got with that gorgeous dude/lady that was way out of your league.

And if you’re the Settler, you can demonstrate to everyone that you do have a public interest side by giving a pro bono one to some uggo. We’ve all been both, and we’re all better off for it.

3. Because frankly, you cannot do better Smiley is right to tell you that the “outside world” is full of really hot people.

And, while some of them might not be as quick as smart-asses like him, they are unfortunately not so dumb as to want to sleep with any of us.

Truth is most of us are ugly compared to the General Population.

And no amount of Jaeger-bombs and giving out your new business cards from your summer position with a great downtown law firm with your “private number” written on the back is going to change that. Trust me.

Thankfully, you are not forever doomed to sleep with ugly people.

PHOTO COURTESY of ANDREW ROBERTSON Is Andrew Roberson trying to compete with Editor-in-Cheif Matt Brown for most selfindulgent photo?

Goggles, which effectively takes a few months to turn a 4 into a 7, and a 7 into a 10.

It happens to both sexes more or less equally, so you might see an absolute 10 dating a real 2, be they men or women.

The best part is that by the time you hit 3L, you won’t even know who is or isn’t good looking anymore.

For example, I think everyone at this school is gorgeous.

Every last one of you.

Yes, you, reading these words right now.

You’re beautiful, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!

So yes, you can shit where you eat; and afterwards, eat where once you shat.

Don’t worry – everyone’s doing it!

ultravires.ca FEBRUARY 15, 2012

ULTRA VIRES

13

DIVERSIONS

Mysterious Miss Mystifies Many Transfer student answers ageold query: ‘who the eff is that?’

H

By Carly Minuk (2L)

i, it’s me…Carly. I’m a leper transfer student. If you stop reading this article now, you probably think you’re smarter than me.

If you continue reading, though, you probably just pity me for failing to get into U of T the first time. Sheesh, you really are a sicko.

Anyway, I guess I will tell you a bit about what it’s like to be a transfer student at U of T. First let’s just get something straight: you should really TELL people that “Bora’s Head” is not a bar. It really really sounds like the name of a bar, and when a transfer student (i.e. me) is asked to meet at this location, she (I mean me) will be anxiously googling and falling up short.

And asking me to meet you in the “dining room” is no better. I literally thought that sketchy dark wing of the school was off limits until I signed up for yoga in the staff lounge (which is excellent, I might add).

You also might have seen me sneaking into that weird little microwave room near that back staircase…I thought that was off limits too until a first-year made fun of me for saying so.

I felt pretty bad-ass using those illicit microwaves; turns out I’m just totally clueless.

Anyway, it was a great day when a third-year showed me that the secret staircase leads to that room with the couches! [I didn’t know it was called the Rowell Room until about a month ago… you should really just call it Couch Room, it makes so much more sense].

Woe is me, the ill-informed transfer student. Don’t we deserve a tour like all the other smart kids? You know what, there probably was a tour; I think we had to meet at Bora’s Head. In all seriousness, transferring to the best law school in Canada really has its perks.

When I befriend one of you folks, I do

my best to fit in and act like all the other law schools are trash and express how blessed I am to have transferred (which I am, by the way).

On the other hand, when I meet people from other law schools or talk to my old friends from the University of Ottawa Law, I go on making fun of U of T students, telling them what it’s like on the “inside.” I’m like Cady Heron from Mean Girls. I pretend to be friends with you but really I’m talking sh*t about you behind your back and plotting to get you hit by a bus.

Or maybe I really have become one of you. I guess that depends on your interpretation of Mean Girls. I’m kidding (right?). Ok, but seriously, I’m totally kidding. I wouldn’t be writing for Ultra Vires if I didn’t love it here, trust me. I actually spend most of my time dispelling myths about U of T students (and enjoying all the free lunches…Ottawa definitely did not have this…a perk of paying double the tuition, I guess).

For some reason, everyone thinks you (we?) are all pretentious and competitive keeners. It’s really not true.

I mean, some of you (us?) are, but definitely no more than any other law school.

The people I’ve met here are down-toearth and cool (so if you’re reading this, and I’ve met you, I think you’re down-toearth and cool, unless you’re one of the inevitable keeners I was referring to, but no, that couldn’t be you).

I’ve made lifelong friends, enjoyed some wild pub nights, and finally figured out what it means to check “Headnotes.” So if you see me in the halls (the tall lanky sort-of-redhead), try not to whisper, “who the eff is that girl?” quite too loudly. I’m a transfer student…say hello!

P.S. I realized I’ve been saying “transfer student” this whole time like I’ve come from some other planet.

I’m from Toronto and did my undergrad at McGill.

P.P.S. Say hi to other transfer students too, they’re cool/nice/smart.

P.P.P.S. I’ve heard rumours that some of you “hate on” transfer students. If I find out who you are, I will totally sell you foot lotion for your face.

PHOTOS COURTESY of CARY FERGUSON (Above) Carly Minuk shares a beer with Bora Laskin, Strangely enough, his head is not a bar.

(Below) Carly uses the forbidden microwaves tucked behind the stairway in Flavelle House.

Please don’t tell anyone! I mean, she’s a transfer student. She really needs to impress.

A Patently Unreasonable Course Review: Adminstrative Law

By Secret Course Reviewer (1L)

T

PHOTO CONFISCATED FROM of JOSEPH RASHID Arguably more interesting than Admin law is the exciting pursuit of watching paint dry. As you spend hours watching it slowly harden, you can think of all of the excitement of reading the confusing and ultimately confounding decisions, articles and comments swirling around such delights as the standards of review and procedural fairness.

hus far, Admin. Law has been reported to be a fitting replacement for LPPE. Students who missed the jaw-wrenching pain of The Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194) report finding solace in reviewing the multiplicity of statutes found in Administrative Law. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg; students also find comfort in finding that Admin, like LPPE, has no discernible overarching theme (although some may be confused that instructors in Admin are much more insistent about the validity of their course as a distinct field of study; our recommendation: ignore them).

For the minority of students who are not, in fact, particularly comforted by

the idea of having another 4 months of a course they attend only to sob over Johnny Walker and badly written UV articles immediately after, there’s an important distinction between LPPE and Admin.

Admin can be summarised much more quickly than LPPE, and in real life, you’ll rarely need to derive things from principles.

So if you haven’t been attending this riveting class, here’s all you’ll need to know: Dunsmuir.

Baker.

SPPA. JRPA. Done.

Rating: we tried to look for it, but our reviewer buried it in code that appears to refer to The Weed Control Act.

14

FEBRUARY 15, 2012 ultravires.ca

ULTRA VIRES

DIVERSIONS

UV Cooks: Perfect Pan-Seared Steak Culinary genius Jeremy Ablaza explains how to make this simple pl

T

By Jeremy Ablaza (3L)

he tricky thing about cooking a good steak is that it’s almost all about preparation, so this “recipe” is going to be a little different.

The most useful tweaks in cooking a great steak are: letting it come to room temperature, seasoning liberally before cooking, and letting it rest after cooking. I’ve also included a recipe for a soybalsamic reduction that jazzes up the steak a bit.

It’s a bit more labor-intensive than your standard cooking method, and it certainly requires a bit of planning, but it is hard to screw up if you cook it this way.

The cooking times below (3 minutes/side) will get you to rare/medium-rare on an inch-thick steak. For medium-rare, go 4 minutes on the first side and 3 minutes on the flip. Medium should take you about 4/4 You should also know that, once you get to medium, it cooks REALLY fast. So err on the side of undercooking, because the steak will continue to cook while you let it rest. Finally, if you plan to go for well-done, this recipe is not for you.

INGREDIENTS - Two tablespoons (or so) of canola oil - A tablespoon or two of butter - A steak, at least an inch thick and well-marbled (I like ribeye) - Kosher salt - Cracked black pepper - Soy sauce - Balsamic vinegar - One sprig fresh rosemary

pan downwards (towards you) at a slight angle so the fat and juices pool towards you. Quickly and continuously baste the top of the steak with the pooled butter/oil/juices - you should see the top surface start to turn gray. Do this for three minutes (see note above).

5

Flip the steak - you should see a well-caramelized surface - and do the same for the three more minutes, then immediately put it on a plate or chopping board. Let it rest for five minutes while you prepare the sauce.

Obituaries Confidence of 1L Gunner, 23: No one is sad The Confidence of a 1L Gunner died on January 25, 2012 upon the release of grades. Confidence was not well understood and often disliked by his peers.

No one really misses him that much.

Most people happy that he’s gone because now classes can actually consist of the professor teaching and students asking questions about things that they don’t understand, not just quoting from the treatise to sound smart when the exam is anonymous anyway.

Some students feel a little bad dancing on Confidence of a 1L gunner’s grave, but at the same time is happy that professor doesn’t have to listen to any more of those stupid questions.

6

Quesada Mexican Grill, 12: Horribly missed. Like, so Much

7

After a long-fought battle with the real estate condo bubble in Toronto, Quesada – know to its friends as “the burrito place” – gently succumbed earlier this year.

Hordes of University of Toronto law students, not knowing of Quesada’s impending doom, were shocked to see its demise earlier this year. Ever proud in its service and honour, Quesada never let its inevitable death affect its noble distribution of bean-filled tortilla deliciousness.

Until the last sale, Quesada supplied steadfast joy to law students. It is fondly remembered for offering a meal that doesn’t make its patrons completely hate themselves later on, supplying not horrible service at a modest price, and allowing its patrons to have both types of beans.

Until the final stages of its death, Quesada was still serving burritos that were pretty good for the cost, even if the shrimp burrito was way too expensive for shrimp.

Quesada is survived by its twin brother at King and Church and that Burrito Boyz place near Spadina.

Pour off most of the fat from the pan, then return it from the heat. Place the whole rosemary sprig in the pan so it starts to fry in the residual fat for about thirty seconds, then pour in several generous glugs of balsamic vinegar and several splashes of soy sauce (roughly 2:1 or 3:1 balsamic to soy sauce).

Lower the heat to medium, take out the rosemary sprig, and season the sauce with cracked black pepper while it reduces. If you want to thicken the sauce a little bit, put in a little bit of butter and stir vigorously.

Slice the steak into strips and then drizzle it with the reduced sauce.

RECIPE

1

When buying a steak, be sure to pick one that's about an inch thick. This'll allow you to control the internal temperature of the steak while still getting that tasty, caramelized crust. You also want to pick one that has a good amount of marbling (fat streaks in the meat) because it should signify a more tender, flavorful steak.

2

Take the steak out of the fridge an hour prior to cooking. Pat it dry on both sides and season it liberally with kosher salt. Let it rest for an hour.

3

Heat a cast-iron skillet (or regular frying pan, if you don't have one) until it's hot.

Pour in the canola oil and butter and stir constantly.

You want the butter to brown but not burn.

4

Put the steak in the PHOTO COURTESY of JEREMY ABLAZA middle of the pan and Steak the Ablaza way. It should have a delicious pink hue after you cut it into thick then immediately tip the strips. “It was super tasty yummers when I tried it out,” said a UV editor.

2L Liberal Values, 24: Death was inevitable anyway For 2L Liberal Values, it was a slow and acquiescent demise. Ever since her diagnosis of a 173 on the LSAT, 2L Liberal Values faced her fate with dignity.

She finally passed away on Call Day. Knowing that she would have a year, maybe one and half at best, 2L Liberal Values made sure that her little remaining time would be valuable. In addition to raising money to assist aboriginal families, she volunteered at a legal clinic to help low income workers fight their WSIB claims. She was respected throughout school as a “bleeding heart” and known for her comments refuting the application of Law and Economics to Property law.

Nevertheless, 2L Liberal Values faced her death with poise and nobility. In the face of her still-at-large murderer, OCIs, she did not confound the process screwing over her host. Instead she took her demise as the inevitable end she knew it was when she was admitted into Law School.

In remembrance, her family asks that 3L take at least some human rights law.

ultravires.ca FEBRUARY 15, 2012

ULTRA VIRES

15

DIVERSIONS

UV Understands Your Loneliness Maybe you’re alone Valentine’s Day. Maybe you wish you were. Whatever. You know?

By Heather Burnett (3L)

W

hatever your circumstances, you’re a self-absorbed law student, so there’s a good chance you don’t feel maximally loved and appreciated. Despair not, comrades. Ultra Vires understands your deep-seated loneliness, and wants to help.

We base our method of assistance upon simple premise: the key to happiness lies in pictures of cute baby animals. Elevenyear-old girls have known this for centuries, and we trust in their traditional wisdom.

Please find attached a small collection of cute baby animal pictures. Each image has been hand-picked for its excruciating adorableness. Clip out your favourite and paste it to the edge of your laptop. When times get tough, just take a quick glance at your beloved pictorial pet, and remember why life is worth living.

Being aware that the University of Toronto Faculty of Law is a paragon of diversity, we have provided a variety of animal types to complement different personality types and tastes.

A kitten:

Y

ou’re the strong-and-silent type whose only need is to be needed. You likely have a chiseled jawline, or a surprising degree of muscle tone for someone of your gender. No doubt you discovered years ago that vulnerability is the key to unconditional love. Look at this thing. If you left it alone for more than four hours, it would probably die. Perfecto. You will laugh as it rolls about helplessly in your lap, secure in the knowledge that it can never leave you.

A puppy:

A

ll of your cover letters include the term “people-person”. You are proud of your high tolerance for alcohol and your ability to distinguish leather from pleather at a five-foot range. You’ll spend your future doing document review on the 58th floor of some anonymous high rise, but you will never stop proclaiming your strong desire to get away from it all, and get back to nature. This little guy is the perfect excuse to take that 10 PM work break, and go for a quick stroll down a tree-lined city street.

A pony:

W

hat’s a nice kid like you doing in a place like this? When you open your mouth in class, you reveal a certain softness, both of brain and of heart. You really should have taken that year off between undergrad and law school, but you’ll discover that for yourself as a fifthyear associate. Your biggest concern at the moment is the increasing scarcity of Bubble Tape. This pony represents everything you loved best about childhood. Go ahead, give it a name. You already have, haven’t you.

A duckling:

Y

ou live in constant fear of being mistaken for average. In public, you strive to make unconventional choices and comments, but your efforts come off as contrived. On the plus side, you are a candidate for laser hair removal. On the minus side, you are not adequately ashamed of the fact that you own all ten seasons of Friends on DVD. You know who would always find you an enigma?

This duck right here. Just imagine the curious stares you would get if you strolled through High Park with this little puffball on a leash. Not to mention phone numbers.

A baby goldfish:

O

kay, I cheated for this one. Technically speaking, a “baby goldfish” would be an egg. And you are the kind of person who would call me out for making such an error, and then kick me out of your study group as punishment.

You’re 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. You exercise good judgment and adore bubbling-in Scantron sheets, but no amount of right answers will make your dad remember to call you on your birthday. In case you follow in his lax parenting footsteps, default to this sweet little goldfish - it’ll flourish regardless.

16

FEBRUARY 15, 2012

ULTRA VIRES

ultravires.ca

DIVERSIONS

Ask Doctor Valencia

In this issue of UV, Dr. V takes Financial Aid questions Dear Dr. Valencia, If I make sexy eyes at Aladdin, do you think I’ll get more financial aid funding?

- Flirty Girty Dear Girty, Making sexy eyes at Aladdin is certainly in your best interest. Aladdin is one of those guys that has it all. Great skin, great hair, nice abs, an amazing singing voice, and even that natural

eye-liner you see on dudes like Richard Alpert from Lost. You can see why Princess Jasmine was so into him.

I would also recommend making sexy eyes with Jafar. He has a calm evil that can make for an excellent provider. Nothing screams career motivation than nefariously trying to supplant a young princess through the acquisition of a Genie’s magic.

He may have lost the first round, but I wouldn’t count him out long term.

Speaking of that Genie, stay away from him. That fella is just too enthusiastic about shit. Sexy eyes with him may end with an encounter with an uncompassionate, experimental lover. Nobody likes a rusty trombone or a Goodluck Jonathan, but with guys like him, that’s what you get.

As for financial aid funding…wait what were we talking about?

Best, Dr. V Dear Dr. Valencia, I’m 37 years old, but the school’s still counting my parents’ income. What’s up with that?

- Golden Oldie Dear Golden Oldie, Boy that is demeaning! I’ll tell you what, I feel for you bud.. The only thing more demeaning must be being a 37 year old in school! Jesus man, how pathetic. The obvious answer is they are merely fucking with you.

This is rubbing salt in your wound, which after all is what the financial aid office does. They are saying,

“What are you doing in school at 37?

Is your last name Bundy by chance?”

In short, because you are in school at your age, clearly you just sobered up and left your parents’ basement for the first time. This is obviously not true with U of T’s admissions standards, but I certainly don’t doubt that the financial aid office would tell that to your face if you asked them about it. Seriously, I heard a story about a girl who had to get in touch with an alienated parent to get a letter stating that indeed their relationship was severed. As difficult as that must have been, reopening old wounds of the highest order for a young person, rumor has it the financial aid office tried to claim that the contact between them was enough to constitute a relationship for the purposes of financial aid. Pretty fucked up!

Yeah the policy is clearly misguided, or at least uninformed. It’s very difficult to change careers at your age, especially if you have a family.

Assuming that your parents’ are willing to help you as if you were in your early 20s only makes this more difficult. This should be changed.

Best of Luck Golden, Dr. V Dear Dr. Valencia, To save myself from graduating with crippling debt, Jiffiin recommended that I eat cat food and dumpster dive for new clothes. Do you have any thrifty tips for a student who’s sick of Fancy Feast?

- Kat von D’scusted

At our rm, it’s not about individual goals, it’s about collective achievement.

On January 1, 2012, Macleod Dixon joined Norton Rose Canada creating an energy and mining powerhouse within Norton Rose Group.

2900 lawyers 43 offices 5 continents 1 vision thenortonrosedifference.com

Dear Kat, I normally don’t recommend stripping and turning tricks, but if you can’t live up to some administrator’s level of cheapness you may consider it - especially dudes.

If you’re looking fit fellas, and can dance, you’ll have a blast shakin it for older ladies, bachelorette parties, and “curious” or closeted dudes. Actually, I won’t get your hopes up, it’ll be all closeted dudes, but hey it sure beats dumpster diving.

Another option is palm reading. A long-time favorite of money launderers across the western world, with the right out-fit, palm reading can still be a very profitable endeavor.

See in your dumpster diving adventures if you can pick up a scarf to wrap around your head and an eyepatch. If you can fake an Eastern European or Jamaican accent, this will help you dupe the rubes and superstitious.

Another option is transferring to another less-expensive law school.

Just keep in mind, like those that don’t go to U of T, they always feel the need to mention why they didn’t go here (normally it goes, “I didn’t get in there, so I went to …”).

If you are okay with that, then it’s a good option. There is a good chance you’ll do well enough at another school, so you’ll end up making the same shitty articling salary that we’ll make graduating from here with much less debt.

Good luck Kat, Dr. V

ultravires.ca FEBRUARY 15, 2012

ULTRA VIRES

17

DIVERSIONS

UV Eats Out – King Lobster W

By Drew Valentine (2L)

hy do I do this to myself? It is a Wednesday night and there is no good reason to be sitting bitch in a cab with two clowns looking for Chinese. Spadina has all but been abandoned by the least-diligent students and young professionals and it seems like our quest is merely a lost cause, when from the sky a shining star guides us like three wise men to the baby jesus. Our cabbie, cracking a new air freshener and reluctantly accepting our pocket change, bids us farewell with a look of satisfaction knowing we are about to get our just desserts. Like flies attracted to flame, we enter King Lobster.

We are greeted with a loud “hello”, arms raised in an almost welcoming huglike fashion. I imagine this is what it was like to be an orphan pre-teen meeting Coach Sandusky for the first time. There is clearly a deceptive nature to this place but the thought of leaving and continuing the search for food only amplifies the cold feeling in my stomach. I need food now.

We are given two menus – although we can only order off the late night menu.

We are clearly being messed with. Someone shouts “cold tea”. We all know it is a terrible idea, but the novelty of afterhours service leads the entire table to cavalierly agree.

Soon we are pouring Tsing Tao out of a tea pot into tea cups, jovially chuckling, not expecting the Tsing Tao to taste like

it has been filtered through sea monkeys.

We toast to the life of law students.

It’s time to order, our waiter informs us. We throw in some of the standards: lemon chicken, beef and broccoli, shrimp fried rice, crispy ginger beef. Our waiter recommends something, but we can’t understand what he is saying.

Trying to phonetically piece together his gibber-jabber we think the first word is Szechuan, but we are missing a syllable. We give him our approval and tack on a fried noodle for good measure. There

are five of us, we order six dishes.

The beef and broccoli comes first. The King (pronounced “Kang”) Lobster beef and broccoli is as mediocre as the palate that orders it – steamed broccoli topped with the garlicky slices of beast that is forgotten as quickly as it is devoured.

Next comes the lemon chicken. The bird’s eye view of this dish looks like two heavily battered chicken breast tossed in a lemon sauce. However the cross-section makes you reconsider whether you are actually eating chicken. I don’t mean to

come off as saying that it may have been some other animal, I’m not sure there is anything inside that breading. The taste confirms my suspicions - a truly remarkable prank. The shrimp fried rice is decent, but the crispy ginger beef is great – bursting with flavor. I don’t touch the fried noodles.

The recommendation of the waiter debuts to some initial confusion. I think our expectations included something saucy, but this dish looks more suitable for an appetizer. The entree consists of deep-fried jumbo shrimp with a dry salt n pepper coating that was spicy with a sriracha-type heat.

It wins the day for me. If this was a Spanish or Mexican restaurant this dish would’ve been called camarones de la pija del diablo. These prawns are too hot for the charlatans surrounding me; for the late night glutton, an ideal dish to share.

It had enough spice to sober me up. Unfortunately another round of tea takes me right back to where I was.

The K(a)ng Lobster is a bad idea. Maybe the regular menu is worth trying but the late night menu leaves much to be desired. Cold tea is totally unnecessary and I regret it in the morning.

I know I’ll be back but with great reluctance and the stiff upper-lip of a seasoned veteran. Luckily my wallet isn’t too much lighter, but that could change with another lost round of credit card roulette.

Two out of four Jim Beam shots, for no other reason than serving us Tsing Tao in a tea pot.

Use your smartphone’s camera and the free ScanLife app to scan the barcode. You can get the free ScanLife app at www.2dscan.com.

TORONTO • NEW YORK • CALGARY

18

ultravires.ca FEBRUARY 15, 2012

ULTRA VIRES

DIVERSIONS

Top 10 Leading Law School Dating Laws

By Michael Portner Gartke (2L)

A

list for which “dating” can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Ten: “Intra” is not the same as “inter.” All literate people should know that.

Nine: While a doctor spouse will always be the dream, law students, especially by their 2L year, should start accepting that a lawyer spouse is the reality. Realistically, a lawyer’s lifestyle is such that you probably won’t meet any more non-lawyers, ever. Law students who devote their entire social lives to attending Pub Nights will find this to be true already. [Editor’s note: we know you’re out there somewhere, FemmePG.] It is comforting to know that lawyers are generally intelligent, interesting, and compelling people. If you don’t believe that now, wait for what three years of law school goggles do to you.

On second thought, it’s probably better not to wait. The fallout from your failed intra-firm romance will be much more awkward and damaging to your career than your rejection at Pub Night.

Eight: At Pub Night, “do you want to dance?” is code for “do you want to date?”

Which is too bad, because a lot of guys who ask that are just legitimately tired of the ‘dance in a circle with your friends’ routine after a couple of hours. Law students should be mindful: unless you in-

tend to ask the second question, you may not want to ask the first.

Seven: Date a 3L. For two reasons: (1) they can be valuable mentors (there’s nothing quite like using the person you’re dating for personal and professional advancement) and (2) they’re gone in two months.

If things go poorly, spiral out of control and make you wish that you had never bought that drink on Pub Night, you only have two more months of seeing them multiple times each day. Much better than playing chicken (Who will lateral first?!) with an intra-firm ex. This rule may or may not be on this list following multiple desperate requests from lonely 3Ls. Six: Be realistic. Lawyers like to make arguments in court like: “You can’t prove that my client killed her. Even if you could, my client killed her in self-defence.” Like the lawyers they will eventually become, law students like to keep their options open. Unless you’re official, you’re probably not exclusive.

Five: If you are dumped by your law school significant other, do not go to Pub Night the next night. Not only will she be there, she may also be talking to other guys. Not a good situation in which to be drinking. Some law students should apply this advice to the subsequent month.

Or semester.

Four: Want to pick up? Join the OWeek committee. Yes 1Ls, it’s time to face the fact that many of your leaders were there for that reason. What, you thought that upper-year leaders

joined out of a sense of community and a desire to mentor the next generation?

Correct. That is what every one of them wrote on their questionnaire. Community-minded 1Ls should be very excited to become a part of this noble tradition this September.

Three: Don’t even try to pretend that nothing happened between you and that person you hit on all Pub Night after (a) you told your three “best law school friends” about it; (b) you swore them to secrecy; (c) you “shared a cab” with that person at 2:30 a.m.; and (d) that person lives across the street from the bar. Law students are experts at deductive reasoning.

Two: Be a guy. Because, from what my female friends tell me, there are far more eligible women in law school than men.

Like all law school males, I breathe a sigh of relief when I hear this refrain because I know that it just means that I have less competition.

One: Sarcasm and cynicism can only account for so much on a V-Day top 10 list.

Every reader would agree that there are some pretty special and fantastic people in our law school. Valentine’s Day might be a contrived, tacky, consumerist excuse for a holiday…but there is still something wonderfully symbolic about it. February 14th is the perfect opportunity to tell a fellow law student how you feel. You shouldn’t need a top 10 list to tell you that. [Editor’s Note: You were being sarcastic and cynical this entire time??]

Top Six Law School Pick-Up Lines Because top 10 lists are way too MPG

By Atrisha Lewis (3L)

T

hese lines either come from the internet or Justin Nasseri, or I made them up myself. For the sake of everyone involved, I won’t say who made up which lines…

6

Res ipsa loquitur, babe. Your hot body speaks for itself.

5

Babe, I think it is time we complied with section 69 of the Act.

4

Babe, stare decisis shouldn’t matter because our love overrules.

UV Personal Ads 3

N

By Josh Stark (2L)

ote: We have recently been contacted by various graduates of U of T law who are interested in taking out personal ads in UV. At first we were uncertain.

The idea is, let us be frank, pathetic.

But after receiving several more emails, texts, phone calls, sexts and manifestos, we began to pity these poor souls.

Having entered the workforce these individuals have belatedly realized that their greatest and perhaps only chance to find a suitable mate had already passed them by.

Where else other than law school is one frequently exposed to literally dozens of attractive people with similar interests and abilities? Where else but in these sterile halls can love bloom? Seriously, if you leave here single, you will die alone.

THIRSTYMIND Age: 27 From: An earthy, small-minded Ontario town Favourite law school memory: Those

Personal

times when large groups of people were forced to listen to me talk Articling job: MAG You probably remember me. When you were in 1L, I was on that student-life panel in BLH. I must have seemed so worldly and wise.

Everyone was loving my advice, which was either contradictory or so vague and general so as to be of no use at all. But it sounded good at the time, because you didn’t know anything.

You may also remember me from the Law Review Journal info session. You definitely laughed at my clever, canned jokes. How couldn’t you? I was clearly a big deal. Of course, I’m much more than a law student now.

While it was great to have lots of friends, no real responsibilities, and be given the benefit of an arbitrary social hierarchy, being an articling student is just as fulfilling and has required no psychological adjustment whatsoever.

After all, I have a real job, with real responsibilities, and a real paycheck, for at

least 10 months. I even get to go to court.

Well, usually with a senior lawyer.

But one time I argued a traffic ticket make sure to check it out in the ORs. Do they still talk about me at DLS? I’ll bet they still talk about me at DLS. I used to go to court all the time at DLS. You know that sombrero on the wall on the second floor of DLS? Yeah. I put that there.

Of course, I still meet tons of great people. Loads! It’s just hard to find common interests. For instance, my Lord Denning jokes always fall flat. I spent years developing that material, for nothing! Where else am I going to use it if not on impressionable, status-obsessed 1Ls? But seriously, I’m perfect for you. I’m a great conversationalist, for starters. Who did you have for small group? Uh huh?

Oh, I loved him. I completely know what you mean about keeners. No. Way. That is so funny!

So, do you think it would be weird for an articling student to come to Law Ball?

If you have a personal ad to submit, please contact Josh Stark at: josh.stark@utoronto.ca.

Babe, I’ll teach you about jurisdiction if we change the venue to my place.

2

Babe, I don’t know if I have standing, but I’d love to court you.

1

Babe, your body is ultra vires, it’s beyond my power to control myself around you. [Editor’s note – Is this funny? I can’t really tell]

ultravires.ca FEBRUARY 15, 2012

ULTRA VIRES

19

DIVERSIONS

Crux Verbum

ACROSS 3. Cuerrier novel verb 5. Guzzled gastropod?

6. Untitled territory 8. Rogue automotive dealings 9. A difficult (fetal?) position 10. Spicy consideration 13. Low-brow publication 15. Problematic policy prong 17. Spy’s memoir that spurred suit 19. Butter farmer fail 23. Yorick diminished 26. Shredder jam 29. Lactation legislation 30. Levite’s defense

DOWN 1. Deliberately discarded eyewear?

2. Careless caffeinator 4. Squat dwelling 7. Rogers’ summery malady 11. Rickshaw regulation?

12. Polynesian Laskin?

14. Awkward locale 16. Negligent baker’s best seller 18. Fallacious influenza fix 20. Mustapha’s terror 21. Denning’s delight 22. Doctrine for a child beguiled?

24. Acoustic calamity 25. Deciduous doctrine 27. Dynamite track!

28. Students in sufficient proximity

Answers in next issue!

20

FEBRUARY 15, 2012 ultravires.ca

ULTRA VIRES

POET’S CORNER

An Ode to Cover Letters A Cynical Look at

By Katherine Gorgeous (1L)

To whom it may concern: I’m writing to you on this very nice night To inform you my bank account is getting quite tight I’d love to stop being so poor all the time So I’d like you to hire me by the end of this rhyme Oh, make no mistake; I’d be great for this job ’Cause UofT’s told me I’m on top of the mob They’ve drilled in my head that I’m special as hell …Too bad they told that to 200 others as well But I’m better than them, you can bet on that!

I’d murder them all at the drop of a hat And I’ve had a longstanding interest in whatever you do Corpor-labour IP, yeah love that crap too!

I’ve also got tons of transferrable skills From working 3 years on Mickey-D’s grills Wooing a client is like making some fries Just grease ‘em up while your inside dies And don’t forget to call the reference I know Me and Kent Roach? Yeah we’re totally bros Sure I don’t say anything useful in class But you don’t need to know that irrelevant fact So I hope you consider me for a place at your firm I’m smart, and hardworking, and treat fun like a germ I’ll devote my life to you, and abandon all others I’ll drop friends and siblings, and even my mother Sincerely, Katherine Georgious

Valentine’s Day Poetry

T

By Bhuvana Sankaranarayanan (1L)

he following five haikus were written to help fellow law students secure a Valentine’s Day date. If any are actually successful, reconsider the date.

Feb 14? That’s quite an important date for me: McCarthy’s firm tour.

I’m not straight, gay, or other. What’s the word for when you love cold hard cash?

Note the exclusion of liability clause in our pre-date waiver.

Valentine’s day holds so much potential ... for tobe divorce lawyers.

Love is blind. So is my desire to work for a Seven Sisters firm.