Ultra Vires Vol 16 Issue 6: 2015 March

MARCH 25, 2015 | ULTRAVIRES.CA

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

The Once and Future Dreams of JDs Personal Statements vs Where They're Working Now

PAGE 7

Illustration by Alex Wong

IN THIS ISSUE Law School in Review: Eryn Fanjoy Recaps The Best Moments From All Three Years at U of T Law PAGE 16 Point|Counterpoint: Do man buns have a place on Bay Street? PAGE 13

We killed it: Moot results recap PAGE 4; also—top mooters address five major problems with U of T's moot program

The Top 10 Best and Worst Courses at Law School PAGE 11 Show Me the Money: How financial aid is changing next year PAGE 3

EDITORIAL

2 | MARCH 25, 2015

ultravires.ca

Well That Was Fast.

PALOMA VAN GROLL (3L) & DAVID GRUBER (3L) AND WE’RE REMINDED YET AGAIN how easily we can let a school year pass, without learning a thing. But that’s only when taking the narrow view.

Sure, most of us haven’t learned much about the law - that’s what the 72 hours leading up final exams are for. (And if you think that’s brisk, consider how quickly it all fades from memory.) We already knew that, at least pedagogically speaking, law school is resting comfortably in the dark ages. But reviewing the last eight months as reported in Ultra Vires, it seems we’ve all done quite a lot this year.

In our six issues we spoke with leading lawyers, judges, and academics, put out a comprehensive review of 2L recruitment, and reported on Faculty Council meetings every month so that you would know what’s going on behind closed doors. We tried to get straight answers about the progress of the elusive new Jackman Law Building, and to supplement the Faculty’s official statements on funding and financial aid with… actual true facts. We debated the changes to the 1L curriculum and told you 20 things about our new Dean Yak that you prob-

ably didn’t know. And sometimes we talked trash just because.

Of course, when we say “we” we don’t mean us. First, our fellow students took the bait when we pleaded with you to write something for the paper. We were better for it. It’s gratifying to see student issues hashed out in the pages of UV. Second, this whole project wouldn’t function were it not for our editors, who are equal parts dedicated and talented. And dashing to boot. It’s their work that makes this teetering house of cards stand upright, and we can’t thank them enough.

Alex Carmona and Tali Green worked hard to provide us with thoughtful Features content every month. We are proud of Tali’s thoughtful interviews, and Alex always produced work containing indispensable advice for the student body. Also, he never complains when we accidently credit Tyler Cohen for his tireless work. Marita Zouravlioff and David Pardy, the Opinions team, ensured all who wished had an opportunity to be heard. Their distinct and hilarious voices shine through in every written piece, whether it is a sharp cri-

tique of Law Follies or a passionate defence of the man bun. And the Diversions crew, Alanna Tevel and Lisana Nithiananthan, kept it real, and real amusing, occasionally venturing into the weird, and sometimes tastefully dipping into the crass. We never cease to be impressed by their gift for finding Professor Celebrity Look-a-Likes, and this month’s Intra Vires is a real treat in a long line of joyful confections brought to life by our gals. Our indispensable 1L editors Rona Ghanbari, Nathan Rattansey, and Mike Robichaud kept us plugged in with all the new blood and pulled their weight as though they’d been doing it for years. Aron Nimani tirelessly maintained all things Web. We truly could not have done it without him.

Our eminently capable News Editor Brett Hughes stayed on top of all that was noteworthy around here. His dedication and integrity kept us honest. Brett will be taking over as Editor-in-Chief next year. We’re confident he will do great things at the helm.

JOIN UV! 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.

Editors-in-Chief Editor-in-Chief, Emeritus News Editor Features Editors Opinion Editors Diversions Editor 1L Editors Web Editor Layout Editor

David Gruber & Paloma van Groll Emily Debono Brett Hughes Alex Carmona & Tali Green Marita Zouravlioff & David Pardy Alanna Tevel & Lisana Nithiananthan Michael Robichaud, Nathaniel Rattansey & Rona Ocean Ghanbari Aron Nimani Alyssa Howes

ERRORS If you find any errors in Ultra Vires, please email ultra.vires@utoronto.ca

ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries should be sent to ultra.vires@utoronto.ca.

SUBMISSIONS If you have an article submission or a tip for us, please contact us at ultra.vires@utoronto.ca.

Ultra Vires reserves the right to edit submissions for brevity and clarity.

Ultra Vires is looking for clever, diligent, or any law students to serve on the UV Editorial Board next year.

Being an editor at UV requires a modest commitment of time and effort, while paying massive dividends in terms of pride and your classmates’ envy.

If you would like to know more about joining our Editorial Board, send us an email at ultra.vires@utoronto.ca. Let us know what section most interests you: News, Features, Opinions, or Diversions.

Also, do you have marketable skills? Then why are you in law school? But seriously, if you’re good with numbers, get in touch!

We may also be looking for a VP Finance to help with the books. And if stats is your thing, we can always use help crunching numbers for the November OCI issue and other data-driven journalism.

NEWS

ultravires.ca

MARCH 25, 2015 | 3

Rad Students’ Road Trip to RebLaw MICHELLE HAYMAN (2L) BIRGE CARNEGIE GOT A LITTLE LESS radical over reading week. Thirteen of the most badass students attended the 21st annual “Rebellious Lawyering Conference” (RebLaw) at Yale University. RebLaw provides students with the opportunity to hear from social justice lawyers, activists, and community organizers, and to meet other law students interested in using their law degrees to change society for the better.

The conference opened with a passionate and timely speech from Vincent Warren, Director of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, about race

and policing. Warren began by discussing a series of events on April 27, 1962, when police officers shot 29-year-old Ronald Stokes and wounded six other members of the nearby Nation of Islam Temple. He connected this incident with the ongoing resistance to racial profiling in policing in the United States following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown. Without sugar-coating the issues, Warren left students with the message that they must “believe justice is possible.”

Whether the law can be used to make effective change was a recurring theme. Panels on the

mass incarceration of women, detainment of migrants, and the criminalization of homelessness left little hope in the current American justice system. Other panels focused more on creating strategies for change, such as a panel on how lawyers, activists, and communities could work together more effectively.

Sujatha Baliga, director of the Restorative Justice Project at the National Council of Crime and Delinquency, explored avenues for change outside of the adversarial system in her closing keynote address. She passionately discussed the benefits of

implementing restorative justice alternatives to juvenile detention, drawing on her own experiences as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. She was one of the few speakers who referenced Canada, as she discussed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and other restorative justice initiatives among First Nations communities.

RebLaw happens every year at Yale, and the U of T Law Union regularly organizes a carpool there. If the reason you decided to attend law school was because you felt it would help you make a difference in the world, consider joining us next year.

Financial Aid Changes BRETT HUGHES (2L) FINANCIAL AID, IF NOT TUITION, became a major focus this year for both the Students’ Law Society (SLS) and the Faculty of Law administration. This renewed focus has already led to some preliminary changes to the financial aid system. I sat down separately with Aladdin Mohaghegh, head of the Financial Aid Office, and Spencer Burger, one of the SLS representatives on the Financial Aid Committee, to learn more.

At the October 22 Faculty Council meeting, SLS President Natalie Lum-Tai and former SLS Vice President of Student Affairs and Governance Padraigin Murphy made forceful presentations about the growing gap between tuition and financial aid, the challenges faced by students with access to credit issues, and more. This helped drive a renewed focus on financial aid reform by the administration, including a definitive statement by then-Professor Iacobucci that it is “not acceptable” to turn away admitted students with credit issues.

Even before the October Faculty Council meeting, the Financial Aid Committee had been making changes. As Burger put it, the Faculty used to engage in a “bait and switch” where it divided total financial aid funding equally into three pots for each year, regardless of need between years. This meant students would have more unmet financial need covered by bursaries in first year, when they could also rely on savings.

In upper years, the fixed pot of funding would be spread more thinly, as upper-year students’ need tends to increase as their savings are depleted.

Beginning in the present 2014-15 academic year, the Financial Aid Committee removed this discrimination to instead distribute one pool of funding across all years based on need.

PAYMENT DEADLINES Beginning in the 2015-16 academic year, the University of Toronto will allow students to pay tuition fees on a per semester basis, rather than requiring the full year’s payment upfront. This change was mandated by the Ontario government. As a result, the effective deadline for fall tuition payment has been moved up. Service charges on unpaid fall fees will begin to accrue on October 15, 2015 (rather than mid-November, as it was last year).

For students not receiving government financial assistance, service charges for winter tuition will

begin to accrue on December 15, 2015. For students receiving government financial assistance, charges will start on February 15, 2016.

The former fee payment schedule did not align with the OSAP disbursement schedule, which only provides funds to students on a semester basis—the first OSAP payment comes in September, and the remainder in January. The former schedule also meant that students relying on private loans had to incur interest charges for winter tuition throughout the fall semester. Finally, the tuition tax credit can only be claimed for the tax years in which the semesters occurred, so even though law students had to pay $31,500 in September, 2014, only half of that amount can be claimed on 2014 tax returns.

The inequity was, and still is, compounded by U of T’s unjustifiable late payment penalties. If U of T does not receive a student’s payment on time, it imposes a monthly “service charge” of 1.5% of unpaid tuition fees compounded monthly (19.56% per annum). For 2014-15 law school tuition (approximately $31,500), the late fee would amount to approximately $470 for the first month, an additional $480 for the next month, and so on. This charge bears no relation to U of T’s borrowing costs, assuming it even needs to make payments promptly on the tuition payment deadline. More importantly, the late fees usually amount to a tax on the poorest students, who are most likely to struggle to make the full payment on time.

FINANCIAL AID ASSESSMENT TIMELINE In order to accommodate the earlier fee payment deadline, Mohaghegh said that the Faculty of Law’s Financial Aid Office had to move up the date on which financial aid assessments will be released. Beginning in the 2015-16 academic year, the complete financial aid application will be due on August 4, 2015, with final summer paystubs due on September 8, 2015. This will allow the Financial Aid Office to issue assessments to students on September 18, 2015. The change should allow students to meet the new fee payment deadline. As an ancillary benefit, students will have more time to pursue alternative sources of financing if the assessment does not reflect their actual financial need. For example, they

would be able to file financial aid appeals earlier.

ACCESS TO CREDIT The Faculty’s financial aid system is contingent on students having access to substantial amounts of private credit. The Faculty misleadingly claims to “offer” an interest-free loan, even though its policy is to pay a certain amount of interest on private lines of credit that students must independently obtain from Scotiabank or other lenders.

The Financial Aid Booklet previously suggested to students with access to credit issues that they need not apply. This year, the language has been slightly softened to encourage students facing credit issues to approach the Financial Aid Office as soon as possible to start working on finding solutions. For example, Mohaghegh said that many students simply have no credit history, having made it through undergraduate degrees without private loans or credit cards. The office would work with such prospective students to start establishing credit histories in advance of a line of credit application. The Financial Aid Office can also advocate to Scotiabank on a student’s behalf if that student has faced issues in the Scotiabank Professional Student Plan (SPSP) application process.

As a last resort, the Financial Aid Office offers “Short-term Emergency Loan Assistance” to students who have exhausted other means of financing. Students would previously not know whether they could access this emergency financing until the school year had already begun because the Financial Aid Committee would not sit in the summer. According to Burger, the head of the committee will now be able to exercise discretion to meet without the full committee in order to approve (but not deny) emergency loan applications in early August.

FINANCIAL AID CALCULATOR In the next few months, the long-awaited Financial Aid Calculator should launch on the Financial Aid website. Mohaghegh said that Professor Ben Alarie had been pushing for this for years, and that the calculator would effectively provide an “upper year provisional assessment” similar to what incoming first-year students receive in early summer. Students input most of the information they would enter on a regular assessment, and the calculator provides an estimate of how much financial support they could expect from the Faculty.

GOING FORWARD Dean Ed Iacobucci has promised that financial aid will be the Faculty’s next fundraising priority.

However, the law school still faces donor fatigue flowing from the recently completed $50 million building fundraising campaign, which has seen cost overruns that may have to be covered through additional fundraising (or from cost cutting in the building). As a result, this effort may not bear significant fruit for a while yet.

Financial aid and tuition played a major role in the recent SLS elections. SLS President-elect Andrew Wang ran on a platform that included seeking to pressure the administration to offer a guarantee to prospective students that they will be able to afford U of T Law, one way or another. This plan may face resistance, as the Faculty is loath to shoulder any direct financial responsibility for helping ensure that prospective students can afford to attend U of T Law. Wang also ran on a platform of restarting the tuition discussion, which he said has been lost sight of following a shift in focus to financial aid alone.

NEWS

4 | MARCH 25, 2015

ultravires.ca

2015 Moot Results DANNY URQUHART (3L) ARNUP CUP (ONTARIO TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION) AND THE SOPINKA CUP (NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION) Team Members: Christina Galbraith, Leah West-Sheriff, Alana Pasut, and Elizabeth Gjata.

Coaches: Lisa Freeman (Law Society of Upper Canada), Jonathan Shime (Cooper, Sandler, Shime & Bergman), and Megan Schwartzentruber (Cooper, Sandler, Shime & Bergman).

Problem: A criminal case involving attempted murder. A woman was shot by a masked assailant whom she later identified as her ex-boyfriend. The main issue was the identity of the shooter.

Results: Alana and Elizabeth won the Arnup Cup! That victory sent them to the national trial advocacy competition, the Sopinka Cup, which was won by another school.

BOWMAN TAX MOOT Team members: Taylor Cao, Emily Gilmour, Shavone Hayes, and Fraser Malcolm.

Coaches: Kyle Gerow, Chad Pilkington, Martha McDonald (Osler), and Al-Nawaz Nanji (Osler).

Problem: Are two brothers who buy thousands of lottery tickets sufficiently organized to constitute a business? The brothers made more than $5 million over four years, and claimed their winnings were tax exempt. The Crown argued their system was a business, and that their profits ought to be taxed.

Results: The team performed very well, with Emily and Taylor making the semi-final rounds.

CORPORATE/SECURITIES LAW MOOT

CANADIAN LABOUR ARBITRATION COMPETITION Team Members: Hilary Grice and Alex Ognibene.

Coaches: Jacob Brown, Dave Kumagai, and Laura Trachuk.

Problem: The problem focused on a company's unilateral imposition of a random drug and alcohol testing policy in a safety-sensitive workplace.

Results: U of T won top prize before a threemember panel that included Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell.

FRANK W. CALLAGHAN MEMORIAL MOOT Team Members: Malini Vijaykumar, Kailey Sutton, Hilary Brown, Alexander Eckler, Ben Lerer, Caroline Senini, Enoch Guimond, Gledis Rada, John Paul “JP” Zeni, Natasha Chin, Pat Chapman, Shauvik Shah, Eleanor Vaughan, Josh Fineblit, Pavel Sergeyev, and Bettina Xue. Coaches: Bailey Rudnick, Ethan Schiff, Christina Galbraith, Tom Brookes, Marita Zouravlioff, Ryan Tinney, Dharsha Jegatheeswaran, and Yale Hertzman.

Problem: An appeal from a judicial stay of proceedings issued prior to the accused’s anticipated fourth trial on a murder charge. The previous two trials resulted in hung juries. Also at issue was the trial judge’s ruling on a key piece of Crown phone tracing evidence, which was excluded on the ground that it was inadmissible hearsay.

Results: Malini and Kailey won the competition as respondents, defeating appellants Enoch and John Paul in the final round. Best Appellant factum: Alexander and Hilary. Best Respondent Factum: Bettina and Gledis. First place oralist: Malini. Second place oralist: Josh.

Third place oralist: Bettina.

GALE CUP MOOT

defence of abandonment.

rewarding to be coached by such experts."

Results: U of T emerged victorious. As a result of their win, the team was invited to represent Canada at the Commonwealth Moot in Glasgow, Scotland this spring. Ada and Samuel also walked away with the third place factum prize.

THE LASKIN MOOT

HAROLD G. FOX INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MOOT Team Members: Rachel Charney, Brett Hughes, Brandon Heard, and Matt Cahill.

Coaches: Sean Husband, Monica Grembowicz, Andy Shaughnessy (Torys), and Dominique Hussey (Bennett Jones).

Problem: This year's problem dealt with trademark law, including whether a particular parody of a corporate slogan could confuse consumers and whether an Anton Pillar order to seize the potentially-infringing goods was justified.

Results: Rachel and Brett reached the final round, but were defeated by the University of Ottawa. Rachel and Brett also won the award for best Appellant factum.

JULIUS ALEXANDER ISAAC DIVERSITY MOOT Team Members: Maya Bielinski, Nicole Wilkinson, Jeffery Couse, and Andrew Ngo. Coaches: Joseph Kalis, Alexandra Penny, and Joseph Cheng (Department of Justice).

Problem: The moot was based on Peart v Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), which involved an allegation that the Coroners Act discriminated against migrant agricultural workers by denying them the benefit of a mandatory inquest into workplace deaths, which currently is extended to workers in the mining and construction industries.

Results: The U of T team won. Maya was named best oralist, and Maya and Andrew were also named best appellant team.

KAWASKIMHON TALKING CIRCLE MOOT Team Members: Aurora Curtis, Shardae Fortier, Nicole Sylvester, and Danielle Muise.

Coaches: Professor Douglas Sanderson, Promise Holmes Skinner, and Bryce Edwards (Olthuis, Kleer, Townshend).

Team Members: Gabe Edelson, Gideon Kwinter, Joe McGrade, and Aron Nimani.

Coaches: Kathleen Elhatton-Lake, Jim Robson, and Andrew Matheson (McCarthy Tétrault).

Problem: A frustrated acquiror attempted to nominate its own slate of directors to a company's board. The central issues were the validity of the company's advanced notice bylaws, whether a postponement of a shareholder meeting was compliant with the Canada Business Corporations Act, and whether the acquiror was obligated to distribute a dissident proxy circular.

Results: U of T won the final, best factum award, and Gabe walked away with a top oralist award to complete the sweep.

Team Members: Joseph Bricker, Samuel Greene, Ada Keon, and Ethan Schiff.

Coaches: Karen Bellinger (Downtown Legal Services), Michael Dineen (Dawe Dineen), and Mark Coombes.

Problem: The problem was the case of R v Gauthier. The defendant had taken steps to conduct a murder-suicide pact with her spouse involving their children. The spouse proceeded to carry out the crime, despite the defendant communicating that she did not wish to proceed. The case turned on the infrequently used

Problem: The moot revolved around the Crown's duty to consult in a land use scenario that would negatively affect the reserve and traditional territories of several First Nations bands. As well, several other groups with less clearly-defined section 35 rights wanted a seat at the table during the consultation process with the Crown. The problem centered on negotiating who would be given seats at that table.

Results: The Kawaskimhon Moot is structured to be a talking circle in which teams represent various interested parties to exchange views and explore whether consensus can be reached. There are no awards given out. By all accounts, the mooters had an enriching experience. Aurora had this to say: "working with the team and our coaches was a lot of fun, and it was

Team Members: Leanna Katz, Bilal Manji, David Marshall, and Rebecca Schwartz.

Coaches: Lauren Harper, Kat Owens, Sarah Corman (McCarthy Tétrault) and William McLarkey (Ministry of the Attorney General).

Problem: The case involved a challenge to an administrative decision by the fictional “Commission for the Promotion of Canadian History and Patriotism,” which denied a school board access to educational grants. The constitutionality of the administrative body's home statute was also at issue.

Results: The team brought home the titles of top school overall, top finalist pair (Leanna and David), top oralist (David), and both secondplace factum awards.

PHILLIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT Team Members: Drew Beesley, James Rendell, Sarah Stothart, and Daniel Yip. Coaches: Leah Sherriff and Maureen Whelton (Stevenson Whelton).

Problem: Two countries, Agnostica and Reverentia, brought four issues to the International Court of Justice for adjudication. First, whether a referendum in East Agnostica, and Revernentia's support for that referendum, was lawful.

Second, whether the secession of East-Agnostica and its annexation by Reverentia was lawful.

Third, whether a mining treaty between the parties remained in effect after there was major change in the international market for the mineral. Finally, whether actions taken by Reverentia limiting the ability of Agnostica to mine the mineral was lawful.

Results: The Applicant team of Drew and James won a memorial (factum) award, and both Sarah and Daniel won individual oralist awards.

WALSH FAMILY LAW MOOT

Team Members: Petra Molnar Diop, Amy Tang, Rachel Kattapuram, and Graham Thomson.

NEWS

ultravires.ca

MARCH 25, 2015 | 5

Law Student Organization Focuses on Inequitable LSUC Fees, Policies BRETT HUGHES (2L)

ON SATURDAY MARCH 14, LAW student leaders from across the province gathered at Osgoode Hall Law School for the Law Students’ Society of Ontario’s (LSSO) second annual general meeting. The LSSO is an advocacy organisation representing all seven of Ontario’s common law faculties. Its purpose is “to advance student concerns to governmental, regulatory, and educational stakeholders on issues such as access to legal education, professional accreditation requirements, and other matters affecting law students across the province.”

The agenda included a recap on the LSSO’s activities in 2014-15 from outgoing President Douglas Judson, elections for the 2015-16 executive, a presentation on the Canadian Bar Association’s (CBA) “Legal Futures Initiative,” and a priority setting session for the upcoming year.

Judson began by providing a summary of some of the LSSO’s efforts in its inaugural year, which were focused on the priority areas of: raising awareness about consequences of tuition costs, monitoring the implementation of the Law Practice Program (LPP), lobbying for changes to the Law Society of Upper Canada’s (LSUC) 74% licensing fee increase, and advocating for inclusive, representative law schools.

The year began with the September release of the LSSO report on its 2014 Survey of Ontario Law Students’ Tuition, Debt, and Financial Aid Experiences. The first-of-its-kind survey obtained data from 941 students across the province on the connections between tuition, debt and career choices, mental health,

Coaches: Professor Carol Rogerson, Colleen McKeown, Brenna Staats, Paloma Van Groll, Martha McCarthy (McCarthy & Company), and Sarah Young (McCarthy & Company).

Problem: The team made submissions before the Supreme Moot Court of Canada on two thorny issues of property division under the Family Law Act: (1) the valuation of fixed debts under bankruptcy, and (2) the Court's power to set aside a single, mistaken provision of a settlement agreement.

Results: We won the moot! Amy and Rachel also tied for best respondent factum and Graham took home top oralist.

WILLMS & SHIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAW MOOT

and diversity.

In December, the LSSO made a submission to LSUC on alternative business structures, advocating for the adoption of “a liberal approach to the rules on permitted law firm business structures.” The LSSO argued that there is both a strong access to justice case and business case for such liberalisation.

In January, the LSSO wrote to LSUC Treasurer Janet Minor to express concerns about the Law Practice Program (LPP). The letter requested that LSUC impose a compensation requirement on LPP employers, highlighting the fact that 40% of the available Ryerson LPP work placements were unpaid. It focused on the “tremendous power imbalance” created, general concerns flowing from a two-tier licensing system, and equity concerns related to demographics of students most likely to rely on the LPP. The morning concluded with elections for the new LSSO executive. All positions were acclaimed, except for Vice President Internal.

The new executive is comprised of: Ryan Robski, President (Osgoode); Shreya Tekriwal, Vice President Internal (Windsor); Adam Gilani, Vice President External (Ottawa); and Leslie De Meulles, Equity Officer (Lakehead).

Over lunch, the Project Director of the CBA’s Legal Futures Initiative, Karin Galldin, presented on the initiative, which aims to address the “wave of fundamental change” facing Canada’s legal sector, driven by globalisation, technology, economics, demographics, and more. Its purpose is to: (1) provide leadership and a systemic response to transformative change; (2) canvass and reflect views from “within and outside” the legal community; and (3) provide a framework for “ideas, approaches, and tools” to help the profession

adapt to change.

One of the main challenges in responding to or leading, change in the legal sector is a lack of data. As Galldin put it, “we know nothing about what law graduates do in Canada.” She suggested that law schools should collect and publish more detailed information. The American Bar Association, for example, imposes extensive data collection and disclosure requirements on American law schools.

Galldin also spoke about prompting a culture change with respect to who is “allowed” into the conversation about the future of legal services in Canada. She said that client voices tend to be disregarded, and she referred to Professor Julie Macfarlane’s work on the challenges faced by self-represented litigants.

Finally, the afternoon portion focused on planning for the upcoming year.

There was an extended discussion on the LSSO’s funding structure. The organisation operated on a total budget of $500 for 2014-15 through direct payments from constituent law societies. The outgoing executive raised the idea of pursuing a $0.50 per student levy to increase funding—there are approximately 4,000 JD students in Ontario, thus making for approximately $2,000 in annual funding. All student representatives agreed with calculating funding on a per student basis, but differed on whether a direct levy was a feasible or appropriate mechanism, and whether the fee should be increased at this stage.

Additionally, attendees focused on LSUC’s decision to stop offering hardcopy bar exam materials as part of the bar exam materials fee.

LSUC removed the hardcopy without changing the price; only a PDF is available now.

Given that the material changes little from year to year, and is now only available online,

it is unclear why students are expected to pay the same amount, let alone anything at all.

The LSSO looked set to issue a statement criticising the change and advocating for alternatives, such as returning to the old approach, or offering free or cheap PDFs, while offering optional paid printed material.

Lastly, there was a discussion about how to approach the bencher elections. The elections only happen every four years, making this a unique opportunity to press candidates on issues affecting law students and young lawyers.

As Precedent magazine pointed out, only two current benchers are under the age of 50. The LSSO discussed sending a questionnaire to all candidates, with a view to sparking conversation on issues such as having students exclusively bear the cost of increased licensing fees, and more.

Team Members: Serin Remedios, Grace Smith, and Chris Wong.

Coaches: Jen Bates, Lauren Harper, Travis Allan (Zizzo Allan DeMarco), and Laura Zizzo (Zizzo Allan DeMarco).

Problem: The competition case is an appeal of Susan Heyes Inc. (Hazel & Co.) v South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority. Susan Heyes owned and operated a maternity clothing store in Vancouver. Her business suffered due to road closures from the “cut and cover” construction used to create the Canada Line rail link between downtown Vancouver and the Vancouver International Airport. The team argued whether the construction method selected created a nuisance and whether the government established the defence of statutory authority.

Results: First place overall; first place oralist (Serin Remedios); distinguished oralist (Chris Wong).

WILSON MOOT Team Members: Deborah Boswell, Chloe Boubalos, Katherine Long, and Bradon Willms.

Coaches: Aoife Quinn, Christophe Shammas, and Cheryl Milne (Asper Centre).

Problem: The case involved section 15 and section 7 Charter challenges to a law which excluded violent offenders from a program allowing mothers to keep their children with them while they served their prison sentences.

Results: Another victory for the U of T team!

Katherine tied for first place oralist and Debbie placed as third place oralist. The team was part of a three-way tie for first place factum.

WINKLER CLASS ACTIONS MOOT Team Members: Shaanzéh Ataullahjan, Tatiana Emanuel, Brittany Tovee, and Aryan Ziaie.

Coaches: Kathleen Elhatton-Lake, Danny Urquhart, Simon Stern, and Michael Eizenga (Bennett Jones).

Problem: The case involved the certification of a class action for an alleged securities misrepresentation. The core issues were whether the limitations period had expired in respect the claims, whether the case was appropriate for a global class, whether a class action was the preferable procedure, and whether there was a sufficient litigation plan.

Results: The U of T team were unlucky to not make the final round. Aryan earned the top oralist award and Brittany earned a third place oralist award.

NEWS/FEATURES

6 | MARCH 25, 2015

ultravires.ca

Faculty Affairs

Last meeting before exams focuses on jobs, unpaid internships KENT KURAN (2L) AT THE SECOND LAST FACULTY Council meeting of the year, members’ attention was drawn to the Faculty’s employment results and the recent scandal surrounding a new funding campaign for unpaid internships.

JOBS, JOBS, JOBS Emily Orchard, Director of the Career Development Office (CDO), explained that the CDO has significantly expanded its offerings during her tenure. The office runs approximately 40 workshops and holds 1,700 appointments per year, up from 650 in 2010. “We have shifted our focus to meet the needs of students to the greatest extent possible,” explained Orchard. “We focus on anything students are interested in.”

During the previous year, students pursued a wide variety of career paths, with about 90 students joining Big Law firms in Toronto, 17 going to New York, five clerking at the Ontario Court of Appeal, and five others going to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“About six percent of 3Ls are still looking for articling positions,” reported Orchard, with the employment rate "usually landing in the 95-97% range.” As for 2Ls, 70% reported securing a summer position, though details were not provided. Additionally, many students,

such as those involved in the Faculty Unified Hiring Process, were still in the recruitment process at that time.

Orchard also told Faculty Council about U of T Law’s involvement with a new national survey initiative from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP), "the purpose of which is to gather feedback that we can take it back to employers,” designed to supplement the anecdotal information they receive from students who have undergone the on-campus interview process.

When asked if the school knew students’ salaries after graduating, Orchard explained that while most articling salaries were publicly available and clear, "usually once students leave our office, we don’t keep that information.”

Orchard also told Faculty Council about the Students’ Law Society (SLS)/CDO initiative to educate students about managing finances and debt in particular. Born from a request from the SLS, two financial literacy seminars were held to provide "financial counseling to students."

“Some students are closing off some career paths because they do not think the salary is enough to service their debt. On some cases that is true, but in others it is not.”

UNPAID JOBS At the same time, SLS was in retreat after its introduction of a new fundraising campaign for unpaid internships caused outrage among students and made national news after being picked up by The Toronto Star. SLS President Natalie Lum-Tai explained that the “Spring Pledge drive” initiative, as it was called, was "a student led program designed to fund grants for fellow 1L and 2L students.”

“The idea was to have students who were doing paid work support their peers, which would hopefully be matched by alumni,” explained Lum-Tai. She stated that the SLS had received two main concerns. First, students wondered whether the program was condoning unpaid internships. It was not; rather, it was meant to work in a similar way to Donner fellowships, explained Lum-Tai. Second, students felt that the program was unfair, which was contrary to the program’s fundamental objectives.

In the end, the SLS decided to halt the program given the concerns that were brought up.

“We want to make sure students are comfortable with the program as our desire was to create a community environment."

Join Blakes

Your adventure starts here.

MONTRÉAL OTTAWA *Associated Office

TORONTO

CALGARY

VANCOUVER

NEW YORK

LONDON

BAHRAIN

AL-KHOBAR* BEIJING SHANGHAI* Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP | joinblakes.com

ultravires.ca

FEATURES

The Once and Future Dreams of JDs:

Personal Statements vs Where They're Working Now law school will help me find an area of business law that I am passionate about.”

“I dream of being a lawyer who can help underprivileged sectors of society, through addressing public health policy, poverty and immigration, which is one of the fastest-growing issues within Canada.”

“A defining moment in my degree was when I learned that more than eighty percent of the females in prison in Canada have a history of sexual abuse in their lives … For those who have experienced and been unable to overcome emotional trauma that has led them into a life of criminality, prison does not provide them with the help they deserve. I am interested in some of the alternate forms of rehabilitation that the justice system has to offer, and in the support networks that can be made available to those accused and convicted of crime in order to help rather than hinder their emotional development. As a lawyer, I will have the opportunity to help others who had a difficult time seeking support. I would be able to do this by helping to suggest alternate methods of rehabilitation, and provide the help they need to navigate the overwhelming process of a criminal trial.”

This student will be pursuing a career in tax law.

“In the future, I plan to combine my academic experiences [in business school] and law school and pursue a career in business law. I’ve learned an incredible amount about the business world and I am extremely intrigued to see how law applies to the multiple facets of business such as securities and tax law. Although there are many fields under the overarching topic of business law, I am still unsure as to exactly which category of business law I fit into best. I’m hoping my time in

This student was active in the Business Law Society and will be articling at a large Bay Street firm. He is still undecided about whether to pursue a career in corporate law or litigation.

“My interest in justice has been deep and unwavering throughout my life … I hope to use these skills in my practice of the law, to advocate for change in public policy where policy fails to effectively advance freedom and equality."

This student will be articling at a major Bay Street firm.

on the one hand, and solutions that are creative and precise in their approach on the other … As I stood in [a] tiny shack in India, I was aware I could do little more than offer food and medicine to aid the injured man, while in China I could only gaze helplessly at the migrant boy and his family. In my powerlessness to help them I was humbled, but given a reason to pursue working at the nexus of international development and law.”

This student will be articling at a Bay Street firm with a focus on litigation. However, the dream is not dead: she hopes to move to a career in litigation focused on various domestic human rights issues.

ERYN FANJOY (3L) The year was 2011. Osama Bin Laden was taken down. South Sudan became a thing. Will and Kate got married. It was a year of hope.

Hope. That is the main takeaway from reading the personal statements submitted by the graduating class of 2015. What will I do with my JD? “What won’t I do with my JD?!,” we cried.

It’s 2015. Time to check-in. The result? Annie Lennox puts it best: “There are two kinds of [law students] left: those who [go into corporate law] and those who [are broke].”

The following are excerpts from the personal statements of members of the graduating class of 2015 paired with updates on their career plans as they depart from law school.

MARCH 25, 2015 | 7

This student will be pursuing a career in criminal defence.

"I do not know yet where I will end up after graduating with my J.D. I suspect I will be involved in forming policy with the government or working with an organization such as the Canadian Constitution Foundation."

This student has no desire to work for the government.

She will be articling at a full-service firm, with a focus on litigation and family law. ‘ “Although I have not ruled out the possibility of legal practice, my desire to join the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto is not a manifestation of any childhood dream of lawyering for a living.”

This student is articling at a large firm on Bay and is still not convinced. “[M]y ambition is to study law in order to become involved in crafting legislation that directly confronts and responds to global issues. I know that law in this field will present the sort of unique ever-shifting opportunities and challenges that can only arise as politics, economics and personalities collide within legal structures.”

This student is heading to New York to pursue a career in corporate law.

“What I aspire to do with a legal education is to bridge the gap between problems of development

“A law degree … will provide me with the tools I need to advocate, not only for members of my community but the vulnerable in society. After law school, I hope to start my own law practice in Toronto, with a focus on immigration and criminal law. Therefore, I am particularly interested in volunteering with the Downtown Legal Services clinic, as it will enable me to gain valuable work experience while in law school.”

This student will be articling at a major corporate firm.

“I am hopeful that my path will lead me to the study of law at the University of Toronto. With the university’s reputation for an interdisciplinary approach, I hope to gain a diverse background from which to build a sound knowledge of the law and a career where I can make a meaningful contribution. Be it public interest law through the Pro Bono Students Canada program, human rights law through the International Human Rights Program, or the public sector through the faculty’s long history of government advising, the University of Toronto offers unparalleled opportunities to influence and change the legislation and institutions that govern our society.”

While he dipped his toes in human rights work during his time at law school, this student is heading to NYC to join a Big Law firm’s restructuring group, where he is excited to be privy to the failure of some of the world’s largest corporations.

Teaching About Sexual Assault, Or Not KATHERINE LONG (2L) EARLIER THIS MONTH, THE ONTARIO government introduced the “It’s Never Okay” campaign, an initiative to address sexual violence. It includes curriculum changes to teach students about consent in grades one through twelve. These reforms provide an opportunity to also examine the way sexual assault is taught and treated in law school.

As former Justice L’Heureux-Dubé famously observed in R v Seaboyer, “[s]exual assault is not like any other crime.” Over 80% of sexual assault victims are female. One in four women in North America will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime, with the highest rate of victimization amongst women aged 15-24. Approximately 3% of sexual assaults in Canada are reported to the police, and only 0.3% result in a conviction.

Generally, under Canadian law, assault is the application of physical force without express or implied consent.

The meaning of consent shifts in the context of sexual assault. Where a person applies physical force to another in circumstances of a sexual nature, the accused must demonstrate they took reasonable steps to ascertain consent. Implied or advance consent are not legally recognized.

In Canadian law, the offence of sexual assault emerged against a backdrop of historically sexist laws and prosecutorial practices. Prior to the 1980s, a woman’s sexual history could be used as evidence to show that she consented. A complaint could be excluded if it was not made at the first reasonable opportunity. An accused could not be convicted on the evidence of a single witness unless the witness’s testimony was corroborated by evidence implicating the accused. Under this doctrine, medical evidence was often excluded. After these doctrines were abolished, an honest belief in consent could serve as a defence against charges of sexual assault. This included cases where, as in Pappajohn v The Queen, the accused testified that there was “oral resistance” and “[the complainant] was hysterical and she was screaming and crying.”

The legal hurdles faced by sexual assault complainants were often compounded by discriminatory practices from the police. In Jane Doe v Toronto (Metropolitan) Police Commissioners, the plaintiff successfully sued the police for negligent investigation of a serial sexual offender and established a breach of her section 7 and 15 Charter rights. Justice MacFarland noted sexual assault complainants received uniquely poor

treatment. In one instance, the police yelled at the victim and later “confined the victim in an elevator and chased her down a hallway.”

Teaching sexual assault requires an awareness of this historical context and the biases that this history reflects. In a criminal law class, it is statistically likely that many students will be either victims or perpetrators of sexual assault.

Professor Vincent Chiao chose not to teach sexual assault in his large section this year, though he has taught it in past years. Interested students had the option to attend an extra lecture on the subject. He says that many elements of sexual assault, including general notions of consent can be taught through other areas of the criminal law. If he can avoid traumatizing his students, he will.

Professor Chiao does not attempt to cover every criminal offence, but focuses instead on select areas and core concepts. Teaching sexual assault would allocate a significant amount of class time to a subject that is ultimately extremely difficult to examine. Professor Chiao expressed his concern that a student might underperform on an exam as a result of a traumatizing fact pattern.

For Professors who regularly teach sexual as-

sault, including Professors Stewart and Shaffer, the topic allows students to explore complex policy questions in a politically controversial area. It also gives rise to difficult legal issues in terms of the actus reus and the mens rea, and will be critically important to students who go on to practice criminal law.

To contextualize sexual assault, many professors begin the class discussion by outlining the history behind the provisions. Professor Stewart expressed the hope that by beginning classes with this historical introduction “the obvious unfairness and even absurdity of some of those old rules helps to alert people to the danger of reintroducing them informally in the guise of unwarranted assumptions about how people behave in sexual encounters.”

With an eye to the sensitivity of the topic, some professors actively choose not to call on students, whereas others encourage debate. On the question of how to handle remarks that may reinforce harmful attitudes towards sexual behaviour, Professor Shaffer remarked that she could not imagine a comment that would cause her to ask a stuContinued on page 12

8 | MARCH 25, 2015

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

U of T Law Inspires or: What Profs Do When They Don’t Have To Teach You TALI GREEN (2L) MOST PEOPLE GET INSPIRED BY pleasant things, such as rainbows and baby giraffes. But if the almost-packed Victoria Chapel on March 3rd indicated anything about U of T Law students, it’s that we prefer to get inspired by things of questionable loveliness, like the implications of criminally sanctioning polygamy and how to legally resolve international water conflicts. And we don’t like to waste any time getting inspired. Which is why we prefer to have six issues of immense social and economic significance presented to us in a snappy ten minutes or less.

It all started in 2013 when Jonathan Tam, then a 3L and now an associate at Baker & McKenzie, decided that he wanted to bridge what he sensed was a disconnect between students and faculty at the law school. He figured he can do this by giving students a glimpse of what profs really care about. Turns out– and this may come as a shock so please read carefully—profs tend to care way more about their own research than the topics they happen to be teaching.

When Tam was an undergraduate at Harvard, he attended a TED-talk-like event called —and let’s forgive them for this name— “Harvard Thinks Big,” where profs presented the crux of their research in just a few minutes.

Tam wanted to import the event to U of T Law. Besides making us more familiar with our profs, such an event had the potential to inspire, by, as Tam puts it, “opening your eyes to something that you haven’t thought of before and compelling you to act upon it.”

But why the rush? Why do all these events —from TED to Harvard Thinks Big to U of T

Law Inspires—impose such draconian time limits on smart people trying to share their solutions to the most burning problems of their day? “The prof has to hone their entire thesis for a ten minute pitch”, Tam explains. “When they have to focus it that much, they can only communicate so much, and, like in TED talks, there is a focus on showmanship and theatrical aspects.” It could also be this: by boiling down a thesis to its core and then describing it with stunts and jokes, you’re able to cover a variety of important topics in less time while engaging

ers? For one thing, Lynes insisted that at least half of the presenters are women. “That was a big deal to me because it is something that people should be paying attention to these days,” Lynes explained. “The faculty is only so diverse in other ways.”

He also wanted to find at least some profs that had taught 1Ls to try to draw the 1L crowd. Besides that, Lynes looked for an SJD student to increase the interaction between JDs and graduate students. In general, he chose speakers whom he had personally heard

an audience with the attention span of a tweet.

In true Inspires fashion, Tam didn’t waste any time turning his idea into a reality. He got approvals from the Dean, money for food from his soon-to-be articling firm Baker & McKenzie, a roster of star profs, and then went on a mad marketing campaign across campus and Facebook. The event was so good that the SLS took it on and has been organizing it annually ever since.

This year, 2L Social Affairs rep Andrew Lynes held the reins. How did he choose present-

before or who were recommended by a trustworthy source.

So what were this year’s talks about? The following are not-particularly-theatrical summaries of what were six quite interesting presentations. If you read really fast it might come out to about a minute per presentation: Professor Brenda Cossman asked whether polygamy was inherently exploitative. She said that the criminal prohibition on polygamy restricts relationships that are entered into by choice and are considered not exploit-

ative—like polyamory. She also raised the possibility that women could be genuinely satisfied in polygamous relationships. Cossman thinks that the most dangerous result of prohibiting all forms of polygamy is the lack of differentiation between consensual and nonconsensual sex. She urged us to demand a legal regime that recognizes that women are “capable of robust forms of consent and of removing that consent.”

Professor Niblett looked at the unintended consequence of raising the minimum claim amount in small claims court. Small claims court used to have a limit of $10,000, but because it was so expensive to bring claims that were just a bit above $10,000, the government increased the limit from $10,000 to $25,000.

Did that enhance access to justice as it was supposed to? No, and apparently it did just the opposite. By sorting through thousands of small claims court cases according to postal codes, Niblett was able to determine that the level of claims brought by poorer people (ie: those who reside in poorer parts of the city) dropped, and the level of claims brought by wealthier people (ie: those who reside in wealthier parts of the city) increased. Niblett attributes this see-saw effect to the increased litigation costs of using the small claims system as a whole and to the problem of poor people no longer being able to identify with a court with such a high limit.

Professor Mariana Prado illustrated the tension between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. She showed us a cartoon entitled “Equality.” We saw two images side by Continued on page 11

Free Maps and Case Briefs, Just in Time for Exams Introducing the Common Law Project: A free, comprehensive wiki for law students PATRICK HARTFORD (4L)

MY FRIEND ORI BARBUT AND I HAVE launched the Common Law Project (www.commonlawproject.org), a comprehensive wiki for law students.

Crunch time is here, and many of us are trying to find good case briefs and course maps.

Finding notes is difficult, and if you find them they can be out of date or just plain wrong. A lot

depends on luck and connections.

Our idea is simple enough. The Common Law Project is a free site full of case briefs and course maps. So what distinguishes us from the SLS wiki or similar resources online? Two things: First, we built the Common Law Project with the best law school notes. We reached out to top law students at our school and across the country—gold medalists, Supreme Court clerks, etc.—and asked them for their notes. Thanks to their help, we compiled an initial library covering over a dozen areas of law, with more than 600 case briefs.

Second, we take full advantage of the wiki format. To grasp an area of law, you often need to look at the specifics of particular cases as well as

how multiple cases fit together. Our library links the maps and cases, allowing users to jump back and forth between these two levels of detail.

Generally speaking, the common law doesn’t change dramatically from year to year ( JMac’s issues with BCE notwithstanding). Our hope is that with the current library as a starting point, law students will contribute their own notes and keep the Common Law Project up to date.

There’s a lot we plan to do going forward.

Right now, the site layout is very simple. We are working to build a more advanced interface. We are considering adding a forum, where users can ask questions and discuss points of law.

We are also looking into crowdsourcing bar exam indexing. How many 3Ls are currently

thinking about which indexing group they will join? Why not collaborate with hundreds of law students across Ontario and build an index together?

If any of this sounds appealing to you, join our site. Most importantly, if you have any ideas about what features you would like us to add, let us know. This initiative is very much a work in progress.

Visit us at www.commonlawproject.org, follow us on Twitter @CLP_Org, or reach us by email at admin@commonlawproject.org.

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

MARCH 25, 2015 | 9

How to Succeed at Course Selection Without Really Trying HAYLEY OSSIP (3L) FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY SELFLESS heart, I am writing this article to help all of you get into the courses you want. Okay…not entirely true. Alex Carmona told me I should write this article because I “really seemed to know [my] shit [about course selection]” (Facebook Chat, March 3, 1:35 PM) and now I just want to show off. Here are a few tips and tricks of a wise 3L to get you into the courses you want (or should want) to take.

THE ABSOLUTE BASICS OF COURSE SELECTION (THE “ABCS”) You can take 13-16 credits a semester, for a total of at least 28 credits per year. Classes are generally 3 or 4 credits. There are some exceptions, but the most important is that the Upper Year Moot is one credit.

You have to take at least one class that falls under the following topics (and one class can’t double count for two topics): legal ethics, international/comparative/transnational law and perspectives in law, and you must take a moot, Bus. Org., and Administrative Law (sorry 1Ls —sucks to suck).

WHAT SHOULD YOU TAKE ANYWAY?

dence are particularly good to take in 2L.

The classes you take should be a combination of classes that will be helpful for the area of practice that interests you (or for the more cynical, classes that look good on a resume), classes that inspire your intellectual side (or, are easy and require little work), and classes that are relevant to topics on the Bar Exams. I know some people disagree with this final point, but the Facebook statuses of friends before they wrote the Bar Exams last year complaining about “difficult” concepts in tax law and family law gave 2L-me mad schadenfreude.

Pro-tip: Just because a class has an exciting name, doesn’t mean it’s going to be fun. Upper years (and graduates) don’t bite, so feel free to ask about their experiences.

FINAL EVALUATIONS:

PREREQUISITES: Take note of what classes are prerequisites, and take them early on. The course schedules change every year, so you can’t count on something being available in the first semester of your 3L year just because if it is offered first semester of your 2L year. I’m assuming most of you reading this are going into “either corporate law or litigation,” so Bus. Org. and Evi-

You don’t want to end up with four exams over four days, and four papers due at once seems terrible. Take note of the exam schedule and the types of evaluations, and plan accordingly. It’s nice to have different types of evaluations – switching up the rhythm keeps you focused.

USING THE CREDIT NUMBERS: Even if you only intend to take 13 credits one semester, bid for 16. May as well have more options and shop around on your own terms, rather than worrying about waitlists. If you intend on doing a moot, there’s no need to put it in your course selection choices as a 2L (if you are a 3L and have to do your moot, the system will make you add it as a course). Again, it’s better to try out a class that sounds interesting.

USING THE PRIORITY LETTERS:

SO…YOU GET WAITLISTED:

For pre-lottery course selection, 2Ls get one “B” and one “C” priority letter for the entire year, and 3Ls get one “A,” “B,” and “C” for the year.

Don’t use these priority letters on things that have piqued your interest just because they sound cool. Use the letters strategically to first get you into the courses that are prerequisites for other things you may want to take, then use the letters for popular classes that tend to have waitlists. 2Ls—if you have a desire to do corporate law, use your “B” for Bus. Org first term, and your “C” for Securities Regulation second term.

These classes fill up quickly and have long waiting lists. 3Ls – I trust you’ve figured this out already.

If you get waitlisted for a class—fret not! The lists move quickly. I got into Prof. Shaffer’s Evidence class (very popular) from being #33 on the waitlist (I didn’t end up taking it, but that’s another story). Wait it out. If you are waitlisted for a class, you do not need to drop it to get a place in another class. You can stay on as many waitlists as you wish, without giving up a full course load of classes in which you’re officially enrolled (16 credits).

Overall, best of luck and happy pickings! In the end if it all doesn’t work out, just take Sports Law. Even though it’s at 8:30 a.m., I hear it’s worth it.

Be who you are.

Law is what we do, but it doesn’t define us. We’re looking for individuals who are passionate about everything in life, including being a lawyer.

If this sounds like you, please check us out at www.torys.com to learn more about us.

10 | MARCH 25, 2015

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

Advocacy for U of T’s Moot Program KATHLEEN ELHATTON-LAKE (3L) & DANNY URQUHART (3L) THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST successful years in the history of mooting at U of T Law. This does not mean the program is perfect. At its core, the mooting program is about making people better, more talented and more experienced than when they got here. We’d like to share the story of one of your peers: “The mooting program is great for the 20-30 people involved. It totally fails the rest of the UofT students. I went to UofT dreaming of mooting, I volunteered, and helped at Grand Moots and I was so excited to participate. The mooting program has been the single most disappointing thing in my educational experience at UofT. If you do not have a debating background/ equivalent + mooting friends in upper year you have no chance of participating in the mooting program. The upper year moot is a joke. This probably sounds bitter and it is. I was devastated at the lack of training and support for those without public speaking backgrounds.”

Most people’s mooting experience at this school seems to fall into one of three categories: First we have Tom. Tom has never done much public speaking. He really wanted to moot. He tried out for the Baby Gale, but he didn’t make the team. In his try-out he wasn’t even aware that the judges would interrupt him with questions. In second year he tried out again, but didn’t make a moot. He did the upper year moot and hated it.

Next we have Dick. Dick benefited from a debate program at a prestigious private high school. He continued to debate in undergrad. In preparing for his Baby Gale try-out he was counseled by Gale, Corp/Sec and Grand Mooters whom he knew through debate. He made the team. He was excellently coached. He went on to do the Wilson and Grand Moots.

Finally we have Jane. Jane didn’t try out for the Baby Gale. She did upper year try-outs in second year. She read straight from the factum.

Jane made one of her less preferred moots, but went on to win an oralist award. She coached 3L which occupied most of her free time. Her faculty advisor didn’t respond to her emails.

These three characters illustrate the following problems with the mooting program: 1) There are not enough mooting opportunities; 2) The mandatory upper year moot is inadequate; 3) The program relies too heavily on students; 4) There is no clear communication between mooters, coaches and faculty of expectations; and 5) There is not enough transparency in selections.

To address these problems, we have the following recommendations.

GET RID OF THE UPPER YEAR MOOT AND INTRODUCE A MOOTING COMPONENT TO LRW There is near uniform agreement that the mandatory upper year moot is terrible. It serves only a formal and not a pedagogical purpose. Responders to our survey had this to say about the upper year moot: • “this program is viewed as a poor second choice to the competitive moot program and is not valued by the administration or anyone participating in it.”

• “[it was] such an awful experience that it turned me off the entire mooting program.”

• “make the upper year moot something worth doing and not a huge waste of time.”

• “pathetic.”

Students’ educational experience would be significantly enriched by moving the mandatory mooting requirement to 1L. A mandatory 1L moot would easily fit into the current curriculum. It can be made part of the LRW class. The moot can be scored and these scores can be used to help select the Baby Gale team. This creates an incentive to do well if you want to moot, but there is minimal pressure if you have no interest in mooting. Osgoode already runs a mandatory 1L moot without hassle despite a much larger 1L class.

Moving the mooting requirement to 1L solves many of the identified problems with the mooting program: • It evens the playing field by equipping everyone with basic mooting skills before tryouts.

• It exposes students to mooting who may otherwise never be involved. Some don’t realize they like mooting until it is too late to meaningfully participate.

• Students will be more engaged in 1L than they are as 3Ls. • More than just the 20 Baby Galers will get mooting experience.

• Students will get better feedback. Volunteers and students will contribute more when there are stakes.

IF WE KEEP THE UPPER YEAR MOOT, WE NEED TO MAKE IT BETTER There are a number of simple ways the Upper Year Moot can be made better: • Students need to be given more guidance on factum writing. Many people in our survey indicated they were not given any instruction on how to write a factum. Example factums concerned different areas of law from what was being argued. More factum examples should be readily available, including a selection of winning facta from competitive moots.

• Students need to be given guidance on oral submissions. Competitive mooters typically enjoy eight or more run-throughs. We’ve been told that many people hadn’t done a single runthrough in the upper year moot. We do not think it is unreasonable for moot advisors to spend an hour doing at least one run-through.

If run-throughs are unfeasible, students should at least be given template oral submission notes and videos of good oral submissions.

• Competitive mooters should be invited to contribute to the upper year competitive moot.

Students like being recognized in front of their peers and should be willing to speak about what they did in preparation for their moots.

WE NEED EXPECTATIONS TO BE BETTER COMMUNICATED Clear expectations are not set out for mooters, student coaches, and faculty advisors.

Mooters often do not know course requirements. Moots do not have syllabuses. Most mooters were never informed of what they needed to do in order to obtain graded credit. This year mixed and inconsistent signals were given by the Moot Court Committee, the Dean’s Office, and course descriptions about what courses were prerequisites for moots.

Student coaches are heavily relied on at U of T and they receive no instruction. Coaches as well are not given direction. The Moot Court Committee needs to distribute a check list of things student coaches are expected to do. One of the best suggestions we got from the survey was to have:

“a handout--like a syllabus you might get from a class you're taking--with expectations and goals for mooters and coaches alike” Moot coaches are supposed to be handed a transition memo to serve this role, but these do not appear to be in use. We recommend a sheet of instructions for each moot which sets out expectations of coaches. These instructions should include a requirement that coaches create a schedule of run-throughs factum deadlines to be provided to mooters and faculty advisors.

We need to clarify what to expect of faculty advisors. According to Assistant Dean Faherty, faculty advisors are told they need to contribute a minimum of six hours. Six hours as a minimum commitment is reasonable. We should really expect closer to ten. Six hours is at least enough for two run-throughs and a one thorough factum edit. Faculty advisors should be instructed to do exactly those things. Student coaches should be instructed to expect, and ask for, those exact things: two run-throughs and a factum edit.

Criticism is rarely communicated to the administration. We’ve received a wide array of unprompted comments on faculty advisors.

Here’s a sampling: • “Find prof advisors who are actually interested in supporting a team through the entire mooting process” • “There was no real preparation or coaching for what the oral part of the moot would be like. Our supervisor told my partner and I that as long as we handed something in we would pass.”

• “Our supervisor was a really nice individual but he had absolutely no experience with the particular area of law we chose. He also provided zero guidance regarding how to turn our factum into an oral argument.”

• “We would have benefitted from a designated faculty coach. We were lucky that our student coaches arranged run throughs with professors, but it would have been amazing to get feedback on the substantive law without needing to hunt down profs ourselves.”

There needs to be a review mechanism for faculty advisors and supervisors. Though feedback is solicited during alternate years, this feedback is not anonymous. The upper year moot and the competitive moots need to have the same course evaluations that courses have. Students understandably have a hard time presenting their concerns face-to-face with faculty advisors or the administration.

WE NEED MORE FACULTY SUPPORT U of T, more-so that any other school, relies on students to run the mooting program. Most schools do not have a Moot Court Committee because that work is done by paid university employees. Most other schools also have much greater faculty coaching.

Student coaches are excellent at advising on moot style, tactics, and whether an argument has been made persuasively. Student coaches are much less competent on suggesting arguments, research strategies or advising on the law. This is where faculty involvement is essential. Professors, even without deep reflection or particular knowledge, are better at helping mooters construct arguments than student coaches.

There are some faculty members who provide AMAZING support for the mooting program, but this is the exception and not the rule. Indi-

vidual practicing lawyers often invest more hours into helping mooters than professors at this law school. We acknowledge that faculty members’ contribution is gratuitous. We also think that the academic profession necessarily involves contributing to the educational environment at the law school. It should be an expectation and not a privilege that a faculty member read mooters’ factums, make substantive recommendations, assist with try-outs and conduct run-throughs.

We are told that many professors feel they can’t contribute to the mooting program because they don’t have public speaking backgrounds. This is wholly misguided. We do not expect professors to advise on style. We expect them to advise on the law. No one is better positioned to assist students on contentious and novel developments in the law than those who study it as a profession.

WE NEED MORE TRANSPARENCY The largest hindrance to fair and effective tryouts is the lack of transparency in how try-outs are judged. It’s time to pull back the curtain.

Three suggestions: First, the MCC should make try-out judging sheets available to anyone who wants them. It makes sense to not make try-out scores widely publicized. It does not make sense to withhold this information from individual mooters themselves.

If a mooter wants to know their rank and see their score sheets they should be able to. Allowing mooters to see score sheets helps discipline judges and it gives mooters some insight into what they need to work on. At the very least, the scoring sheet template should be available so mooters can see the criteria they are being judged on.

Second, try-out examples should be taped and made available. It is obvious which mooters are ‘insiders’ to the process. Some come in to the try-out with much more knowledge of what to expect. That is a serious inequality which distorts try-out performances.

Third, judges need to communicate what they liked and didn’t like for future mooters. Either invite former judges to the info session at the beginning of the year to explain what they look for, or have them write short memos on what they liked and didn’t like which can be passed along.

Fourth, more professors need to be involved.

Our survey showed us that many people view mooting as an insiders game which is dominated by certain social circles. As it stands, typically one of six judges will be a faculty member.

We really need more professors involved in order maintain the integrity of the try-out. In most other law schools the try-outs are 100% faculty run. At U of T, the Moot Court Committee struggles every year to find professors willing to judge competitive moot tryouts.

WE NEED SOME BASIC RESOURCES Embarrassingly, podiums are a scarce commodity. We were constantly fighting with Falconer staff over a podiums during upper year try-outs.

We do have one spare podium. The reality is that we need at least another. Mooters have been using overturned laundry baskets and garbage bins.

Much like writing an exam without table space, mooting without a podium effects performance and should never have to be contemplated.

In our time occupying Victoria College, booking rooms for run-throughs has been difficult. In the old building there was a moot complex dediContinued on page 11

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

MARCH 25, 2015 | 11

The Top 10 Best and Worst Classes at U of T Law ALEX CARMONA (2L) WITH FILES FROM MARITA ZOURAVLIOFF (3L) & NATHAN RATTANSEY (1L)

Top 10 EVERYONE KNOWS THAT ONCE A semester, students are presented with a trusty Scantron and asked to take 15 minutes to evaluate their classes (5 to actually fill out the form, and 10 to dick around). But what you may not have known is that the results of these evaluations are technically public. Sure, they take months to be released, and accessing them is akin to visiting someone in prison, but with enough of a will, it can be done. To spare you the annoyance, the editors at UV have slogged through the data and present the best and worst professors U of T Law has to offer. Scores are created from an average of the only two important questions on the evaluation: Overall, the instructor is an effective teacher and Overall, this was a good course. *Note: Classes with less than 15 students were discounted, and professors teaching more than one class had their scores averaged between the two equally (no weighted averages based on class size, because I’m a law student, not a damn statistician). 1 (strongly agree) is the best, while 5 (strongly disagree) is the worst.

PROFESSOR

COURSE(S)

SCORE

1. Brock Jones

Youth Criminal Justice

1.04

First Year: Contracts A

1.08

2. Peter Benson

Theory Private Law: Selected Topics and Texts 3. Adam Ship

Franchise and Distribution Law

1.105

4. George Vegh

New Directions in Energy Regulation

1.125

5. Anita Anand

Securities Regulation

1.13

6. Andrew Matheson

Shareholder Activism

1.14

6. Martha Shaffer

First Year: Criminal Law B

1.14

6. Nader Hasan

Crime and Punishment: Mandatory Minimums, the Death Penalty and other Current Debates

1.14

9. Kerry Wilkins

Aboriginal Peoples and Canadian Law

1.15

First Year: Constitutional Law C

1.17

Evidence Law

10. Yasmin Dawood

Bottom 10 PROFESSOR 1. Markus Dubber 2. Blaine Baker

COURSE(S)

SCORE

First Year: Administrative Law BB

3.43

First Year: Legal Process, Professionalism and Ethics BB

3.21

First Year: Constitutional Law B

2.95

3. Lorraine Weinrib 4. Karon Bales

Wills And Estate Planning

2.74

First Year: Administrative Law CC

2.69

6. Jane Dietrich

Bankruptcy

2.66

7. Andrew Green

First Year: Administrative Law DD

2.59

5. Denise Reaume

First Year: Administrative Law AA 8. Mohammed Fadel

Law of International Business and Finance Transactions

2.51

Business Organizations 9. Martin Friedland 10. Sara Faherty

Issues in Criminal Justice

2.43

Advanced Legal Research and Writing

2.26

U OF T LAW INSPIRES, OR WHAT PROFS DO WHEN THEY DON’T HAVE TO TEACH YOU Continued from page 8 side of three guys trying to watch a baseball game behind a very tall fence. The guys are of varying heights—tall, medium, short. The medium and short guys are too short to see the game behind the fence. The left image is what equality would mean “to a conservative”— each guy is standing on one box. The short guy still can’t see the game, while the medium guy can see the game and the tall guy can see the game from an extra (and arguably unnecessarily) high perch. The right image is what equality would mean “to a liberal”— the tall guy has no box—but he can see the game.

The middle guy has one box—and now he can see the game just as well as the tall guy. The short guy is standing on two boxes—and also able to see the game as well as the other two. While this image was meant to make us prefer the liberal approach, Prado asked how we would feel if the short guy had stolen the tall guy’s box, or he had bribed someone to get his extra box. Ultimately, Prado left us to consider the policy implications of whether equality of outcome—all guys get to see the game equally but with varying amount of boxes—was preferred to equality of opportunity—where all the guys have just one box but see the game differently.

Tamar Meshel, the only SJD among the speakers, described what happens when two countries start fighting for a very scarce amount of fresh water. Some jarring statistics to set the scene: 76% of the world’s population lives in a “distressed water”

situation. One and a half billion people in the world do not have access to fresh water. Sometimes a single river basin crosses international borders, and for two thirds of those shared river basins there is no mechanism for resolving disputes over who gets the water. Meshel wants to use international law and Boolean algebra to help resolve those disputes before they get bloody. It sounded promising and impressive, but ten minutes wasn’t enough for the average non-SJD (or maybe just me) to grasp how it would all work out.

Professor Benjamin Alarie introduced us to one of his newest Tax Law students—Blue J, a computer. When IBM developed a computer that would beat humans at their own thinking game, it asked U of T Law if it could test the machine’s abilities in the legal profession. Alarie described how Blue J is probably smarter than any law student in his class: Blue J can understand legal consequences and recall everything, he can read everything perfectly and is confident in the answers he gives, and apparently he is not a bad conversationalist, either. So why is this not the end of the world for (human) lawyers as we know it? Alarie says Blue J and others like him can help us find weaknesses in our analyses, direct the right kind of clients to the right kind of lawyers, and facilitate dispute resolution more quickly. And on top of all that (not mentioned explicitly by Alarie but obviously implied): Blue J will have a very low dry cleaning bill which will translate into even more

savings for clients.

Professor Jennifer Nedelsky wants us to all work part time. And then take care of people the rest of the time. She developed this theory in order to address what she considers an unequal burden of care placed on the average working woman who cannot afford care. Nedelsky is also concerned about the trend of wealthy women farming out care to poor women, which she believes exacerbates the problem of women being sidelined into low-paying jobs. Nedelsky acknowledges that there are some deeply held attitudes that will have to change for her policy to work, but she urges people to re-evaluate their long standing beliefs. For one, she bemoans that it is “a marker of being important” that other people do the care work for one’s family. Similarly, she wants men to “want to care” but that will depend on an even greater shift: “the capacity to care has to replace the capacity for violence and domination as the marker of male sexuality.”

Tam was right—because of the sheer variety of topics, everyone probably walked away from U of T Law Inspires having learned something new from at least one of the talks. As for whether they were compelled to action—time will tell.

ADVOCACY FOR U OF T’S MOOT PROGRAM Continued from page 10 cated to the moot program. Room-booking is frequently impossible at high-demand times or on short notice—even where space is available.

The administration should dedicate a room to the moot program during certain hours over mooting season. A paper calendar on the door or a shared google calendar between coaches could be used to schedule use.

CONCLUSION We are thankful to those who responded to our survey which allowed us to look at the good, the bad and the ugly of your U of T mooting experiences. The Mooting program at U of T law benefits from some of the greatest talent in the country. Years like 2015 should be the norm and not the exception. Our mooting program has a number of flaws which prevent this from happening. We don’t develop talent. We don’t take advantage of our faculty. We leave too much to the individual initiative of student coaches whom we don’t prepare. It is our hope that some of these things will change.

FEATURES

12 | MARCH 25, 2015

Reflections of a 3L

Does the law student community have a larger role to play in activism in the community at large?

DHARSHA JEGATHEESWARAN (3L) A FEW WEEKS AGO, I WAS LUCKY enough to attend my first ever RebLaw conference at Yale University (which you can learn more about by reading Michelle Hayman’s article in this edition of UV). It’s the largest social justice law conference in North America and brings together hundreds of students, lawyers, activists, and community organizers to discuss and debate pressing social justice issues and how to tackle them in the legal community. One of the great things about the conference is that you get to hear about social justice initiatives at various law schools around the States (though students disproportionately do tend to be from Ivy League schools). One thing I was particularly struck by was how these schools seemed to be encouraging and acting as a hub of activism; not just around issues directly affecting law students (i.e. tuition, financial aid, etc.) or strictly from a legal approach, but also on issues more broadly affecting the communities around them and through cooperation with non-legal activism in those communities.

It got me thinking about our own law student community here at Uof T and why it is that we don’t have the same level of activism on issues that affect the communities of Toronto broadly, outside of our own immediate bub-

ble of law school (and arguably Bay St). That’s not to say that there aren’t many individual law students who partake in and lead community activism– but rather that on a broader level, we just don’t have a burgeoning activist culture or an expansive definition of our community as a student body. I also don’t mean to discredit the many public interest clinics, working groups and internships we have; but those primarily permit law students to engage in a specific kind of legal activism that doesn’t see them necessarily engaging with non-legal community groups or promote discussion of those issues in the law school more broadly (though not due to any lack of effort on the part of those public interest programs).

One explanation I’ve heard is that maybe it’s because things are just a lot worse in the States and so law students there may be inspired to have a more activist approach and work with coalitions of community-based organizations. But I don’t know if I buy that argument entirely. We have many issues in Canada that warrant activism – from the recent changes to refugee/immigration laws to the impending Bill C-51. In fact, one of our own professors is a leading actor in the public challenge to Bill C-51 which is why it’s even more puzzling why there hasn’t been more ac-

tivity among students at the law school concerning the bill.

I’m sure there are ultimately many reasons that explain this lack of community-based activism but one that I think may be particularly important is how we conceive of our law student community and its place in the broader Torontonian, and Canadian community. This article isn’t meant to provide any answers but simply to pose the question: as a law school student body should we be more integrated into the communities that make up Toronto and Canada and if so, is there something to be said for considering a more activist approach that builds relationships to community-based activism?

In my three years at this school, I have become particularly cognizant of the privileged and powerful position we are in as students here and as future lawyers. While I hope to see continued activism on the fronts that directly affect us (tuition, financial aid, articling positions, etc.), I personally think it would be a positive step to see the law school’s student body as a whole become more integrated into the communities that surround us, and use our power and privilege to further broader causes.

ultravires.ca TEACHING ABOUT SEXUAL ASSAULT, OR NOT Continued from page 7 dent to leave the class. “Shutting down communication doesn’t get you anywhere,” she noted, stating she preferred to critically engage with students and ask them to examine the assumptions that underlie their statements.

The concern that students might be triggered looms large in classes on sexual assault. For this reason, Professors Shaffer and Stewart include asterisks throughout their material to warn students of cases with extremely explicit and distressing facts.

Several faculty members who teach sexual assault choose not to examine it. Those who do often use fact patterns that might be less distressing to students. However, as Professor Shaffer notes, examinable issues such as the actus reus and mens rea of sexual assault often go to the essence of the offence. As a result, these facts can pose an elevated risk of triggering a student.

Despite these concerns, teaching sexual assault can often be an important opportunity to explore complex policy and legal issues, issues that will increasingly feature in public school classrooms. The concepts of sexual assault and consent enable victims and perpetrators to identify and name their own experience.

However, if we, as a student body, are concerned about sexual assault, we need to look beyond whether or not sexual assault should be taught in first year criminal law. An understanding of the impact of vicarious trauma and retraumatization are fundamentally important to legal practice for many lawyers, and engage questions of ethical advocacy.

Following Kathleen Wynne’s example, an attempt to combat rape culture and misogyny while responding to students’ realities must be multi-faceted, recognizing that this is not simply about helping students become better advocates, but better advocating to help students.

If you’ve got potential.

Some people have long known what they want out of a career. They look beyond their present and focus on their future: a future with international scope, global clients and limitless possibilities.

If you are that person, you’ve just found where your future lies.

Law around the world nortonrosefulbright.com

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

MARCH 25, 2015 | 13

Point | Counterpoint To manbun, or not to manbun?

MARITA ZOURAVLIOFF (3L)

DAVID PARDY (3L)

A man biking to his Bay Street job, a vision of professionalism and excellence

Cleansing the world of hipster fashion, one manbun at a time

POINT: LET THE MANBUN TAKE BAY STREET

COUNTERPOINT: GET THE MANBUN OFF THE STREET

Bay Street. The mecca of big law, stiff collared shirts, and pantyhose. A place where colourful socks are considered an expression of self.

Where people are told to conform to tradition, or GTFO and find a job in public interest. My fellow aspiring lawyers, it is time for us to release the financial district from its conservative shackles. We must unite now to free the offices of downtown Toronto from their overbearing rules and codes. The natural place to start, of course, is the emancipation of the manbun.

2014 saw the precipitous rise of this elegant coiffure and the world is a better place for it. We witnessed cavalcades of men cancel their hair appointments and embrace the hair elastic.

Jake Gyllenhall, Jared Leto, Leo DiCaprio, Dave Kumagai—all pioneers of truth and heroes among men. Keeping the manbun out of Bay Street would be denying a cultural revolution. We shouldn’t hold onto sexist norms because we’re afraid of change. Women can wear buns, but men can’t?! That sounds as asinine as the firm’s aging male partner who claims women should only wear skirts. Well, almost…that guy is the most asinine.

So I implore you—let the manbun reign.

Manbuns bring interest and vibrancy to any board room or powerpoint presentation. Much

My Lords, I have had the benefit of reading our 2015 Valedictorian’s position on manbuns and I must disagree.

Look, I’m one hundred and ten percent (that’s right, more than the definitional maximum!) in favour of moving beyond gender norms and hailing the culturally progressive into big law. But as my analysis shows, there are two types of manbuns and neither belongs on Bay Street. And one of them belongs on no streets. I really hate that one.

Anyways, here’s the manbun dichotomy.

First is the fashion-hipster manbun, which has buzzed sides, medium length on top, and a shitty little tuft (barely even a bun) jammed into a hair elastic popping out of the rear scalp. Second is the careless manbun, which is long hair long all over and loosely tied into a bun on the rear of the head.

The fashion-hipster manbun, aptly named, is the bastard child of hipsters and fashionistas. It says, “I’m hip, better than you, and I don’t care what you think of me” and also, “well I do care what you think of me, so I got my hair architect and stylist to spend a lot of time crafting this look.” It’s a clusterf*ck of the revolting and the

like a pair of expensive fashion glasses, they convey to a client that I’m hip and ‘with it’, but also highly intelligent and industrious. Moreover, we should not uphold a status quo that prohibits the purest form of self-expression— hairstyles.

Banning manbuns is the sort of thing that makes judges think it is perfectly legitimate to complain about chipped nail polish in the courtroom.* Our industry as a whole can be embarrassingly stuffy and old-fashioned. Our pretentious lingo and love of formalities have made us a subject of ridicule. This is but one small step towards bringing our profession closer to the 20th century. Yes, the 20th. Let’s not shoot for miracles here.

So let’s join together and demand a change.

Let the manbun take its rightful place amongst the undercuts and the comb overs. In particular, I call on those men’s rights group out there to abandon whatever it is that you are doing and campaign for something that truly matters – manbuns on Bay Street. Viva la revulación! *For anyone who did not take Trial Ad in the fall—supposedly this is a bona fide complaint that a judge has made to a room of lawyers.

vain. And it frankly looks disgusting. Disregard the Elite Daily’s assurances; it’s a veritable blunder of modern fashion. Get the fashion-hipster manbun off of our streets before the beautiful future people of 2050 criticize the 2010s like we criticize the 1980s.

I am a lot more sympathetic to the careless manbun, though ultimately it’s unfit for Bay Street. So what if you don’t get your hair cut for, like, a year and a half, and you push it into a bun because the length starts to get annoying?

It happens. It’s fine. I mean, it’s fine if you’re a master’s student. It’s fine if you play in a band with your friends. It’s fine if you’re by definition lazy and/or careless. But carelessness is impermissible on Bay Street. Carelessness gets you sued for negligence. Carelessness will not carry you through 2,000 annual billable hours. The careless manbun has no place in big law.

My Lords, the fashion-hipster manbun is always awful and the careless manbun is unfitting for yuppies. Either way, the manbun has no place on Bay Street.

14 | MARCH 25, 2015

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

JD/MBAs Square Off Should U of T Have More JD/MBAs? JEFFERY MA (4L)

NICK MORITSUGU (2L) & NICK CHARLETON (4L)

POINT: MORE JD/MBAS COUNTERPOINT: NOT MORE JD/MBAS More JD/MBAs snagging Bay Street jobs. More JD/MBAs flooding the MBA Dean’s List. More JD/MBAs mentoring other JD/MBAs. And more JD/MBAs to hang out with during 4L! Sounds like bliss if you are a JD/MBA, except that most JD/ MBAs oppose the proposed expansion of the JD/MBA class from 30 to 40-50 JD/MBAs each year. I will humbly propose to my fellow JD/MBAs that this is short-sighted at best, and turning away future success (at least on Bay Street) at its worst.

MORE JD/MBAS, MORE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ON BAY STREET I am sure the law school is tired of reading Ultra Vires to find out how well the JD/MBAs are doing during recruitment. Now, how about we propose that there will be 50% more JD/MBAs? Unless Pearson Specter Litt and every other Bay Street law firm stops wanting business-hungry students to work amazingly long hours for their corporate operations, JD/MBAs will snag an even greater percentage of total Bay Street positions and bolster the degree’s reputation.

For those who believe the opposite and are concerned about diminishing returns to their JD/MBA, I would suggest that: WE CAN’T ESCAPE THOSE JD/MBAS JD/MBAs could make up a staggering 20-25% of each JD class.

Law firms and our classmates will not have much of a choice but to be bitten by the JD/MBA bug. That is a big win for degree inflation, which helps the degree-heavy JD/MBA. Heaven forbid that JD/MBAs start recommending other JD/MBAs during recruitment…oh wait...

But more importantly: MO GRADUATES, MO ALUMNI, MO MONEY, (MO PROBLEMS?) This might shock JD/MBAs, but ten years later, no one except other JD/MBAs will care about whether 30 or 50 of us got JD/ MBAs. What we will care about is having great alumni to connect with during the prime of our careers. Today, those JD/ MBA alumni number about 200 and include the especially illustrious Mark Wiseman, Dan Debow, Andrea Stairs, George Babu and Cornell Wright. Tomorrow, there could be two, three or even four times the number of great JD/MBA alumni to connect with.

Biggie should have said, “the more alumni we come across, the more money we see.”

BUT FINALLY, IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT THE MONEY, RIGHT? Clearly, Kevin O’Leary did not graduate with a JD/MBA. For the rest of us, would it not be nice to have more JD/MBAs to consult and party with during the ups and downs of law school or the lull of 4L when all our friends have graduated? Not to mention that these people will become friends that will be cool enough to hang out with long after graduation. Having more great friends is Charlie Sheen-level #winning in life.

But don’t take my word for it. If you are not a JD/MBA, you might humbly propose that there should be fewer JD/MBAs. I mean, who wants more Suits?

The JD/MBAs have long been the elite among the elite at the University of Toronto. We are a small group of individuals who – through business simulations, finance lectures, and shameful amounts of debt – sit comfortably in ivory towers that loom far over those that the plebeian JD/nothing students have erected for themselves.

There is an approaching menace, however, that has shaken our towers and threatens to knock us down into the depths of mediocrity. I am talking, of course about increasing enrolment in the JD/MBA program.

The “ideal” JD/MBA candidate is a JD student who has a genuine interest in business. This student joins Rotman to push the boundaries of what the JD alone can offer them and leaves ready to tackle the legal realm or pursue a business-related career—maybe even both. This ideal candidate, in reality, doesn’t exist. It never has. There has never been a time in the JD/ MBA’s history where a candidate has actually fit this idyllic model for the program (obviously excluding Peter Blanchard, JD/MBA 2013 (nobody reading this knows who he is – think Brendan Stevens but with an engineering degree and somehow even better abs and hair)).

The reality is that, historically, most JDs entertain the idea of the joint degree because they aren’t really sure what they want to do with their lives and do not want to confine themselves to the imposingly linear path of a legal career. And, yeah, they want to put off real life for another year. That said, you can roughly divide the “reasons” for doing a JD/MBA into two camps:

1) You want to be a Bay Street Lawyer JD/MBAs have traditionally punched far above their weight in terms of job numbers in both the 1L and 2L recruits. In fact, some firms exclusively hire 1Ls from the JD/MBA cohort.

Lately, many who are entering the program are doing so because the extra degree not only gives them a leg-up in terms of legal recruitment, but a “bonus” chance at recruitment.

There are a number of problems with this motivation. First, there are accessibility concerns: the JD/MBA is very expensive, and it would be an unfortunate end result to have this “bonus” chance available only to those who are able to forego income and pay additional tuition. Second, hiring among 1L JD/MBAs has gone down in not only relative, but also absolute terms over the past year, perhaps a warning sign that the program is reaching capacity (though the evidence is unclear at this point).

Third, the number of legal jobs on the market (especially 1L jobs) will likely not grow at a pace to match an increase of 10-20 students in the JD/MBA program.

This means that if we scale up the size of the joint program, the potential result will be either a smaller percentage of JD/ MBAs getting law jobs or, in a much less likely scenario, 100% of JD/MBAs will somehow manage to get jobs at the expense of the rest of the JD class. Thus, students thinking about joining the program should think that past a certain critical number (that perhaps has not been reached yet), the legal hiring numbers for JD/MBAs might eventually mirror those in the JD.

2) You might not want to be a Lawyer, and want business experience Rotman is a beautiful building, with glittering study rooms and electric fireplaces. Unfortunately, as a JD/MBA at Rotman, you enter a dreaded “grey” zone for your second summer.

Though some legends (*cough* Peter Blanchard) are able to secure prestigious business jobs for the summer after their MBA year, many JD/MBAs are met with blank stares when

asked if they can apply for the investment banking or consulting job of their dreams. These firms, justifiably, want to hire candidates for their final summers, with the possibility of hiring them back for a full time position after graduation. JD/ MBAs who do not want to go through the 1L recruit are left in a difficult position: they essentially cannot take part in the Rotman on-campus recruit, and must try to source jobs through alternate channels.

The JD/MBA Students’ Association has been advocating for JD/MBAs to receive dedicated career services from Rotman for years, and word has it the newcomers might be in luck (fingers and toes crossed). So what does increased enrolment mean for those of you in this camp? Our concern is that with additional enrolment, and relatively stable 1L hiring numbers, there will be a bigger glut of JD/MBAs left in this grey zone for their second summer.

FORTIFYING THE TOWER All of this may seem quite pessimistic (we are, after all, taking the counterpoint position). That said, there are a number of things that could be done in order to resolve some of the issues identified here, and make the program a stronger one—for 50 students or 15.

We hold no illusions of control over the program’s size: that will be determined by student demand, and Rotman’s admissions policies. It is simply our hope that if the program grows, students are provided with appropriate information on which to make their decisions, and are also given appropriate academic and career resources. With that in mind, we float the following as just a few ideas for the JD/MBA. Rotman must reconsider the career services it offers to JD/ MBAs. At the moment, the majority of career services for those of us in the joint degree comes from alumni and upper-year students. Ideally, Rotman would have a Career Coach and business development associate that works solely with JD/MBAs in order to find interesting and unique opportunities, particularly those in the 2nd year grey zone. This would be beneficial to the school too, because (if our predictions are correct) they will not always be able to count on JD/MBAs entering law as “sure things” that will fortify hiring statistics.

To augment this, the faculties should use their joint resources to compile JD/MBA hiring statistics and information about where students have been placed for summer jobs and where alumni are currently working.

Finally, both faculties should push for increased coordination and more JD/MBA-specific programming. At the moment, the JD/MBA is more like two degrees done concurrently, rather than a true joint program. With increased enrollment in the program, there is an incredible opportunity for Rotman and the Faculty of Law to offer tailored opportunities for JD/ MBAs. Both faculties offer an incredible range of classes, speaker series, and workshops that are geared towards niche industries and areas of the law. To date, however, there is not a single class that has been crafted with JD/MBAs in mind, despite the fact that there are about 90 JD/MBA students currently enrolled at the University of Toronto. In fact, there are several classes we can’t take and the rest is put on ad hoc by the JD/MBA Association.

With just a few simple changes such as these, the JD/MBA could be sold as much more than a back-door into law. It would draw in students of an incredible calibre and provide them with the resources to succeed in whatever they endeavour to do. Indeed, our ivory tower would be pushed to new heights.

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

MARCH 25, 2015 | 15

Law Ball In Review JACQUIE RICHARDS (4L) DESPITE VALIANT EFFORTS TO keep things “fresh”, every year there are a whole lot of reassuring “givens” at law ball.

Expectations, if you will. There’s the hoard of well groomed, freshly bathed and “suddenly sexy” classmates. There’s the part of the night when R- Kelly’s ‘Ignition’ starts playing and 75% of the dance floor has memorized every lyric. There’s the “Wolf of Wall Street” meets “your cousin the Shania Twain fan’s Bat Mitzvah” vibe and valiant efforts on the part of several post “holistic admissions process” 1Ls to quadruple fist. There’s a table of 3Ls yelling incomprehensible inside jokes at the projector screen and a grumpy Photobooth lady that leaves just enough time between takes to let you blink and pull a monkey mask halfway over your chin so you look like a pirate with a ginger beard in every picture. All of these things are quintessential and important parts of the ball experience, and I’m happy to say that this year delivered.

However, this year’s law ball also had a few things that made it different. First up was the venue. The Atlantis was a welcome change from the Eglington Grand in that it both was accustomed to hosting guests over the age of twelve and was literally a disco fever club on a frozen lake island, which, if you think about it, is really exciting. The security guards and bartenders on this magical oasis, unlike the staff at nameless mainland venues of years past, were friendly folk who recognized that we are responsible technically legal adults rather than recent escapes from the local middle school, so they let us do cool grown up things like stay past midnight, drink our drinks in the foyer and even, if we asked nicely, order doubles.

The Atlantis also had tons of space, eerie purple lights and floor-to-ceiling windows all around the dance floor that looked out over the beautiful frozen lake. All of this added an element of 80’s romance to twerking in a formal dress that I’ve yearned to experience in real life since I first saw “Dirty Dancing”.

This new and different venue also, however, had its downsides. Because it was tucked away from the rest of Toronto like Alcatraz or Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, guests had to complete feats of dedication to get there such as cab ride on an actual freeway and a 300 mile long

tunnel hike. Also like Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, the place was a maze to navigate. This made finding friends, photobooths, washrooms, snacks and the exit somewhat difficult.

There was also a new and different dinner.

The “goods” of this freshened up fare included much better service, killer tomato/olive tapenade, deliciously “mostly just dessert” candied nut salad, shockingly decent mass-served salmon and a big chocolate lava cake thing at the end that was tasty enough to undoubtedly ensure that several students would explode into giant blueberries and have to be rolled out of the factory by Oompa Loompas who felt them unworthy of paid internships. But I digress.

The food’s seeming weak points were few but included a vegan pad thai that did not have enough peanut sauce on it to be unhealthy or, by extension, edible, not nearly enough coffee cups per table and no pizza. Every disco chocolate factory should have pizza.

Finally, there was the entertainment. Highlights of this year’s offerings were a short and sweet Law Follies video with semi-surprising amounts of male nudity, loudspeakers in the entrance room that sounded a little bit like Charlie Brown’s teachers when giving (what I imagine) were the venue navigation directions, more Notorious B.I.G. than I ever could have dreamed of on the soundtrack and again, that snappy “nobody puts baby in the corner” dancefloor. Weaker links to the fun machine included a photobooth with fewer props than in years past (where were the fake medieval weapons and complicated pirate headgear?) and a sort of belaboured transition between dinner and dance mode that left many a student tucked away on the balcony eating pickled ceasar beans and looking for love or lost forever to the sands of time because they tried to find somewhere to smoke. This weird transition also made for a slower start for later, non-dinner arrivals. Finally, there were a few weird transitions between deep house and Taylor Swift on the playlist that probably negatively impacted the moves of some people who can actually dance but mostly just helped the 4Ls finally master a slowdance version of “the sprinkler”.

Overall, while not quite a golden ticket, I’d say this was one of the strongest law balls yet.

BY THE NUMBERS: Food: 7.5 (8 if we imagine there was pizza) Venue: 8 Music: 6.5 Photobooth: 4 Video: 8.5 Service: 9 Overall: A-, or, for those on the new grading system, P.

16 | MARCH 25, 2015

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

Law School in Review ERYN FANJOY (3L) & JACQUIE RICHARDS (4L) − September 4, 2012: Day 1! Rainiest day of the year. Conveniently, E-legal “Stalkerbook” photos are also taken.

− Mid-September 2012: E.legal photos are posted and promptly hidden by 2/3 of the class, ruining stalkerbook’s run as the Law Tinder of the late 2000s. − November 2012: Law Games struggles to fill the spots reserved for the *ever involved* class of 2015. − January 2013: Our first Law Games. Two 1Ls attend. You go, Kyle Gerow and Will Muir! − February 13, 2013: Hayley Ossip makes her premiere as a rapping LHD with the immortal last words: “Your res judicata can suck my clit!” − Reading Week 2013: 1L students are given the most confusing essay assignment in history. Some students, upsettingly, answer the wrong question and must re-write their essays.

− March 2013: Bo Luan falls off chair in admin law.

“I can't believe people still remember that.” —Bo Luan

− March 20, 2013: Brendan Stevens sings Robyn at the presidential debate and a generation of law students falls in love. − April 22, 2013: The Class of 2015 gets blackout drunk together on the roof of Hemingway’s, marking the end of the worst year ever. Ever.

− June 4, 2013: Ground-breaking for the new Jackman Law Building, due for completion in 2015, 2016 at the latest, 100%!

− September 2013: Gabe Edelson begins stand-studying, marking the end of a comfortable study space in the Reading Room and ushering in a weird new era of 1Ls who look like orchestra conductors.

− September 16, 2013: Lauren Harper becomes a 2L Social Rep. This marks the end of her low-key life at law school and the beginning of her rise to true law school celebrity.

− September 19, 2013: U of T’s first ever Pub Trivia Night (ie. celibacy Thursdays, i.e. Thursdays with Morrie) “Thanks, Ben Iscoe” —Jacquie and Eryn

− September 2013: Continuing in this sad celibacy trend, someone decides that we should start having regular pub nights at the Holiday Inn. Halfhearted Pitbull references abound! − November 2013: The Class of 2014 very tactfully bets on the performance of the Class of 2015 in OCIs (note: none of the prize money was ultimately forwarded to students who landed unpaid internships) − December 2013: Exams take place on fold-out desks, sparking a flurry of outrage only exceeded by the Spring Pledge Drive debacle and World War II, which was around when fold out desks were last used for law exams. − December 25 & 26, 2013: Professor Niblett stars in Jeopardy. U of T law rises to international stardom.

− January 2014: Law Games in Montreal. Chad Pilkington meets his lady-love (forever changing his cover photo game)!

− Summer 2013: The U of T Law Intramural Softball Team (with a HEAVY representation from the Class of 2015) kicks ass and wins all but one game. − September 2013: Vic College!

ultravires.ca

OPINIONS

MARCH 25, 2015 | 17

− February 24, 2014: Mayo Moran announces her impending departure. After several months of “Acting Dean Duggan,” no one is surprised. − March 2014: An enormous flatscreen TV is installed in Birge Carnegie to track new building progress. Absolutely nothing happens for 6 months. Jacquie would know.

She watched it all online.

− March 31, 2014: Jutta Brunée announced as Interim Dean, ushering an era of a very catchy monthly breakfast alliterations: [see Brunnée’s Brûlée Melelee] − April 2014: War for lower tuition and Deangate 2014 die promptly with the graduation of the Class of 2014 (only to be replaced with the equally important war against unpaid internships)

− August 2014: U of T law students breathe a sigh of collective relief when Andy Poolhall (finally) closes, meaning pub night goers need never again be subjected to “Beatdown Thursdays”.

− December 25, 2014: Chris Yeretsian and Emily Gilmour get engaged. This is the first Class of 2015 couple to announce that they are going to tie the knot (but hopefully not the last—looking at you, Lauren and Max!) − December 29, 2014: THE Brendan Stevens follows in Chris and Emily’s footsteps and gets engaged to the tune of 734 Facebook likes − January 9, 2015: 3Ls make an effort to not ruin their reputation and bid *nothing* at the live auction component of the Promise Auction − January 28, 2015: U of T’s winning moot season kicks off

− September 19, 2014: Scary revelation for the classes of 2014/2015—there has been mould and asbestos in the old building basement for 30 years! − September 19, 2014, five minutes later: U of T announces that mould and asbestos will be removed from the old building basement!

− October 23, 2014: Dean Search 2014 comes to an end with the announcement that Professor Edward Iacobucci would be filling the role − November 2014: Eryn starts and finishes watching all 10 seasons of Friends (#3L)

− February 25, 2015: Spring Pledge Drive launched − March 4, 2015: Spring Pledge Drive fails − March 5, 2015: Law Ball takes place at a new location and on a THURSDAY night. U of T law finally recognizes the Sabbath set. − March 2015: Eryn and Jacquie struggle thinking of anything notable that happened over the past 3 years because our class does nothing…. Nothing

“Does the Class of 2015 ever go to pub night?”—Jacquie

18 | MARCH 25, 2015

OPINIONS/DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

Vote Yes DLS! ANDREW LYNES (2L) THIS IS A BIG WEEK FOR DOWNTOWN Legal Services. Through a massive, sustained effort by dozens of volunteers this school year, the "VoteYesDLS" campaign managed to get a measure on the ballot in this week's university-wide elections. Students on the St. George campus currently pay $1.50 per semester to DLS, and students on the Mississauga campus pay $0.50 per semester. The ballot measure, if it passes, will double these amounts, to $3 and $1 per semester, respectively, and would index them to inflation.

As I'm sure you know, DLS is the Faculty of Law's community student legal clinic. It provides free legal services to U of T students and low-income members of the community in the areas of criminal law, family law, refugee and immigration law, tenant housing, and university affairs, in addition to free notary services and public education seminars. All students are also free to opt out of the payments and services.

The measure has been endorsed by the University of Toronto Students' Union, the U of T Pre-Law Society, the U of T Pre-Medical Society, U of T Students for Barrier-Free Access, the U of T Law Union, and the Students' Law Society. If it passes, students on the St. George campus will be able to get access to legal representation for the price of one rea-

sonably-priced beer at the pub.

Why the increase, and why now? The current funding amounts were set in 2003, and they've been losing ground to inflation ever since. In order to continue providing an adequate amount of services, DLS has been running a deficit and draining its reserve fund for the past five years. Furthermore, indexing the levy to inflation only recently became a option to put on the ballot. So, now DLS can permanently fix its worsening funding problem, and increase its services.

Why should you care about DLS? Not only is DLS a vital resource for low-income Torontonians and U of T students, it also provides law students with valuable legal training and experience. Even if you don't win the DLS lottery in first year, anyone can volunteer in upper years. I'm currently a credit student in the tenant housing division, where I will also be working this summer. It is a challenging and intensely rewarding experience. I've had the opportunity to prepare correspondence with opposing counsel and with clients. I've prepared and submitted applications to the Landlord and Tenant Board. I've appeared in front of the Board and negotiated settlements in mediation. I've had tense conversations with clients about what action to take, and

tried to understand and explain how the law interacts with the complexities of a lived experience of poverty. I've done a small part to ameliorate the access to justice crisis this country faces.

Why should students pay? To answer this it helps to understand DLS's funding structure.

The Faculty of Law pays for the clinic's fixed costs. Legal Aid Ontario and the student levy pay for its operations. The amounts contributed by Legal Aid and students roughly correspond to the benefit each group receives.

Students comprise the entirety of DLS's university affairs clients and about half of its tenant housing clients. Legal Aid clients comprise almost the entirety of the other divisions' clients. The increase in the student levy will be matched by a comparable increase in the services offered to students, including the clinic's notary services. This is about increasing access for student clients and law students.

More of us get training and experience, and more students get legal representation.

How can you help? By voting online at utsu.simplyvoting.com between 9:00am and 6:30pm on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday of this week. If you are at a computer, do it now. Do it now! Do it NOW! PLEASE! You can also spread the word by tweeting and

showing your support on Facebook with the hashtag #VoteYesDLS. Share the website voteyesdls.ca. Get your undergrad friends to vote and spread the word. Turnout in these elections is abysmally low. Votes on the measure need to reach quorum of five per cent or the entire effort is lost. This is an easy one guys, let's do it to it!

My, How Things Have Changed!

COLLEEN MCKEOWN (3L)

HEY, 3L PALS—YOU REMEMBER THE Class of 2013, right? They were the fearless leaders of the law school when we were confused 1Ls. They had a reputation for fun and for christening Bora’s Friendship Cove. And you know a few 1Ls, the Class of 2017, too, right? Maybe you met them at DLS, mentor them through the Peer Mentorship Program, or marvelled at their comedic talents on display in Follies.

2013-2017: these years bookend the long list of fine folks the Class of 2015 can say we went to law school with.

All this is to say that these are our peers.

And yet, the experiences of the Classes of 2013 and 2017 will be wildly different. And here is the Class of 2015, right in the middle, and the guinea pig for at least some of these changes.

So what has changed?

Let’s start with the curriculum. In their 1L year, the Class of 2013 took mostly year-long courses, with half-year courses in Legal Process, Professionalism and Ethics and Administrative Law. A short, pass-fail, Legal Research and Writing component was added the next year. Today, the 1L year begins with a

two-week intensive in August that is designed to provide students with foundational skills.

The rest of the year is now mostly semesterized, with a for-credit Legal Research and Writing class, and no Administrative Law. In their upper years, the Class of 2013 had to satisfy the ‘Critical Perspectives’, ‘International, Comparative, Transnational Law’, and mooting requirements. Now, and in addition to these older requirements, students must take Administrative Law, and fulfill the ‘Fiduciary Concepts’ and ‘Ethics and Professionalism’ course requirements. The addition of the latter two was in fulfillment of Federation of Law Societies of Canada curriculum changes first introduced for the Class of 2015.

It is worth noting that learning about ethics in law school is, thankfully, not new; however, the ethics week that satisfied the old rules now exists only in the collective memory of law students past.

Next, grading. The Class of 2013 could receive grades between A and F, as long as the grades met the required average. Certain classes, like clinics, intensive courses, and competitive moots, were graded based on an Honours/Pass/Fail scale. For students enter-

ing law school in September 2012 and later, the options are High Honours, Honours, Pass with Merit, Low Pass, or Fail for each of their courses. Rather than requiring a certain average, the Faculty has provided flexible ‘guidelines’ for professors that help determine the percentage of students receiving each grade. For the 2013-2014 academic year, this scale was applied to all courses —including clinics, intensives, and competitive moots.

Starting this academic year, a credit/no credit system was used for competitive moots, and students had the option to write a paper to be graded on the usual scale.

Third, admissions. The Class of 2013 was chosen according to the old, more numbersbased, system. The new system, first used to create the Class of 2016, is ‘holistic’: an applicant’s personal essay is on equal footing with his or her LSAT score and post-secondary transcripts, respectively. Every personal essay is now read by three people, including one current student. Determining how this change in admissions will affect the law school experience for the chosen students would likely require a larger sample size than is currently available.

Finally, the building. While not a permanent change, any description of this time in the law school’s history would be incomplete without a mention of the transition space at Victoria College. The Class of 2013 spent all three years in Flavelle and Falconer. I hope that the Class of 2017, after toiling away in the Reading Room and making friends at Ned’s, will graduate having spent their 3L year basking in the glory of the new Jackman Law Building.

I do not know how these many changes will be disentangled when it comes time to evaluate their success or failure in meeting their aims.

For example, if students self-report being less stressed is it because they no longer have five exams in April? Or is it because they are ‘passing with merit’ rather than getting a B? Maybe it is because they were selected for the resilience and tenacity they demonstrated in their personal essays. I simply hope that the right people have a plan to link effects to one or more of the many possible causes.

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

MARCH 25, 2015 | 19

U of T at the QLIHT PETER GEORGAS (3L)

WE ARRIVED IN KINGSTON FOR THE Queen’s Law Invitational Hockey Tournament on Friday afternoon, determined to win some hockey games and socialize aggressively. We stayed at the Econolodge. Parking was ample.

At 4:30 pm, we headed to the rink.

GAME 1: U OF T VS. QUEEN’S “B” Scramble draw. Chapman wasted no time getting Uof T on the score sheet – notching a goal against the Queen’s goaltender on the first shift of our first game. “Nice!,” we shouted.

There were no fans at the game, but you can imagine what excitement there would have been if there were. Down 2-1 in the final frame and facing an unsavory result, the boys started to press. With the clock winding down, mayday Mike Garbuz leaned on a clapper and drove all 6 ounces of vulcanized rubber through several bodies, stunning the Queen’s goalie. Importantly, the puck ended up somewhere across the goal line and we skated away with a valuable tie.

Best Factum: Pat Chapman & Mike Garbuz

LATER ON… I don’t remember if it was the Smidge or Bar None; or maybe it was even Smidgies. It didn’t matter – a rose by any other name…. But what I remembered most vividly about “The Spot” from my undergrad days was the floral patterned walls, the floor—a disco ball of broken glass—and an unnecessary washroom attendant. Some things never change. (I didn’t tip the washroom attendant. I had already spent all my loose change on the $2 bar rail.)

On the walk back to the Econolodge, I saw two men (one of whom was topless) in a fist fight. They were tussling outside of a bar called “Fluid”. The “u” in the bar sign had been designed to resemble an unmistakable part of the female anatomy. It would have made Georgia O’Keeffe blush.

ering confidence. Plus, we finally got some fan support—notable 2L Jen and 1L Rona. I had thought that we had a good shot at playing the alumni to at worst a 0-0 draw and potentially advancing into the knock-out stage. We were backstopped by a mercenary goalie—Engineer Sam (depicted on the right)—who in intramural play had earned more than his share of clean sheets.

The confidence was shattered some time

REFRACTORY On Day 2, I broke fast just as I had supped— Gatorade and General Tao. I was rooming with the 1Ls. I knew they were jealous (not to mention insubordinate). But we should cut them some slack. With 1L exams around the corner, Denroche, Mingay, and O’Grady sacrificed a March weekend to rumble in Kingston. I think we all understand how hard it is to prepare for two 1L exams at the same time.

GAME 2: U OF T VS. QUEEN’S ALUMNI Everything was riding on this game. And don’t be fooled; we weren’t playing Uof T alumni— these guys were in shape. It was a tall order, but after some line-up changes, we had unwav-

later, Queen’s drawing first blood. For the second game in a row, we found ourselves down a goal. Frustration on the bench mounted, at which point 3L Ian Li decided to put the team on his back. On his next shift, he drove the crease and found himself alone in the slot with possession of the puck and a yawning cage.

Disregarding the open net entirely, Li opted to fire one through the goalie. That’s called puck poise. We played the rest of the game to a 1-1 draw and awaited our fate.

Best Oralist: Ian Li

DEVASTATION There’s no other way to put it. We got hosed.

We failed to advance out round-robin play on a tie-breaker, ending our aspirations for glory. It wasn’t very Rojo Caliente at all.

THE BAR That night, it was all about Alehouse (née A.J.’s Hanger). The rebranding came in the wake of a 2005 stabbing murder that occurred on the upper floor—where we spent a good portion of the evening. The bar started out as 200 amped up broskis yelling at a critically understaffed Alehouse bartending staff and continued that way for some time. Later into the evening, and several hours after our second (and what proved to be our last) game in Kingston, some Uof T 3L “fans” arrived. 3Ls don’t wake up before 9:30 am for anybody.

We walked away from the tournament undefeated yet unsatisfied. In fact, Windsor is the only other team who went undefeated in the tournament, capturing top prize. It’s impossible to say who would have won had we squared off against each other. Our only solace is that it’s a mere 12 months until QLIHT 2016. Time to start training.

The 2014-15 Uof T Law Hockey team remains undefeated in both intramural and tournament action, with a combined record of 12-0-3 as of March 19.

20 | MARCH 25, 2015

OPNIONS/DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

Intra-Vires: Profs Pay It Forward, Students Retire in Bounty Re-imagined #OneDayofProfPay campaign rubs U of T students the right way LISANA NITHIANANTHAN (2L) CLOSELY FOLLOWING THE RECENT media attention and controversy surrounding the #OneDayOfPay campaign and ultimately leading to its cancellation, University of Toronto Faculty of Law professors have stepped up to the plate.

Created by the Students Law Society (SLS), the campaign was initially meant to provide financial awards to students interested in developing their own public interest projects by collecting donations from fellow classmates who were employed for the summer and could therefore ostensibly donate one day’s pay.

Despite the noble intentions, the campaign faced backlash from the student body who regarded the idea as condoning (illegal) unpaid internships, increasing the stress and debt load of students, and shifting the burden of funding salaries away from employers onto students.

In the face of divisive opinions in the law

school community, the SLS held a town hall to discuss student concerns. Following which, the SLS was on the verge of cancelling the campaign in its entirety—until the Faculty came on board.

In its re-imagined form, law professors at the U of T Faculty of Law will pledge their one day’s pay to help subsidize those students interested and actively pursuing public interest and/or social justice roles that are unpaid.

The Faculty’s professors are among the highest paid in the province and did not think twice about footing the bill for the #OneDayofProfPay program to flourish.

In an exclusive, Dean Iacobucci told Intra Vires that supporting the student initiative was a “no-brainer”. He continued with a laugh that the idea actually came from a coy student comment made in The Toronto Star.

When asked why she was willing to support the initiative, Professor Fernandez stated that she

wanted to make sure students were able to pursue their dreams, and that was the motivating factor for her support of the pledge campaign.

Asked the same question, Professor Roach scoffed before explaining that ‘it made no difference to me. Do you know how much I make?

I’m tenured”.

Professor Ben Alarie, speaking on behalf of his esteemed colleagues, told Intra Vires that. “it simply isn’t true that we feed into Bay Street. And this is just another way we can prove that. Not to mention that it’s also a really good PR move for us professors. We come off looking like generous souls. Win-win!”

“The Students’ Law Society had a great idea and we wanted in on it. When the students didn’t want to… or rather couldn’t given the high tuition and heavy debt… we made it a faculty-funded initiative, because really we are the only ones with enough moolah to fund such an expensive

idea” chimed in Professor Professor Chapman.

Judith McCormack, Assistant Dean for Students, added that now the Faculty of Law will not only help administer the pledge campaign, it would also fund it. Though Ms. McCormack was quick to add that “while the Faculty did not support unpaid positions, we proudly let our students see them out.”

Asked for his reaction to how this has unfolded, student Riaz Sayani-Mulji coyly suggests extending the Faculty’s generosity to apply to an even nobler campaign: the campaign to finance JDs for the Class of 2016.

The #OneDayOfProfPay begins April 1st 2015. For more information and keep updated on this campaign visit Ultravires.com and follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Top Advice From 3Ls to Prospective Law Students DAVID PARDY (3L) HUNGRY FOR SARDONIC HUMOUR and maybe some legitimately helpful advice, I asked 3L students to share just one piece of advice that they would share with a prospective law student. Ranging from genuine to obscene, encouraging to foreboding, and coming from the well informed to those that could not follow very simple instructions, I present to you the top 3L advice.

“Get really involved throughout your time here.

It will make law school that much more fruitful.”

- Anonymous “become a gym rat (weightlifting, bodybuilding, running - whatever works for you) that hour or two a day leads to better health (physical and mental) and helps create and enforce a structure in your life.”

- Anonymous “Find your own balance between law school and non-law school life. Some people join 7 clubs, some join 1. Whatever you do, make sure not to forget your passions and hobbies outside of law and your significant others and non-law friends. It's the only way to make it through those stressful times in one piece!”

- Cindy “You can ask anyone for advice on anything, but only while you are a student. Make it count!”

- Ramin Wright “Fellow conservatives/reasonable people: do not fret, there are many others like you on cam-

pus. While it may sometimes seem that you belong to the only 'oppressed' minority group that goes unacknowledged, it actually gets a lot better after law school. See all those 'suits' and Bay Street-types running the world? They won't admit it but many of them were actually hippies of the flower generation, who eventually came around. So there's hope for everybody, including your fellow classmates with whom you may not see eye-to-eye.

But YOUR job isn't to worry about others; in fact, that would violate your first duty as a Capitalist. When at law school, my advice is simple.

First, stick to your guns and remember your reasons for coming here. Transcend the mundane, the whining and the diatribes of others. Think big and don't get pulled into the sideshow. Attend all the good guest speakers who show you there's a world outside the campus bubble. And finally, surround yourself with ambitious, likeminded people with whom you can truly be yourself. Congratulations on getting admitted to law school - and best of luck with your plans to rule the world!”

- Anonymous “Don't sacrifice your health (physical/mental) or personal relationships for law school.”

- Brittany Tovee “1. Do max two extracurriculars, 2. Plan out your budget for all of law school before you even start law school, and know that you will get SIGNIFICANTLY less money after first year, 3. Try and build a solid relationship with at least one

professor, 4. Grades matter. Sorry but they do.”

- Anonymous “Live. Laugh. Love.”

- Dave Kumagai “1. Be different; bold; and willing to leave footprints in less travelled paths. The legal profession is at a critical turning point so be cognizant of what you do. More importantly, get to know the person sitting to your right and left in class.

In fact, that person may very well be the son of a prominent Judge; super connected to legal/ business circles; or might simply just have incredible wisdom to share. Success is about a network: build one quickly and do not be foolish because influential people are often within arms reach. Finally, carry yourself with elegance and be mindful of your presence. People make instant decisions based on how you present yourself (yes, its a fact) and will likely remember you based on your character and NOT your OCI results. #Stayhungrymakeitrain#I'mOUT” - Anonymous “If you get a Bay St job please don't think you are set. In fact, that's the farthest thing from the truth. Please review stats on where lawyers end up either a) after Articling or b) after being terminated. Be humble and nice always.”

- Anonymous “Once you are on the law school track it can be hard to get off. Gaps in your resume will become suspicious pretty quick. If you want to bum around South America for 6 months or fall

in love in Thailand, I would recommend doing so before you start 1L. (Or - wait until exchange in 3L!)” - Lauren Pearce “Alcohol is your best friend.”

- Anonymous “I can't speak to what works for men's clothing, but ladies: if you don’t want to dress like a schlub but want to be equally comfortable, step up your “athleisure” game: skip the skinny jean and invest in yoga pants, thick leggings (pockets on the back make them look like real pants), and sweatpants that look like jeans ( jeggings are so 2008).

For those daring to play with less conventional pant proportions, try culottes or harem pants with an elasticized waist, or “boyfriend cut” jeans - bonus points for rips! For extra comfort, look for pairs that are a tencel/cotton blend because they basically feel like sweats.”

- Hayley Ossip “Law school is a scam, don't do it. You'll graduate with a lot of debt and abysmal job prospects.

50% of students land an OCI gig, the other 50% are left to fend for themselves. Yes, the employment rate after is like 99.9% but what kind of jobs are behind those numbers? BARISTA @ STABRS FTW” - Anonymous “Just calm the fuck down.”

- Anonymous

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

MARCH 25, 2015 | 21

The

UV Quiz

f! r-in-Chie o it d E e, new Welcom

Professor Celebrity Look-A-Like of the Month

vs.

PROFESSOR MALCOLM THORBURN (image from www.law.utoronto.ca)

HUGH LAURIE (image from prince.org)

22 | MARCH 25, 2015

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

Best Reactions to Saying You're In Law School LISANA NITHIANANTHAN (2L) DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YEAR OF law school you’re in, hell, it doesn’t even matter if you’ve just been accepted and haven’t actually stepped foot in the law school yet. Any time someone asks you what you’re doing with your life and you reply that you’re in law school/will be in law school, you are sure to get one of 16 reactions. So how do you respond?

Ever wondered how to appropriately respond to those reactions? Or better yet, ever had the perfect response but were too polite to voice it?

Luckily for you, you’re not alone in your thoughts. Everyone has had to face some if not most of these reactions and have thought of some pretty good responses. And fortunately for the rest of the world, UV is not too polite to say the sardonic and scornful thoughts you were all thinking.

Reaction: Law school? So you a lawyer eh? So I have this legal problem that you can help me with…

Response: No. Just no. We are not lawyers.

We are law students. We cannot give you any legal advice. If we could give you any advice it would be to seek legal advice from a lawyer.

Reaction: Can you take a look at this (insert any legal/confidential documents) and tell me what you think I should do?

Response: Seek qualified legal advice. -__(See response above). I have no inclination to be barred from the bar before I even write the bar exam!

Reaction: Sick, like Suits?

Response: Fuck no. Suits is a show. About corporate lawyers. And a guy who is pretending to be a lawyer (without actually having gone to law school)!. It is NOTHING like suits.

Reaction: Are you going to save the world?

Response: Obviously.

Reaction: Law School? So you mean you can get me out of jail?

Response: Why are you presuming you’ll be in jail? What exactly do you intend to do that will land you in jail?! On second thought don’t answer that. No I cannot get you out of jail. I’m in law school. And I have no interest in criminal law.

Reaction: Does it cost like $200 an hour just to talk to you?

Response: Not yet, no. But hopefully soon enough. *flips hair* Reaction: Was it hard to get into law school?

Response: *sarcasm* Pshhhttt nah. It was nothing!

Reaction: Do you know how to bend and snap?

Response: I’m going to pretend like I don’t even know that’s a reference to Legally Blonde.

Reaction: So are you going to be a liar…er um…I meant lawyer…haha…?

Response: You’re not slick. I got your lame attempt at being funny. Yawn.

Reaction: You think you’re better than me?

Response: I’m sorry but whhhaaaa??? Where did that even come from???

Reaction: I’d better watch what I say to you. I don’t want to get prosecuted. Or sued!

Response: Yes perhaps you should. And perhaps you should have started watching what

you say sooner.

Reaction: Isn’t that really expensive? You know that’s really expensive!

Response: Gee thanks. I wasn’t aware of how much debt I’ll be undertaking. Thank you for reminding me. Thank you SO SO much. Not. Reaction: Oh wow, you must be really smart!

Response: Thanks. I’m glad my presence in law school validates my intelligence for you.

Reaction: You don’t look like you’re in law school. I never would have guessed!

Response: …I wasn’t aware there was a physical requirement to law school, but do tell me more about how I’m supposed to look…

Reaction: Wow you’re going to be loaded.

Response: with debt.

Reaction: Wanna hear a legal joke?

Response: *cringe* Pass.

Procrastination Methods of Choice LISANA NITHIANANTHAN (2L) 1 Netflix.

2 Reading UV archives.

3 Writing articles to submit to UV in advance of the September 2015 issue.

4 For music lovers between 18 and 35, you can score concert tickets for the Toronto Symphony Orchestra for as low as $16.

5 Daydrinking.

6 Practice your signature for when you become famous. Practice it, perfect it. Like an autograph.

7 Pinning all these DIY photos on your Pinterest Board. Bonus points if you actually get around to doing the DIY activities during study time.

8 Pay a visit to the Toronto Islands before they are packed with tourists. There’s lots to see and do, whether you want to roam the Island or participate. (Valid student ID gets you a discounted ferry ride and admission to the Island is free.)

9 Watching every single interview of (insert name of any celebrity you obsess over) on YouTube.

10 Participating in a drop-in fitness class at Hart House, which in case you didn’t know are free for you as a Student Card holding Uof T Law student.

11. Sit in on a random lecture. Seriously, give it a go. Walk into any of U of T’s many buildings and sit in on a totally random lecture. Learn something new (and unrelated to law).

12 Endlessly scrolling on Facebook/Instagram/ Tumblr/Twitter/Buzzfeed/Reddit.

13 Grab your significant other and head to Hart House’s Great Hall. The spiral tower is the perfect place to romantically act out the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet. Or just work on your Shakespearean acting chops.

14 Learning all the lyrics to 1989 songs in preparation for T-Swift’s concert. In October (one can never be too prepared).

15 Surround yourself with more than 5,000 works of art at the Art Gallery of Ontario.

(Full-time students with valid ID get in free on Wednesdays between 6pm and 8:30pm, and pay only $11 on other times/dates) 16 Look up an easy recipe (see back of this paper for one) and cook something.

17 Eating. Lots of eating. Eat because you’re stressed/tired/bored/procrastinating.

18 Doing an unhealthy amount of ridiculous online quizzes to find out who your 90s soulmate is and/or which Mean Girl you are and/ or what your favourite type of pizza says about you.

19 Take in some history with one of Toronto’s many museums: the Gardiner Museum, the Royal Ontario Museum (General Admission is free every Tuesday for students with a post-secondary school ID), the Bata Shoe Museum, the Spadina Museum.

20 Take in a Raptors game live.

21 Get back in touch with nature and away from coffee. Visit High Park, home to a pretty cozy zoo. (It’s absolutely free!)

22 Go for a walk in the picturesque Philosopher’s Walk.

23 Shop til you drop without going into more debt. Kensington Market has a unique variety of clothes, organic food, and cheap trinkets that won’t break the bank.

24 On Fridays, the Cinema Studies Students Union, bless them, hosts free screenings at

Innis Town Hall. Check online for what’s playing, as they show a great range of films, from classics to new releases.

25 Go people-watching at Queens Park.

26 Reorganize your closet.

27 If you’re feeling brave and willing to dish out $195, take a walk on the wild side...a walk 365m above the ground and outside the roof of the CN Tower.

28 Shop along Bloor to get some new spring clothes.

29 Call up a few friends and hang out on a patio for some afternoon beer, bites, and warmer weather.

30 Sleep.

ultravires.ca THE BEARD ITSELF

I’ve heard the hipster beard is a symbol of protest against "the establishment", but it seems bearded hipsters all look the same—nice button down shirt, tight, short but stylish pants, no socks, and semi-formal shoes. With all this conformity, how is the hipster beard really anti-establishment?

Calvin: Whether you're going with or against a trend, you're still directed by the trend, right? We're all conforming to something. This way just allows me to look dashing and spend less time getting ready every morning Nick: At least in the inception, I wanted to have a beard because I knew I wouldn’t have another opportunity for it. But then when you have a beard, you have to look otherwise relatively put together. Otherwise you do get looks on the subway.

Is there a difference between just an average beard and a hipster beard?

Calvin: Absolutely! A hipster beard is more well kempt, I think. It may involve wax. It certainly involves straight lines and sharp angles.

I would almost say that I don't have a hipster beard for that reason, mine is more of a... laziness/bum beard Nitai: Difference between Hipster Beard and non, is the difference between Superman and Batman. A hipster beard is Batman. Paid for.

Bought. Toiled over. You grew it for a reason, to be your mask. You grew it so that people would say WOW! Look at that beard! He must be cultured, strong, masculine, rugged. My beard, a non-hipster beard, is Superman. It's a part of me. I can't stop being bearded anymore than Kal'el can stop being the man of steel. So the real difference? I'm not wearing hockey pads.

Nick: You can see the difference between a homeless guy with a scraggly beard and somebody that trims, conditions, and puts a lot of care into the whole situation. There's a whole beard culture that is out there and some people put a ton of work into their facial hair.

BEARDS ON BAY STREET

There are more and more bearded guys in corporate law firms. How do you think clients and partners have been/will be reacting to this new phenomenon?

Calvin: It might depend on the area you were working in. If your practice was wills and estates and you dealt with a bunch of wealthy dowagers, you probably ought to be clean shaven. But if you're working union side la-

DIVERSIONS bour, and all your clients are young construction workers, maybe it makes you more relatable — so I guess it speaks to social trends more than anti-establishment stances.

It was strongly hinted at by some folks that it would look unprofessional during OCIs with a beard. But I ended up getting a job later on, when I was bearded once more. And so who can say whether it actually matters or what's appropriate.

I'm my more confident self when bearded Nitai: I strongly believe that in a field as diverse as law, where you have old white men, middle aged white men, and even young white men filling up the majority of the positions, it is often easy to get lost in the very diverse crowd.

I think that beards are a breath of fresh air in this stale and stuffy environment. Think of my beard as my personal spring cleaning. Except, it sometimes looks dirty. But that's aside from the point. Who wouldn't see a bearded, "stout", rugby playing Jewish boy and say, WOW! Can you look over these documents? Think of a beard as a currency. Then take a few economics course because you obviously don't know the first thing about currencies. So to answer your question, Yes. Nick: There can be a big difference between being sloppy and having a beard, and I believe the firms are starting to accept that somewhat.

My beard is pretty sloppy (one of the main reasons I grew it was to embrace my last chance at the "lazy student" look), but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Most of the "corporate beards" you see nowadays are clean and well-maintained and I think most firms are fine with that, because they don't represent an image that they can't get behind.

On a similar note, you see more people in corporate environments embracing a bit of flair in their style — be it through flashy socks, pocket squares, ties, or anything else. Sort of a subtle way to show individuality in a way that still allows them to look presentable to more conservative clients and coworkers.

THE MAN BEHIND THE BEARD Is it ever awkward to speak to clean shaven men when you're so blatantly displaying your facial hair prowess and he isn't?

Calvin: I've never really felt that awkwardness. I guess I don't view it as a competition.

Unless the other person has a beard as well.

Then we're in direct competition.

Nitai: Au contraire. In no way am I saying that beardedness is a sign of masculinity or that it is tied into it in any way. In fact, my great grandmother had a beard and she was just about the most feminine lady out there. A

MARCH 25, 2015 | 23

In Full Bloom

Everything you ever wanted to know about hipster beards (and then some), from our very own Nitai Ben-Shach, Nick Charleton, and Calvin Hancock LISANA NITHIANANTHAN (2L) & TALI GREEN (2L)

man is a man because he believes he is and treats others with respect. That's all it takes.

But I digress.

The only time it is awkward to speak to Cleanies (unshaven people) is when they ask dumb questions like "Is it itchy?" "How long have you been growing it for?" "How much would I have to pay you to shave your beard/ chest?" "Why aren't you wearing pants?"

When I am asked any of these ridiculous and unnecessary questions my blood boils and my beard curls. As the great orator Winston Churchill once said, "the." And I think we all know what he meant by that. It is that a man is not judged by THE hair on his face or body or lack thereof. Rather, a man is judged on his character, his soul and his kindness and respect towards those who happen to share this beautiful world with him.

That being said, don't touch my beard.

GIRLS

Can you think of the female equivalent of a hipster beard?

Calvin: I want to say the hipster bob. Or maybe large, tortoise-shell glasses.

Nick: When girls shave the side of their head.

Most men shave to look good. How do bearded guys deal with the potential risk of making themselves less attractive for women? Or do you find that women are drawn to the hair?

Nitai: Some are and some are not. Some men shave to look good. Others grow their beards to look good. Trust me. You do not want to see me clean shaven. I look like an overripe peach with dimples. Women or men aren't attracted to me because of my beard. Rather it's because of my feet. I have very polarizing feet.

Calvin: I feel like the sort of ladies I hope to attract appreciate the beard game. If the beard bothers someone, many other aspects of my life would probably bother them too. Such as the fact that I haven't washed my hair with shampoo since July 2011.

Nick: Well, I think many women might find it attractive — there is a whole lumberjack vibe to it, I suppose. That said, I am an attached man and my girlfriend is relatively ambivalent about it. She lives in New York though so she may be hiding her disgust because (a) she doesn't have to deal with it much, and (b) it keeps me looking like a dirty unattractive idiot… not that I would look less like a dirty, unattractive idiot without a beard...

A beard is a pretty big commitment, and it is (at least somewhat) a statement about who you are. Hopefully you will be able to find someone who is able to accept that.

Last Will and Testament UV EDITORIAL BOARD This is the last Will and Testament of us, the Class of 2015, of the University of Toronto Law School, of the city of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario.

For Martha Shaffer: A Bowflex

For Ben Alarie: A laugh track, so students know when he’s making a joke For Michael Trebilcock: A degree from a university befitting his reputation, like Yale or something

For Anthony Niblett: Trivial Pursuit, Masters Edition and an understanding of basic computer security terminology For the Atlantis Night Club: A better entrance system

For Anthony Duggan: A rap contract with Def Jam and music video produced by McG

For Judith McCormack: A less thankless job

For the SLS: Full time PR manager

For Sara Faherty: Compassion

For Jeffrey MacIntosh: Tickets to Delaware

For the Law School: Endowment

For the Faculty: Melanin For Birge Student Lounge and the Reading Room: Febreeze air freshener

24 | MARCH 25, 2015

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

The “I can’t believe this chocolate chip cookie is delicious and good for you too” Chocolate Chip Cookie Recipe YALE HERTZMAN (3L) DO YOU LIKE CHOCOLATE? DO YOU LIKE COOKIES? IF SO, THEN THESE chocolate chip cookies are for you. They aren’t your average chocolate chip cookies though. While they are as easy as making Pillsbury’s, they won’t leave you feeling bloated like the Pillsbury Doughboy. That’s because they are made without flour, sugar, butter, or eggs. Instead, they come together through a combination of walnuts, dates, seeds, and dark chocolate. The dates are a natural sweetener, and the nuts and seeds are a good source of protein that will keep you full throughout the day.

After baking for about 12 minutes, the result is a soft, chewy cookie that you won’t believe is actually good for you. Don’t believe me? Try them for yourself.

Recipe

(makes approximately 14 cookies) SUPPLIES: • Baking sheet • Parchment paper • Food processor INGREDIENTS: • 1½ cups raw walnut halves • 1 cup dates, pitted (about 12)

• ¼ teaspoon salt • ½ teaspoon baking soda • 1 teaspoon vanilla extract • 1 flax egg (1 tablespoon ground flax or chia seeds + 3 tablespoons water) • ½ cup dark chocolate chips or a chunk of chocolate roughly chopped DIRECTIONS 1. Preheat the oven to 350F and line a baking sheet with parchment paper.

2. In the bowl of a food processor, process the dates and walnuts together until a crumbly texture is formed. Add in the salt, baking soda, vanilla, and flax egg and process again until the batter is relatively smooth.

3. Add in the chocolate chips/chunks and briefly pulse, just to combine.

4. Spoon the batter onto a lined baking sheet, and use your hands to gently flatten the cookie dough.

5. Bake at 350F for 12 minutes, or until the edges are slightly golden. Allow to cool on the pan for 10 minutes, then transfer the cookies to a wire rack to cool.

6. Serve immediately, and store the leftovers in a sealed container in the fridge or freezer for best shelf life. These cookies should last a week in the fridge, and a month or more in the freezer.