Ultra Vires Vol 18 Issue 4: 2017 January

JANUARY 26, 2017 | ULTRAVIRES.CA

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

DAVINA SHIVRATAN (1L)

The Recycled Problem of Recycled Exams SHAUN PARSONS (2L) Midway through the Winter term of my 1L year, rumours began to circulate about a recycled exam. In the well-publicized saga that followed, it came to light that at least one student had access to a practice exam that looked very similar to the actual final.

Being a student on the other side was heart-wrenching. I felt outraged. Effectively, we were graded on circumstances external to the course. Countless hours were sunk into our studies only for a massive and preventable confounding factor that challenged the meritocracy of law school. I felt paranoid. Maybe someone that I know had the exam and refused to share it. I felt like an idiot. If only I had spent more time digging in the annals of prior exams maybe I would have done better. Maybe that would have put me on an even playing field. But how even would that playing field have been? I feared for my future job prospects. I vowed that if I was ever on the other side and advantaged, I would step forward immediately.

Less than a year later, that opportunity arose. My final exam looked suspiciously like a practice exam received from an acquaintance at another school. ‘Suspiciously’ is a generous term. The exams were more twins than siblings.

To survive law school without burning out, cynical and jaded, I think you have to trust in the system.

You sacrifice balance. You sacrifice sleep. Exam season is a stress-induced blur, where doing your laundry is best described as guilt-panged. Exam season doesn’t start until you see someone you faintly remember from torts quietly sobbing in the library. Exam season doesn’t start until you look around Bora Laskin to gauge whether anyone will see tears roll down your face if you momentarily stop holding it together. We experience a lot of stress in law school, and we knew it would be this way when we signed up. Still, for at least two months out of the year, our happiness graphs are at rock bottom. It’s not all bad, but it’s work. I want to make these sacrifices in an institution I am proud of.

I don’t know if I’m still proud of U of T law.

The day after the exam, I met with the administration—well, the administration that would meet with me. I thought they would want to know about the recycling. I thought there would be some concern. I thought someone would act, or at least humour my concerns.

I was told that reusing an old exam isn’t grossly inequitable. I was told there wasn’t proof there were enough people who accessed this practice exam to meaningfully affect the grade. Didn’t it occur to me that maybe I was at a disadvantage now that I was overconfident? Was I sure the changes weren’t material? When I said I thought it was inappropriate, I was told I was wrong: not that it wasn’t inappropriate, just that I was wrong. Why did I even ask for this meeting? What did I want? Somehow it was incomprehensible that I didn’t have an ulterior motive.

If this wasn’t grossly inequitable, what does grossly inequitable even mean? A study group spent five hours discussing what turned out to be the final exam. Advanced access to the exam was only possible through a link to another school. When I started the exam, I opened the exam booklet, saw the first sentence, and immediately began to write. I didn’t stop for three hours. I didn’t need to think. I didn’t need to plan. I luckily designed my map around the practice exam. I just had to follow it and scan the fact set for any possible changes. Would you characterize this exam as fair?

I had a clear benefit going into the exam. I didn’t plan for the benefit; I lucked into it. But inequity doesn’t need intent. I had a weekend to think over the exam. I effectively had dozens of hours to write it.

I’ve been questioning the integrity of the school a lot since that exam. All I know is that I got a grade I didn’t deserve because I made the right friends. That, to me, is pretty inequitable.

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE FIRST GENERATION STUDENTS

SOCIAL ANXIETY IN LAW

LAW GAMES

PAGE 10

PAGE 8

PAGE 9

NEWS

2 | JANUARY 26, 2017

ultravires.ca

Letter from the Editors NICK PAPAGEORGE (2L) AND MAUD ROZEE (2L) Welcome back!

We hope that you’re fi nally starting to recover from the blow that was having our classes start on January 2—known to just about everyone else as the observed New Year’s Day. If you’re anything like us, you were already weeks behind on your readings before your friends in other schools had even pondered opening a book. You’re also probably realizing just how busy this semester will be, and there’s nothing like getting your fi rst semester grades back to remind you how much work you have to do.

ture pieces contributed by the Feminists Law Society and the First Generation Students Network.

We also have pieces by students discussing their law school experience from vantage points not often considered in the open: one is a single mother, another has social anxiety.

On a more familiar note, we’re following up on a story that caused much discussion last year: the problem of reused exams. Adjunct Professor Craig Carter’s reused Real Estate exam shows that these incidents will keep happening unless the administration takes steps to stop them, and we will continue to insist that they do so.

Now that we’ve ensured you’re in the default U of T Law mindset—all-encompassing, neverending stress—let us remind you that it’s not all bad. In our humble opinion, Winter semester is always, always way better than Fall.* With Follies and Law Ball to look forward to, the events of the year are still to come! The days are getting longer and the weather will (eventually) improve. And with Groundhog Day coming up, maybe our darling Phyllis will make a glorious return to Falconer.

As always, we encourage everyone to let us know what’s on your mind and what’s important to you! We are always looking for topical contributions, whether they be semi-serious features or offthe-wall diversions.

One thing’s for sure: it’s going to be another excellent semester here at Ultra Vires. We’re kicking our January issue off by sharing a variety of lesser-known student perspectives. We’re proud to fea-

* Ultra Vires makes no representations or warranties that any semester of law school is better than any other one, or anything at all for that matter.

On behalf of ourselves and the rest of the Editorial Board, we wish you all a successful and enjoyable semester ahead!

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 News Editors Features Editors Opinion Editors Diversions Editors Copy Editor Foreign Correspondent Layout Editor Photo and Design Editor First-Year Editors: Business Manager

Nick Papageorge & Maud Rozee Shari Nathan & Amani Rauff Aidan Campbell & Melissa Smith Cory Bettel & Scott Dallen Rabiya Mansoor & Kevin Schoenfeldt Kassandra Shortt Rona Ghanbari Alexandra Fox Davina Shivratan Louell Taye, Norm Yallen, & SuJung Lee Cory Bettel

ERRORS If you fi nd any errors in Ultra Vires, please email editor@ultravires.ca.

ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries should be sent to editor@ultravires.ca.

SUBMISSIONS If you have an article submission or a tip for us, please contact us at editor@ultravires.ca.

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

Reused Real Estate Exam Frustrates Students MAUD ROZEE (2L) Adjunct Professor Craig Carter’s Fall 2016 Real Estate Law exam was substantially the same as the exam he gave to his Winter 2016 Real Estate Transactions class at Osgoode Hall Law School. Some U of T students in the class had asked friends at Osgoode to send them Carter’s past exams to use as study materials.

These students read, discussed, and analyzed their fi nal exam problem beforehand—giving them a significant advantage over students who were seeing the eight page exam for the fi rst time.

This is Prof. Carter’s fi rst semester teaching at U of T Law, and the fi rst time he has reused an exam. This differentiates this exam-reuse inci-

dent from last year’s, when Professor Catherine Valcke gave a past exam to her 1L Contracts class for the third year in a row. That December 2015 exam was the same one she had given in April 2007; in April 2015, she administered the same exam as she had in April 2014; and the April 2014 problem itself was substantially similar to an exam she had given in April 2009.

In April 2015, the administration offered Prof.

Valcke’s class two options: (a) have their exam answer graded as is or (b) write a new four-hour take-home exam during the week after exam period. The two options were “treated as separate pools for grading purposes.”

After Prof. Valcke’s third exam reuse in December 2015, the SLS wrote a letter to Dean Iacobucci and Associate Dean Rittich asking that the administration adopt a fi rm policy against the wholesale reuse of past exams. In an April 2016 interview with Ultra Vires, Dean Iacobucci described exam reuse as “not a straightforward issue.” He pointed to evolving practices among students and different pedagogical views among professors as complicating factors. Still, he said that after the incident in April 2015, “[W]here the institution felt that we needed to offer an alternative exam, I thought that was the right thing to do.”

Prof. Carter said he was not aware that Uni-

versity of Toronto students could or would access exams from another law school: “It never crossed my mind. I am shocked. I put a lot of time and energy into delivering an informative and interesting course and I am extremely upset that this has happened. I apologize and can assure you that it won't happen again.” This response suggests that administrators had not made Prof. Carter aware of concerns from students who took the reused Real Estate exam.

These students were disappointed by administrators’ responses to their concerns about the inequity arising from the reuse (see: “The Recycled Problem of Recycled Exams” in this issue), and the SLS discussed the issue at their most recent meeting.

ultravires.ca

NEWS

JANUARY 26, 2017 | 3

Roundup: Committees at the Faculty of Law* AIDAN CAMPBELL (2L), AMANI RAUFF (2L), DAVINA SHIVRATAN (1L), LOUELL TAYE (1L), NORM YALLEN (1L), RABIYA MANSOOR (2L), SHARI NATHAN (2L), SUJUNG LEE (1L) Much of the policy-making at the law school is done through various committees who report to either the Dean or Faculty Council at large. These committees are chaired by and composed of a mix of faculty, staff, and sometimes students from the SLS and the GLSA. They meet anywhere from not at all (on an ‘as-necessary’ basis) to a few times a year, in order to discuss and make decisions on issues touching on every aspect of the student experience.

While students usually gain access to the final reports and proposals of these committees just prior to voting at Faculty Council, the committees are often opaque and difficult to obtain information on. Ultra Vires began reporting on these committees last year, in an effort to create some transparency around their workings.

For further background on the difficulty of obtaining information on the committees, see last year’s roundup at: http://ultravires.ca/2016/02/introduction-to-u-of-t-laws-committees/. *This list will be updated as committees meet this semester, and further information becomes available.

The following committees exist, but we couldn’t obtain information on them by press time: Academic Standing Committee, Admissions Committee, Non-Statutory Holidays Committee, Student-Run Journals Committee, Workload Committee. See online for updates.

Appeals Committee Members

H. Stewart (Chair), Faculty-wide membership with panels assembled on ad-hoc basis. Students: A. Yu (1L), S. Lewis (2L)

Mandate/What’s it Done This Year?/What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

The Appeals Committee has not met this year, and the student members have yet to receive a mandate.

Financial Aid Committee Members

A. Archbold & B. Alarie (Co-Chairs), A. Niblett, E. Satterthwaite, A. Yoon, A. Mohaghegh, R. Puran. Students: A. McKenzie (1L), K. Longo (2L), S. Bittman (3L)

Mandate

The Tuition and Financial Aid Committee addresses student concerns about tuition and f inancial aid, reviews f inancial aid appeals, and reviews f inancial aid and tuition policies.

What’s it Done This Year?

The Committee has focused much of its efforts so far on reviewing f inancial aid disbursement appeals. The SLS reps who sit on the Committee have also conveyed student feedback on tuition and f inancial aid they received at the SLS Financial Aid Town Hall and through other channels to the Committee. Specif ically, the Committee has discussed increasing transparency and understanding by creating concise resources to explain some aspects of the f inancial aid, including the appeals process and the Post-Graduation Debt Relief Program (PGDRP).

What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

The Committee is looking to clarify the appeals process, including providing examples of appeals grounds that are likely to be successful and unsuccessful. They also plan to administer a survey to alumni who have accessed the PGDRP to ask about their experience. The Committee plans to assess current f inancial aid policy by examining alternative disbursement models and review the current ‘deemed’ amounts for married students which includes both spousal and parental deemed amounts.

Curriculum Committee

Gender, Accessibility & Diversity Committee

Members

Members

Mandate

Mandate

K. Rittich (Chair), A. Drassinower, M. Fadel, S. Moreau, A. Niblett, D. Schneiderman, R. Stacey, C. Valcke (Fall), S. Faherty. Students: A. Gershoig (2L), S. Mosonyi (2L), D. Wang (3L), G. Bowley (grad) The new Committee’s mandate for the year is two-fold: f irst, to review proposed changes to next year’s curriculum (for instance, approving new courses and modifying course descriptions). Second, the Committee will explore the feasibility of an intersessional term in January. This continues the work of last year’s committee, which prepared a report for the March 23, 2016 Faculty Council (available on E.Legal).

What’s it Done This Year?

The Committee has decided that the intersessional term, if introduced, would begin no earlier than January 2019. Last year's Committee has ruled out a one week intersession. It would either be two or three weeks. This is essentially a 2-3 week long period in January where mandatory intensive courses would be taught.

Students would receive credits for these courses. The intersession would be creditneutral, meaning that students would be carrying fewer credits during the Winter term, so that the overall impact on workload is expected to be neutral.

What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

At the next meeting, the Committee will be discussing more models for the intersessional term and look at proposed changes to next year's curriculum.

S. Faherty (Chair), A. Emon, A. Fernandez, T. Lemmens, E. Satterthwaite, M. Shaffer, A. Archbold, A. Carling, J. Poon-Ting, D. Thibodeau. Students: A. Yu (1L), K. Longo (2L), J. Kras (2/3L), H. Abraham (Grad), M. Levine (Grad) The Committee is mandated with advising the Faculty on ways to reach out and recruit a diverse community, and offering those students supports, resources, and programs that will help ensure their academic and professional success.

What’s it Done This Year?

The Committee has discussed ways to approach diversity in the law school, including both systemic approaches and application to particular issues (e.g. takehome exams). In addition, they have collectively reviewed the 2014 Diversity Survey. They have not yet accomplished any material or measurable goals, though SLS members have pushed for concrete action and mechanisms for assessing those actions.

What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

The Committee is aiming to administer a new diversity survey this year, and have invited a member of the University to attend a committee meeting to discuss how to effectively draft a new survey to deal with some of the issues identif ied in the 2014 version. However, with only two meetings left this academic year it is doubtful that a survey will be drafted and administered in time to accomplish this goal.

4 | JANUARY 26, 2017

NEWS

Directed Research Committee Members

A. Fernandez & A. Drassinower (Co-Chairs)

Mandate/What’s it Done This Year?

At the beginning of each semester, the Directed Research Committee reviews proposals submitted by students to do Directed Research Papers, which it has done this year in both the fall and winter terms.

What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

There are no plans for any more activities by the Committee for the balance of the year.

ultravires.ca

Clinical & Experiential Education/Mooting & Advocacy Committee Members

V. Chiao, T. Duggan, I. Lee ( Winter), E. Satterthwaite, M. Shaffer, M. Thorburn, A. Archbold, L. Cirillo, C. Milne. Students: A. Marshall (1L), E. Fonarev (3L), D. Wang (3L)

Mandate

The Committee’s mandate is still under discussion and may change. The Committee makes recommendations about moot/experiential learning opportunities, gets feedback from students and faculty, and looks into getting more opportunities for both mooting and experiential learning.

What’s it Done This Year?

The Committee has been determining its mandate and its scope.

Graduate Education Committee Members

M. Prado (Chair), LLM Admissions: L. Katz, S. Stern; SJD Admissions: J. Brunnee, A. Katz, D. Reaume; Graduate Academic Appeals: A. Drassinower, B. Langille, D. Reaume, A. Fernandez (alternative). Students: LLM Admissions: J. Enman-Beech (SJD); Graduate Academic Appeals: P. Koundouros (LLM), E. Sarid (SJD)

Admissions Mandate

The Committee looks at LL.M. applications on a rolling basis (one member reports having reviewed a dozen or so so far). The Committee is composed of a combination of professors and non-professor staff, as well as one student who provides the “student perspective". This is the f irst year a student has been part of the LL.M. admissions process.

What’s it Done This Year?/What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

Each Committee member looking at a certain application scores it and provides comments explaining their score. Not all Committee members look at every application. In particular, some are obviously unacceptable (e.g. miss out on minimum requirements) while others are obvious admits (top marks from a top school with top references, etc.). The score is meant to be a holistic assessment of all the parts of an application - transcripts, references, strength of personal statement and plan of study or thesis proposal, special circumstances, if any, CV.

Academic Appeals

The Graduate Academic Appeals Committee hasn’t met yet this year.

Library and Technology Committee Members

G. Medves & A. Katz (Co-Chairs); A. Emon, S. Moreau, M. Thorburn, P. Handley ( Winter – Feb 07), Y. Henry (while P. Handley is on leave), S. Kim, D. Reid.

Students: S. Mosonyi (2L), Z. Al-Khatib (3L), A. Martin (Grad)

What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

The Committee plans to review and determine new experiential learning and mooting opportunities.

Environmental Sustainability Working Group Members

D. Reaume (Chair), A. Green (Fall), R. Stacey, P. Handley ( Winter – Feb 07), A. Henry (while P. Handley is on leave), G. Medves. Students: T. Dolny (2L), S. Mason-Case (Grad)

Mandate

There is no off icial mandate that the students are aware of, except that the group operates under the umbrella of the Faculty Council. The group itself is advisory to the Dean.

What’s it Done This Year?

The group has met once this year in January. Professor Reaume has made a proposal that the group be improved through a restructuring process that would improve institutional memory, revise the group’s Best Practices Handbook and give the working group more operating power. Sarah Mason-Case also suggested that the group stage a panel to occur in late 2017 on how carbon caps on the overall university community affect the Faculty of Law. The group scheduled an environmental walk-through tour detailing environmentally friendly features of the new building. General concerns about both the library and the café’s recycling and heating policies were discussed. Student feedback about bike racks and showers were also solicited from Tamie Dolny (2L rep).

What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

The Committee is waiting on news from the Dean’s Off ice as to whether an alternative model is appropriate. Professor Reaume has submitted an alternative model inter-off ice memo to the Dean’s Off ice penning out submissions to improve the eff icacy of the group itself.

Mandate

Given the fairly recent move to the new Bora Laskin Law Library, this year the Library and Technology Committee’s mandate is to act as a conduit for suggestions from students and faculty regarding the new space. In addition, the Committee has been asked to do the following: • Investigate ways to improve the gathering of citation metrics for the Faculty and production of more effective citation analytics.

• Consider the issue of preserving and digitizing the Library’s unique collections, including historic casebooks as well as recent Blackboard materials.

• Review the results from the 2016 Student Experience Survey, and consider how the student experience can be enhanced

What’s it Done This Year?

The Committee hasn't met yet this year.

What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

The Committee is planning to work collaboratively to examine these issues to provide advice and recommendations to the Dean in an advisory capacity. “As we approach the anniversary of our f irst year in the new Law Library and having had the experience of ‘living’ in the new space, [the Committee] is hoping that we can get good feedback in terms of what works well but also what needs improvement.”

Research Advisory Committee Members

K. Knop (Chair), L. Austin, Y. Dawood, A. Macklin, P. Macklem, S. Stern, A. Yoon, A. Cox

Mandate

The group is an ad hoc advisory committee to the Dean and explores issues relating to faculty research as they arise.

What’s it Done This Year?

The group does not undertake any plans or projects but offers initial advice to the Dean.

What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

Since the group is responsive to problems as they arise throughout the year, its specif ic process will vary depending on the particular issue.

ultravires.ca

NEWS

JANUARY 26, 2017 | 5

Truth and Reconciliation Commission Committee

Mental Health & Wellness Committee

Members

Members

M. Moran & D. Sanderson (Co-Chairs), K. Rittich, B. Chapman, A. Archbold, A. Carling, M. Rosenstock. Students: J. Kras (2/3L), D. Varette (3L , ALSA)

Mandate

The Committee's mandate is to review and implement the recommendations outlined in the April 2015 TRC Committee's report to Faculty Council, and respond to concerns identif ied by the law school community and Dean. A pressing priority for the Committee, outlined in that report, is executing the recommendation that the TRC Committee be made a standing Committee. This recognizes that the appropriate response to the TRC report will shift overtime, and that a single static solution to Call to Action #28 would be inadequate in light of the continuum of education evident in the full TRC report.

What’s it Done This Year?

At the f irst Faculty Council of the 2016 -2017 academic year, Professor Douglas Sanderson presented a report drafted by last year's Committee in April 2015. Prof.

Sanderson reviewed steps the Faculty had taken since the report was drafted in April 2015. These measures included: establishing ALSA representation at Faculty Council; equipping the ALSA off ice to safely accommodate smudging; committing to featuring aboriginal art in the new building; purchasing additional hand drums for convocation ceremonies; and hosting Aboriginal Law projects and speakers.

Some of these developments were related to curriculum, such as: surveying faculty to ascertain the extent of the current Aboriginal law curriculum; hiring an R A for faculty interested in teaching more Aboriginal law; offering John Borrows' "Indigenous Law in Context" intensive; and already incorporating two Indigenous legal tradition sessions taught by Prof. Sanderson into the 1L Legal Methods course. Dean Iacobucci and Prof. Sanderson are also trying to meet with the new Chief of the Mississaugas of New Credit to work on establishing a long-term relationship. In his presentation Prof. Sanderson revisited the recommendation that the Committee be made a standing Committee given its continually evolving mandate, and Dean Iacobucci conf irmed that this recommendation was being implemented.

What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

The Committee is meeting in the next week or so. Stay tuned for an update!

A. Archbold & A. Emon (Co-Chairs), T. Duggan, L. Katz, A. Carling, Y. Henry, S.M. Hubbard, J. Laporte, Students: N. Anzik (1L), K. Longo (2L), S. Lewis (2L), M. Marinett

Mandate

The Committee’s mandate is to review and f inalize the draft Mental Health Strategic Action Plan put together based on student input and best practices at other post secondary institutions, including wider consultation with the law school community. The Committee's work will culminate in a f inal report of recommendations being presented at Faculty Council including implementation strategy.

What’s it Done This Year?

The Committee has been dedicating much of their time to reviewing the Mental Health and Wellness Strategic Action Plan 2016 -17, a draft of which was presented

by Co-Chair Alexis Archbold at the January 18th Faculty Council Meeting. In addition, they have discussed concerns about student feedback and the role of the Student Advisory Committee.

What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

The Committee aims to have a f inal Mental Health and Wellness Strategic Action Plan completed and implemented by the end of the year. The Committee is hosting a Town Hall on January 26th to canvass student feedback on the draft, and will then reconvene to consider students’ suggestions and concerns raised at that town hall. As the semester draws to a close, the Committee will be discussing implementation strategy, and addressing any other potential concerns students bring to the committee.

Student-Run Journals Committee Members

K. Knop & D. Reaume (Co-chairs), A. Macklin, S. Stern, L. Weinrib, J. Bolan ( Winter), R. Levi

Mandate

Centre for Transnational Legal Studies Committee Members

M. Prado, K. Rittich, K. Roach (Fall), H. Stewart, A. Archbold

Mandate

The group is an ad hoc advisory committee to the Dean and explores issues relating to the Centre for Transnational Legal Studies as they arise.

The group is an ad hoc advisory committee to the Dean which does preliminary thinking about the place of the student-run journals within the program.

What’s it Done This Year?

The committee does not initiate any specif ic plans but offers suggestions for change that will be fed into the usual decision-making processes as appropriate.

What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

Since the group is responsive to problems as they arise throughout the year, its specif ic process will vary depending on the particular issue.

What’s it Done This Year?

The group does not undertake any plans or projects but offers initial advice to the Dean.

What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

Student Affairs Committee

Since the group is responsive to problems as they arise throughout the year, its specif ic process will vary depending on the particular issue.

Faculty Life in New Building Committee

Appointments Committee

Members

A. Fernandez, M. Friedland, A. Green (Fall), L. Katz, D. Reaume, P. Handley ( Winter – Feb 07), A. Henry (while P. Handley is on leave), G. Medves

Clerkships Committee

Mandate

The group is an ad hoc advisory committee to the Dean and explores issues relating to the move of all faculty off ices to the Jackman Law Building, as they arise.

What’s it Done This Year?

Course Assignments Committee

The group does not undertake any plans or projects but offers initial advice to the Dean.

What’s Planned for the Rest of the Year?

Since the group is responsive to problems as they arise throughout the year, its specif ic process will vary depending on the particular issue.

Distinguished Visitors and Special Lectures Selection Committee

6 | JANUARY 26, 2017

NEWS

ultravires.ca

Faculty Affairs: Mental Health Action Plan, GPLLM Modification, and Library SNAILS

SHARI NATHAN (2L) AND AMANI RAUFF (2L)

The f irst Faculty Council meeting of the Winter term was held on January 18. After opening remarks from Dean Iacobucci, the SLS and GLSA presented updates from their respective constituencies.

SLS President Sarah Bittman (3L) pointed out that, although exams are over, the upcoming stretch of school is often high-stress for both 1Ls and upper years. Both groups are quickly immersed in mooting preparation, tryouts, and recruitment as soon as the semester began.

GLSA President Catherine Dunmore revisited the continuing efforts of the GLSA to encourage a sense of community, and pointed specif ically to a number of upcoming social events.

Mental Health & Wellness Committee Interim Report Professor Anver Emon, who co-chairs the Mental Health & Wellness Committee with Alexis Archbold, presented an interim report from the Committee. He brief ly outlined the draft of the Faculty’s new Mental Health & Wellness Strategic Action Plan, specif ically noting the signif icant role that previously solicited feedback played in informing the development of the draft Action Plan. The Committee has scheduled a Town Hall on January 26 to seek additional feedback on the draft Action Plan, so that they can re-

view and address students’ comments and concerns.

GPLLM Program Modifications Associate Dean of Graduate Studies Mariana Prado tabled a proposal for major modif ications to the GPLLM program.

Specif ically, the proposal would create three new areas of study: (1) Canadian Law in a Global Context, (2) Innovation, Law, and Technology, and (3) Law of Leadership. The proposed changes intend to evolve the program from its current focus on business law to a more robust multi-disciplinary program.

The goal is to produce dynamic graduates acquainted with legal methodology and substance in a global context.

The new concentrations were proposed in response to the purportedly unmet need for graduate legal studies specializing in those areas. The Faculty identif ied this def iciency in current graduate legal programs through consultation with members of the legal community. Implementation of these modif ications include signif icant curriculum and structural development of the GPLLM. The program was described as an innovation in legal education, providing a unique opportunity to specialize in these areas.

Graduate students raised concerns about the distribution of added revenue from these

programs. A portion of the graduate program’s tuition revenue is currently allotted to the JD program. The introduction of the new areas of study would increase the total number of graduate students and resulting revenue. The disbursement of these new funds was not addressed in Associate Dean Prado’s proposal, and the question did not receive a concrete response.

Professor Trudo Lemmens criticized the administration for its lack of consultation with faculty members in the development process.

Information about the consultation was disseminated less than a week before the presentation at Faculty Council, arguably an insuff icient window for faculty to provide meaningful insight. Prof. Lemmens’ frustration at the abrupt release of a proposal with an already well-developed curriculum and structure was aimed squarely at the Administration’s lack of transparency. Associate Dean Prado conceded that there had been minimal faculty consultation prior to the presentation. However, she said, given that the program modif ication was only in the initial stages of approval and would undergo subsequent evaluation and review, there would later be adequate opportunity for faculty input.

The proposal was ultimately approved, with Prof. Lemmens abstaining from the vote.

Library Update & Restricting “Students Not Actually in Law School” (SNAILS) Finally, Interim Chief Law Librarian Gian Medves gave the Council an update on library operations. He reported an increase in library activity, citing significant growth in circulation statistics. Exam operations were also discussed in reference to the Law Library’s ongoing adjustments after joining the Central Library network.

SLS representative Stephanie Lewis (2L) asked for clarification of study room booking policies for law students and other U of T students. During exam season, there was considerable discussion of the presence of non-law UofT students in various areas of the library.

Medves stated that the library was operating under the assumption that the room booking policies were unaffected by its new membership in the Central Library System. He did not explain the details of the policy and what services are exclusive to students at the Faculty of Law. He described study room booking policies which would prioritize or exclusively grant access to law students, but didn’t say whether they have been implemented, directing students instead to the Faculty website.

[Note: the Bora Laskin Law Library website states that study rooms may be booked and used only by current students at the Faculty of Law, but it is unclear whether this is enforced or proceeds on a good-faith basis.]

FEATURES

#LawNeedsFeminismBecause BETHANIE PASCUTTO (2L) Why does law need feminism? For members of the Feminist Law Students Association (FLSA), it is because the status quo is unacceptable. The legal profession continues to be a male-dominated world in which maternity leave first requires a cost-benefit analysis, and where equal work does not result in equal pay. But female law students are likely to experience structural discrimination long before they are called to the bar. They can see it manifest in condescending comments from retired Supreme Court justices and artwork that depicts solely white males. While women have undeniably made great strides towards equality, the FLSA and like-minded groups from other Canadian law schools point out that significant disparities continue to exist.

The #LawNeedsFeminismBecause project was born in response to some of these persistent barriers. In 2014, the Feminist Collective of McGill Law launched a photo campaign to challenge the idea of what it means to be a feminist and to showcase the diversity among feminists. In 2016, after recognizing that their law school readings failed to represent female, minority, and indigenous scholars, the Feminist Collective decided to explore the reasons that the law profession needs feminism. Through this campaign, students at McGill declared that law needs feminism because “no one should be told to keep their knees togeth-

er”; “there is no old girls club yet”; and “the reason I was unsuccessful in a job interview was because I looked ‘distracting’ and ‘acted like a little girl.’”

The FLSA believes it is time for the University of Toronto to join this valuable and growing movement. To that end, the FLSA launched the Faculty of Law’s contributions to the national #LawNeedsFeminismBecause campaign by hosting and moderating a panel discussion with Professors Reaume, Shaffer, Cossman as well as Sabrina Bandali, the Chair of the Women Lawyers’ Forum of the Ontario Bar Association.

The conversation revolved around what feminism means to the legal community and made clear that law is indeed in desperate need of feminism. Prof. Shaffer noted that the institutional support for feminism she had experienced as a student at the law school has all but disappeared.

She recalled how first-year students were introduced to feminist perspectives on the law, but that the program was cancelled in the mid-1990s, in part because of the view that the feminist objectives had been met.

Prof. Cossman used to teach a class on feminism at the law school but students stopped taking it because they were afraid of what employers would think of it being on their transcript. The panelists discussed whether the presence of feminist courses on a student’s transcript could influence the hiring process. Sabrina Bandali revealed that some firms still consider a woman’s childbearing plans when

COURTESY OF ELLIE MARSHALL (2L)

making hiring decisions.

Moving forward with the campaign, the FLSA will host a photo shoot on January 24, in which they will ask students to share their perspectives on why the law needs feminism. The portraits will be part of the national social media campaign and will be displayed in Jackman Hall. The FLSA is optimistic that the photos will stimulate a meaningful conversation at the faculty and influence the administration.

The first national forum on #LawNeedsFeminismBecause will take place in Montreal on March 11. Law students and professionals from across the country will come together to challenge the status quo and begin the process of transforming the legal profession.

More information on the #LawNeedsFeminismBecause campaign and Forum can be found at http://www.lawneedsfeminismbecause.ca/.

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

JANUARY 26, 2017 | 7

Donald’s Doomsday LOUELL TAYE (1L) AND AIDAN CAMPBELL (2L) As of noon this past Friday, Donald Trump is the President of the United States. We’ve had since November to steel ourselves for this uncharted reality, but it seems that it still hasn’t sunk in yet. When people talk about what a terrible day the Inauguration was, and Election Day before it, one thought occurs: President Trump (ahem) hasn’t even had the chance to get going in earnest. The worst is yet to come.

Two passages of his militaristic, protectionist Inaugural Address stand out: “It's time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black, or brown, or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.”

“From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it's going to be only America fi rst. America fi rst.”

The fi rst seems a paltry effort to undo the damage wrought by his openly white nationalist campaign. Such a blatant appeal to ‘unity through strength’ might as well have been lifted from V for Vendetta’s fascist Prime Minister.

The second should not disconcert you just for its anti-Semitic origins* but for the way his campaign (and the demographic that turned up to see him sworn in) leaves little doubt as to which Americans will be prioritized. This is reinforced by the chairman of Trump’s Inauguration Committee describing Kanye West as not “traditionally American” enough to play the Inaugural concert. Appar-

ently, the real America is the “3 Doors Down America” and not the “Kanye West America.”

So, what should we do? What can we do?

March in the streets? Of course. Saturday’s shows of anger and solidarity across the continent were inspiring and moving.

Donate to Planned Parenthood, PEN, the ACLU, or the myriad community groups dedicated to fi ghting discrimination against all those Trump has vilifi ed? Absolutely. If you agree with their goals and have the fi nancial space, it certainly can’t hurt.

None of this will change the fact that Trump is in the White House, and that he will fi nd scant resistance in the weak-willed and craven Republican Party controlling both houses of Congress. With the fi libuster barred from appointment hearings, Trump will see his cabinet approved—with all its wildly unqualifi ed, and even its openly nefarious, characters. After at least two decades of ever-expanding presidential powers, there are few checks left on Trump’s authority short of an outright revolt of the bureaucracy.

There is always that hope among hopes: impeachment. But, if he’s successfully impeached—whether it be over his confl icts of interest, collusion with foreign governments, or whichever future scandal he will inevitably become embroiled in—the job falls to his Vice President, a man who believes in electrocuting the gay out of people.

As American activists and their progressive allies hunker down for the fi ght of their lives, we can support them. We can cheer them on.

But, really, our foremost duty as their friends and neighbours is to ensure that we do not let this come to pass at home.

We’ve seen countless folks give thanks for living on on this side of the border. Surely it’s something to celebrate, but we’re kidding ourselves if we think that the same white nationalist tendencies don’t exist at home. We forget that, despite our large multicultural cities, we are fundamentally a much whiter and more homogenous nation than the United States—which allows tensions to be ignored more easily. Even still, our last federal election featured overtures to “Old Stock Canadians” and Islamophobic tip lines dedicated to outing “barbaric cultural practices.”

One can already see Stephen Harper’s relatively subtle approach giving way to more brazen displays of such sentiments now that Trump’s views have been validated.

For the card-carrying Conservatives amongst us, there is obvious work to be done.

As your party gets deeper into its leadership race, it’s on you to reject appeals to base xenophobia, and to resist the allure of the bombastic celebrity businessman with open disdain for public policy.

For the leftists, it’s on you to craft an appeal to frustrated and despondent working-class voters, one more inclusive than that of the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. You must avoid the trap they fell into, of attributing Trump’s success to commonplace

economic anxieties and declining to confront the inherently racialized elements of Trump’s message.

Though our current government has been great on pushing inclusive rhetoric, there is much to be done to hold it accountable to its campaign promises. It cannot be given a free pass on its failures to implement UNDRIP and discontinue its Kaf kaesque system of immigration detention. Because of our close ties to the States, we need to ensure that we don’t let our representatives get dragged down to Trump’s level on the international stage. We must demand more of them before they head down that road.

Trump is not going anywhere. The reality is that the next four years aren’t going to be great. Just how bad they’ll be is diffi cult to say: with someone as impulsive and volatile as Trump, you can never really predict what’s going to happen next. And that is perhaps the most terrifying aspect of this whole ordeal.

When you’re faced with a situation that you can’t change—one that seems like it’s only going to get worse—a sense of despair starts to set in. But know that one thing that can never be taken away from us is our ability to care for each other.

Let community be our ultimate resistance. * Krishnadev Calamur points this out in a piece for The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trumpamerica-fi rst/514037/

OPINIONS

The Law School Experience: A Single Mom’s Perspective PRIYA KHALSA (JD/MSW) Getting that acceptance letter to U of T Law inevitably sparked a f lurry of excitement and change. Of course it meant the usual things like moving to Toronto, f inding a place to live, and preparing to begin a demanding new program. For student parents like myself, it also meant searching for neighbourhoods that were connected to good schools and navigating the exorbitantly priced Toronto rentals for two-bedroom homes. I was connected with the Family Care Of f ice and the family housing at the University well before I arrived in Toronto.

From Day One, I was struck by the warm and welcoming vibe at the law school. Jerome Poon-Ting remembered my son— who was six years old at the time—from a law school tour and stopped me to check in about how he was adjusting to the big city and Grade One in a new school. As a solesupport parent, I had additional concerns about balancing my family life with the

demands of full-time school.

Organizing childcare is the most challenging obstacle. The f irst-year law schedule is parent-friendly in the sense that classes end by 5:30pm at the latest. For upper year courses, my options are more limited, as some classes that greatly interest me are of fered only after 4:00pm. Beforeand after-school care is of fered at my son’s school for $500 per month, an amount that could be subsidized if and when I move of f of the lengthy wait list. Despite these stressors, I don’t feel that being a single parent has negatively impacted my academic, or even my volunteer, participation. For example, this year I am participating in PBSC’s Family Law Project, which had its full-day training on a Saturday. The coordinators were very accommodating and permitted me to bring my son when I was unable to f ind childcare.

That being said, my experiences have been

less positive in the social sphere. I fi rst discovered the isolation that comes with being a student and single parent simultaneously when I was in undergrad. It was diffi cult to connect with younger students without family responsibilities not only because of the difference in lifestyles, but also because of a lack of opportunity. Most social events were not childfriendly and were scheduled on evenings or weekends.

I have found this problem to be heightened in law school. A lmost all of the social events are late at night on weekdays and are not accommodating to students with schedules that deviate from the norm. I started a combined program (the JD/ MSW ) at the Faculty of Social Work this year and was pleasantly surprised at the more diverse array of social activity of ferings. I was able to attend an orientation event at Fox and Fiddle since it was early in the day: from 3:00pm to 6:00pm. This Faculty also held a Santa Claus Parade

party and made a point of inviting students along with their families. Additionally, there is a club for student parents which serves as a forum for meeting others who may be facing similar issues. Some of these ideas can and should be implemented at the Law Faculty, and I hope to be part of bringing about needed change next year.

I have def initely had to look toward resources and supports outside the University to supplement the programs of fered internally. My advice to other student parents (and especially single parents) is to research and take advantage of every possible support and resource that the city offers. Reach out to people and the administration if you need help; don’t isolate yourself. Completing law school as a parent is no doubt a major undertaking, but it is certainly achievable, and the little successes along the way are all the more rewarding when I get to celebrate them with my son.

8 | JANUARY 26, 2017

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

The Promise Auction: From Tangled Web of Obligations to Tangled Web of Influence

SHARI NATHAN (2L)

The Faculty of Law’s sixth annual Promise Auction was held on January 11. The event raised over $3,000 for the Native Women’s Resource Center of Toronto and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. The organizers, promisors, and bidders’ philanthropic efforts are undoubtedly of great value to these charities and are deserving of recognition. However, it is also important to recognize that the way the promises are structured can be problematic, reinforcing existing inequities amongst students.

The disposable income required to bid in the Auction can present a barrier to access to participation for many students who cannot afford to spend $50 or more on non-essentials. You may say that this is just how charity works. It is true that charity events limit access on the basis of financial means, and this concern is not unique to the Promise Auction. But a unique, more serious problem arises when this access is determinative of greater benefits—namely access to networking opportunities with professors, practitioners, and faculty members.

The legal profession is built on relationships and

connections. Networking tip-sheets provided by our CDO and other career services avenues frequently refer to the importance of using every chance to build one’s connections, and of converting that social capital into opportunities. They emphasize the importance of creating rapport with higher-ups in the profession as an essential component of success in hiring. The Faculty of Law reaffirmed this with its recent introduction of the Leadership Skills Program, which purports to teach extra-academic skills that are necessary in the legal profession, including network building.

Given the supposed significance of building rapport that can later be used to achieve greater professional success, should opportunities for exclusive socializing with professors and administrators be up for sale?

Economic privilege exists independently of the Auction and extends much further than the Faculty can control. Students can get a leg up in many ways—by purchasing everything from expensive suits to interview training sessions to résumé help.

But the Faculty should be working to reduce these inequities, not perpetuating them.

Beyond this, some of the Auction promises offer something unique that is usually not sold elsewhere: access to some of the greatest legal minds in the country. These types of opportunities are not readily available to students outside of the Promise Auction. It’s not as though Dean Iacobucci holds a regular Sunday dinner to which he invites students. Sure, we can go to Yak’s Snacks and spend an hour vying for his attention among a crowd of pastry-seeking peers. But when do we get the opportunity to sit down for a meal and conversation and really get to know our uniquely brilliant professors?

Apparently when we have $150.

By peddling such unique opportunities, we are perpetuating the economic advantage of particular students in a way that is not only avoidable, but entirely created by our own design.

I’m not proposing that professors be barred from the Promise Auction. Their involvement is morale-boosting, and it contributes to the fun and profitability of the event. But their promises could use some work.

Not all promises made by Faculty members present this problem of exclusive access. This year, Professor Phillips offered a bike tour to students, but did not limit the number of people who can attend: a $30 bid guaranteed participation. That’s one remedy: making these opportunities less exclusive.

Another solution would simply be for professors to be a little more creative with their promises. In that spirit, here are some offers that I am sure students would love to take up, but which also would not be as problematic (and arguably boring) as just wining and dining them: • Choose a song and I’ll perform it at the next Coffee House; • You get my parking spot for a week; • I will deliver a coffee to you during class; or • You choose my outfit for a day.

With the prospect of seeing Dean Iacobucci’s rendition of Britney Spears’ classic “Toxic” on the line, who knows how much money we could raise.

I’m Afraid of Everyone: Social Anxiety in Law School KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (2L) Picture this: You’re at home getting ready for the end of Orientation Week pub night. You were actually invited to a pre-pub night party, but you didn’t go because—you told yourself—you needed some time alone first. But really you just panicked. What if you didn’t have anyone to talk to? What if they didn’t really want you to come? What if you forgot how to act like a normal person? You regret this now because you’re going to have to show up to the pub alone, and what if you don’t have anyone to talk to? What if nobody really wanted you to come? What if you forget how to act like a normal person?

But so you make yourself go. You walk in. You don’t know anyone. You panic. You buy a drink.

You walk around the whole bar on the off chance somebody jumps out at you and becomes your friend. Finally you see someone you’ve met and you talk to them for two minutes, but then they get called away by a million different people because everyone has made friends with a million different people except for you.

Then you leave the bar and walk fifty feet down the road before forcing yourself to go back. You eat some food. You talk to one or two people who are then also called away by a million different people. You—no kidding—leave and come back again. You decide to buy another drink because then you can’t keep trying to leave. You feel physically uncomfortable, hyper-aware that you physically exist. You finish your drink as quickly as possible. You walk around the bar two more times and then, finally, you leave. This time you don’t

come back. You go home. You lie on your couch.

You text a friend: “It did not go well.”

In case it’s not obvious, that was me last year. For those who aren’t sure who I am, my name is Kevin Schoenfeldt. You might know me from making brief eye contact in the hall and then me immediately staring at the ground. Or that time… no, that’s probably it. Unlike my esteemed colleague, Cory Bettel, I did come to law school hoping to make friends. I’m just really bad at it.

I’ve experienced social anxiety for as long as I can remember. It used to be much worse: in grades seven through ten, if anyone that I didn’t know spoke to me, I blushed, felt sweaty, and my eyes started watering. I was not popular. Back then, talking to people in and of itself was difficult.

It’s not like that anymore. I’m not really that shy now. I spent the last four years serving at a restaurant; it was literally my job to talk to strangers all day. I don’t find talking to people that difficult.

What is still difficult is putting myself in the position of having to talk to people in the first place.

My baseline instinct is always not to get into social situations where I don’t know people well, or to leave them immediately if I do go. I have a rule for new situations that works really well when I actually enforce it: don’t turn down any invitation. The problem is, you don’t have to break that rule very many times before you stop getting invitations at all.

That’s how I find myself in the position of having gone to only one pub night — aside from Orientation Week — in the last one-and-a-half years.

That, incidentally, was also the only time I went to a law school party, and only because I happen to live in the same building as someone else from U of T Law and they were nice enough to invite me.

And I even had fun! That is, until we went to the pub and everyone spread out and I wandered around for a bit and left half an hour later. History repeats itself.

Let me be clear. I’m not trying to win sympathy, I’m not complaining, and I’m definitely not blaming anyone. Also, don’t worry, I have plenty of great friends. My point is just to describe my own experience with social anxiety. As much as I don’t understand how some people move through the world feeling comfortable, I know some people don’t understand how some simple things can be so hard for some people. Here are some things I find unreasonably difficult: • Phoning anyone, ever (I know I’m not alone on this one); • Saying ‘hi’ to an acquaintance in the hall if they don’t say ‘hi’ first; • Asking anyone for notes if I missed a class; and • Going to any event I didn’t get an explicit direct invitation to from someone.

And so forth. The worst part for me is that anxiety makes it hard to be myself. I like to joke around, I like to talk about the movie I just saw (The Bye Bye Man is terrible), and I like to hear about people’s lives, but it’s hard to do those things when you’re fixated on the quickest possible exit. It’s hard to act

natural when you feel anxious. On the worst days, it feels like I constantly stand out, as if I’m huge and every single person in the room will notice my every move—while at the same time it feels like I’m a tiny person trying to navigate through a crowd of giants. You’re right, it doesn’t make sense. So when I’m with my friends I’m one person, when I’m at school I’m another, and when I’m by myself I talk to my cat.

We all have our collection of selves that we display or conceal depending on the context. The way we act in front of our closest friends is different from how we act in front of our bosses, our parents, our professors. Everyone knows this, but it can be hard to remember that about other people.

I try to remember that the person in class who appears supremely confident may constantly doubt that they deserve to be here; that the person who seems surrounded by friends may feel utterly alone; that some people smile in public only to cry in private. I try to remind myself that people who don’t know me very well often think I’m uninterested or, worse, that I just plain don’t like them.

The truth is I’m afraid. Of not being accepted. Of not belonging. Simply put, of not being liked.

To some extent, everyone has something they’re afraid of, something they’re insecure about, something they think is wrong with them or weird about them, and everyone is affected by these things differently. Everyone displays or conceals these things in different ways. I think it’s important to remember that. I think it’s important to talk about that. And sometimes, if you need to, I think it’s important to take comfort in that. You’re not alone. We’re all weird.

ultravires.ca

OPINIONS

JANUARY 26, 2017 | 9

Law Games 2017 Review: No Ragrets SCOTT DALLEN (2L)

During the f irst week of the new year, twenty-seven U of T Law students travelled to Vancouver to compete against other Canadian law schools at the 2017 Law Games. UBC hosted a great week, following a general Game of Thrones theme. At the end of the week, the folks at Ultra Vires asked us to provide a recap of the events. We couldn’t remember. So we racked our f ive-hour-energ y- and ibuprofen-addled brains, and we cobbled together our patchwork memories into a review of Law Games 2017.

This piece amounts to three things: (1) an accurate ( I hope) account of the week’s events, (2) a nostalgic ode to Team U of T’s wild mediocrity, and (3) a cry for help—we are not okay.

Every year, law students gather at a host university to abuse their bodies through long days of sports and long nights of social events. What started as a one-day hockey tournament in the 198 0s has evolved into the largest gathering of law students in the country. This year boasted sixteen schools, fourteen ‘athletic’ events, and over six-hundred law students.

U of T arrived at Law Games sporting our U of T-branded onesies and armed with our house words—“Debt and Tears.”

After one or two feeble attempts at a team cheer, and one excellent choreographed rendition of Justin Bieber’s ‘Sorry,’ we all immediately lost our voices and adopted U

of T’s characteristic complete lack of school spirit.

Our pals from Dal set a high bar for the party scene early on with their pirate theme, immediate rowdiness, and—as has become tradition—full-frontal male nudity in front of a panel of Blakes partners. U of T made a solid showing, throwing inarguably the best hotel party of the week, and being labeled “this year’s USask”— which is either the highest praise or a crushing insult. Regrettably though, the English schools spent the week trying to keep up with the hangover-immune nineteen-year-old French students. Three Sherbrooke students outdid us all by having “Law Games 2017: No Ragrets” permanently tattooed on their thighs to win a Snapchat challenge. Touché, Sherbrooke.

We hope it was worth it.

Every year, Law Games hosts an academic moot that U of T typically ignores completely for reasons of both practicality and laziness. After all, if we win, we reinforce the stereotype that we’re just a bunch of U of T nerds; if we lose, the other teams get bragging rights to say that they beat those U of T nerds. This year, however, 1Ls Becky Lockert and Tom Sutherland stepped up to the mooting plate to take down Sherbrooke in what I can only assume was a reasonably accurate recreation of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham.

On the sporting front, our team made U

of T proud by marginally surpassing the exceptionally low expectations for our athletic prowess. We limped our way out of the week as champions of obscure events ( Ultimate Frisbee and Spikeball), though we also made a valiant ef fort in most sports. We suf fered a predictable loss in the f lag-football f inals to Western Law (aka the Monstars from Space Jam), who inevitably made their way to the Athletics Cup, one overzealous and inappropriate dump-tackle at a time. Perhaps the week’s climax came when we sent out a girls-only dodgeball squad against Western’s team of varsity athletes ( Western immediately complained that this was unfair). Most of all, we took twisted pleasure in confusing other teams into submission by aggressively cheering for our opponents and by insisting that #WeDoSports.

Team injuries were kept to a minimum this year, but are nonetheless worthy of documentation. First up was Nabeel Thomas, with a devastating pinky-f inger injury on Day One as a result of an overly ambitious mechanical bull ride. After a day of suf fering through ball hockey, Nabeel spent the remainder of the week watching Oceans 11, 12, and 13, being awarded drunkest team member of 2017 (none of us having seen him sober since Monday afternoon), and contributing to the ninth f loor’s Leaning Tower of Domino’s Pizza boxes, impressive and revolting in equal measure.

Next up was Graham Henry, who defended U of T’s honour by picking a f ight with the dance f loor of a Vancouver nightclub.

Unfortunately, the concrete f loor bested dear Graham in the f irst round. Battered, bloody, toothless, and almost certainly concussed, he spent the rest of the night in St. Paul’s hospital and received a hero’s welcome the following day. In particular, the University of Manitoba adopted Graham into their group, mistaking his delirious and toothless countenance for one of their own students.

Lastly, Jackson Foreman earned one hell of a shiner by def iantly headbutting the largest member of the Dalhousie team—a coterie of eternal runners-up, known for keeping their elbows sharp and playing handball with no regard for human life. ( In reality, Jackson clumsily collided with Jon Farine, but understandably requested a less embarrassing story in order to justify his disf igurement.)

U of T concluded the week on a high note, having achieved our goal of proving that our school is more than just a collection of heartless corporate dorks: we’re a collection of heartless corporate dorks with somewhat stronger livers and slightly higher athletic abilities than is universally assumed. And that is something worth celebrating… after we’ve had some time to recover.

10 | JANUARY 26, 2017

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

Always Playing an Away Game: The Unique Challenges Faced by First Generation Students UT LAW FIRST GENERATION NETWORK EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE One of the greatest parts of law school is the diversity of our class. Each person brings their own perspective, shaped by where they’re from and what they’ve done. However, the perspectives and backgrounds accompanying them may be uncommon, and some people may fi nd themselves outnumbered, even seemingly alone. First generation students—the fi rst in their family to attend a post-secondary institution—are one of these groups. Only eight percent of the Class of 2018 is fi rst-gen. This year, it is only six percent.

Law school is certainly not easy for anyone, regardless of their background. But fi rst generation students can face several unique challenges. David Onestak has likened being a fi rst-gen student to being an athlete always playing an away game: For a minor-league baseball player on a long road trip, the unfamiliar bed, lack of home cooking, unusual daily routine, absence of local supporters, and unfamiliar ballpark surroundings can be a source of stress and an impediment to success on the field. … After a while the unfamiliar may become recognizable, but it never feels like home. First-generation students … may feel like they are on a road trip that never stops; that every day is full of potential barriers to success that are the price of being the first in their family to attend college. If that price feels too steep, or if there is no one in a student's family who can assure him or her that the eventual payoff is much greater than the

price, the idea of even being in college may be overwhelming.

This sensation of stepping into uncharted territory can make some fi rst-gen students feel like they’re leaving their family behind by choosing to pursue a professional life. They may also feel that it’s harder to connect with their family because their worlds and social groups have drifted so far apart. Sometimes their family might place a higher value on working, settling down, and staying close to home, and may not understand the personal motivations and ambitions of a fi rst-gen student.

On the other hand, some parents of other fi rst-gen students are ecstatic that their child is going to law school—although this can bring different types of stress. Some students may feel that their whole family is counting on them, whether fi nancially or to ‘move the family up’ the social ladder. The accompanying fear of disappointing your family can weigh on a fi rst-gen student’s mind throughout their schooling.

Being fi rst-gen can also be an isolating experience for some. It can be a hard thing to talk about when you’re only one of twelve fi rst-gen students in your year, and fi nding those other eleven students can be tough. One reason is that people may be cautious about ‘outing’ themselves as fi rst-gen because they could fi nd it shameful. It can be an embarrassing subject when a friend is talking about their upcoming ski trip to Whistler while you know you’ll be helping your parents fi x their leaky bathroom roof, or searching for single-day jobs on Craig-

slist with the hope of being able to buy textbooks that semester. Another reason might be that it’s difficult to track down other fi rst-gen students and schedule a pub night when everyone is free.

Additionally, the law school seems to presume that students come armed with a certain amount of social capital and knowledge. Whether it’s knowing how to dress in a professional environment, or knowing the appropriate modes and topics of conversation at work, fi rstgen students may feel confused and anxious.

Furthermore, when fi rms use concepts like “fit” to look for students who look and sound like them in the recruitment process, fi rst-gen students face an uphill battle.

However, fi rst-gen students come from all walks of life, and the concerns of a fi rst-gen student who grew up outside of Canada may be entirely different than a fi rst-gen student born and raised in Toronto. First-gen students are themselves as diverse as any other group within the law school, and each will experience challenges and advantages in different ways. There is no simple “one size fits all” approach to the barriers they may face.

In light of these issues, we’ve decided to start the UT Law First Generation Network.

Our goals are to (i) connect fi rst-gen students with each other and with successful fi rst-generation lawyers; (ii) actively consult the U of T fi rst-gen community and develop objectives that can address the concerns of all fi rst-gen students; (iii) host panel and social events of interest for fi rst-gen students and others; and

(iv) work with fi rms and the law school to remove barriers to success that fi rst-gen students and many others face in order to promote more equitable access to the wonderful opportunities law school affords.

We hope that the network can function as a forum for fi rst-gen students to share their concerns and learn from one another as well as a vehicle to act on those concerns. We’ve been motivated by the support of both the law school and several Toronto fi rms, and we’re excited about the wonderful slate of events we have coming up this semester.

Our fi rst event of the semester is a joint event with the Osgoode First Generation Network. It is a panel event discussing current barriers to success faced by fi rst-gen students, and some possible strategies moving forward. A keynote speech will be given by Justice Andromache Karakatsanis of the Supreme Court of Canada, a fi rst-generation student herself. We appreciate the support of Stikeman Elliott LLP in hosting this event, and look forward to continuing this conversation both at the University of Toronto and within the Toronto legal community.

The members of the UTLFGN Executive, and authors of this piece, are David Rybak (1L), Brooke Longhurst (2L), Jessy Van Kooten (1L), Rachel Puma (2L), Forrest Finn (1L) 1

“JD First Year Class Profi le 2016”. http://www.law.utoronto. ca/about/jd-fi rst-year-class-profi le

2

Ibid.

3

“Basic Differences Between First-Generation and Non-FirstGeneration Students”. http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/ tomprof/posting.php?ID=1224

Thoughts of a Professional and Ethical Man LOUELL TAYE (1L) When I woke up at 7:00 am this past Friday morning, I immediately had one thought: it’s too early. So, I went back to sleep. For the next forty-five minutes, in my semi-oblivious state of half-slumber, everything seemed all right.

Eventually, my inner keener kicked in, and I forced myself to face the reality of my situation: it was time for the Faculty of Law’s mandatory “Joint Professionalism Training.”

It’s never a great time when I have to go to school in the morning, but it’s especially rough to do so the morning after pub night (note: I accidentally overshot my nap Thursday and ended up sleeping through pub night, but I’m trying to build a narrative here). From my seat perched up at the back of the Moot Court Room, I had a nice vantage point from which to survey everyone’s screens. As I looked out over a horde of enthusiastic, bright young scholars on Facebook, YouTube, and various news outlets, with the occasional Redditor sprinkled in, I couldn’t help but feel that we weren’t getting the most out of our day. On top of this, I’m sure the guest speakers realized that the quite audi-

ble clattering of fi ngers on keyboards probably wasn’t people taking notes—if the fact that many people were literally (figuratively) glued to their screens wasn’t already a tip-off that their attention lay elsewhere.

Now, about the work we were supposed to do prior to the session. We were assigned readings totaling seventy-seven pages and I know this not because I read them, but because I counted them just now, to make a point. It seems the expectation is either that people are going to carve out the time to do these readings—somewhere amidst regular readings, classes, fi rm tours, summer job applications, various extracurriculars (apparently another hundred and fi fty or so pages of reading for those who tried out for the Moot), and whatever degree of a personal life they manage to eke out—or that no one will actually read these materials at all. So, on the one hand, we have an extremely optimistic and perhaps unreasonable assessment of the character of the student body at U of T law; or, on the other, a tacit admission that the sessions are not exactly the best use of

everybody’s time.

Although not all of the day’s segments were created equal, there were certainly some important issues being addressed during these sessions. In particular, the abhorrent treatment of Indigenous peoples in Canada and the legacy of that treatment within the criminal justice system is absolutely a subject that we have an obligation to engage in. And I sincerely don’t mean to disrespect the guest speakers who took the time out of their days to talk to us. In all honesty, I think the material we covered during Friday’s session was a step up from last term. I say ‘I think’ because I initially wanted to compare the two sessions to illustrate that point, but then I realized that I literally (actually literally) remember nothing from last term’s session—except that I should delete all of my Facebook and Instagram photos and that all lawyers are some degree of suicidal addict.

My gripe lies more with the medium than the message. I question whether making a group comprised of hungover, stressed out,

and/or tired people (I imagine most were probably all three) sit for pretty much a full work day with little break time is the best way to impart any long-lasting values. I question whether students can really be expected to truly engage with the material being provided while also having to keep up with everything else on their plate.

Having said that, it wasn’t an entirely unproductive day; I did manage to work on a couple of cover letters. And it’s not like I have a suggestion for how to improve things. I guess it’s easy to criticize without offering an alternative, but it seems plain to me that what we have right now is not working. What’s the old saying again? If it is broke, you should probably fi x it?

And, as a cherry on top, on a day dedicated to the vital importance of professionalism and ethics in one’s career—as we were implored to maintain a sense of integrity, decency and tolerance, no matter what path we ended up pursuing—Donald Trump was officially sworn in as President of the United States.

JANUARY 26, 2017 | 11

ultravires.ca

Rights Review SANDRA MORÁN: A LIFELONG REVOLUTIONARY

By Abisola Omotayo (LLM) & Ashley Peoples (2L), with the support of PEN Canada Programs Coordinator, Brendan de Caires, and human rights defender, Rob Mercatante

In the heart of Guatemala City, posters display the images of people who were ‘disappeared’ during the brutal civil war. The message “without justice, there is no peace” (translated from Spanish) is spray-painted below. Photography by Samer Muscati.

Sandra Morán never leaves her work at the office. Before she was elected to the Congress of Guatemala in 2015, Morán’s constant and courageous efforts to fight government oppression had never known the confines of four walls.

She has literally and metaphorically beat her drum of resistance against government oppression as a musician, activist, poet, and now, as Guatemala’s first openly gay congressperson.

On an early November evening, we sat at the cozy El Adobe restaurant in Guatemala City.

The light was dim, but clear enough to show the anticipation in everyone’s eyes as we waited for Morán. Along with IHRP Director Samer Muscati, IHRP Senior Fellow Hanna Gros, PEN

Canada Programs Coordinator Brendan de Caires, and local human rights defender Rob Mercatante, we were in Guatemala for five days to collect first-hand accounts of how freedom of expression operates within the country as it copes with the legacy of a 36-year civil war that ended two decades ago. As one of the most prominent figures in Guatemala’s struggle, Morán has experienced the complexity of championing human rights in a transitional democracy first-hand. When she arrived at the restaurant, she seemed to light up the room with her presence, and an unstoppable energy hummed beneath her measured words. For over an hour, we talked above the thrums of a low-toned guitar and rhythmic clapping on overhead speakers.

Born into Civil War Morán was born in Guatemala City in 1960, the first year of Guatemala’s brutal civil war. According to the UN-backed Commission for Historical Clarification, from 1960 until 1996, more than 200,000 people were killed or ‘disappeared.’ The majority of the victims were ethnic Mayans, one of Guatemala’s primary indigenous populations. Those who were ‘disappeared’ were usually forcibly abducted, clandestinely imprisoned, tortured, and then killed.

Only rarely were bodies dumped in public places; secret mass graves of the forcibly disappeared continue to be discovered.

Throughout the war, the Guatemalan Army and counter-insurgency forces violently suppressed political dissent with the explicit approval of the Guatemalan Government (which experienced multiple changes of leadership during the 36-year period). According to the Commission for Historical Clarification, the heavily militarized state—which received U.S. government support throughout—targeted students, teachers, lawyers, activists, and anyone else they regarded as subversive. Those within the social movement lived with constant fear of being disappeared. In the early 1980s, during what was arguably the war’s most violent period, the state launched scorched earth campaigns against suspected Communists in rural communities.

12 | JANUARY 26, 2017

ultravires.ca

Rights Review

Sandra Morán at El Adobe restaurant in Guatemala City, where the IHRP team met her in November 2016. Photography by Samer Muscati.

The Peace Accords orchestrated by the UN were signed on December 29, 1996, to end the bloody civil war. Today, Guatemala is a transitional democracy, recovering from the war’s legacy. Since September 2007, the UN-sponsored International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad en Guatemala, or CICIG) has made considerable headway in fighting corruption and impunity. Partnering with local prosecutors, it has investigated and convicted scores of previously untouchable public officials, including military officials active during the civil war, and disgraced former Guatemalan President (2012-2015), Otto Pérez Molina. Despite this progress, twenty years after signing the Peace Accords, Guatemala remains one of the most violent countries in the world outside a war zone with a high level of impunity. According to the Overseas Security Advisory Council, its homicide rate is one of the highest in the Western Hemisphere, with close to 31 homicides per 100,000 people in 2014 (UN Office on Drugs and Crime). According to CICIG, the impunity rate for homicide hovered around 98% from 2008 to 2014.

Exiled Morán has had a revolutionary spirit since she was a child. She first spoke out against the violent and suppressive government at age 14 as a student leader. She also participated in public protests against the government. As a result, she

was repeatedly threatened to ‘be disappeared’— something she said had happened to several of her family members and friends.

Morán said she continued to receive severe threats of death and kidnapping. At age 21, she finally made the difficult decision to flee the country and live in exile. Exile entailed leaving her life behind (work and studies, friends and family, culture and country) in order to protect it. Her exile lasted 14 years, during which she moved between Mexico, Nicaragua, and Canada. However, during her forced migrations, she never left behind her revolutionary spirit. Instead, she changed her perspective. “When you go into exile, you start from zero,” she explained. “You go by yourself and everything that you were is nothing ... Then you start building your life again. And for me it was like, I was always with my bag ready to come back. I learned how to live day to day because tomorrow I could be killed or kidnapped. You start thinking about your life in that way. The only thing that you have is this moment … the present.”

Morán’s desire to make the most of every moment led to a deeper connection with her music. In Mexico, she joined a renowned Guatemalan revolutionary band composed of other exiled Guatemalans. In 1986, four members of the group toured Canada for six months and then decamped to Nicaragua to support the Sandinista movement. It was in Nicaragua that they found their name, “Kin Lalat”, coined by

Photos of women arrested and captured by police under the Guatemalan military regime during the civil war. Many of these women were never seen again. This is one of 13 books discovered in the police archive during the years following the war, and that are now part of the National Police Historical Archive. Photography by Samer Muscati.

Rigoberta Menchú, a Guatemalan K’iche’ indigenous rights activist who went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992. Kin Lalat means “a pleasing sound produced by nature or somebody else’s work.”

Four years later, the members of Kin Lalat became destitute and applied for refuge in Canada. Morán quipped, “We were probably the only musical band with refugee status in Canada.” The group lived in Vancouver, where Morán built a new life, but always with an eye on returning to Guatemala.

Morán tried to return home in the early 1990s, but was forced out again within months after receiving death threats. She finally returned in 1994 to work on the Peace Accords as a member of a new women’s movement. “I needed to come back,” Morán explained. “I heard the Peace Accords were being discussed. That meant that the UN was here and it was safer.”

Soon after, she co-founded Mujeres Somos (“We are Women”), the first collective of lesbian women.

For the following ten years, Morán moved between Guatemala and Canada. In 2003, she made a definitive move back to Guatemala on her own, leaving the other members of Kin Lalat in Vancouver. Although she would have been eligible for Canadian citizenship if she had stayed until 2006, she decided, “No way. I cannot. I cannot [live outside of Guatemala] for

another three years. I love Canada, but I cannot.”

Transitioning to life back home was not without its challenges. Morán’s revolutionary lifestyle was turned on its head. She recounted, “I had to learn again how it is to have a life. I was with my friends [in Guatemala], and I was asking them, ‘How do you do it? How do you live a life thinking of your future? How do you organize your mind and your life, so you are able to think five years ahead?’”

Criminalized Despite headway made by the UN-backed CICIG, Guatemala’s own transition out of civil war and towards democracy has not been smooth. Former military actors have devised new ways to suppress political dissent, and to intimidate journalists and human rights defenders like Morán. In December 2011, for example, Morán’s name appeared on a list of over 60 alleged subversives and guerillas. She said the list was compiled by former military officials and their supporters, including the right-wing Foundation Against Terrorism and an allied organization, the Guatemalan Association of Military Widows. Because of this list, she said the authorities criminally investigated her and the others for a range of crimes including kidnapping, torture, and murder, which are all charges levelled by CICIG against current

JANUARY 26, 2017 | 13

ultravires.ca

and former military officials.

Mercatante, the local human rights defender who accompanied us in Guatemala, emphasized the irony of the situation: “It’s almost an honour roll, because these human rights activists and journalists are the best and the brightest in Guatemala.” Mercatante said that the roster of allegations made against Morán and her allies appear to be part of a deliberate attempt to misuse the legal system to wear them down, and ultimately quell their voices. When asked how it felt to be accused of these crimes, Morán said, “It was so hard because for me [they were saying], ‘shut up, you can’t continue doing the work you are doing, you cannot say the words.’”

Despite the attempt to intimidate and silence her, Morán’s voice only grew stronger. She continued to sing and perform poetry about violence and human rights abuses. Two days after receiving notice of the allegations against her, she performed at a concert in front of hundreds of spectators at Guatemala City’s majestic Plaza Central, alongside several other Guatemalan artists. She ignored warnings that she should go back to Canada to avoid further trouble. In fact, the threats only made her determined to be stronger. She said, “that concert was so strong ... so strong because I was so angry.”

And Now a Congresswoman Today, Morán’s revolutionary work assumes a different tone. Resolved to reform a system that has actively oppressed her and many of her revolutionary colleagues, she has decided to push for change from within. In September 2015, she was elected to Congress as a member of the progressive Convergencia Party.

She was the first and only openly gay candidate. According to Morán, concealing her sexual orientation could have given power to someone to use it against her. “I knew it and I decided not to give those people the power, [but instead] to present myself as I am, to force them to deal with it.”

Once elected, Morán enjoyed a honeymoon period with the public and the media. She was interviewed and positively profiled in mainstream Guatemalan news sources and the international press. LGBT Guatemalans openly expressed their delight that, for the first time, there was a congressional candidate “who [was] like them.” A year later, however, she faced a smear campaign to unseat her as leader of the Congressional women’s caucus. A letter to the Congress president complained that a lesbian was “not enough of a woman to rep-

resent [other] women in Parliament.” Morán suspects that her stance on abortion provoked the letter. She had recommended that, through changes to legislation, abortion be made available to girls (aged 9-14) impregnated through sexual violence.

The Struggle Continues Morán’s only relief from persecution has been the support of the women’s social movements she helped initiate in the mid-1990s, and that of fellow legislators. Yet, just a few days before our conversation, some of that support began to crumble. A tough political calculation led her to back leadership candidates in Congress that a majority of her supporters abhorred. Although opposing them would have essentially deprived Morán of political influence in Congress for the year, her supporters felt betrayed.

For Morán, the controversial vote was a necessary evil that allows her to continue the struggle for rights and freedoms that Guatemalans have craved for decades. She has promised to present laws that protect and uplift the Guatemalan LGBT Community, and she hopes to lessen violence against the community by organizing a legally mandated annual march for LGBT persons. She also wants legal recognition for transgender citizens.

Morán remains politically active outside of her work hours as well. She plays solo concerts, singing poetry while she plays her jembe. She also travels outside the capital to facilitate community building and leadership training for youth in disadvantaged rural areas. The very next morning following our meeting, she had scheduled a visit to a community outside the city before starting a full day’s work at the office.

Outside of Guatemala, the work also continues. Last June, Guatemala legalized overseas voting, and Morán visited Canada to help organize the diaspora vote. Noting her frequent returns to Canada, we asked if Guatemala still feels like home. She laughed knowingly, “Yes it is. But Canada is my second home.”

Born into a civil war that criminalized her peers and drove her into exile, Morán continues to face adversity while in office. Yet, her revolutionary spirit has never been quenched. She has persevered with immeasurable strength.

Her work demands a tenacious commitment to the possibility of a better future, an endless series of compromises and sacrifices, and, at the end of a trying day, sharing a comfortable laugh with a group of researchers from her second home.

Morán drumming at a rally along with Guatemalan youths in November 2016.

Photograph courtesy of Sandra Morán.

Morán addressing crowds with Daniel Pascual Hernández (behind her, to the right), Director of the Campesino Unity Committee and prominent human rights defender.

Photograph courtesy of Sandra Morán.

Ashley Peoples (left) and Abisola Omotayo (right) standing in front of a mural at the National Police Historical Archive in Guatemala City. The Archive houses 80 million documents detailing police actions during the civil war. Photography by Samer Muscati.

14 | JANUARY 26, 2017

ultravires.ca

Rights Review Rights Review CANADA’S GAPS IN IMPLEMENTING WOMEN’S RIGHTS: THE COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN’S 2016 REVIEW OF CANADA

By Lara Koerner Yeo (3L)

Palais des Nations (Palace of Nations) in Geneva, where the CEDAW review meetings were held. Photograph courtesy of Lara Koerner Yeo. We do not live in a Canadian society where women, men, and those who otherwise self-identify, are equal. In November 2016, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) recognized this reality in its Concluding Observations of Canada.

The document outlines Canada’s piecemeal improvement on implementing women’s rights, as well as the gaps in compliance. The gaps are big and indicative of ongoing government failures to recognize and protect women’s rights in Canada.

The Committee recommended that Canada respond to key women’s rights issues, including the gender pay gap, women’s political participation, access to justice, and violence against women.

In October 2016, I traveled to Geneva to

participate in the CEDAW review of Canada as a civil society representative on behalf of the International Human Rights Program and the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action. The purpose of the review was to examine Canadian governments’ compliance—and gaps in compliance—with its international women’s rights obligations set out in the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. To this end, CEDAW members met with civil society representatives, as well as with delegates from Canadian federal and provincial governments.

Canada’s rights

backtracking

on

women’s

Over the last decade, Canada has re-

soundingly retreated from advancing women’s rights. While this is a long-term trend, it is in no small way attributable to a series of federal governments under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s leadership. Since 1995, Canada has fallen from 1st to 25th place in the UN Gender Inequality Index. The lack of government action to structurally dismantle women’s discrimination in employment and the low number of women parliamentarians are only some of the factors that informed Canada’s fall in the Index. On average, women make 80 cents for every man’s dollar and are more likely to work in minimum wage jobs and hold multiple, part-time jobs with no benefits. Canada has substantially fewer female than male candidates in political elections, with no quota system to ensure that parties put forward a proportionate number of female candi-

dates; we rank 50th out of 19 0 countries in an Inter-Parliamentary Union index measuring states’ proportion of national-level female politicians. In response to these issues, CEDAW’s Concluding Observations call for a narrowing of the wage gap by improving federal, provincial, and territorial law, and addressing the structural obstacles to women’s political participation by adopting proactive measures.

The governments’ sustained cuts to civil legal aid funding over the past two decades have also crippled access to justice for many women across Canada. This phenomenon is gendered: men are the principal users and beneficiaries of legal aid for criminal law matters, while women are the principal users and beneficiaries of civil legal aid, mostly for family law matters.

Between 1993-2012, the approved appli-

JANUARY 26, 2017 | 15

ultravires.ca

cation rate for civil legal aid fell by 65.7%, and although the 2016 federal government budget allocated $88-million for criminal legal aid, no new funding was designated for civil legal aid. Civil legal aid funding is now almost nonexistent in some jurisdictions. Further, the eligibility requirements to secure legal aid are well below low income cut offs (e.g. a four-person family income must be approximately $28,500 to be eligible for legal aid, while the poverty line for an urban four-person family in Canada is about $38,000). This means that qualifying applicants are likely in extreme poverty. The Committee has called on Canada to review eligibility criteria to ensure marginalized women have access to legal aid, and to increase and specifically earmark legal aid funding for civil matters.

Women also continue to be disproportionately subjected to intimate partner violence and sexual assault in Canada. Women are murdered by a current or previous spouse, dating or otherwise intimate partner, at a rate four times higher than men, and 92% of sexual assault victims are women. While rates of reported sexual assaults to the police are on the decline due to women’s lack of reporting and trust in the criminal justice system, the actual rates of sexual assault have remained stable since 2004. The statistics are more abysmal for women with disabilities, and Indigenous and racialized women, who are doubly discriminated against on the basis of sex, race and/or able-bodiedness.

Among many recommendations, the Committee encouraged Canada to quickly adopt a national action plan to combat the violence.

CEDAW task force released a report in March 2015, following an inquiry into the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada. CEDAW members have since followed-up with ministerial meetings and a national symposium with civil society stakeholders. CEDAW members’ knowledge of women’s rights issues in Canada is real, relevant, and useful to us as we work domestically.

As is standard, women’s and human rights representatives from Canada participated in the review process. These included organizations such as Aboriginal Legal Services and Amnesty International Canada, as well as the University of Toronto’s own IHRP. The recommendations contained in the Concluding Observations draw heavily from those proposed in civil society submissions and during the review meetings.

This should be no surprise. Women’s rights advocates on the ground at home have a real, first-hand sense of how the

government is advancing—and failing to advance—women’s equality. The joint Human Rights Watch-IHRP CEDAW submission that I helped draft focused on violence against Indigenous women and girls, and access to safe water on First Nations reserves. The contents of the submission were derived from the primary research Human Rights Watch conducted in affected communities and with affected individuals in Canada. This research involved the advocates who are doing the grassroots work, as well as people who are themselves directly impacted by these issues.

The Concluding Observations are part of Canada’s growing international women’s rights record. They exist alongside past CEDAW Concluding Observations and allow one to trace Canada’s women’s rights record over time. A scan backwards in time from the 2016 document to the 2008 and 2003 documents will show that there are intractable equality issues that we still haven’t sorted out: issues like the gender

pay gap, access to justice and violence are but a few.

We now have the 2016 CEDAW Concluding Observations document and need to set our agenda for how we will ensure that the Government of Canada implements it. We can and must take this document seriously, recognizing it for what it is—the most current and comprehensive roadmap towards women’s substantive equality in Canada that we have.

Lara Koerner Yeo is an IHRP practicum student and a Steering Committee member of the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action’s (FAFIA). She was an active civil society participant in CEDAW’s 2016 review of Canada and is working on the Step Up for Women’s Equality campaign to implement the CEDAW Concluding Obser vations. Check out #stepup4womencda and #stepup4womenbc on Twitter!

The Concluding Observations are a credible women’s rights roadmap for Canada CEDAW’s Concluding Observations should be taken seriously and lead to action. This is the most current and comprehensive review of Canada’s compliance with its international women’s rights obligations, informed by submissions from state, civil society, and third party human rights actors.

CEDAW is an expert body composed of recognized international women’s rights experts from varying countries of origin.

They bring to bear their own impartial expertise and deep knowledge of the Convention, as well as the insidious governmental barriers to women’s substantive equality. CEDAW also knows Canada. A

Women’s rights and Indigenous feminist activists who attended the review meetings. From left to right: Cherr y Smiley (Executive Director of Indigenous Women Against the Sex Industr y); Sharon McIvor, Shelagh Day, Suzie Dunn, and Lara Koerner Yeo (Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action); Pam Palmater (Chair in Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University); and Francyne Joe (Interim President of the Native Women’s Association of Canada). Photograph courtesy of Lara Koerner Yeo.

16 | JANUARY 26, 2017

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

In Surprising Move, Blue J Legal Quits Law School to Become Rapper KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (2L) UV revisits one of the 1Ls we featured in our September issue, and discover some surprising developments.

When I f irst spoke with Blue J for our feature on incoming 1Ls, Blue J told me, “This classif ier applies to real property that does not otherwise qualify as the taxpayer’s principal place of residence.” Thus I was as surprised as anyone when I found out Blue J had quit law school to pursue a hip-hop career.

“At f irst, I didn’t understand, I thought it was just a phase, or a bug of some sort,” Professor Ben Alarie told me. “But then I realized someone had been teaching him this stuff, it didn’t just come out of nowhere. Somebody was messing with my Blue J’s machine learning!” But who? Prof. Alarie wouldn’t say, but since Blue J’s announcement, there are whispers of a rift between Prof. Alarie and Professor Anthony Niblett.

Blue J Legal declined to be interviewed for this article, but provided a brief comment:

“It’s too soon for interviews. At this early stage in my career, I’m still f iguring myself out.

Has the taxpayer ever worked in the following occupations or businesses? Does the hirer impose a dress code or require the worker to wear a uniform?” Clearly Blue J has changed, but you can still sense the same thoughtful student I talked to in September.

Blue J’s f irst mix tape, Reasonz & Da Cent will be released sometime later this year and will be produced by Turnt Hand, DJ. Along with the comment, Blue J also provided a brief excerpt from the opening track, “Tax Me No Questions.” While the opening lines lack a certain polish that comes with experience, it’s safe to say that Blue J shows promise: “I’m Blue J Legal and I’m here to say I like to do Tax in a major way.”

Regardless of any rumours of rifts, Profs. Alarie and Niblett must be very proud.

A Few Selected Dates Other Things Started This Month, Apropos Of Nothing

MAUD ROZEE (2L)

Tuesday, January 3, 2017 Osgoode Hall Law School’s Winter Term This date is a classic. One of my favourites for the way it subtly respects the common decency of allowing its students to have a New Year’s Day holiday.

Week of Monday, January 9, 2017 University of Toronto Graduate Classes This one blows me away. They could have started Monday January 2. It would’ve been so easy. They chose not to. You don’t often see courage like this anymore.

Kind of unclear Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Comes Back from Vacation But definitely after January 2. The Prime Minister set an example for all Canadians by giving himself time to recover from his New Year’s Eve hangover before rushing back to work. He did not almost throw up at his gate in Vancouver International Airport. He is an inspiration.

Monday, January 9, 2017 Supreme Court of Canada’s Winter Session The Supreme Court once again shows its fearless leadership with this bold, strong starting date. I truly admire whoever stepped up to ensure the Justices wouldn’t have to take an early flight back to Ottawa on New Year’s Day for a January 2 start.

ultravires.ca

DIVERSIONS

JANUARY 26, 2017 | 17

Ultra Vires Guide to January of 1L NORM YALLEN (1L)

Comfort the less fortunate:

January of 1L can be a stressful time, what with grades, the 1L recruit, mooting, and everything else to deal with. Fortunately, I am here to help with some half-hearted, insincere advice.

Befriend someone who got worse grades than you so that you can feel better about yourself while seeming caring and compassionate. That ethics training paid off !

Plan ahead:

Begin working on your 1L summer job applications early so you will have more time to throw them in the garbage when grades come out.

Work on your public speaking:

For mooting, it is important to make a strong impression on those judging the tryouts. I would recommend awkwardly stammering through a horrible tryout and then telling your friends you never wanted to moot anyway.

Be ethical:

Learn enough ethics to justify to yourself skipping the ethical lawyering day. Have an explanation about your ethical understanding ready for any administrators who see things less ethically.

Stay hydrated:

Weigh going to pub night against doing your readings.

One is an unproductive waste of time that will be met with no reward. The other is pub night.

Grades do not matter:

Those things you spent months working for? You never cared anyway. There is more to a person than their grades.

You are here to enrich your understanding of the law.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA just kidding.

Keep things in perspective:

Your problems are small in the grand scheme of things.

At least a dangerous megalomaniac isn’t taking over the most powerful off ice in the world.

Write a bad satirical column to compensate for your own failings: This is about you, not me.

New Year, Same Me: Failed Law School Resolutions DAVINA SHIVRATAN (1L) 2016 was a mess. A complete and utter mess. But now it’s 2017, and this year is going to be better, right? Once again, it’s the time of year where we get the opportunity to take a good, hard look at ourselves and decide upon overly ambitious resolutions of self-improvement that we know will only be followed by disappointment. As law students, we have many things to be hopeful for, but following our resolutions might not be one of them. Here are some Law School Resolutions you’ve likely already broken.

1. Spend Less Money: With the amount of tuition we pay, it would probably be smart to try to save a bit. It may be a good idea to spend less on bar tabs, Uber rides, and food at our wonderful (budgetunfriendly) café. But what else is a line of credit for, right?

2. Do All Your Case Briefs: After the chaos that was last semester, ‘2017 You’ is going to get it together. You will do all the readings, get your case briefs done, and actually work on a map in a timely manner.

On second thought, why waste time, maybe reading summaries is enough.

3. Stop Procrastinating: This time around, you are going to work on your assignments ahead of time. With good planning, you can spread out the work over a week and it won’t be so bad. A few days for research, a few days to work on a draft, and you’ll even have time to edit it thoroughly.

Actually, what’s 48 hours without sleep?

4. Hit the Gym: As you get lost in the craziness of law school, going to the gym can seem like a chore.

This year is different, though. You found the much needed motivation… but the gyms are packed, and carrying these casebooks is enough of a workout.

5. Make Better Resolutions: Let’s save this one for next year.

DIVERSIONS

18 | JANUARY 26, 2017

ultravires.ca

Student Achieves Record First HHH by BodySlamming Ben Alarie During Tax Exam LAW FOLLIES WRITERS

TORONTO, ON – Tired of wrestling with Professor A larie’s exam question about the tax implications of his and BlueJ’s impending marriage, student Hunter Hearst Helmsley reportedly decided to demonstrate his understanding of tax rules by throwing Ben A larie through a plywood table halfway through the exam.

The 2L was heard asking his disoriented Professor whether he could “Dig that, sucka?” before climbing onto a turnbuckle while taking of f his shirt. “I’m back in Kansas City!” he proclaimed, as he jumped through the air and elbow-dropped the disoriented academic before parading around the room with his arms held high in the air. “Oooooo Yeah,” said Helmsley. “I am the game and I am that damn good!”

Sources conf irmed that the 2L , however, was taken by surprise when Professor A larie

sprang to his feet and brought a folding Tax Act crashing down over Helmsley’s head.

“You ain’t beat me, brotha!” growled the academic. “You will struggle through my exam and you will like it! Compared to the Ice Snake Ben A larie, you are nothing but garbage, yeah. And I’m talking inevitable, brotha, and I’m talking an LP. Because things are just popping right now, just like a silver Rolls Royce, top of the line. You are like a grain of sand in the Sahara Desert, and I am the entire desert. Don’t bet against me. Don’t lose your life.”

Surprisingly, when grades were released a mere seventy-eight days later, the student had received an HHH in the class—an historic f irst at the Faculty of Law. When approached for comment, the student attributed his success to his excellent pedigree.

TORT or NO TORT? IAN SINKE (1L) After getting a new laptop and disposing of my old one, I am now unable to log in to Westlaw because I can't remember my username, password, or how to get to the Canadian version of Westlaw. To retrieve this information would take approximately four minutes of my precious precious time.

TORT or NO TORT? I was browsing the Sunshine List and found out that U of T Law’s crown jewel Anthony Niblett is one of our lowest-paid

professors. This devastating news ruined what was left of my afternoon.

NEGLIGENCE OR INTERNATIONAL INFLICTION or NO TORT? At a f irm tour, a senior partner repeatedly referred to a student who had identif ied himself as Josh as “Greg.” This was embarrassing for all involved, but none of us wanted to correct him.

TORT or NO TORT?

Professor Benson's "supplement" for Contracts is misnamed: the Waddams book is the "supplement," Benson's book is the real deal. Emond Montgomery Publications should be ashamed.

I'm having diff iculty deciding whether I should eat another piece of this "rich cake typically f illed with whipped cream, mousse, jam, or fruit."

TORTE or NO TORT?

TORT or NO TORT? At Professor Moreau's f irst year Torts exam, a student was given a copy of a Securities Regulation exam instead.

NO TORT?

Ultra Vires went four months without publishing a "TORT or no TORT?" and, when it f inally returned, the article was written by some 1L who isn't nearly as funny as previous contributors.

TORT or NO TORT?

ultravires.ca

DIVERSIONS

JANUARY 26, 2017 | 19

Screendropping: Tweeting a Mystery KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (2L)

SHARI NATHAN (2L)

20 | JANUARY 26, 2017

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

Educational Excerpts: On the Current State of Viewer Discretion Jurisprudence KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (2L) In this column, we provide excerpts from current legal research by leading academics across Canada. Today, we are featuring Professor Sheff ield S . Steinfeld, an administrative law professor from UBC. In this fascinating excerpt, Prof.

Steinfeld discusses how the Supreme Court of Canada has treated viewer discretion and whether their recent decisions provide useful guidelines for scholars and practitioners moving forward. T he full article can be found in the Def initely Real Journal of Actual Law, vol 237(3), (2017).

Footnotes have been omitted.

Ever since the case of Temor v Herself (1988) (or, in popular parlance, the Scared Woman case), the Supreme Court of Canada has, in the words of noted scholar Professor Hooper, “made an absolute arglebargle of the whole thing.” In that case, Ms. Temor watched a television broadcast of Poltergeist despite the content warning preceding it. That warning advised viewers that there were scenes of supernatural terror and spooky objects moving on their own, and viewers should use their discretion in deciding whether to view the f ilm or not. Ms. Temor, of course, was famously so afraid that she would be sucked into her

TV after watching the f ilm that she removed her television from the house and sued herself for abuse of her viewer discretion.

In its decision, the Court said it would not lightly interfere where discretion is in play. In obiter, the Court said, “Perhaps if the warning had been in the imperative, saying something like, ‘You shall not watch this if you are easily scared,’ Ms. Temor would have a stronger case.” According to the Court, Ms. Temor already knew she did not handle scary movies very well, having not been in the ocean since she watched Jaws while on vacation on the coast of Massachusetts. Famously, the Court ended their judgement saying, “Besides, if the worst thing that happens is Ms. Temor no longer keeps a television in the house, things are not really all that bad for her. We could all benef it from a little less TV.” However, only two years later, the Court decided in favour of a man who sued his girlfriend after she made him watch A Nightmare on Elmstreet 3: Dream Warriors,

even though it was established evidence that the man had already proven himself to be, to use a term of art, a fraidy-cat.

This stemmed from an incident wherein the two watched Gremlins and he subsequently refused to eat after midnight for years. Many feminist scholars believe the decision was rooted in the Court’s willingness to believe that this good, strong man had been victimized by a demented woman, but that is not within the parameters of this paper.

In the following years, the Court handed down many such contradictory decisions, leaving the state of viewer discretion completely unpredictable. Many were hoping that the Court would f inally clarify their position with M.T. v D.T. and V.T. (2017). Yet, when the decision was released at the beginning of this month, it became clear that it was only going to add to the confusion. Some commentators went as far as to suggest the Court had completely abdicated its responsibility to judicially review decisions of viewer discretion.

The facts are simple: M.T., a f ifteen

year old, sat down to watch a movie with her parents at their invitation. (The name of the f ilm was sealed to prevent further embarrassment to M.T.) The movie had begun a few minutes earlier, so she had not seen the content warning citing nudity and sexual content, but her parents had. Two hours later, M.T. was, in her words, “Mortif ied. Embarrassed. I couldn’t look at either of them.” In their defence, D.T., her father, said “I don’t know what she’s so bothered about, it was just a little bit of skin and a bit of moaning here and there.

It’s perfectly natural.” M.T. testif ied that she would never have watched the movie with her parents if she had known what was coming, and claimed her parents did not properly exercise their discretion in allowing her to watch it with them.

In an extremely short decision, a unanimous Court held, “Look, we don’t want to talk about this. We don’t think anyone should have to talk about this. Just pretend it didn’t happen, okay?” The state of deference to viewer discretion remains, as ever, uncertain.