Ultra Vires Vol 19 Issue 1: 2017 September

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 | ULTRAVIRES.CA

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

*Editor's Note: It was really more like a difference of opinion but that doesn't rhyme nearly as well. Page 5

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE NEW STUDENT LOUNGE

FOLLIES CANCELLED

INDIGENOUS LAW IN CONTEXT

PAGE3

PAGE 13

PAGE 3

2 | September 27, 2017

ultravires.ca

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

ERRORS

Editors-in-chief News Editors Features Editors Opinion Editors Diversions Editors Business (School) Correspondent Foreign Correspondent Layout Editor Photo and Design Editor

Amani Rauff & Aidan Campbell Maud Rozee & Lily Hassall Shari Nathan & Chloe Magee SuJung Lee & Rachel Chan Kevin Schoenfeldt & Norm Yallen Mimi Pichette Nick Papageorge Alexandra Fox Shari Nathan

Letter from the Editors AIDAN CAMPBELL (3L) & AMANI RAUFF (3L)

If you find 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.

“I can't say I found it all distasteful,” opens a Faculty of Law Review article published thirty years ago last spring. It describes a deeply alienating law school experience of the late ‘80s—one that left room for neither creativity nor basic humanity.

Not much seems to have changed.

The key insight of the piece is that law school is ultimately about teaching us how to behave.

Particularly, how to behave in a way befitting the social position that our degree confers. This program is not, at its core, an intellectual endeavor, but finishing school.

Our chosen profession is innately conservative, hierarchical, deferential, and, above all, conformist. We are taught not just how to think like lawyers, but how to act like lawyers, and how to present information like lawyers. Dispassionate, even-handed.

Finishing school is not just for teaching proper behaviour, but for stamping out undesirable and improper habits. It is worth reflecting on who and what this profession seems to want to weed out. Too weird, too queer, too cultural. Just not a good “fit.”

SUCCESS SUPPORT BREEDS SUCCESS

In part, we do this to ourselves: the bulk of us are here for a very specific, vocational purpose.

And there isn’t anything inherently wrong with that. We live in a time of genuine scarcity.

There is a crisis in the legal profession, from which most of us have the good fortune to be isolated. Even still, there are too many of us for the work that we've left ourselves. Any loose ends we leave untucked can seem like a liability. So we edit, or conceal, to the degree that we are able.

We think this paper is at its best when it highlights what we should never tamp down. To share that with each other. To give voice to the odder, funnier, whimsical, and more opinionated side of the student body.

Our goal is to let all the gnarls and wonky edges we sand down, or hide under stiff shirts, come bursting through. To take a break from hyper-rationality and to let people talk about and debate things they care about because they care about them—not just for the purpose of showing how carefully they’ve crafted their arguments or how far ahead in the casebook they’ve read.

At Gowling WLG, we place a huge emphasis on providing the right support and training so that you can reach your full potential. That’s why we offer a comprehensive training program for law students like you.

As a law firm that’s making bold moves in the international legal market, we’re passionate about helping our people learn and grow — so that we can achieve even more together. It’s why we’ve been named as one of the Best Employers in Canada by Aon Hewitt for seven years running, and continue to be ranked among the world’s leading firms. Join us!

Learn more at gowlingwlg.com/students CANADA U. K. EUROPE MIDDLE EAST ASIA

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP is a member of Gowling WLG, an international law firm which consists of independent and autonomous entities providing services around the world. Our structure is explained in more detail at gowlingwlg.com/legal

Our paper will soldier on in the grand UV tradition of reporting on matters of tuition (it’s going up!), financial aid (it’s not going up nearly as fast!), mental health (it’s inadequately accommodated, both by the faculty and by the profession as a whole!), and all the other issues that will surely crop up, from the gravest of concerns to the pettiest of gripes. We will continue to facilitate these discussions, and to solicit and publish as many different and conflicting voices as possible.

We will, of course, continue to tell you terrible (and increasingly bizarre) jokes. And we are excited to fulfill our self-appointed duty of publishing scathing critiques of corrupt, appalling institutions like Law Follies and the Promise Auction.

We want to provide a platform for discussion of the role of the Faculty of Law and the legal profession in upholding the structures that make up our legal system and society. When we graduate, those of us who decide to pursue legal careers will play roles in shaping the legal system, whether actively or passively, whether purposely or not. Law school provides an opportunity to start thinking about the extent to which we want to be responsible for perpetuating the system as it exists now.

Finally, we hope that you’ll join in. A student newspaper is nothing without students. Pitch an article to us, contribute your ideas, writing, illustrations, photography—just send us an email at editor@ultravires.ca or talk to any of our divine editors. xoxoxo, Aidan & Amani Editor’s Note: the Faculty of Law Review piece mentioned is: Kerry Wilkins, "The Person You're Supposed To Become": The Politics of the Law School Experience, 45 U. Toronto Fac. L. Rev. 98 1987.

ultravires.ca

NEWS

September 27, 2017 | 3

Indigenous Law in Context: A Personal Reflection MEENA SUNDARARAJ (2L) This September, about thirty staff and students from U of T Law went to Neyaashiinigmiing Cape Croker Reserve and learned from experts on Anishinaabe law. This was the second year of our school’s Indigenous Law in Context program.

tude of meaning in the story. I considered the values it may have impressed upon people who heard it over generations, and its import at that moment in opening the perspectives of the diverse group before me.

I am not a knowledge-keeper of the teachings, so this piece will not narrate any of the stories or transmit what we learned in detail. I hope, rather, to share and reflect on some of what was imparted to us, and to encourage other students to learn about Indigenous laws.

The Anishinaabe constitution is partially concerned with constituting oneself in relation to other animate beings. Animacy is not restricted to humans or to animals: water, rocks, and our surroundings have intention, and they merit concern. Just one way of understanding this is considering that water contains the fossilized remains of creatures (there were countless imprints on the stones at Georgian Bay). Recognizing that water constitutes our bodies, the Anishinaabemowin word for water means “I am.” In the Anishinaabe legal system, water has a legal identity—not dissimilar to a Māori belief that led a New Zealand court to recognize a river as having a legal personality.

Anishinaabe law has many sources: convention, art, family, language. We spent one afternoon briefing an Anishinaabe story that raised questions both social and personal. We each found different meanings in the story, whether we related it to conflict and/or reconciliation between European settlers and Indigenous Peoples, the teachings of family, or individual actualization. I was struck by the magni-

Beyond learning about the law, we also took part in ceremonial practices. Many of us participated in the optional sweat lodge, a moment to reflect and look forward.

There was an enduring sense of welcome and renewal during the trip. Our hosts shared knowledge openly. They encouraged us to add our voices and taught us the equal value of listening. We took in teachings at the edge of the Bay and, in view of escarpments, helped build a ceremonial edifice for a naming ceremony, and ate and relaxed in each other’s company.

While uplifted by this rich learning experience, we were also confronted by the community’s struggles.

We learned how the community is working to reconnect its youth with cultural practices. We discussed ways Indigenous nations and the Canadian government might work together to bring Indigenous legal orders and the common law into conver-

sation, facilitate Canada’s adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and further the conversation on land disputes, development, and self-governance.

I understood the Anishinaabe legal and cultural framework as fundamentally concerned with values and relationships. It emphasizes the law as internal.

Values are observed not for the sake of appearance or fear of reprisal, but from understanding and experience. Our teachers imparted that this legal order has shaped and benefitted Anishinaabe communities and is integral to the nation-to-nation dialogue.

I would encourage fellow students to sign up for this opportunity for next fall, and to not be discouraged if you feel you have no prior knowledge to contribute. You will be surprised by what you have to offer, and thankful for what you bring away. I wish next year’s cohort a trip that is as educational, eyeopening, and as challenging as ours.

New Student Space Coming to the Basement of Flavelle MAUD ROZEE (3L)

Deep in the basement of Flavelle, change is brewing. At the first Students’ Law Society (SLS) meeting of the year, SLS representatives learned that the space, which is currently empty, will become a new student lounge by early 2018.

Currently, the only student lounge at the Faculty of Law is the Rowell Room, which is also located in Flavelle. While the space is beautiful, it has a few drawbacks. As previously reported in the September 2016 issue of Ultra Vires, “The risk of faculty, admin, and visiting lawyers, judges, and professionals walking by and overhearing your impassioned debate about which professor reminds you most of Lord Voldemort is all too real.”

A student lounge deep in the bowels of Flavelle will, if anything, suffer the opposite problem—if you die down there nobody will find your body for weeks. On the other hand, students interviewed for this article have described the space as “kind of cozy” and “like a den.”

Stephanie Lewis, a 3L and former SLS point woman on building issues, told UV that, during her tenure, the SLS “discussed the possibility of a student lounge space in the basement of Flavelle and the administration stated that, while they would love to see that space used for that purpose, it was not allowed for health and safety reasons.”

According to Anne Marshall, SLS Vice President for Student Affairs and Governance, the space was inspected over the summer and it has been cleared for student use. Apparently, there’s an order in for a couple of couches, some tables and chairs, and some lighting. The furniture should arrive in January and the hope is that the lounge will be ready soon after.

A year’s supply of donuts [Editor’s note: “year’s supply” here meaning one or two healthy, delicious donuts once monthly (barring exams) coinciding with the release of UV] for anyone who can think of a punny name for the new space.

4 | September 27, 2017

NEWS

ultravires.ca

New Art Brings Colour and Culture to the Law School MAUD ROZEE (3L) Students returning from a summer away from the law school were pleasantly surprised to f ind several new art pieces brightening up the Jackman Law Building. The two most prominent are a painting next to the elevator in the atrium and a blue glass piece above the stairs to the lower level.

While the former was unveiled as “A Meeting Place for All Our Relations,” by artist Jay Bell Redbird, at a ceremony on June 29th, 2017, the latter is set to be unveiled at some point during October. Former Art Initiative member Professor Karen Knop told Ultra Vires that she encourages students and faculty to stay tuned for the event, where the artist will “introduce the idea and process behind the piece” and explain “how it relates to the new building and to law.” Plaques for both, she assured, are coming soon.

Though “A Meeting Place for All Our Relations” was produced by Redbird, a member of the Wikwemikong First Nation, who splits his time between Toronto and Cape Breton, the piece was originally conceived by the Indigenous Law Students Association (ILSA). According to the Faculty of Law website, they imagine the painting as a representation of the “Indigenous history, presence, and ways of life in the territory on which Toronto is built.”

At the unveiling ceremony, ILSA Co-President Zachary Biech spoke about the importance of the piece as a representation of Toronto as a meeting place for Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples alike. He also highlighted the potential for U of T law to play a part in nurturing ongoing relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians: We acknowledge that this moment, this event, comes at a very pivotal time in the history of both this law school, with the new building, but also this country as a whole. Because, for hundreds of years, institutions of law in Canada have almost singlemindedly pursued the destruction of these [Indigenous] lifeways, and the people who lived them. And much has been sacrif iced to ensure that those lifeways survive.

Much continues to be sacrif iced every day [...] And yet, we now also live in a time where institutions like the University of Toronto Faculty of Law are becoming beacons of hope. Hope that these lifeways and the people who live them will resurge so that we can shine a light for all the people of this land once again. And we are entering a truly exciting time.

"A Meeting Place for All Our Relations” by Jay Bell Redbird

But we are at the crossroads. There is a choice before us. We do have the freedom to choose how we take our next steps. We can either choose to be a part of the colonial problem […] or we can choose to embrace, engage, celebrate, and nourish these lifeways. Of coming together, sharing, building relationships, and moving forward. And I believe if we do that, then we can create truly beautiful things.

U of T students agree that the piece brings eye-catching beauty to the law school. “It feels political—it’s refreshing,” a 1L told us.

“I like that it’s colourful,” said an undergrad in Kinesiology. “I like the designs on the animals… I’m sure there’s a hidden meaning that I’m not capable of dissecting,” another law student told us. Even two Singaporean exchange students, unfamiliar with the history of Indigenous people in Canada, were struck by the depth of meaning in the piece: “It seems like a combination of the urban jungle and nature… I’m sure it goes back to the Indigenous themes of the piece.”

We're still not sure who made this or why but wow it's pretty, stay tuned.

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

September 27, 2017 | 5

What is a Jaydee Embiée Anyways?

MIMI PICHETTE (1L, JD/MBA) The combined JD/MBA is a highly popular joint program every year, with many students joining it after beginning 1L. If you are considering this program but aren’t quite sure what you’re signing up for, then look no further. Here are some wise words of wisdom from upper years ref lecting on the experience after having now completed their f irst years in both the JD and the MBA parts.

The most common piece of advice for 1Ls considering the program is to dig deep and consider your motivations for doing it. Make sure you are in it for a concrete reason and not just “because it can open doors down the road.” Do it if you genuinely want to learn about business or go into business, but note that it might be less useful if you see yourself practising law in the long term. Aamir Cherwala (2L) offers further advice: “Look at some of the courses that are offered in the

f irst year of MBA and see if it’s something you would enjoy learning, and talk to upper year JD/MBAs.” It is def initely important to do your homework, as the price tag alone should deter deciding to do it on a whim.

Upper years also provided advice for those of us currently embarking on our f irst year of the MBA and wondering, “Is this really worth it? And what are some insider tricks of the trade?” One of the biggest differences that has emerged between the programs is the group work involved in the MBA. A very helpful piece of advice concerning this is to keep group meetings short so you have more time for your own work. However, this comes with a caveat, as Ryan Jolly (2L) points out that many JDs should be prepared to handle a large proportion of the group work.

Overall, whether you are considering doing

it or are already on the journey, you should take as many opportunities as possible to learn from your peers. Aamir Chherwala builds on this, stating that current JD/MBAs should “make an effort to meet people; it is very tempting to only hang out with the other JD/MBAs, but this is an opportunity to grow both your personal and, more importantly, your professional network, so take advantage of it.” This could include joining some of the more fun Rotman clubs (e.g., gaming, sports, wine) and meeting people through those activities.

Although there are many opportunities to socialize, the work can be quite daunting in the f irst year of the MBA. Devon Willits (2L) notes that “students coming into the MBA without a commerce or math-based background have more work to do than those with that kind of background. That being

said, it is still possible to do very well in the MBA without it.” Even though it might be a lot of work, you won’t be alone: Devon went on to say that “a large component of course evaluation is group-based. This means that you should actively try to foster friendly relationships with your group members early in the term so that you can continue to function later, when the work gets more diff icult and other commitments pile up.”

A key theme emerging is the importance of teams at Rotman, something that is not necessarily present at the law school. If you’re considering this program, you will come into it having mastered independent work, but will have to brace yourself for a steep learning curve for the second year in a row. Group work is its own beast. If pursuing this degree is on the horizon for you then, as one student said, “Keep an open mind, take risks, and embrace failure”.

Does Faculty Council need a new Constitution?

SHARI NATHAN (3L) AND AIDAN CAMPBELL (3L) You may have missed it, but at the bottom of a UV article from last spring (Faculty Council: “Who’s Robert?”) we reported on a strange exchange about whether Faculty Council needed a written constitution and if anything more than Robert’s Rules of Order is necessary in terms of procedure for the meetings.

At the February 2017 meeting of Faculty Council SLS VP StAG Katie Longo (as she was then) pointed out that many students are unsure of how Faculty Council works and that this problem is especially concerning for SLS representatives who sit on Faculty Council.

Dean Iacobucci admitted that this issue had been raised in the past, but that there was no need for a unified written constitution. This response drew criticism from constitutional law Professor David Schneiderman, who stressed the need for a written document and suggested that Faculty Council should start a working group to address this need.

At the next SLS StAG meeting on February 27, members of SLS discussed drafting a guiding document based on other divisions’ constitutions and the Governing Council template. SLS hoped to propose the new document for adoption in the 2017-2018 year.

For anyone new to the party, Faculty Council is the governing body for the Faculty of Law. They discuss and determine school policy, budget, curriculum, etc. Faculty Council is aided by Dean’s Committees who advise Council on specific issues, for example the Curriculum Committee’s work includes approving the course list and drafting sessional dates for ultimate approval by Council.

It might be surprising to those few amongst you who don’t hang out in the University archives, but Faculty Council does in fact have a constitution. Or at least, several pieces of a constitution.

In 1942, the Governing Council of the University of Toronto established the first iteration of the Faculty Council of the Law School. There have been a number of amendments to that original constitution, most recently in 2012. A collection of nine constitutional documents grants powers of formal governance to the Faculty Council, horrible scans of which are available on E.Legal. Due to the number of documents and their incremental construction over 60 years, they can be difficult to understand or work out exactly how they fit together.

Over the years, the Governing Council of the University of Toronto has released multiple guidelines and presentations discussing principles and requirements of good governance. In 2012, they published a template incorporating those principles to aid divisions in drafting their own constitutions.The Faculty of Law has yet to take them up on this suggestion.

Resolving the inconsistencies between Governing Council’s constitutional template and Faculty Council’s constitutional documents would fix some of the current shortcomings of our Council’s system.The constitutional documents and currently accepted procedure are are not clear about who the members of Council are, what the requirements are to meet quorum, and whether the Dean should even be chairing meetings at all.

Governing council’s template lists divisional deans as ex-officio voting members and states that voting

members must not chair meetings. Dean Iacobucci does appear to vote at Faculty Council, although it is unclear if his vote is technically counted. The constitutional documents do not list the Dean of the Law school as a member, although because he continues to teach Dean Iacobucci may also qualify as an active faculty member.

have had quorum at any meeting held last year if 50% of members were required. According to the Faculty Council minutes posted on E.Legal, just over 30 out of approximately 80 members typically attend. (80 is a conservative estimate based on 64 faculty members and using the 1993 constitutional guidelines).

Minutes from Faculty Council meetings suggest that membership also includes Associate and Assistant Deans, and multiple graduate students. Their names are sometimes listed as present members rather than observers, and they are noted as introducing motions. However, the “Resolution with Respect to Faculty Council and its Committees” of 1993 – the most recent constitutional amendment dealing with membership – lists only the “The Assistant Dean of the Faculty” and one member of the GLSA. There are currently six Assistant and Associate Deans currently listed as staff, excluding those who are also faculty.

These membership issues also extend to the Dean’s Committees. The constitutional documents state that there should be significant student representation on Student Affairs, Admissions, Library, and Curriculum Committees. The Student Affairs Committee specifically must have equal student and faculty representation, and this requirement is always met by Faculty Council.

However, the staff:student ratios last year were 9:4 on the Curriculum Committee, 6:3 on the Library Committee, and 13:3 on the Admissions Committee. It’s not clear if any of these meet the requirement of “significant” student representation because with the exception of Student Affairs the constitutional documents set no clear definition.

That said, a ratio of 13:3 seems unlikely to meet the standard.

The constitutional documents also state that there should be a ratio of three faculty members to one student member on Faculty Council. There are currently 15-19 student members, depending on if the additional GLSA representatives are included.

There are currently 66 professors listed on the fulltime faculty directory, which means that were falling at least three students short of appropriate representation.

Governing Council suggests that quorum be onethird of members. At last february’s Faculty Council, Dean Iacobucci stated that quorum was 50% of members, although this is not indicated in their constitutional documents. Faculty Council would not

Having a clear and unified constitution would improve the transparency of Faculty Council’s decision-making process. Without clear authority, they may improperly include extraneous administrators, vote on and pass motions without quorum, and fail to meet the required student membership.

For an institution so focused on the rule of law and clarity of thought it seems ridiculous for our own governing body to be working under such murky conditions.

OPINIONS

6 | September 27, 2017

ultravires.ca

On Your Marks, Get Set, Moot THE 2017-2018 MOOT COURT COMMITTEE With the 2017-2018 mooting season (and academic year) soon to begin, your Moot Court Committee (“MCC”) wanted to take this opportunity to introduce ourselves and preview some of our priorities for the year. We hope that this article will start a conversation about the changes we will be working towards this year.

also believe that the programs we organize at the law school provide students with an extraordinarily high quality and valuable experience. In the MCC’s ideal world, every student at U of T Law would have an opportunity to participate in and benefit from our competitive oral advocacy programs.

Who are we?

Each year, the MCC strives to enable more students access to competitive oral advocacy at the Faculty. We look forward to working together with the administration and the Student’s Law Society (“SLS”) towards achieving this goal. In particular, the MCC plans to advocate for the following changes:

This year’s MCC is: Jennifer Heaton (Corporate Securities Moot), Stephanie Lewis (Baby Gale, Gale Cup, and Commonwealth Moots), Maud Rozee (Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot), Diane Shnier (Baby Gale and Callaghan Memorial Moots), and Kerry Sun (Baby Gale and Jessup International Law Moots). The MCC is composed of graduating students and is selected in April each year by members of the outgoing MCC. What do we do?

Briefly, the MCC is responsible for organizing the competitive mooting program. This includes the upper-year competitive moots, the Grand Moot showcase, and the Baby Gale Moot and 1L Trial Advocacy program for first years. Although the Faculty, law firms, and numerous individual alumni, students, lawyers, and professors all generously volunteer time and resources to support the MCC’s programs, these programs are organized entirely by the MCC. What are our goals for the 2017-18 academic year?

The MCC believes that oral advocacy is a core legal skill, just like legal research and writing. We

Participation in New Moots As in past years, the MCC intends to identify new moots which U of T Law could become involved in to expand the number of opportunities for competitive mooting. The MCC will put these moots forward to the Clinical/Experiential Education and Mooting/Advocacy Committee (“the Mooting/Advocacy Committee”), which will decide whether to recommend U of T Law’s participation to Faculty Council. In March 2016, the Mooting/Advocacy Committee considered ten new moots ranging from the Clara Barton International Humanitarian Law Competition in Seattle, Washington to the Stetson International Environmental Law Moot in Gulfport, Florida.

The Mooting/Advocacy Committee declined to recommend any of these moots, with the possible exception of the Pictet Competition in France if the Munk School of Global Affairs was willing to pay for it. Last year, in March 2017, the Mooting/ Advocacy Committee again considered ten

moots, including the Hicks Morley Labour Moot, an appellate labour moot for first years. The Mooting/Advocacy Committee declined to recommend any of these moots to Faculty Council, even though it had previously recommended participation in the Hicks Morley Labour Moot in March 2014, and the Faculty had subsequently participated in the moot in March 2015.

We look forward to collaborating with the Mooting/Advocacy Committee this year to work towards viable ways to expand the Faculty’s participation in oral advocacy competitions.

Inception of a 1L Internal Moot Continuing discussions started by the MCC last year with the Mooting/Advocacy Committee, this year the MCC intends to advocate for the creation of a new internal 1L moot. This new moot would be in addition to the existing Baby Gale and 1L Trial Advocacy programs. An internal 1L moot in a round-robin format over a weekend some time in the Winter semester would allow more students to gain competitive oral advocacy experience in their first year. Support from upper-years as coaches and judges would be essential to the success of this initiative.

A Policy Limiting Upper Years to One Competitive Moot Opportunities to participate in upper year competitive moots are limited. In 2016, 134 students tried out for 61 spots in the competitive mooting program. In 2015, 103 students tried out for 59 spots. To allow the maximum number of students access to the competitive moot program, the MCC intends to advocate for a policy that would

limit students to participating in one upperyear competitive moot. This would not include participation in the Baby Gale Moot in first year or in the Grand Moot showcase.

It is uncommon for students to compete in multiple competitive moots. This is due in part to the policy limiting the number of graduating students on a moot team. This policy helps to ensure that each moot has enough non-graduating students to serve as coaches in the following year. Furthermore, coaching is a significant time commitment and many students choose to make it the focus of all of their mooting energy in their final year. Although the average number of students who compete in multiple competitive moots is typically small, we believe it is still important to ensure that as many students as possible receive the opportunity to participate in an upper year competitive moot.

Currently, students may earn up to six credits from mooting. The Academic Handbook states that students may earn these credits through a combination of competitive mooting, participating in the Grand Moot, and coaching. The MCC intends to work towards changing the Academic Handbook to state that a student can participate in only one competitive moot—just as, for instance, a student can only take the Trial Advocacy course once, even though the class works on a different fact pattern each year.

We look forward to discussing all of these proposals with the SLS and Faculty representatives on the Mooting/Advocacy Committee this year. We also encourage feedback from the U of T Law community on these proposals – you can reach us at utlawmoot@gmail.com or @utlawmoot on Twitter.

An Impostor at U of T Law I vividly remember being accepted to U of T Law. I had, along with my dad, been to a matinee showing of Inherent Vice, and two-plus hours of Joaquin Phoenix peddling beguiling nonsense had left me rather dazed—a fitting mindset, as it turns out. We were at a restaurant afterwards and my dad was checking our home voicemail. One of the messages was from Ben Alarie—a name that carried no connotations then—delivering, in his words, some good news.

We were dumbstruck. I insisted on playing the message again. I was halfway certain that we had heard it incorrectly, that it was all a mistake.

That moment of doubt was, and still is, amusing.

But now, as I enter my third and final year here, I also see it as the seminal instance of a self-doubt that has nagged at me throughout my time at U of T Law. In the months before I started, I often mused to myself and others about why I had gotten in. Maybe the relative ease of my undergrad program had made my academic record seem more impressive than it was (my grades were good, not outstanding, and my LSAT score was below the school average).

Maybe I had duped the admissions office with soaring tales of my affability and ability to change the world. Maybe there had been a clerical error.

I was never audacious enough to suggest any kind of worthiness or ability might explain why I ended up here. You might call this nagging diffidence “impostor syndrome”: a chronic, though often suppressed and rarely articulated, feeling of being out of your depth and not belonging here, as though

you are some pretender hiding in plain sight amongst brilliance.

First year was unquestionably the most trying.

Many of my classmates seemed far more accomplished than me, with a Masters in this or previous work at that, while I had spent a gap year drinking my way through various English pubs. Not getting a coveted spot in PBSC or AIW only exacerbated my feelings of impostor syndrome. I thought, all prior self-deprecation aside, that perhaps I really was unqualified to be here; maybe my persistent lack of extracurricular activities had left my CV irredeemably uncompetitive. Then came a string of Ps (accented by one surprise H) from my first set of exams and a ringing unresponsiveness from the handful of employers to whom I sent summer lawjob applications.

My marks from Winter exams gave me some reason to believe I could at least hold my own within a more erudite group, but my impostor syndrome did not go away as second year—and OCIs—loomed.

Confidence in my ability to land a law job was so low that I forswore the OCI process altogether. In other words, I didn’t apply for a law job because I was certain I wouldn’t get one—something of a selffulfilling prophecy.

Instead of facing my self-doubt honestly, I told myself I was staying true to my principles by holding out for one of the union-side labour jobs that would be open after OCIs. While there was truth in that explanation, my larger motivation was a desire to dodge what I figured was an inevitable dispiriting rejection. This union-side-or-nothing tack very nearly left me with nothing; it brought the same

dispiriting rejection that I had sought to avoid by forgoing OCIs. At this point, I was drafting Plans B and C and D in my mind, tacitly resigning myself to a career in something other than law.

This was, of course, an overreaction, although it was a difficult one not to succumb to. And I did end up in a law job this past summer. It was, however, many miles from what I had hoped to be doing and I had come by it through a malodorous mix of dumb luck and nepotism. This job made me feel more like an imposter than at any point previously: my future as a lawyer seemed entirely dependant on the goodwill of people my parents happened to know.

It was in this mindset—that I truly was an impostor, and a less principled one by the day—that I sent out a surfeit of articling applications. My unionside-or-nothing approach softened considerably. I applied broadly, including to firms in which I adamantly had no interest, in both Vancouver and Toronto. The Vancouver applications brought what was by now a most familiar result: resounding silence. I asked my wife what she would think if I did not become a lawyer and I started scheming up Plans E and F and G. My litany of despair ends there for now. Things brightened with a handful of emails from Toronto employers, and I’m happy to say that I found an articling position. It would, however, be dishonest to claim that I haven’t tried to explain this away as a result of luck or privilege or any other combination of factors that have nothing to do with my own attributes. Impostor syndrome, after over two years, tends to linger and is difficult to shirk.

NICK PAPAGEORGE (3L)

Not all of you, of course, will suffer from impostor syndrome; some of you will admirably pass through these halls with all aplomb. But some of you will feel pangs of self-doubt during your time here. I hope my story serves as a reminder that you are neither the first nor the only one.

I also do not mean to dishearten you. Contrary to the tenor of the above, my time at U of T has been enjoyable and rewarding as well. I’ve joined an upstart club (The Labour & Employment Law Society—highly, if biasedly, recommended) that I cochaired in my second year, written for and worked as an editor on this paper (positions that, curiously, I still have not yet been told to vacate), and helped out with a couple of our school’s excellent journals.

All of that is to say there are plenty of ways to fit in at U of T Law. I hope those of you that do experience the gnawing of impostor syndrome will take heed of my experience here while you begin, or continue to, shape your own.

A bit of self-doubt—as an impetus to work harder and get more involved—can even be useful, but only if you don’t let it define your time here. Join the clubs and groups and clinics that align with your interests rather than the ones everyone else seems to be clambering towards. Remember that your summer jobs now will not define the rest of our career.

Keep an open mind to whatever experiences and opportunities present themselves—of these, there will be no shortage.

As I start my final year at U of T Law—on exchange, in Glasgow, this term—I’m only certain of this last single piece of advice: make the most of your time here. Three years go by in a blink.

September 27, 2017 | 7

ultravires.ca

R IGHTS R EVIEW International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law An independent student-led publication Co-Editors-in-Chief: Karlson Leung and Bethanie Pascutto

THE NEXT GENERATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS RESEARCHERS: U OF T STUDENTS HONE THEIR DIGITAL VERIFICATION SKILLS

By Alexandria Matic (3L) and Bethanie Pascutto (3L)

PRACTITIONERS AND STUDENTS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA, AND UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX PARTICIPATE IN AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL'S DIGITAL VERTIFICATION CORPS SUMMIT

An image captured on a smartphone in the aftermath of an attack on civilians sheltered within a warzone or a video posted on YouTube of distant gunfire can be valuable evidence for human rights advocates reporting on war crimes and violations of international human rights treaties.

Before such content can be relied upon, it must be verified to sort fact from “fake news.” Enter Amnesty International’s Digital Verification Corps (DVC).

What is the Digital Verification Corps?

The DVC is a network of volunteers that review and verify digital content, including pictures and videos of alleged human rights abuses. In many cases, these images come from locations that are not easily accessible to human rights researchers – either due to safety concerns or government opposition. The DVC verifies the credibility of sources by gathering external information and evaluating an image’s markers of authenticity, such as its location, the time and date of upload, and credibility of the uploader. The DVC is trained to identify discrepancies and to distinguish legitimate content from “fake news”. Human rights researchers can then rely on verified social media and citizen journalism in their investigations while maintaining rigorous standards of credibility. The verified content can also be used to build cases in domestic and international courts against those who have violated international human rights treaties and/or committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.

The DVC at U of T In January 2017, the University of Toronto joined the University of California, Berkeley, the Univer-

ihrprightsreview

sity of Essex and the University of Pretoria, to become the DVC’s fourth verification team. As members of the International Human Rights Program’s (IHRP) newest working group, participating students received extensive training on strategies and tools for verifying digital content. Since then, the group has verified images from student protests in Bahrain and Niger, a protest camp in Morocco, military convoys in Yemen, and key events from the Arab Spring uprising in Egypt.

The group has also verified video footage for the Syrian Archive Project – an initiative that collects open source documentation concerning rights violations and other crimes committed by all sides during the Syrian conflict.

U of T students hone their skills at DVC Summit In June 2017, four students from the DVC working group (Calum Agnew, Alexandria Matic, Bethanie Pascutto, and Michael Sproule) along with the Director of IHRP, Samer Muscati, travelled to the University of California, Berkeley to attend the first annual DVC Summit. The Summit brought together students from each of the DVC’s partner institutions to review the objectives, highlights and accomplishments of the program in its first year. Notably, students in the DVC reviewed thousands of hours of video footage and investigated reports of human rights violations in dozens of countries.

Experts in open source investigation methods also provided further training on digital verification tools. “The conference was an amazing opportunity to learn from leaders in the field. We had the chance to see some cutting-edge techniques, applied to high-profile investigations”, Calum Agnew commented. The student attendees had the opportunity to hear from:

• Eliot Higgins, the founder of Bellingcat, an investigative search network; • Malachy Browne, a senior story producer with the New York Times, specializing in social media journalism; and • Sam Dubberley, Amnesty International’s leader of the DVC.

A snapshot of lessons learned Anatomy of an Investigation I— Eliot Higgins, Bellingcat By recounting two of Bellingcat’s investigations to the audience, the presentation given by Eliot Higgins demonstrated the importance of digital verification.

Using open source evidence, Bellingcat was able to confirm that Russia was responsible for the downing of flight MH17. The organization identified the weapon used to shoot down the plane, and tracked its path from Russia into separatistheld territory in Ukraine. After the Russian Ministry of Defence submitted inaccurate information about the flight, including edited satellite imagery, Bellingcat exposed the Russian government’s efforts to mislead the public about its involvement in the attack.

Another example of Bellingcat’s remarkable work was the result of reports related to Russian and Syrian airstrikes hitting Al-Sakhour hospital in Aleppo, Syria in September and October 2016.

The Russian government claimed that the hospital had not been bombed, relying on images that allegedly supported its position. Using photos, videos, and satellite imagery from before and after the bombing, as well as footage from the security cameras inside the building, Bellingcat had

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/page/rights-review-magazine

forensic architects create a virtual 3D model of the hospital. That model was used to demonstrate that the damage was caused by multiple bombings during this period.

Cybersecurity – Bill Marczak The session on cybersecurity focused on the hazards specific to those working with the DVC. Due to the sensitivity of information verified by the DVC, the group has to be aware of cybersecurity risks. Not only is there a concern that thirdparties might access content, but students face the additional risk of being identified as a security risk by customs and immigration personnel. The session on cybersecurity was dedicated to educating students on the signs of phishing and hacking, and approaches to traveling with sensitive information.

The Road Ahead Moving forward, the DVC working group will continue working with its international partners to build a robust team of human rights investigators. We hope that these efforts will make a tangible contribution to Amnesty International’s advocacy around the world, and highlight the lived experiences of those whose rights have been violated. “Through the DVC our eventual goal is for all universities to include modules on open source investigation. We know these skills are becoming more and more important as time goes on”, said Sam Dubberley of Amnesty. "With 27 projects in our first year, it just proves how central open source investigation is becoming to Amnesty’s work - and that of other human rights NGOs. It’s also shown what a great partner the University of Toronto is for this project”.

rightsreview

8 | September 27, 2017

ultravires.ca

R IGHTS R EVIEW

International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law An independent student-led publication

30 YEARS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO’S FACULTY OF LAW

By Amelia Fung (2L) Chevron case, stated that the IHRP managed to remind the Court what was at stake by articulating the concerns of those not present in the courtroom and by bringing a human rights perspective to a largely procedural case.

The 30th anniversary event showcased the IHRP’s three decades of work through a photo exhibit, which featured report covers on the program’s core research issues: refugee rights, the rights of women and girls, international criminal justice, counter-terrorism, freedom of expression, and corporate accountability for human rights. Most recently, the IHRP has been actively involved in public advocacy around immigration detention and released three reports on the issue. The reports, which focused on immigration detention in relation to mental health and children, garnered international and national press coverage and resulted in significant policy changes.

MAKING HISTORY: (L) DEAN EDWARD IACOBUCCI WITH FORMER IHRP DIRECTORS NOAH NOVOGRODSKY (UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING COLLEGE OF LAW ADVOCACY PROFESSOR AND CO-DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW), AND RENU MANDHANE (CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION), IHRP FOUNDER PROFESSOR REBECCA COOK, FORMER IHRP DIRECTOR VALERIE OOSTERVELD (WESTERN UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF LAW ASSOCIATE DEAN OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES), AND CURRENT IHRP DIRECTOR SAMER MUSCATI. PHOTO BY: JORGE MARTINEZ

More than 100 distinguished alumni, faculty, students, and sponsors gathered on September 14th at the Faculty of Law to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the International Human Rights Program (IHRP). The theme of the evening was ‘impact’ and the event featured a photo exhibit depicting the IHRP’s work over the past three decades, as well as a keynote speech by alumna Renu Mandhane, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and a former IHRP Director.

“You are a testament to the strength of the program and the quality of the students that it attracts,” said Dean Edward Iacobucci in his welcome address to guests, including the many IHRP alumni who continue to support the program. The Dean noted that the IHRP is one of the hallmarks of the law school’s focus on international law and policy, and that he was proud it continues to have such a positive impact on both students and the international human rights movement.

Professor Rebecca Cook founded the IHRP in 1987 to provide experiential learning opportunities for law students through summer fellowships at human rights organizations. Since 1987, the IHRP fellowship program has continued to expand – as of 2017, nearly 400 students have participated

in the program and worked at more than 250 international criminal tribunals, nongovernmental organizations, and grassroots organizations around the world.

made me excited again about my future legal career. The IHRP really helps me feel like I'm on the right path and that there is support for my work at the law school.”

In 2002, the IHRP added clinical legal education and a human rights speaker series to its repertoire. The clinic helps train the next generation of globally-focused lawyers to the highest standards of excellence in research, advocacy, and professionalism and provides a space for students to be innovative and to learn from one another. Despite the difficulties of human rights and social justice work, “the students bring an energy and a passion that is unparalleled,” commented Mandhane.

Another clinic student and past fellow, Jeremy Greenberg, highlighted the remarkable experience he had working at the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals in The Hague – an experience facilitated through an IHRP fellowship. “Not enough students at the Faculty of Law realize that there are careers outside corporate law, let alone outside Canada. The IHRP is a hidden gem for enabling precisely such experiences, and it deserves to be heralded far more.”

In 2008, the IHRP launched Rights Review, a student-led magazine showcasing pieces on international law. The magazine is published online and in print each month in the Faculty of Law’s student newspaper, Ultra Vires.

The clinic has brought an important international human rights law perspective to cases before the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), assisted Canadians seeking remedies before the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and authored groundbreaking reports that expose human rights abuses within and outside Canada. In 2004, the IHRP successfully intervened in its first case before the SCC in Regina v Mugesera.

The IHRP continues to be involved in interventions before the SCC, including in Canada v Khadr in 2008-2009 and Yaiguaje et al v Chevron Corporation et al in 2014. Mandhane, who was the IHRP Director during the

Enbal Singer, a current clinic student and past IHRP summer fellow, stated “people are constantly discouraging us from doing human rights work and the first year of law school regularly made me doubt if this is what I really wanted to do. The IHRP fellowship was an amazing reminder of why I came to law school in the first place and

Through the clinic and other initiatives, the IHRP challenges human rights violations occurring in Canada and abroad and helps reform laws, policies, and practice through comprehensive research and advocacy. As Mandhane stated during her keynote speech, “the IHRP is truly unique in terms of its pedagogy, the capacity building it offers to its partners, and the impact it has on everyone that who goes through it, not just students but the directors as well.”

The IHRP is comprised of more than just the IHRP Director and law students. The Faculty of Law created an IHRP Advisory Board in 2003 comprised of distinguished members of the bar, judiciary, and academia.

Board members include Louise Arbour, Adrienne Clarkson, Bill Graham, James Orbinsky, and Bob Rae. The IHRP also has an extensive network of IHRP alumni that continue to support the clinic in various ways, including assisting in research and advocacy.

The IHRP has been recognized for its excellence in human rights law. In 2010, the IHRP received a Lexpert Zenith Award for its exceptional pro bono service, and in 2015, the Ludwik and Estelle Jus Memorial Human Rights Prize for the IHRP’s work to end discrimination against women and sexual minorities.

Professor Cook ended the evening, looking back at the IHRP’s modest beginnings, as well as forward to the future of the program.

She commented, “as excited as I am about our thirty years of accomplishments, I am even more animated about how IHRP can meet the many challenges we face now and in the future of protecting and promoting human rights.”

September 27, 2017 | 9

ultravires.ca

IHRP ALUMNI PROFILE: ARIF VIRANI

By Sarah Firestone (2L) and Bethanie Pascutto (3L)

ARIF VIRANI, MP PARKDALE-HIGH PARK AND IHRP ALUMNI.

IHRP alumni Arif Virani came to Canada as a Ugandan-Asian refugee in 1972 when his family was forced to flee Idi Amin’s brutal dictatorship. After spending the rest of his childhood in Toronto, he attended McGill University, graduating in 1994 with a B.A. in History and Political Science. Arif graduated on the Dean’s List and Valedictorian from U of T law in 1998. After articling at Fasten Martineau DuMoulin LLP in Toronto, he spent a year training at the Middle Temple, Inns of Court in London, UK as a recipient of the Harold G. Fox Scholarship.

Arif was one of the founders of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, has worked as an Analyst with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in Ottawa, and an Investigator at la Commission des droits de la personne et droits de la jeunesse, in Montréal. He served as a Programme Officer with the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in New Delhi. and also spent a year as an Assistant Trial Attorney prosecuting genocide at the United Nation’s International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,. Arif received the Wilson-Prichard Award from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law in 2008 in recognition of his contribution to the legal profession and community.

As a student at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, you were an IHRP summer fellow

in Asia. How would you describe that experience?

Phenomenal. It was my first trip to India, and my first effort at working abroad. It was an eye opener—in part because of the conditions of work, in part because of the extremes I observed, of wealth, poverty, class, caste and sectarian tension

How did your involvement with the IHRP influence your career in law and now in politics?

It gave me a sense of how to appreciate human rights, and their vulnerability in many countries in the world. In particular, the crucial importance of the rule of law to ensuring respect for human rights. The rights you have on paper are worth little, unless the cultural norms are in place to ensure those rights are actually enforced and protected.

What motivates you to continue working for the public interest as a Member of Parliament?

literally on the inside of the policy development world. I had spent a lot of time prior to getting elected, in working to advocate from without, for policy change. As an MP, I’m finally working within the system—that’s a heavy responsibility, but one I’m grateful to have. To my mind, when you’re given that responsibility, you have to always consider, first and foremost what kind of policy will serve the public interest

What does your position as Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism entail? What are some of challenges associated with that position?

I assist the Minister of Heritage in implementing the central tenets of the Multiculturalism Act—effectively working to promote inclusion, build social cohesion, promote diversity, and empower the various communities that call Canada home. The biggest challenge in 2017 is combatting the wave of extremism and hatred that is surfacing globally, and here at home. Fighting prejudice and racism is not a thing of the past—the events of the past few years have taught us that this fight is more relevant than ever

The idea that as an elected legislator, you are

In recognition of the IHRP’s 30th anniversary this year, Rights Review will be profiling notable alumni in each of its issues this year.

Before entering politics you had a rewarding career as a constitutional litigator. Could you tell us a little more about your experiences?

I had a wonderful job practising law, litigating cases at all levels of court that dealt with interpreting Charter rights. I had the opportunity to argue cases involving freedom of expression, life, liberty and security of the person, judicial independence, and equality rights. It was always demanding, but very intellectually engaging.

Do you have any advice for students interested in following a similar path?

Do what you are interested in; don’t be afraid to take chances, and go out on a limb, even if it’s not financially rewarding, it can be rewarding in so many other ways. One of the smartest things I ever did was taking a chance on doing human rights work at an NGO in India on police reform—the pay was terrible, but the learning curve incredible.

That lead me to a job with the UN as a war crimes prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The bottom line is that you have to be willing to take a chance, in order to access unique opportunities

10 | September 27, 2017

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

Dear 1Ls, it’s Okay to...

RELAX RACHEL CHAN (2L) In 1L, I often found it difficult to stop working. I felt like there was always something I should be reading or working on. If you are like me, then you might find yourself feeling a little guilty for taking a long Netflix break or thinking about that to-do list while eating dinner with friends. This restlessness followed me everywhere. My advice is to let that feeling go.

It took me a while to come to this conclusion (and, even now, I have to remember to take my own advice). Here is the story of the two-week existential crisis that led me to it.

After a year of studying, summarizing, and mapping, 1L came to an end. As I walked out of my final exam, the tension and stress dissipated into the summer air. For all of the exam period, I had spent every day at the library studying with my friends. In between vociferous arguments about obscure points of law, we talked about how excited we were for exams to be over and the chance to just do nothing.

I had two weeks between school ending and my summer job beginning. The first day was a haze. I took a nap and slept normally for the first time in a while. My mind was quiet: I did not have the requirements for granting an Anton Piller order streaming through my consciousness, nor was I questioning whether promissory estoppel should be used as a sword or a shield. I had become accustomed to the

demands of 1L and the delicate (read: frantic) juggling of classes, extracurricular activities, friends, and family. Suddenly, it stopped.

Great— now I had time for those hobbies and interests listed on the bottom of my resume. I made cinnamon rolls and gnocchi from scratch. I went for runs. I went to Niagara Falls for a couple days. I loaded my e-reader up with books. I even started sketching again.

None of it took up enough time. I needed more to do. My hobbies were, usually, a fun reprieve from my hectic schedule. Now I was bored—I was so incredibly bored. It was this deep-seated listlessness and ennui that I could not shake. I started to question whether I actually had interesting hobbies, which morphed into asking whether I was interesting. I was having a complete Zoolander-staring-into-his-reflection-in-a-puddle “Who am I?” moment.

Some told me I was being ridiculous, which I knew I was; I also knew, in the back of my mind, that these thoughts were unfounded. But it was hard to embrace calm. I tried to keep in mind the wisdom of the upper years and Career Development Office: “You won’t have many more opportunities to relax like this once you start working—enjoy it.” Additionally, it helped to know I was not alone, and that others shared similar sentiments with me.

Even when things get hectic this year, there might be a day that you come to miss that busy feeling. But, in the meantime, remember that you have worked hard. In those moments, push the to-do list out of your thoughts. Take time to relax.

LOSE NORM YALLEN (2L) I hate to be the classic 2L who writes a pedantic advice column ostensibly directed at 1Ls but actually directed at the author. However, there is one piece of advice I would like to give: You will fail at this law school. Everyone here fails at some point—and that is okay. Just remember that you will all be fine.

Everything at this law school can feel like a big competition, especially at the beginning of 1L. There are clinics and club executives to compete for immediately once school begins.

Then there are, of course, the marks, and only a certain number of people can earn Hs or HHs. Finally, there are jobs, and employers have a limited number of openings, with many students competing to earn those spots.

Most people here are used to succeeding. As the administration likes to mention, now and again, U of T Law is difficult to get into; presumably, if you are starting 1L here, you are not used to failing often. At this law school, however, I would say, without exaggeration, that every single person fails repeatedly: there will be classes in which you do not get the mark you were hoping for, clubs and clinics where you may not get the role you want, and jobs that you are passed over for. All of that is nor-

mal, and all of that is fine.

This law school is constructed so that it is impossible for everyone to get what they want. An entire class of students who averaged high marks in undergrad are competing for a limited number of high marks, so it is inevitable that students who submit high-quality work will not always get the best marks. The same goes for clinics and clubs and jobs. Failing to achieve a goal does not make you a failure—it simply makes you like every single person at this law school.

Sometimes it can be difficult to talk about failing or feeling badly at this law school. It seems like everyone has an HH or a great job offer or very important work to do. But I would bet that any person you get to know well at law school can tell you about an opportunity they missed out on or an occasion when something did not go their way. Yet I am confident they would also tell you that they were fine—and you will be fine too.

The other nice thing about this law school is that I am talking about failing in the sense of not getting what you want, because failing classes is next to impossible. If you decide that you would like to finish law school, you will graduate. Then you will get to be a lawyer!

And, as everyone knows, no lawyer has ever had problems with debt, mental health, or substance abuse. Once you become a lawyer, all your worries and anxieties will vanish and life will be a paradise. At least, that’s what I have been told.

What Should I be Asking?

SUHASINI RAO (1L) There is a universal truth known to anyone who followed Timothy Goes To School during its three seasons of glory: starting a new chapter of your life can be overwhelming. While some 1Ls may have followed the steps of Doris the Beaver, more of us might relate to Timothy himself and found that to be true when starting law school.[1] The law school, however, seems to have anticipated these feelings, and it has made it clear, since the first day, that everyone around us is available to answer questions. In practice, this doesn’t actually mean "everyone." This question-answering role seems to only apply to a select group of upper year students, staff, faculty, other similar personnel who always appear from just around the corner, à la Scooby Doo. Within moments of entering the law school, it becomes clear the number of staff rivals the amount found in ‘80s fantasy novels.

The question-answering role of those around us is so emphasised, one asks the obvious: What should I be asking? What is there that I don't know about? One begins to wonder if the original point of this was to bring us around to this type of thinking, but I'm beginning to suspect they may just be genuinely nice people.

Alongside the constant reminder that we can ask anyone and "everyone" a question, we are warned of our future almost weekly. Even Dean Iacobucci alluded to this future in his welcoming speech to the 1L class, noting that he was not a great dinner companion during his law school days. This leads to more wondering: What if we are already awful at parties?

Is it actually possible to get worse? But "everyone" has not answered this yet, and so I have abstained from

reaching out to any past friends for reconciliation.

[2] While many will, of course, provide valuable answers, others will have no answers, yet be just as valuable. This is not just a Millennial Participation AwardTM; as your colleagues, they have value as new friends and acquaintances. When you find yourself needing to talk about the reforms to Singapore’s constitution and its dramatic recent election, you will probably come to this new group of friends first.

For some, you may even notice that not all friends will be new;starting law school will also include remembering past acquaintances. That kid from preschool who ate raw macaroni? He is in your legal methods class. [3] That friend of a friend you may have met, but none of you really remember? You will talk about your mutual friend's new haircut for seven minutes.[4] A girl from your undergraduate institution who says she met you at a party? You will meet her at the Equity Social and feel conflicted about being honest about your (lack of) social life.[5] Throughout all this, you will be taking Legal Methods. As some of your more enlightened classmates breeze through terms like volenti non injuria— owing to a more-than-cursory knowledge of Latin, or a past degree from Oxford—some might Google the term “reasonable” an unreasonable number of times.[6] Once Orientation Week comes to a close, with Snacks and Ch1L no longer providing its mini tangerines to stave off scurvy, you may find yourself re-

flecting on this experience as a whole.[7] While starting law school may be overwhelming, you will also find a plentitude of support and resources. We have the privilege not only of learning how to be advocates for others, but also of having a great number of people be advocates for us.[8] This transition is made easier when we know academic support, health support, and peer support exists. And, if you can’t find the right conclusion for your article, your peer mentor can give you the reassuring advice you need for The End.

Footnotes [1] Timothy Goes to School was an aptly named TV show (2000-04) that followed the adventures of a raccoon named Timothy as he went to school. Most of the episodes deal with universal lessons of making new friends and being kind.

[2] I'm sorry I didn't listen carefully to your dog story. He is very cute and has nice ears, but he had no salient critiques of Batman v Superman 2016 DC, so it's really your fault for not educating him, isn't it?

[3] This did not happen.

[4] This probably happened.

[5] This happened to me.

[6] If you put in an “unreasonable” number of requests on Google Scholar, you will have to do a CAPTCHA and prove you are not a robot. However, it should be noted that completing the CAPTCHA does not actually provide you with any certificate proving that you are not a robot (preferably in a form that employers and “loved” ones would accept).

[7] Maybe even by completing the O-Week Feedback form.

[8] Some of whom also learned how to be advocates while others advocated for them. It’s a vicious cycle.

ultravires.ca

OPINIONS

September 27, 2017 | 11

Business Organizations: A Misguided Requirement TAJJA ISEN (3L) The history of corporate law can be summed up in three simple propositions.

First, a small group of white men want to hold onto their absurd amounts of money.

Second, this goes wrong and some cases make it to the courts, which then say, “Maybe you guys should be a little more socially responsible with that money.” Third, that small group gets angry, writes articles about why the courts are wrong, oh so wrong, and ultimately decides that the money can be pried from their cold, dead hands.

This is what I learned in Business Organizations (or, in the vernacular, “Biz Org,” a phrase that sounds like some kind of appropriately transactional loveless climax). Correction: this is what I learned while teaching myself the course content on the eve of the exam. Nobody shines a light on the dark heart of a belief system right up front. That’s not how ideology works. Nor, for that matter, does law school pedagogy (more on that later).

“That’s all it is,” I said, lunging across the kitchen table at my partner. “This is what people build their whole lives around. This is why people have heart attacks at their desks in corner off ices.” He, far less blinkered from not having been swimming in the material, characteristically had more perspective: “It’s also why bad things happen in the world.”

Business Organizations, along with Administrative Law, Legal Ethics, and a smattering of socially inclined Perspective courses, is a required upper-year course at U of T Law. That the other three are mandatory makes sense to me. Every administrative action is subject to judicial review. Every advocate has a duty to be ethical. Every student should spend twenty-four hours marathonwriting a paper that makes it look like they’ve spent a semester thinking critically about social issues. But not everyone is going to make a career out of f inding ways to maximize shareholder wealth. Nor should they be sent the message that doing so is one of the core elements of being a lawyer.

A brief note on ethics: it was illuminating, if cognitively dissonant, to be concurrently enrolled in Business Organizations and Legal Ethics. The latter hammers home the idea that, as you’re going to be an off icer of the court, you must respect the decisions of that court and are bound by a duty to uphold them—a little hard to digest after spending four hours a week being told that Supreme Court may have their theories, but no one really follows them in practice.

Many people come to U of T Law because of its physical and ideological proximity to Bay Street. I was one of them, although my idea of Bay Street comprised steel and glass, cutthroat litigation, and one good bookstore, namely Ben McNally Books. I didn’t know a lick about corporate law, nor did I care to, but I did know that it meant jobs. Bay Street is held up as the goal before you even formulate a prospective career arc that aligns with

your interests and politics. It’s part of our law school culture.

It’s hard not to see recent law school policies as an attempt to cut against this — a combination of necessity (e.g., declining Bay Street hiring rates, rising tuition) and conscious change (e.g., trumpeting a more holistic admissions process, rolling out the unfortunately named “Lawyers Doing Cool Things with their Law Degrees”). The school is sensitive to its image and seeks to remind its students that other options exist. Leaving aside eff icacy or motive, I see it making some attempts to change and, amidst such changes, I want to advance a proposition of my own: Business Organizations should no longer be taught exclusively as a mandatory semester-long course at U of T Law. I’m not proposing that we do away with it altogether. The Federation of Law Societies of Canada makes knowledge of commercial law, in some form or another, mandatory for admission to the bar. According to s. 3.3(b) of the Federation’s requirements, applicants to the bar must demonstrate “an understanding of the principles that apply to private relationships,” which includes “legal and f iduciary concepts in commercial relationships.”

There are, however, a number of different ways in which an institution could impart such knowledge: a discrete unit in f irst-year contracts, for example, or Osgoode’s brilliant substitute of an option to take a class, “Fiduciary Relationships in Commercial Context,” as a not-for-credit online module.

The title alone speaks volumes: while most other Canadian law schools name their course some variation on “Business Associations” or “Corporate Law” (a thin veil for propositions one through three), Osgoode instead emphasizes the fiduciary relationship, a duty predicated on vulnerability and discretion, and arguably the most essential component of what it means to be an advocate. U of T is f ine with endorsing the Federation’s ethics requirement as less important—students can fast-track it through a week-long intensive rather than taking the half-year course—so why not do the same for corporate law?

The answer is, probably, because the school is unwilling to take the hit this would represent to its marketability. As an essential hoop through which students must leap on their journey to the bar, the Faculty is invested in producing the most desirable candidates for the job market. But it is artif icial to continue selling these ideas as a way for the law school to safeguard its relationship to the profession. No law school needs to do that really— self-regulation has guaranteed that the the law school and the Law Society are interlocked till death do them part—especially not U of T, with its proximity to the corporate legal market’s beating heart. It doesn’t matter how statistically likely it is that students, motivated by debt and prof it (and some, of course, by genuine interest), are going to gravitate to the Seven Sisters anyway.

Such an endorsement by the school of corpo-

rate culture—its ethics, its motivations, its myriad blind spots—overshadows any real commitment to encouraging students to do “Cool Things” (and might I take this opportunity to suggest a name change?).

I realize that an administrative overhaul of this scale would require considerable time and ag itation. So, acknowledg ing that Business Organizations is not likely going any where soon, I instead submit a more v iable short-term goal: that the subject be taught in a way that is more attuned to social responsibilit y. A more critical approach, of course, is contraposed to mainstream law school pedagog y: here is the pudding, stick in your thumb and pull out the plum. The plum might be rotten, but we feed it to the g uy in the next case any way. But that doesn’t mean that there is no room for social engagement—it’s impossible to teach something like criminal law or ethics w ithout it. Legal education can be responsive and sensitive to context while still obser v ing the principle of precedent.

Full disclosure: I have only taken one section of the course and have not sat in on others. Maybe certain instructors do teach the class in a way that allows scope for a broader range of issues than simply maximizing shareholder wealth. Mine did not. My instructor staged a debate with the students— us versus him—about why shareholder primacy (see proposition number one) is the best and only model, Supreme Court be damned. As we were forewarned, I chose not to attend that day. One of my marginal notes from a class I did attend reads: “I really need my prof to stop assuming his entire class reads The Economist and the business pages, because until that happens, he is failing to teach me by assuming a very specif ic audience with very specif ic knowledge (to say nothing of the tasteless jokes about Muskoka cottages).” This is corporate culture.

You want to be the best law school in Canada? Look around you. Acknowledge that a world exists outside the boardroom. Hire someone attuned to that fact. We’ve seen what happens to social responsibility when our leaders are trained to say, “You’re f ired.”

INTERESTING CASES, FRIENDLY FACES

OPINIONS

12 | September 27, 2017

ultravires.ca

Wise Words From Random Upper Years COMPILED BY RACHEL CHAN (2L) AND SUJUNG LEE (2L) “Don’t linger on not getting that grade, mooting spot, summer position, whatever. Law school is weird—100% exams don’t make sense and only, like, 10% of the 1L class gets summer positions. Luck has a lot to do with who gets what, and [that] says nothing about your abilities or potential.”

“Don’t take law school too seriously. Do the work, but try and make sure that you maintain balance.”

“Be conscious of the pressure-cooker environment.

You can often feel like you have to apply for the 1L recruit or join a study group to succeed. You don’t.”

“Talk to people openly. Some people advise you to avoid the topic of marks and jobs, since those are sensitive areas of conversation, but marks and jobs matter! I think it’s more weird if people refuse to talk and exchange information. An open conversation allows you to exchange tips and advice with your peers.”

“Take the time to meet with your professors to review your work or discuss the readings. Professors genuinely want to talk to you! This is a great way to make sure you’re up to speed with class as well as to build relationships with professors.”

“Stay caught up on your readings.”

“Get out and go to pub night!”

“Be confident! Don’t settle for something mediocre because you think you’re not going to get the better thing that you really want.”

“It took me some time to realize this, but each law course is more about learning how all the cases fit together, than about knowing the minute details of every case. Break down the entire body of law into major areas. Identify the ambiguities in the law.”

“Stay calm and enjoy yourself! Everyone faces a steep learning curve with law school, so you’re not alone in the adjustment. If you find a certain study strategy isn’t working, try a new one. Try new things, like clinics, mooting, or trial advocacy. Always remember to take care of yourself and that you have something unique to offer the world.”

“Make non-law school friends.”

“Find your people. They’re usually running clubs.”

“Continue to do the things you loved before law school.”

“Don’t skip class.”

“Keep snacks in your locker.”

“Try not to measure yourself against your classmates. There is no objective version of success or hap-

piness—you make your own. That’s the whole point.”

“Don’t eat at the cafe everyday.”

“Make use of upper year maps.”

“Befriend a professor, possibly your small group prof…”

“Do plenty of practice exams.”

“At least look at the exams in the exam bank before your exam. Coming up with an answer in your head is also good.”

“Reach out for help when you need it. Yukimi is a great resource.”

“Take the endless advice you receive with a grain of salt. What works for you is not necessarily going to be what works for other people.”

Let Them Eat Cake: Single Moms, Estranged Fathers, and Financial Aid Policies that Totally Miss the Point CHELSEY LEGGE (2L, JD/MSW) Applying for financial aid is never fun. You have to fill out a huge form, collect a bunch of documents, and wait months for an assessment. Throughout the application process, you’re forcefully reminded of just how expensive this degree is and how much debt you’re taking on—realities you’re otherwise happy to stuff inside a little box and shove back into the darkest corner of your subconscious. (Or maybe that’s just me.) For some applicants, however, applying to financial aid is more than tedious: it’s also deeply uncomfortable. That was my experience.

I decided to get the application out of the way early this summer, and I submitted my form in mid-July.

A few days later, the Financial Aid Office got in touch with me to ask about some “missing documents” from my application. They needed my final summer paystub (I was still working) and my parents’ income tax notices of assessment. I felt a pit settle at the bottom of my stomach. Oh, I thought.

This again?

Allow me to explain. When I applied for financial aid as an incoming 1L, I assumed the Faculty’s financial aid application would be similar to the OSAP application. For those of you unfamiliar with OSAP, parental income information is only required from a student’s custodial parent. My parents divorced when I was thirteen and my mother has had sole custody of me, and my younger brother, since then. This meant that throughout my undergraduate degree, I only ever had to report my mother’s income to OSAP. Now that I’ve been out of high school for more than four years, I don’t even have to report hers anymore.

As many of you know, financial aid at U of T Law works a little differently. The school requires both parents’ income tax notices of assessment, and it deems a certain amount of parental contribution regardless of actual contribution (see: page sixteen of the Financial Aid Policies and Procedures Booklet, (2c) “Deemed Family Support”). The only real exception is if you have a spouse or partner, in which case you submit their income tax information instead.

As an incoming 1L, I found this all quite confusing and emailed the Financial Aid Office to clarify. I wrote something like, “My parents are divorced, I rarely see or speak to my father, and, to my knowledge, he’s unemployed. Do I really have to submit his notice of assessment as well?” Their reply was an unequivocal, “Yes.” So, insecure and fearful of rocking the boat, I asked my mom to get in touch with my father to ask him for his notice of assessment. He emailed it to me a few weeks later, I submitted it to Financial Aid, and I put the whole ordeal out of my mind.

I spent my 2L year as a full-time student of the School of Public Policy & Governance, so I wasn’t eligible for financial aid from the law school. Interestingly, the Financial Aid program through the School of Graduate Studies doesn’t ask for parental income information.

But back to this summer: I’m an incoming 3L and the Financial Aid Office has just asked me to submit my father’s tax information. Fortunately, I’m more assertive than I was two years ago. I responded: I am not in touch with my father, but his girlfriend informed me that he has not nor is he planning to file his 2016 taxes. I’m not certain what he would file anyway, since to my knowledge he has not earned any taxable income since 2014. If it is imperative that you include an estranged parent’s tax information in my financial aid assessment, then I suggest you use his tax return I submitted with my first financial aid application, for the 2015-16 school year.

The Office responded: “If you would like to list your father as estranged, please send us a letter explaining the situation and we will review.”

This reply surprised me. When I applied the first time, back in 2015, I was never informed of my option to treat my father as estranged. It’s not in the Financial Aid Policies and Procedures Booklet. The closest thing is the “two-household” policy outlined on page seventeen, which states that a larger sum

will be exempted from the deemed parental contribution if a student has separated or divorced parents ($100,307 as opposed to $69,068 in 2017-18). Students who want to exercise this option have to write a letter attached to their application attesting to the fact that they have a two-household family for each year they apply for financial aid.

After the surprise wore off, I felt a little lost. What was I meant to include in this letter? Would the barebones details suffice, or did I have to tell the whole sordid story? If I admitted that I still see my father a few times a year, would I be barred from listing him as estranged? Most upsetting of all, why wasn’t my word enough?

This is a policy based on suspicion and distrust.

The Faculty, I presume, aims to ensure that students with separated parents don’t claim the lesser of two incomes and receive more than their fair share of financial aid. You can imagine the scenario: Jane Doe applies for financial aid, shares her mother’s modest income only, and receives a large grant on that basis, even though her father is ready and willing to bankroll her law degree. It’s slimy and dishonest, but it could happen.

I understand the need to guard against students who wish to take advantage of the system, but there is surely a way to do so without such intrusiveness.

Writing the aforementioned letter was a distressing experience for me. Without any guidance as to what information was necessary or sufficient to label my father as estranged, I muddled through three or four paragraphs about his substance abuse problems, his failed attempts at rehabilitation and sobriety, and the emotional and financial toll his choices have taken on my family. I called my mom to doublecheck a few details (“When did you guys formally file for divorce? What year did his first girlfriend overdose? Do you have any idea when he started using again, I can’t remember if it was during my first year or second year at Queen’s?”) and ended the phone call in tears. It took me three days to write a one-page letter.

At the beginning of September, I sent in my final summer paystub and inquired about the status of my letter. The Office responded: “The Financial Aid Committee will meet in September, and the decision will be communicated to you sometime in September.” I hadn’t realized until then that the whole Committee would be reading my letter, but I suppose it makes sense. Honestly, I am uncomfortable in the knowledge that a group of students, faculty, and admin collectively read and passed judgment on the most fraught and painful relationship in my life. It makes little difference to me that my letter and application were anonymous; it still feels unduly invasive and intrusive.

And here’s the best part: I get to do it all over again next year. The letter won’t stay on my file. A friend of mine, another U of T Law student who is also estranged from her father, told me that she submits the same letter every year and just changes the date. I think it would make more sense to keep the original letter on file and request an update only if the situation has changed. Alas, it seems we low-income students can’t be trusted to come forward with new information. We’ll take any opportunity to cheat the system, right?

U of T Law claims that one of the core principles of the financial aid program is ensuring that the law school continues to be accessible to students from all backgrounds. In the Financial Aid Policies and Procedures Booklet, they say, “Access is of particular concern for students from low-income backgrounds.

Students from low-income families often have personal histories or circumstances which make a law school education less obtainable.” Indeed, we do.

Yet, for me, and people in situations similar to mine, access is contingent on sharing deeply personal histories or circumstances. If the Faculty truly cares about accessibility for students from low-income backgrounds, perhaps they should give this policy a second look and consider its impact on students with traumatic or painful personal histories.

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

September 27, 2017 | 13

Classroom Power Rankings NORM YALLEN (2L)

3

1 J140, 9.15/10 The best classroom at the law school.

Big enough that you can sit at the back and comfortably peruse Facebook. Small enough that you could hear the professor talking, if you were listening for once. The back window provides a nice vista where you can view unfortunate people who are not learning the nuances of limited liability partnerships.

The alley behind the law school, 8.53/10 This is where students can learn the real laws: the laws of the street. Down there, they play for keeps. Some of the most powerful lessons I have ever learned, I learned here.

P115, 8.86/10 This classroom may have inadequate light, poor ventilation, and bad chairs, but what it lacks in amenities, it more than makes up for in character. I recommend sneaking into the class late at night and reading tax law cases. On an especially clear night it will feel like you’re reading about tax. It will feel like that at any time, actually, since there are no windows.

J225, 7.78/10 This intimate spot is a wonderful haven for anything from studying tort law to conducting a duel with your arch-nemesis. My only regret is that it all had to end so soon.

6

While it does not have the character of P115, this classroom still has a bit of character. For maximum enjoyment, try hiding under the desk and popping out in the middle of class. Your professor will undoubtedly be impressed by your initiative and keen legal mind.

7 5

Moot Court Room, 7.26/10 On the surface, the Moot Court Room seems to be the most glamourous class-

walk around the hall and wait for someone else to get there. I do not want people to think of me as the f irst guy in the class.

8 J230 & J125, 6.69/10

P120, 6.93/10 4

2

room in the building. When I told people I was writing a column ranking the classrooms, they said that would be a dumb idea because the Moot Court Room was the best. Well, I think those people are dumb, and so is the Moot Room. I sure showed them.

J130, 6.76/10 This is, on the surface, the same room as J125. But I have two classes in this one, and I am special. Have you ever been the f irst one in a class? I have never been brave enough to sit there on my own. I usually

Are you actually still reading this? You should go outside, it’s so nice out. Or go spend some time in a classroom. One of the nicer classrooms, not these ones. These ones are boring.

9 P115, 5.37/10 This classroom was once a law student who got caught plagiarizing and faced a harsh punishment: he was turned into a classroom. Do not plagiarize—unless you want to eventually be turned into a classroom, sponsored by a Bay Street f irm. Or, even worse, a classroom that is not sponsored by a Bay Street f irm.

This Year’s Follies Canceled After Anthony Niblett Goes on Leave KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (3L)

The Follies Exec, led by Adam Ragusa and Elizabeth Creelman, announced this week that they had decided to cancel this year’s show in light of the fact that Professor Anthony Niblett is on leave.

“It’s really tough,” Ragusa told us.

“We’ve been brainstorming all summer, we had tons of great ideas, and suddenly we f ind out that Professor Niblett is on leave? That’s, like, three quarters of the show out the window.”

The decision hit Creelman hard. “The decision hit me hard,” she said. “But I guess Niblett is somewhere in Australia or England or something. Which one is it again?”

When this reporter informed Ragusa and Creelman that Professor Niblett had been spotted on campus as recently as last

week, Ragusa responded, “Yeah, but 1Ls won’t even know who he is, you know?

What’s the point?” He seemed very depressed.

In response to the news, a grassroots campaign has formed to have Dean Iacobucci step in to save the show and take on a more central role in this years Follies. A Kickstarter page has already raised $4.57. However, some commentators have pointed to the language of the “Make Iacobucci a Star” page with suspicion: “Ed Iacobucci starring in Follies is the stuff of which deans are made. Get it? Like dreams, but deans. Dean Iacobucci has long been the most beloved dean in U of T Law history and it’s about time he became the most beloved star of Law Follies. Nobody ever liked Niblett that much anyway.” Who else but the Dean himself, these sceptical commentators ask, would describe Edward Iacobucci as U of T’s most beloved dean?

U V reached out to Dean Iacobucci for comment and we were told that, “Under no circumstances did Dean Iacobucci start his own Kickstarter campaign. But if he did, it would only have been because the enormous groundswell of support from the U of T Law community at large demanded it. The Dean has a natural and magnetic charisma, unlike others who require fancy PowerPoint presentations to overcompensate for their own mediocrity.”

Is this truly the end of Law Follies? We here at U V hope not. What else are we going to do at 8:00 PM on February 8, at The Opera House? How else will we see how talented our fellow students are? How else will we share in an all-too-brief reprieve from the hellacious nightmare that is living in the modern world? We need Follies—now more than ever.

DIVERSIONS

14 | September 27, 2017

ultravires.ca

OCI FAQ: The Answers the CDO Won’t Give You KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (3L) OCIs are a stressful time for 2Ls. The CDO does a f ine job with the basic questions: What do I wear? What kind of questions should I expect? Is it okay if I don’t want to work on Bay Street? (CDO’s answer: HA HA HA good one. Wait, you’re serious?). But there are some questions that only people who have recently gone through the process can answer. U V has you covered.

Q: If they’re On- Campus Interviews, why are they held off campus?

A: This is a mind game, plain and simple.

It’s designed to throw you of f balance. Do not, under any circumstance, make a comment about this to an interviewer. They will end the interview on the spot and ridicule you for your weak mind. You will be able to complete the rest of your OCIs, but you will be obligated to wear a name tag that says “Weakling” instead of your actual name.

Q: What if my nerves cause me to sweat during my interviews?

A: Everyone in the world hates any person that sweats, because bodily functions are not acceptable. Some people recommend wrapping yourself in plastic wrap. That can work, but be prepared to answer questions about why your skin is so shiny. Personally, I suggest telling all of your interviewers that you just hopped out of the shower. Consider carrying a bottle of shampoo into the booth for authenticity.

Sample dialogue: You: “Sorry about the shampoo, I just hopped out of the shower.”

Interviewer: “That’s great, we value cleanliness at our f irm.”

Q: Should I lie in my interviews?

A: Yes. One of the main criteria interviewers consider is how adept you are at telling lies. Research shows that lies are most believable when surrounded by truthy details. When you are asked to “tell [them] about yourself,” for example, say something like, “I play the piano, I like to cook, I really enjoyed working on the Law Review in 1L , and I set the record for most consecutive days spent in space.” However, if you lie too well, the interviewers will think you told the truth the whole time, which they will not appreciate. Wow them by admitting your lies at the end of the interview.

You: “I was lying. I hated being on Law Review. It’s so boring!”

Q:What if I throw up on my interviewer?

Interviewers: “Wow!”

A: This is normal and something that happens to almost everyone. The key is to play it cool. If you don’t draw attention to it, the interviewers will barely notice. I threw up on one interviewer almost every time I spoke. Instead of getting nervous and letting the increasingly unbearable smell phase me, I stayed calm, maintained good eye contact, and focused on communicating all my talking points. Guess what? I got the job. Success at OCIs isn’t about perfection, it’s about showing that you know your resume even when you’re covered in this morning’s half-digested breakfast sandwich.

Q: The CDO says OCIs are kind of like speed dating. Should I use pick-up techniques in my interview?

A: My dude, of course you should. Neg those interviewers hard.

Interviewer: “Why do you want to work at a corporate firm?”

You: “I don’t. I’m only doing this interview because I felt sorry for you. You think anyone wants to work eighty hours a week doing the most boring type of law there is? Why? Because you pay more? Firm, please. I wouldn’t join your cult of sleeping in the office if you paid ten times as much.”

Interviewer: “Come to an in-firm! We’ll show you that we’re not what you think! Please!”

Works every time.

Ultra Vires Revealed to be a Front for the Donut Marketing Board of Canada KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (3L) Wake up, people. This is not a “Diversion.” [Editor’s note: then why is it in the Diversions section? Wake up, Kevin.] The wool has been pulled over your eyes and you don’t even know it. You’re being placated by the powerful sedative that is the mixture of fried fat and sugar.

Did you pick up this copy of U V at the release party? Are you chewing a [ healthy, delicious] donut while reading this [article that is just a joke]? If so, put that [ healthy, delicious, irresistible] donut down [then pick it up, f inish it, and grab another one or two to go, why not? Donuts are an important part of your daily diet].

When I f irst started at U V, I thought we stood for high quality student journalism.

But one detail kept bothering me. Why didn’t my articles ever get rejected? Why was I allowed to publish a dramatic threepart series about case briefs?

Finally, it dawned on me: the articles aren’t the point. It’s the [ healthy, delicious, undeniably delectable] donuts. If you’re anything like me, you always thought the [ healthy, delicious, perfectly cromulent] donuts were a bribe so that you’d read the paper. But it’s the other way around. The paper is just an excuse to get people hooked on [ healthy, delicious, utterly divine] donuts. Give them away for free for no reason and everyone will be suspicious, but package them with a newspaper and nobody will ever question it.

You might be asking, “How does he know? Does he have any evidence?” Just like Woodward and Bernstein, I followed the money. I questioned new Editors-inChief A idan Campbell and Amani Rauf f.

They wouldn’t tell me anything, but I thought it was weird when they both drove of f in matching BM Ws with the license plates “DNTZ4EVR” and “DNTZ4LYFE”. Still, I couldn’t prove anything.

Finally, a highly-placed source—let’s call her Lucy Maude Montgomery—got me a copy of U V’s f inancial books. It was all there. Every month, there was a huge [generous donation, not in any way a bribe] payment from a shell corporation under the name DMBC, whose sole listed of f icer was Timothy H. Cruller.

This is where things get explosive. I looked into Mr. Cruller and he’s a [real person/incredible philanthropist/unquestionable genius] guy whose only purpose is to [support student journalism and provide healthy, delicious, earth-shatteringly magnif icent donuts to the f ine people of Canada]. This [non, not at all, not one tiny (Tim)bit] conspiracy goes straight to the top. I demand that the editors of U V [do not] resign. The reign of the big [ healthy, delicious, king of all snacks] donut must [never] end.

Editor’s note: Kevin “Donutfeldt” Schoenfeldt is a well-known moron. Nothing he says can be taken seriously. He can usually be found in one of the many healthy, delicious, extremely affordable donut shops located throughout Toronto. But you should probably verify that for yourself.

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

September 27, 2017 | 15

“Why Don’t You Stop Hitting Yourself?” Asks Woman Who Has Judge Pinned Down On Courthouse Cafeteria Floor KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (3L) “Why don’t you stop hitting yourself ?

Why don’t you stop hitting yourself ? Why don’t you stop hitting yourself ?” The words rang out across the Osgoode Hall cafeteria on Monday afternoon in a scene that has become increasingly common at courthouses throughout Canada.

Rachel Friedman, a courthouse employee, witnessed the event: “Everything was normal and then I hear shouting and I see Judge Schittman on the ground, his shoulders pinned down by a woman I’d never seen before. I can’t really explain it, but he just wouldn’t stop hitting himself. She kept asking why, why why, but he wasn’t answering. I really think we deserve an answer to that question. Why didn’t

he just stop hitting himself?”

The woman who had Judge Schittman pinned down was Sarah Striker, a lawyer specializing in representing sexual assault complainants. In a phone call with UV she gave this comment: “Listen, if Judge A. Schittman can’t stop hitting himself, how is that my problem? He needs to take some personal responsibility. You don’t see me going around hitting myself do you?”

When asked about the fact that she pinned Schittman down on the cafeteria f loor, Striker responded, “That’s just something that happens to judges. If you’re going to be a judge, walking around in the courthouse,

sometimes you’re going to get pinned down on the floor. He knew that when he became a judge.”

In response to the events, Judge Schittman urged the police to press charges. However, police spokesperson Franklin Strop told reporters at a press conference that charges were unlikely. “We have numerous witnesses who saw Schittman striking himself. We will complete a full investigation, but at this point it does not appear that there are grounds for any criminal charges.”

Judge Schittman released a statement to the press Tuesday morning: It is unacceptable that this keeps hap-

pening to judges across Canada. This problem must be addressed. I simply do not understand how our legal system can continue to plead ignorance when it comes to the issue of male judges being pinned down on courthouse cafeteria f loors and being asked why they don’t stop hitting themselves. We should not allow this kind of oppression to continue in this great nation of ours. If Access to Justice for Judges is going to mean anything, action must be taken.

Later that day, Judge Schittman acquitted Sherman Petit of three charges of assault on the grounds that he was a “promising young man” who had recently been accepted to law school.

More Featured Students: How the Other Half Lives A rea woman realizes she has no future in academia and begins third degree.

STEPHANIE D’AMICO (2L) Every September, the law school regales us with thrilling accounts of some of the most highprof ile and glamourous members of the incoming 1L class. From musicians to physicists to human rights activists, these feature-worthy people bring truly impressive skills and experience to the law school. But what about the other 197 students?

Who knows, but here are three you might not have met yet:

Lifelong overachiever decides law school is ideal context to assert alpha status.

Undercover P.I. masquerading as student to patrol for SNA ILS in the law library.

CHELSEA WILLOWS, 27

DA MI A N SLOA N, 19

DREW LI, 45

“When I f inished my masters in the dialectics of comparative cinema, I was shocked to discover that the industry wasn’t hiring,” says Chelsea Willows.

“Luckily, I have always been a strong writer and avid debater, which made law school feel like a logical f it.” Chelsea is currently working on a SU YRP that analyses the relationship between Supreme Court video recordings and the early music videos of Lana Del Ray. Her supervisor has described the project as “deeply impractical” and “borderline unintelligible.”

“When I heard there was a chance to be featured in Ultra Vires as part of the incoming class, I was thrilled,” explained Damian Sloan. “I never say ‘no’ to an opportunity and I’m pretty sure that’s why I’m the youngest person to ever attend the nation’s best law school.” As of September 19, Damian has participated in 90% of the volunteer programs of fered by the school, 50% of the clubs, and has led 40% of the schoolsponsored socials. He has also alienated 100% of his peers.

“No. I can’t tell you who hired me,” insisted Drew, who goes by a dif ferent name among his peers. “I’m just trying to f it in, and, honestly, I think it’s working. Maybe even too well. I don’t understand how this happened, but I have a solid HH transcript. The Dean thinks I should do a clerkship,” he noted enthusiastically, “which is great, because I‘d love to alert the Supreme Court about the SNA IL epidemic facing elite law libraries in this country.” Before heading to his Advanced Contracts class, Drew asked to see the sticker on my library card.

Things to Talk About That Are Not OCIs NORM YALLEN (2L) With OCIs coming up, it can feel like the only thing to talk about is the upcoming interviews. Here are some suggestions for mediocre conversation topics to pass the time when talking with your peers.

Politics- What’s that Donald Trump up to today? Surely some delightful hijinks, like casually threatening nuclear war while calling Kim Jong Un the “Rocket Man”. Oh, he’s retweeted a neo-Nazi twitter account. Weird that this guy controls the most powerful country in the world. Maybe it’s best to talk about

something else. This is worse than talking about the OCIs. Last Year’s Marks- Ask that casual acquaintance about what marks he got last year. It is probably best to tell him your marks f irst, to start the conversation.

The beauty of this is that you can just lie about your marks. After all, they cannot check your transcript!

Television/Netf lix- Everyone likes talking about their favourite show—unless they refuse to talk, for fear of having it spoiled. My friend told me that he

won’t watch the rest of Game of Thrones until all of the books come out, and that he would prefer none of us talk about it with him. I now only talk to him about OCIs. Ultra Vires- Have you seen some of the articles Ultra Vires runs? Some of the garbage in this paper is honestly unbelievable. Pathetic, actually, when you think about it.... Just joking, everything here is awesome and critical comments will not be tolerated.

The Weather- How about that amazing weather we are having? Probably best, for the purposes of this conversation, to ignore the eighteen hurricanes, twelve f loods, the series of earthquakes, and the four forest f ires that by now surely merged into one mega-f ire currently going on. On second thought, that could get depressing quickly.

Silence- Just do not say anything and allow yourself to be absorbed by your own thoughts. This might be the worst one of all. It’s just about time to ask your friend how many OCIs they have.

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