Ultra Vires Vol 19 Issue 2 2017 Oct

OCTOBER 25, 2017 | ULTRAVIRES.CA

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

Justices Robert Sharpe (ONCA), Elizabeth Stewart (ONSC), and Russell Brown (SCC) pose with Mooters Catherine Fan, Ashley Bowron, Madeline Lisus, and Jessica Kras; Chief Justices of the Grand Moot Kerry Sun and Stephanie Lewis; and Dean Ed Iacobucci

Grand Moot 2017 SHARI NATHAN (3L) This year’s historic Grand Moot was the first in U of T Law’s history to feature four female mooters: Jessica Kras, Madeline Lisus, Ashley Bowron, and Catherine Fan. This year’s panel comprised Justices Russell Brown of the Supreme Court of Canada, Robert Sharpe of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and Elizabeth Stewart of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The Moot Court Committee did not squander the opportunity presented by the all-female mooting contingent, crafting a problem rich with feminist themes that focused on a gay couple challenging the total prohibition on compensated surrogacy in s. 6(1) of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Mooters Kras and Lisus, for the appellants, brought to life a sympathetic narrative of a couple fighting and struggling to create a family in the face of this restriction. They highlighted surrogates’ lack of agency and compensation in comparison to the economic benefits flowing to other parties in altruistic surrogacy, such as lawyers drafting contracts, doctors doing IVF, and the like. Mooters Bowron and Fan, for the respondents, tempered this struggle against the danger of commodifying pregnancy and childbirth. They discussed the risk of coercion in vulnerable populations, and the potential for wom-

en to lose control of their own bodies in pursuit of economic stability.

The panel commended the mooters on their excellent performance. Justice Brown commented that the quality of the mooters’ written submissions was on par with those he sees every day. Justice Stewart was impressed with the mooters’ oral advocacy and ability to respond to tough questions and dumb questions alike. Justice Sharpe, concurring with Justice Stewart, also congratulated the mooters and particularly noted their ability to develop individual oral advocacy styles.

As always, the panel reserved judgement. Justice Brown also took a moment to praise the Moot Court Committee and the problem its members drafted, calling it “one of the best” for this high level of competition.

From the high level of mooting, to the brilliance of the mooters, to the inventiveness of the problem—and, of course, the deft back-andforth between the panel and the mooters—this is definitely worth a watch. A video recording of the moot is posted online at [https://www.law. utoronto.ca/academic-programs/jd-program/ mooting/grand-moot-2017].

Counsel for the appellants looking relieved to have this whole thing over with

(more images on page 2)

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE FACULTY COUNCIL FALL CLASSIC

WHAT'S GOOD AT GOODMANS

COSTUME IDEAS FOR IN-FIRMS

PAGE 5

PAGE 23

PAGE 18

2 | October 25, 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.

Editors-in-chief News Editors Features Editors Opinion Editors Diversions Editors First Year 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 Honghu Wang, Daryna Kutsyna, Lily Rosenthal & Robert Nanni Mimi Pichette Nick Papageorge Alexandra Fox Shari Nathan

ERRORS 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.

Chief Justices of the Grand Moot introduce the problem Counsel for the respondents confer following the end of their submissions

SUCCESS SUPPORT BREEDS SUCCESS 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.

Students line up well in advance of the start of the moot

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

The Mooters in their finery, nervously but patiently sitting through an amateur portrait session

NEWS

ultravires.ca

October 25, 2017 | 3

Mental Health and Wellness Student Committee’s Plans for the Year MAUD ROZEE (3L) At their f irst meeting of the year, the Mental Health and Wellness Student Committee discussed their plans for the peer mentor health program, f itness and nutrition support, community building, a speaker series, and more.

Peer Mental Health Program The Committee would like to expand the program this year, as there are currently more potential mentees than qualif ied mentors. The committee also wants to provide training in SafeTalk, a widely-used pre-existing suicide awareness training program, to all mentors.

Fitness and Nutrition Support

Speaker Series

The Committee discussed potential initiatives centering around gym visits and healthy cooking, contemplated a Halloween-themed dodgeball, and tried to get the Dean, an elite runner, involved in the existing running group. Finally, Hiam Koglashvili told the Committee about the Health and Fitness Group that he had started, hoping that the Committee could f ind new ways to enhance their activities.

Wellness Coordinator Yukimi Henry shared that Orlando Da Silva, the former President of the Ontario Bar Association, would be giving a talk at the law school later this year. Mr. Da Silva is well known for being open about his experiences with depression and suicidal ideation as a highachieving lawyer. Ms. Henry also shared that she was working on a lived experience panel with speakers including CAMHfounder and lawyer Arnie Cader. The panel would also include a “recruitment perspective on structures at f irms to support mental health.”

Community Building Upcoming community building initiatives include an art show, a baking exchange, a drop-in snack time, and a mental health awareness week featuring mindfulness training.

Other Students presented other ideas to promote mental health. Improving the OCI experience was top of the mind for some, who suggested having therapy dogs or 3L mentors attend OCIs next year to provide support.

Students also suggested a project promoting conversations about failure, because it’s easy to imagine that everyone else is only experiencing success. One student suggested that Ultra Vires could provide a forum for stories about dealing with failures. This led to much discussion about whether Ultra Vires was accessible for students, given that some had heard that other students found the paper triggering and the paper is known to have an agenda. Ultimately, the Committee decided that they might produce an independent newsletter instead.

(Editor’s Note: Despite our hurt feelings, the offer to run testimonials still stands.)

The Health and Fitness Organization is Here to Stay HIAM KOGLASHVILI (1L)

There are few certainties in life. They include death, taxes, and a very stressful f irst year in law school. The general demands of law school can wreak havoc on your f itness routine and mental well-being.

When I walked into the Jackman Law Building for a guided tour, back in April, I inquired about creating a health and f itness organization at the law school. I had this grand plan: I would create a group simply as an excuse to ensure that I maintained my own regimented workout routine. What I didn’t expect is that the Health and Fitness Organization would morph into the robust group it is today.

Being a 1L can be daunting on its own; being the only 1L with a booth at the Club Fair is a nightmare. At the time, my organization consisted of only a single person and a grand idea, but I came out of the fair with over seventy names and email addresses. It was clear that many of my peers shared at least some interest in maintaining their health and f itness throughout the grind of law school.

When Dana O’Shea joined the executive team as Vice-President, we made a commitment to focus our group on promoting a healthy body, mind, and soul for all law students and faculty. The Facebook group has taken on a life of its own. It has become a community f illed with members celebrating people’s f itness accomplishments and supporting people through struggles. Some members shared why it was unnecessary to beat themselves up for indulging in holiday food during Thanksgiving and Rosh Hashanah. Others talked about the struggle of going back to the gym after a long lay-off.

Putting these issues out in the open has allowed our members to come together, share their own experiences, and provide support for each other.

What makes this organization different is that it doesn’t add another demand on your time like an extra-curricular activity does.

There are no weekly meetings. We are a supportive community where the only time commitments are our members’ self-imposed f itness goals.

So, what’s the catch? How does it work?

At the beginning of every month, each person sets a goal for how many times they want to be active each week. Each time they go to the gym or do an analogous f itness activity, they take a self ie or, if they don’t like taking self ies, a picture of the equipment, a body part, or the location. There are no limitations when it comes to def ining a f itness activity: we have encouraged our members to join the school’s running group, attend intramurals, or participate in yoga and meditation. Photos are either sent privately, with the promise that they will never be shared without express permission, or posted publicly on the Facebook group. At the end of each month, we host a health-andf itness-themed event to celebrate our members’ dedication to maintaining their own physical and mental wellness.

buddy so that the pair can motivate each other to meet their own goals, workout together, and f ind another person with similar health and f itness interests.

Going through your health and f itness journey alone can sometimes be discouraging. This is why we supplement the group with f itness mentors and f itness buddies.

Members can request their own f itness mentor to help them construct their f itness routines and learn basic form at the gym.

Members can also be matched up with a

There is at least one certainty other than death, taxes, and the stress of law school: the Health and Fitness Organization is here to stay and we are going to start a health and f itness revolution here at University of Toronto Faculty of Law.

The group has only started to realize its potential. Thirteen percent of law school students are group members, while fortythree students, and even one professor, are currently following the month-long f itness accountability program. We are continuously trying to expand our community to reach as many law school students as possible. This organization is not just made for the active gym-goer. Our community speaks to everybody at the law school, from those who dislike the gym to people who are simply intimidated by getting started on their f itness journey.

NEWS

4 | October 25, 2017

ultravires.ca

SLS Town Hall Addresses Financial Aid, Debt Relief DARYNA KUTSYNA (1L) In preparation for the Dean’s Committee on Financial Aid meeting this month, the Students’ Law Society (SLS) hosted a town hall on October 12 and subsequently distributed an anonymous online tuition feedback survey. The town hall was open to all students wishing to express their concerns regarding f inancial aid distribution and the f inancial aid application process mandated by the faculty. SLS President Katie Longo, 2L Representative Solomon McKenzie, and 1L Representative Robert Nanni directed the meeting and f ielded student questions.

These SLS representatives hold three seats on the Financial Aid Committee, making up a minority of votes on the faculty dominated roster, which includes Assistant Dean Alexis Archbold and Professors Ben Alarie and Albert Yoon. In response to a question about the amount of decision-making power the SLS holds, President Longo explained that, although the representatives have little sway on major decisions such as tuition hikes, the SLS has a signif icant impact on the “soft policy” that guides f inancial aid decisions. She noted that, for example, the SLS has successfully advocated for conse-

quential changes such as expected spousal contributions and deemed amounts of savings from summer jobs.

The town hall discussion covered a range of issues, with a focus on soliciting student feedback on a more progressive model of f inancial aid distribution and options for post-graduate debt relief.

Currently, all those who qualify for f inancial aid are provided an equal share of their unmet need as a bursary and must make up the difference with government loans and lines of credit. While this distribution has provided larger bursaries to middle-income applicants, students raised concerns that those from lower-income or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds may be unable or unwilling to borrow the additional, considerable sums they need in order to attend.

In response to a query about the f inancial aid pot failing to match annual tuition hikes, the SLS representatives explained that the Faculty has failed to uphold its promise to commit 30% of tuition increases to f inancial aid. This promise was one of

the grounds on which the Faculty approved deregulation of tuition in 2001.

The SLS representatives explained that the administration is currently committed to prioritizing f inancial aid in their fundraising efforts. However, as President Longo noted, the Dean’s Off ice has reported that these efforts have been hindered by donor fatigue following the hefty construction bill for the new law building. The Dean’s off ice used that same explanation last year.

On the topic of f inancial aid distribution, students in attendance suggested advocating for more progressive models. One student f loated the approach adopted by some Ivy League schools, in which the 20% of students with the highest f inancial need receive free tuition while the rest of the class’s tuition is progressively staggered. Another student mentioned the income-contingent loan program currently being piloted by Osgoode Hall Law School for lower-income students. Under this model, students are only obligated to begin paying back their loans once their income has reached the median salary for an associate at a small Toronto f irm. If a student’s income sits be-

low a predetermined threshold in any of the years of the repayment period, the loan repayment for those years will be forgiven.

The issue of post-graduation debt relief was also raised. Currently, students who do not qualify for f inancial aid while in school are ineligible to receive relief payments on their private lines of credit, which may present a concern for students seeking employment in public interest f ields or unable to secure employment immediately.

One student suggested obtaining private donor information and reaching out to them directly to persuade them to prioritize f inancial aid concerns. The SLS representatives responded that this would likely do signif icant harm to the SLS’s relationship with the administration and obstruct further f inancial aid negotiations.

Following the town hall, the SLS distributed an anonymous online survey to solicit a broader range of students’ f inancial concerns. The feedback obtained at the town hall and through the survey informed the SLS’s input at subsequent Financial Aid committee meetings.

First Faculty Council Discusses Admissions, Student Experience, and Rankings HONGHU WANG (1L) The f irst Faculty Council meeting of this academic year took place on October 4. Admissions and Student Experience Survey results were presented, law school rankings were announced, and the sandwiches were delicious.

team, the success of the graduate students’ orientation, and the space in Falconer Hall for graduate students. He said that the GLSA is looking forward to integrating the graduate students and program into the Faculty more generally.

Student Government

Admissions

Students’ Law Society (SLS) President Katie Longo highlighted the Society's priorities for this year, namely: (1) working towards reconciliation and supporting Indigenous students at the law school; (2) promoting good government and democratic processes; and (3) hosting accessible social events for students and creating a wider conversation about the meaning of accessibility. To those ends, she spoke of continuing the mandatory Blanket Exercises for all SLS executives and earmarked funding for the Indigenous Law Students’ Association, holding more town halls, and providing anonymous avenues for student feedback.

Professor Ben Alarie unveiled the JD Admissions Report. There were no dramatic changes year over year, though there was a slight increase in applications: for 2017–18, there were 2199 applications to the program, 354 offers made, and 207 students registered, representing an offer rate (offers / applications) of 16%, which is up by one point. The yield rate (acceptances / offers) of 58% is down by f ive points. 84% of students are the f irst in their family to attend law school and the majority of students speak more than one language.

Graduate Law Students’ Association (GLSA) President Haim Abraham expressed gratitude for the graduate program

Ms. Longo asked why socioeconomic status was not requested by the Faculty at all, noting that students from lower-income backgrounds were more likely to self-report diff iculty integrating into the law school.

Prof. Alarie replied that admissions is completely needs-blind, while f inancial aid better addresses those concerns.

Student Experience Survey Assistant Dean Alexis Archbold presented the Student Experience Survey results. The response rate was about 40% and evenly split by year.

Respondents generally reported satisfaction with academic support, social events, and employment, while reporting mixed satisfaction with support of overall well-being. They were generally satisf ied with the law school environment and student services.

Students that requested accommodations, amounting to 15% of respondents, reported mixed feelings about accommodations through Accessibility Services, though accommodations through the law school were generally viewed positively. Most students were somewhat satisf ied with the Faculty providing opportunities to deepen the understanding of Indigenous Law and the history of colonialism. Finally, 75% of respon-

dents would recommend U of T Law to someone thinking of attending law school.

Truth and Reconciliation Implementation Committee Report Professor Douglas Sanderson provided an update on the TRC Committee. He spoke of the Committee developing best practices regarding honorariums and inviting elders, the success of the Blanket Exercise, and entering into a community relationship with the Mississaugas of New Credit.

Rankings Dean Iacobucci opened the meeting by highlighting the new Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2018, in which the University of Toronto ranked tenth among law schools.

Awards and Financial Endowment The Council approved about $351,000 in f inancial endowments to support f inancial aid.

ultravires.ca

NEWS

October 25, 2017 | 5

Faculty Council: Financial Aid Fall Classic MAUD ROZEE (3L)

The October 18 meeting of Faculty Council’s centred on the Faculty’s yearly discussion of its budget, tuition, and f inancial aid.

The meeting took place in J120 instead of the Solarium because of anticipated high attendance for this discussion, and the meeting was indeed well attended by students (although less well attended by faculty).

Before the main event, Assistant Dean Sara Faherty gave an update from the Accommodations Committee. Over the last year, the Committee approved 277 out of 287 requests from 135 students. Requests for accommodation from students with two exams on the same day or conf licting religious observances were automatically approved.

In other cases, Assistant Dean Faherty said the Committee required further information so that it could treat like cases alike.

She also explained that these numbers do not necessarily present the whole picture as many students are accommodated centrally through U of T Accessibility Services. Assistant Dean Faherty apologized for sometimes asking “nitpicky” questions throughout the accommodation process and said she appreciated students’ patience. Students’ Law Society (SLS) President Katie Longo asked whether the Committee had considered changing a law school policy which prevents students from recording lectures (the recommended accommodation from U of T Accessibility Services for students with hearing issues). Assistant Dean Faherty responded that changing that kind of policy is “above my paygrade” but offered assurances that she could almost always f ind class notes for students in need.

Next, Dean Iacobucci gave his presentation on the law school’s current budget. He began with a reminder that Faculty Council has no formal authority over the budget.

Although the Faculty is not a “helpless bystander” in the budget process, it must ultimately answer to the Provost’s off ice. Any discussion on budget and tuition from the Faculty would only have an informal impact.

Dean Iacobucci walked Faculty Council through the University of Toronto’s $2.47 billion budget, which relies on student fees for 61% of its revenue. He explained that while costs are rising, government funding per student has stagnated. This is a large contributor to the University's structural def icit: its weighted average increase in revenue is 2.7% and its weighted average increase in expense is 3.3%. Compensation for faculty and staff makes up 64% of the University’s costs. The University relies in-

creasingly on international students for revenue, as international tuition increases are not regulated.

Dean Iacobucci further explained the University of Toronto’s decentralized model. Each department, like the Faculty of Law, has to pay 10% of all revenues into the University Fund. This money is redistributed to programs around the university.

The Faculty of Law is actually a signif icant net recipient of university funds.

Compensation for faculty and staff makes up 53% of the Faculty of Law’s budget. 19% of the budget is allocated to university-wide costs like keeping the lights on and paying for libraries; 11% to f inancial aid; 8% to the University Fund; and 9% to “Other.” Overall, the Faculty of Law has a 0.7% structural def icit. Its costs are growing faster than its revenue even if tuition rises by 5% annually, the maximum increase allowed by provincial regulation.

Dean Iacobucci explained that this puts constraints on his discussions about the Faculty’s budget with the Provost. The whole university is in a structural def icit and other departments are raising tuition at the maximum allowable rates—for international students, these increases are around 10% annually. Dean Iacobucci said, “I can’t walk in and say to the Provost, ‘We’re going to keep taking out of the University Fund but not going to raise tuition to pay more.’” He explained that, in the future, changes to things like the pension solvency could help alleviate the structural def icit but this year he will recommend another 5% increase to tuition.

There are margins for improvement, Dean Iacobucci continued. The Faculty has cut costs by, for example, ending its internationally trained lawyers program, as well as by repositioning the law library so that costs are shared across divisions. He also emphasized that student f inancial aid is a fundraising priority and the Faculty has recently received several donations. The f inancial aid pot increased 7.5% last year and the Dean is conf ident that the Faculty will achieve another 7.5% increase again this year. He could not make promises beyond that.

Following the Dean’s remarks, SLS President Longo gave a speech in response (the text of which will be available on the UV website). It can be effectively summed up in a single choice quote: “The reality is that our f inancial aid has failed to keep pace with rising tuition, and students are concerned and frustrated with what feels like an endless march towards f inancial inac-

cessibility.”

The Dean, in his capacity as Chair of Faculty Council, then opened the f loor to questions.

2L StAG representative Solomon McKenzie asked the Faculty to release demographic information of f inancial aid recipients for the past two years, as the Faculty had done in years past. Dean Iacobucci responded that he would consider it, but warned that making the data presentable for release is a diff icult process and it is pointless to look at changing demographics without data from other schools, which have so far been resistant to collecting such information. He further noted that, in the past, those with an ideological stance against raising tuition had not used such information productively.

StAG Vice-President Anne Marshall asked whether there was a dollar amount for tuition that the Dean would consider to be too high, noting that tuition in the year 2020 would be above $40,000—a 1000% increase since deregulation. Dean Iacobucci remarked that the issue can be framed in any number of jarring ways but, given the budgetary constraints on the school, he could not give a number or timeframe for when the Faculty and University administration could bend the tuition curve.

Professor Jim Phillips remarked that talking in numbers rather than the percentage increases would help ground the discussion.

He said that, when the decision was made to begin tuition increases in the early 2000s, the idea was sold with promises that haven’t been kept—namely, that 30% of the increases would be put back into student f inancial aid. Prof. Phillips agreed with President Longo that the dependence of faculty salary increases on student tuition increases puts faculty at cross-purposes with students and could lead to an unhealthy relationship.

The Dean replied that regardless of how the numbers are framed, he would never consider them to be trivial. He noted that, in absolute terms, the law school's contribution to f inancial aid has increased by millions of dollars in the past years. As for the history of f inancial aid set-asides, he said he would prefer not to judge the actions of past deans, claiming that Ron Daniels increased the f inancial aid pot by as much as 35% in some years. He pinned the so-called “broken promise” on the f inancial crisis, noting that what to some looks like dishonesty may be seen by others as necessary adjustments to changing circumstances. He said that his concern is to look forward rather than to

6 | October 25, 2017

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

Because it’s 2017: The Women in House Program CHLOE MAGEE (2L)

It was treated as an historic moment in Canadian politics: during a press conference held shortly after being sworn in, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was asked by a journalist why having a gender-balanced cabinet was so important to him, to which he confidently retorted, “Because it’s 2015!” The crowd in attendance reacted with clapping, whistling, and cheering, and the quip was further celebrated nationally and internationally, garnering attention from The New York Times1 and praise from Emma Watson.

Enough time has passed since this moment of optimism to ask ourselves, “Did Trudeau’s gender-balanced cabinet mark a watershed moment for women in Canadian politics, or was it just an instance of cunning publicity generation? Has Canada been justified in patting itself on the back for the last two years, or is there a lot more work to be done?” Without discounting the important progress that has been achieved, the likely answer is that more work lies ahead.

According to a table by the Inter-Parliamentary Union numbering countries according to percentage of women in national parliament, Canada is currently ranked sixty-fourth in the world, with women holding 26.3% of seats in the House of Commons.2 While this number represented an increase from the previous government, it was only of the order of 1%. The possible explanations for this discrepancy are multifaceted and complex, with historical, cultural, and institutional elements, to name a few, all at play.

However, before we can have a meaningful conversation about the “why,” it is important to acknowledge that our country still has miles to go. It is hopeful at best, and harmful at worst, to think that substantive gender equality has been achieved in the political realm—or that we’re even close.

This is precisely what led Tina J. Park, a Ph.D. candidate at U of T, to create the Women in House Pro-

gram. In 2013, Tina was in Quito, Ecuador, acting as advisor to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and was shocked by how few women were in the room.

At a reception, she met and discussed the glaring lack of female representation in government with Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, Minister of CrownIndigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, who agreed to help launch an initiative aimed at tackling the gender imbalance. They jointly created a program that provides an opportunity for young female students to network with politicians and shadow an MP or Senator on Parliament Hill for a day.

One way to tackle a daunting, pervasive problem is by taking practical, local steps. This fall, nine female law students participated in the program. Here’s what a few of them, myself included, took away from the experience.

Rachel Chan, paired with MP Sean Fraser: “When I first received my Parliamentary Host match, MP Sean Fraser from Nova Scotia, I was slightly disappointed. While I was sure he would be a great host, I was disappointed because there were not enough women in Parliament to pair with the hundred eager students from the University of Toronto. In fact, there are only eighty-eight women out of 338 seats.

But, once the program started, the Women in House Program exceeded my expectations. Not only was I warmly welcomed by MP Fraser and his staffers, I got an incredible glimpse of the workings of government. For example, moments before the Status of Women Committee, MP Fraser had a meeting with the party whip.

The Liberal members of the committee had decided to walk out in response to the nomination of a Chair who they did not believe represented the best interests of women in Canada. The nominee had a track record of opposing abortion and trans rights. It was incredible to be in

on this ‘secret’ and watch as it unfolded. It felt (mildly) like House of Cards. As we stepped out of the meeting, the press surrounded the Members and it was in the news minutes later. Although MP Fraser was certainly not a ‘Woman in House,’ he proved to be a strong ally for women’s rights and equality.”

Chloe Magee, paired with MP Anita Vandenbeld: “At law school we often talk about hidden biases: what they are, and how to better recognize and address them. Coming into this program, I was expecting to learn about how hidden biases and stereotypes about women are prevalent in the world of politics. What I was surprised to discover was the extent to which overt forms of discrimination still linger around the Hill. Some are historical and are being addressed over time, since the Parliament buildings themselves were built with only male politicians in mind.

When many of these women began their career in politics, there was no women’s washroom anywhere near the House of Commons. Others, though, are cultural, and these biases manifest themselves both inside and outside of Parliament. For example, some women were faced with potential voters on the campaign trail expressing concern that they are ‘too nice’ for the job. (This happened to the MP that I was shadowing, despite the fact that her résumé included such tasks as working with dictators while assisting countries in their transition to democracy.)

This experience gave me a newfound respect for female politicians in Canada, who are consistently challenging the status quo and bettering the institution in the face of significant barriers.”

This past April, on the Friday evening before a Monday morning Tort Law exam, students received a rather alarming email from the law school’s Records Office. The subject line was: “ExamSoft Update for Monday Exams.” It warned students that “[t]he software developers have notified us that there is a bug causing some laptops to lag or freeze during exams.” The email went on the explain that, although ExamSoft was working on a solution, the bug was not likely to be resolved before Monday’s exam. One of the suggested precautions was for MacBook users to switch to a PC laptop. Importantly, students were reminded that, in the event of the software freezing during an exam, it is Faculty policy to switch to handwriting immediately.

This email understandably caused panic for many students, who were already worried about the upcoming exam. Many were faced with a dilemma: borrow a computer that they are unfamiliar with (assuming this option was even available) or use their own amidst the distressing knowledge that it may crash at any point during the exam. One student was concerned enough by this possibility to go out

and purchase a new computer, but acknowledges this was a problematic solution that would not be available to many students, given the expense.

The warning sent out by the Records Office did not prevent problems from occurring. What follows is 3L Sammy Bayefsky’s story. Following this experience, Sammy drafted a petition to the administration to change the policy regarding switching the handwriting and/or the grading policy for affected exams.

“About 30 minutes into the first exam of my 2L spring semester, my Examsoft malfunctioned—the software just froze mid-sentence.

Thankfully the program saved what I had written, minus a few sentences at the end. But it took me a moment before I noticed that none of the words I was typing were showing up on the screen. Then the panic set in. I sheepishly raised my hand to get the proctor’s attention (didn’t want to scream and disturb all of the other writers in my room). Eventually I gave up and said “HELLO MY COMPUTER’S FROZEN” because I realized that every second I sat there waiting for something to happen was a second wasted.

I started writing by hand, got interrupted by the proctor a few times (trying to ask me about

“This program was an extremely eye-opening foray into the world of federal politics, which I learned is a hectic one filled with meetings, frustration, and overworked assistants. But it is also a worthwhile struggle, and a quiet nobility can be seen underneath the tired and rumpled exterior of those who work on Parliament Hill. The most eye-opening and challenging part of my experience was undoubtedly Question Period, which I had never seen before. As I overheard two women say while they waited in line, ‘They are bullies in there.’ This was an understatement.

Despite the challenges of federal politics, I experienced many inspiring moments as well.

During our visit, the Liberal party organized a walk-out of a meeting of the Committee on the Status of Women to protest the nomination of a candidate who was anti-choice and did not believe in same-sex marriage. I felt privileged to be in Parliament to witness this, and proud that we have a governing party that stands up for equality and the autonomy of women.”

There seems to be a general consensus that our current government’s gender-balanced cabinet was a good start, or a step in the right direction. Still, what became clear after participating in Women in House is that substantive equality requires deeper institutional changes—and these take time. The reality is that the House of Commons and the Senate are still male dominated. The importance of mentorship in accelerating the journey to a more genuinely representative government cannot be overstated. What we need are more candid conversations, like the ones facilitated by the Women in House Program, about where our nation currently stands and what steps we can take to improve our situation.

1 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/world/americas/canada-justin-trudeau-sworn-in-as-prime-minister.html; 2 http://archive.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

Computergate 2017 Explanatory note for 1Ls: “ExamSoft” is the software used to write law school exams electronically. It enables students to download, write, and submit exams on their personal computers, and it blocks access to other programs, files, and the Internet for the duration of the exam.

Spence Colburn, paired with MP Julie Dzerowicz:

the crash), but ignored them and cranked out booklet after booklet of scribbles. I finished the exam and all the questions—but poorly. My arm and hand ached all the way through the exam (which is fine, in and of itself), but the real problem came from the physical limitations of having to write an exam by hand. I wasn’t prepared for it; I had hardly written anything besides my signature in months. So my writing speed was way slower than my typing speed (as I’m confident is the case with virtually all U of T law students).

I got a P. I studied strategically that semester to try and get an H in that course and coast on a P on my other exam. Luckily I ended up doing very well in my other course. That’s part of the reason I didn’t feel the need to take the petition all the way. After the exam, I consulted with some law students familiar with the petitioning/ academic appeals process for help and then solicited stories from students who experienced similar problems to mine during their exams.

Some of them not only had their computer crash in their first exam, but also had the SCHOOL’S REPLACEMENT LAPTOP malfunction on them in subsequent exams!

Many of them were 1Ls and the impact of a lower word count on their exams could be devastating.”

CHLOE MAGEE (2L) The petition to change the school’s handwriting policy received no response from the Faculty beyond a follow-up email that went to all students. They assured students that there was “no evidence that the failures had an adverse impact on students’ grades, or indeed any systematic effect in any direction, either in general or with respect to particular students.” Some who felt that their grades and/or emotional well-being had been detrimentally affected by the added stress considered this response unsatisfactory.

The Faculty also indicated in this email that they planned “to revisit our policy before the next academic year.” On this note, it is important to mention that, officially, most Canadian law schools follow a similar policy to ours: if your computer freezes, you write the remainder of your exam by hand. Osgoode, however, seems to have adopted a different approach. Although I could not find a formal statement of this policy, students at Osgoode say that their school offers an additional option in the event of software problems: students can open a Word document and type up the remainder of the exam.

This approach merits consideration. Not only would this policy avoid forcing students to write an exam in what is now an unfamiliar medium, but it would also acknowledge the risk inherent in the school’s decision to trust a third-party software provider with such an integral component of our examinations.

All it would take is a little bit of trust in students.

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

October 25, 2017 | 7

Women in Law, Judicial Education, and Rising Tuition: An Interview with the Honourable Elizabeth M. Stewart LILY HASSALL (2L) & CHLOE MAGEE (2L) We were pleased to have the Honourable Elizabeth M. Stewart, judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, as part of this year’s panel of judges for U of T’s first ever all-women Grand Moot. She was generous enough to chat with us about her time as a student at U of T Law and how the profession has changed over the years.

Chloe Magee: My favourite line in your biography for U of T is “Somehow, in between going to classes and to parties and writing exams and drinking draft beer at the Embassy Tavern and forging friendships at the law school that would last a lifetime, we were turned into trailblazers.” How conscious were you of the historic importance of your cohort of law students?

Justice Elizabeth Stewart: I think we had a sense that we were doing something in larger numbers than women had done before. We were what you might call a critical mass—not enough to make any kind of majority, but enough to make a significant impact.

Lily Hassall: You’ve described how, while you were pursuing your JD, some shake-ups occurred, both at the law school and in the legal world beyond. Can you take us back to that time and describe some of the big issues in each of those realms?

ES: I think that one of the major events that happened at the law school when I was in my first year was the big confrontation with the third-year class over their graduating party, or their “stag party.”

Word got around that one of the party traditions was to have a stripper present, often in judicial robes.

Many of my classmates got quite up in arms about that and there was some tearing down of posters that took place, big arguments about freedom of speech, and extreme positions being taken.

I think it was a bit of a shock for the men in third year to have to deal with these young upstarts. Many of the upstarts were women, but many of them were men, too. I think there were a lot of men in the first year class who felt quite outraged—in some cases, more outraged than the women—that that kind of thing would be permitted to happen within the law school. Now it wasn’t a law school event, the people who organized the party did so on their own time and on their own dime, but it felt like a law school event.

In the end, they went ahead and had it, but I think that was the last time it ever took place, and I think a lot of the guys who were involved started reflecting on whether or not it was an appropriate or good thing to do.

Another event I remember was forming the Law Students Action Committee, LSAC. Our purpose was just to talk about things and then maybe act once in awhile—I think there was a lot more talking than acting. But one thing we did do was participate on the picket line with a strike that was taking place at an artistic woodwork factory. Most of the employees were immigrant women who were poorly paid.

We weren’t tremendously well informed about the labour issues. I think we just wanted to lend our support, so we went out to support them, and one of my classmates got arrested and charged with something.

One thing that I remember was the support of then-dean Martin Friedland. He certainly wrote a

letter of support and— maybe this was an urban legend, but he might have gone to court to take the stand and testify as a character witness.

CM: Would you say the amount of judicial education has changed at all since you’ve been on the bench?

But remember, this was 1974, and there were a lot of things happening in the world at this time and a lot happening on U of T campus. It was very much in the era of student activism, and I had the sense that Dean Friedland enjoyed that—I think he enjoyed the stimulation. He certainly didn’t agree with us on many things, but I think he liked being challenged.

ES: I remember being really impressed when I was first appointed by how much education there was.

And there still is. The topics shift depending on what’s happening in the world. But I think that those who are interested in developing have a great deal of opportunity to do so.

CM: Your law school class was composed of over twenty percent women, which was revolutionary at the time. Did you and your peers encounter any obstacles as a result of your gender?

ES: Well, I’m sure that we were all attuned to that issue, but I never had any personal experiences of feeling discriminated against. I think there was a sense that there was a preference for men—that the men were automatically viewed as more likely to become young lawyers—but I don’t think there was anything really horrible that I can point to. I think all in all, most of us felt very privileged to be there.

Of course, there weren’t any women on the faculty.

Maybe there was one, Mary Eberts, but I don’t think she joined the faculty until my second or third year. So the faculty was very male-dominated, but most of them—not all of them, but most of them— were quite progressive thinkers and they weren’t tuned out to issues of gender.

CM: In 2010–11, you were a member of the Chief Justice’s Education Committee at the Superior Court. How has judicial education changed during your time on the bench, and do you think more reform is necessary?

ES: Well, you wouldn’t believe the amount of opportunities that we have for judicial education. I think maybe it could be said that we could do a better job of communicating to the public just how much education we receive.

When people are appointed, there are two threeday immersion seminars on the areas that we are most likely to see. There’s also an organization called the National Judicial Institute, and they organize programs that we can attend and there’s a reasonably generous budget to permit people from across the country to attend these seminars—so we have the opportunity not only to attend the formal programs but also to meet our colleagues from across Canada, which, in and of itself, can be pretty educational.

There are also other organizations like the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, which puts on special seminars, and we have, in Ontario, two mandatory court-wide seminars, one in November, one in May. Those are three days long and they usually deal with current topics and issues that are ripped from headlines. They bring in outside senior lawyers and, occasionally, social science professors and other experts.

So there is a great deal of education. I know that this issue has been getting attention lately, and I know that the Canadian Judicial Council, which is responsible for overseeing judicial education, is anxious to make sure that we’re given every opportunity to learn.

Also, I am a member of an organization called the International Association of Women Judges. There is a Canadian chapter which is very active, and they put on programs in Canada that are available to members and non-members. Some of the male members of my court have attended. And you can imagine that these sessions do more typically deal with some of the areas that have been talked about in the press as being areas that people need some enlightenment on.

LH: Continuing to think about education, how do you think the barriers to accessing the legal profession and legal education in general have changed since you were a student here?

ES: The one thing that I would say is that tuition is a lot higher. That I know. When I enrolled, I’m guessing that it was in the hundreds of dollars—it was maybe about six hundred dollars per year. Even controlling for inflation, it was cheaper to go to law school back then.

Whenever we have a student reunion—which we do, every five years—the topic of rising tuition is often talked about at the cocktail reception. There are many people who are not in agreement with it.

CM: Do you hear arguments in favour of higher tuition at these cocktail receptions?

ES: Well, usually they’re from representatives of the law school. Many of the people there who are from large law firms, earning good salaries, might say that tuition is too high. But you’ll also hear from people who have gone to work for government, notfor-profits, or who work in less remunerative areas of practice. And they’ll often say, if tuition had been like that back in the day, “I never would have been able to go,” or, “I never would have thought to go.”

To be faced with that kind of tuition, and not being able to pay for it other than by assuming a great deal of debt with no real guarantee of any job at the end of the three year – that’s a real leap of faith. On the other hand, I recognize that at a place like U of T Law, I imagine most of the students would be highly sought after by potential employers. It is an excellent law school.

LH: Beyond U of T tuition, there has been an overall rise in tuition for law schools across Canada. Do you think this has implications for the legal profession in general? Do you see the body of the legal profession changing?

ES: The sense I get is that the student bodies in the law schools now are more diverse—a lot more so than when I was there. Whether they are diverse in terms of economic backgrounds, I’m not sure. I would hope that is the case. I would hope that there is a lot of financial assistance available. And if there isn’t, there should be. I think one of the most important characteristics of a good lawyer, and a good judge, is life experience.

LH: Speaking of being a judge, have you ever felt torn between a personal commitment to women’s rights and your professional commitment to a legal framework that, while obviously changing rapidly, sometimes lags behind society’s changing notions of gender?

ES: I think that there is a process that you go through, when you start working, of becoming a problem-solver. This is especially true if you’re doing litigation, which is the case for many of the people who seek out judicial appointments. By the time you are appointed, you still have your views and your ideals, but they’ve been buffeted about quite a bit by experience. You’ve seen cases in which the person who at first blush you would have rooted for turns out to be a complete liar. The process makes you less ideological than you might have been going in.

Having said that, you do try to hang on to a sense of what is right. Maybe that’s one of the nice things about being a judge: that, although, as a trial judge, you’re applying the law, there is a lot of room to permit the judge to do what the judge thinks is right, fair, and reasonable. You don’t have quite that much of a privilege when you’re acting as an advocate. You can maintain ethics and you can try to do what is right, and you can choose to act for certain people and causes, but most counsel like to work both sides of the street. This is because it sharpens your arsenal of arguments to know intimately what the arguments on the other side might be—makes it a little more intellectually sound.

CM: Is there a case you’ve been involved with as a litigator or as a judge that you’re especially proud of?

ES: As a judge, all the cases that come before you are important cases. Sometimes there are more interesting issues than others.

In practice, there are two areas of which I’m particularly proud. First, I did a lot of work for York University and I got involved with the Canadian Association of University Solicitors as a result. That was a very interesting part of my professional life as a litigator because it was during a time when universities were changing and growing, and all kinds of issues were coming up that seemed straight out of left field. It was wonderful to be working with people who were committed to education but still trying to run an organization in some kind of business-like way.

When I was in practice I also did a lot of defence work for physicians. I got some insight into how the medical profession works, and into the ethical and practice issues that arise. I represented doctors in medical negligence cases, and represented some of them at the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

That was a great experience and a wonderful opportunity for any young lawyer.

CM: Do you have any advice for law students today?

ES: I would give law students the same advice that I give to high school students who come to visit the courtrooms. I would say, “Do what you love. Follow whatever area of interest really excites you.” If you’re doing something you love, you’ll do it well. Everything will go from there. It is a mistake to try to figure out where you’ll make the most money, or what will be easiest. Instead, although it sounds like a hackneyed cliché, follow your passion.

FEATURES

8 | October 25, 2017

ultravires.ca

Get to Know Your New Profs: Finance, Flutes, and Feminism LILY HASSALL (2L) This fall, the Faculty of Law welcomed two new scholars: Professors Margaret Jane Radin and Adriana Robertson. Prof. Radin, who focuses on boilerplate contracts, was recently cited by the Supreme Court of Canada in Douez v Facebook. Prof. Robertson completed her B.A. at U of T a mere six years ago, and she now returns, from Yale, with a J.D. as well as a Ph.D. in f inance.

Both were kind enough to ref lect on their careers and pass on some pearls of law school wisdom.

Prof. Margaret Jane Radin Lily Hassall: Before you embarked on your J.D., you received an M.F.A. in Music History and began a Ph.D. in Musicolog y. Could you tell me about your pre-law studies and how you decided to make the switch?

Prof. Margaret Jane Radin: I didn’t just begin, I was advanced to candidacy for the Ph.D. in Musicology, meaning that I had done all but my dissertation and had a dissertation topic approved—it was the autograph sketches for Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony. I ended up spending more years in music programs than law school.

I made the decision to switch to law after I worked as a secretary at a law off ice in San Francisco—needing to support myself. I thought, “This stuff these guys are doing is not hard work and nobody will ask me to type.” But when I got to law school I loved it. And I never went into practice because a teaching job unexpectedly came to me the year I graduated from law school.

LH: I understand that you continue to practice and perform as a f lutist. Do you have any advice for students hoping to balance artistic pursuits with their studies?

MJR: It is diff icult. Especially in f irst year, when a student may think the f ield of law is f inite if only she tries hard enough—which it is not.

With regard to music, the only artistic pursuit I practice, I do want to say that if you do have to leave music for awhile, three months of serious practice will get you back where you were when you left off. I did leave off for quite a few years while I raised two children and had a full-time career, so I can vouch for that, and I know the same is true for others. You never lose what you learned as a child.

GPA and/or LSAT score on my résumé, but I learned not to do that when I got an interview at which the guy said, “I just wanted to see a girl who got that score.”

Early in my teaching career, comments were made about my clothes and whether I was wearing a bra, and so on. We—women—felt that if we were friendly we were thought of as pushovers, and if we were strict we were thought of as bitches. I’ve often been criticized as disorganized even though I put detailed agendas on the board each class, handed out a detailed syllabus and stuck to it, sent out questions in advance that I was going to ask, et cetera. My impression is that female teachers were more often thought of as disorganized whether or not we were in fact.

LH: Your main research area is boilerplate contracts, but you’ve also made significant contributions to feminist legal theory. Does feminism inform your economic analysis of the law?

MJR: Yes, I think so, though I am hard pressed to say how. Somehow I don’t think women would have developed a theory in which some kind of fungible marker—dollars, “utils,” or whatever—could be totaled up in order to gauge society’s success for humans. I like behavioural law and economics better than classical. I do like classical economics, too, but sometimes its practitioners tend to forget that economics is supposed to be an empirical social science. In general, I have often thought that if the important social philosophers of the past had had to raise children, social philosophy would be different. I think the main traditional western theories of social life, at least those developed in the past, do not take human interdependence into account very well.

Prof. Adriana Robertson LH: So far, your legal career has been strictly academic. Do you have any advice for law students who are hoping to become scholars rather than practitioners?

LH: When you were pursuing your J.D., in the 1970s, did you encounter any obstacles as a result of your gender?

Prof. Adriana Robertson: First of all, get to know faculty, especially the ones who work in the areas that interest you. When I was a 1L, I felt like I had to have something brilliant and insightful to say before I could approach my Business Organizations professor in her off ice hours. Of course, I failed miserably at coming up with anything that didn’t seem totally trivial. When I f inally worked up the courage to speak to her, I felt like it must have been a total waste of her time. She ended up being my greatest mentor.

MJR: Yes. It would be a long reply to tell you. A f irst-year teacher ended his class with a rape joke. Third year, I went to an interview with a judge about a clerkship, and the secretary outside his chambers said, “Don’t bother, he hired a woman once.” Another judge refused to interview me for a position that was earmarked for the graduate recommended by the dean with a GPA rank which I had achieved, and instead he hired a male lower down the list. I once had my

Second, go to workshops. Whatever your area of interest—whether it’s law and economics, legal theory, legal history, or anything in between—odds are there is a workshop series at the law school that engages with that area. Go to it! Read the papers, listen to the speaker, and listen to the discussions. Even if you don’t feel comfortable asking questions at f irst, just being immersed in the scholarly environment is incredibly benef icial.

Finally, consider a graduate degree in a related discipline. That discipline could be History, Political Science, English, Economics, Finance, Philosophy, or whatever else intersects with your particular interests.

The legal academy is becoming more and more interdisciplinary. Another graduate degree gives you both rigorous training and an opportunity to write. Both of these will serve you well.

LH: Your bio on the U of T website notes that you were often the only woman in your finance and law classes at Yale. Did you encounter any challenges as a result of your gender, either in terms of course content, your relationships with peers, or your relationships with faculty members?

AR: Not really. I don’t want to downplay the challenges that some individuals face, but it wasn’t a particular challenge for me. I had wonderful mentors and great relationships with my peers. That being said, I do think that it is incumbent upon all of us to think about why it is that there are so few women in this area of law, and to work to change it. I think the best thing I can do to start is to encourage women who are interested in the subject matter to pursue it, and

to let them know that my door is always open if they would like to come and chat with me about it!

LH: Do you have any advice for young women who may be navigating similar environments, either in predominantly male classes in school or male-dominated areas of legal practice?

AR: Don’t be intimidated. There is substantial evidence that women tend to underestimate their qualif ications. I f ind it useful to keep that in mind whenever the imposter complex kicks in.

UV: Your bio also describes you as a veteran hiker and trekker. What are some of your favourite day hikes around Toronto?

AR: My partner and I opted to get rid of our car when we moved to Toronto. We live downtown, so it hasn’t been a problem for daily life. It’s actually kind of liberating!

Alas, one downside is that it is harder to take trips out of the city. I do like the Rouge Valley, and always enjoy exploring Toronto’s ravine systems.

INTERESTING CASES, FRIENDLY FACES

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

October 25, 2017 | 9

If You Love the Law So Much, Why Don’t You Marry It? ROBERT NANNI (1L) When I got accepted to the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, I was excited for many reasons. Attending school with some of Canada’s brightest minds in one of the most diverse cities was certainly the main attraction—especially because it meant the potential for f inding a high-quality husband.

Two months into this whole law school business and I am, shockingly, still unwed.

This has me wondering whether I should be looking for my man within the conf ines of the Jackman Law Building or if my bae-tobe will be somewhere else (perhaps the nearby Medical Sciences Building). Unsure of whether I should date someone at the law school or outside of it, I turned to fellow students at U of T Law to hear their thoughts.

Ellie Minchopoulos (1L) f inds comfort in

having a boyfriend who is not a law student, explaining that her stress is minimized, rather than added to, by him. “Being with someone who doesn’t care to bring up what happened in Contracts helps me get a much-needed break from the massive adjustment that is 1L,” says Ellie.

While Ellie seeks relief from law-based topics in her signif icant other, Katie Longo (3L) embraces those topics with her boyfriend, Justin, also a 3L at U of T. “We can chat about legal philosophy or interesting cases that we’ve read,” says Katie. “I often have to hold back when talking to friends because I don’t want to be that annoying person who is always talking about the law.”

The choice of whether to date someone within law school seems to be partly based on your desire to continue the conversation

outside the classroom, but that’s hardly the only consideration.

“I would say that the main issue is time,” says Ellie. “The biggest change in our relationship has been that I have to be even more proactive with time management in order to get time with him and, even when I do, it’s less time than I’d like.”

Ellie seems to be making it work so far.

However, she recognizes that dating someone in law school would help alleviate scheduling issues, a sentiment that Katie echoes, noting, “Our busy periods are the same, so I don’t feel guilty about spending twelve hours a day in the library during exams because he’s doing it too.”

Although Katie makes a convincing argument for dating someone in law school, she raises quite a striking downside: the com-

bined debt load. Going hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt on your own is quite rough—but double that amount and it’s certainly an overwhelming situation.

(Thank gosh for that stellar f inancial aid program, eh?)

Whether you decide to seek your soulmate within or without the law school will ultimately depend on your own values. While Ellie and Katie both raise strong points on both sides, the choice is yours to make. So long as you f ind time to balance your relationship with the other facets of life (like readings or something) you’ll be just f ine.

As for me, I’m still on #HusbandHunt2017, but I’m over f inding one within my program—an extra debt load in exchange for a few discussions about federalism just doesn’t appeal to me as a worthwhile trade-off.

Cringeworthy OCI Moments COMPILED BY RACHEL CHAN (2L) & SUJUNG LEE (2L)

Everything about On-Campus Interviews is bizarre. For those who are not familiar with the process, here is a run down: Nervous, over-caffeinated students wait in a holding area that is too warm. Some are studying cue cards and Excel spreadsheets containing key information about their interviewers and prospective employers. Everyone with an interview queues up and wishes each other luck. Waleska tells us to smile because we are all beautiful diamonds. Then the gates (door) open, and a stream of besuited students march into a larger hall lined with curtain-partitioned “rooms.” Students disappear into their designated booths, hoping to impress and be impressed by their two interviewers. In the midst of this surreal setting, a lot can go awry in seventeen minutes. Here’s a snapshot of some of the most cringeworthy moments.

“I mentioned my indoor garden in my dungeony apartment a couple times and both recruiters started pitching me their cannabis groups.”

"I walked into the wrong booth. I had to meet with those people later that day. RIP my employment prospects."

“Immediately booth:

after

walking

into

the

“Walk into booth. Shake hands. I wait for them to sit. They stare at me. We all stand uncomfortably for what felt like a minute until I clue in that they were waiting for me to sit f irst.”

Interviewer: Oh, so I guess you're just heartless then, LOL. Same f irm later called to tell me that they had decided to go with a more suitable candidate."

“While discussing a personal injury claim I'd worked on: ‘I guess a hip injury for a ninety-three-year-old woman is a serious injury. Our f irm deals with more important issues though.’"

First interviewer: Hi. Adam, corporate partner, nice to meet you.

Second interviewer: James Brown, litigation partner— Student, interjecting: —and godfather of soul.

“I brought the black folder that we all received in our 1L O-Week packages into every interview. It was emblazoned with ‘Monkhouse Law.’ It was never useful. No one asked me for a résumé. But it made me feel fancy and off icial. It was not worth it—I had to put in an active effort to hide the logo. Several times, I put it on the f loor during the interview and subsequently dropped low to pick it up as I left.”

yourself, you aren’t going to have time to listen to what we have to say, because this process is just as much about you listening to us as it is about you. So, to make sure we have a chance for that, why don’t we turn to questions. Have any questions for us?”

“A partner from New York asked me if Canada has a constitution and whether we write the LSAT.”

Mr. Brown did not look amused at all.”

“New York OCI with two men: “One of the interviewers asked me, without context, what my parents do for a living.”

“At exactly the ten-minute mark of what seems to be a fairly normal interview spent answering questions about my experiences: Interviewer: Can I just cut you off for one second? You’re obviously an impressive candidate and can speak very eloquently about yourself, but I’m going to give you a piece of advice: pace yourself.

Everything you’re saying is great, but there’s just a lot of it. If you don’t pace

“I had an interviewer ask me what I thought about the NFL Anthem Protests.”

“Interviewer: if you had to go before the landlord tenant board and evict a single mother, how would you deal with that situation?

Response: well, you know, I have a professional duty to my client, etc.

Man #1: "Wow, you played rugby? I just can't imagine women playing that sport."

Man #1 and Man #2 chuckle and nod.”

“Interviewer: Yeah, criminal defence is important…unless the person is guilty. *Note: this f irm is (thankfully) not a criminal defence f irm.”

10 | October 25, 2017

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 Editors: Faye Williams and Sarah Firestone

MORE THAN FOUR WALLS AND A ROOF: A SUMMER WITH THE UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE RIGHT TO HOUSING

By Lauren Pinder (3L) “Despite the fact that there are homeless people on the streets throughout the world, despite the fact that homelessness occurs in all economies: developed, emerging and developing, in times of prosperity and austerity, and despite the fact that homelessness is a significant economic and social cost for most societies, it has not been taken up as a critical human rights crisis that needs to be resolved.”

– Leilani Farha, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing Introduction One in three deaths around the world are linked to poverty and inadequate housing.

The death rate of homeless persons is twoto-10-times higher than someone with a home. Globally, approximately 1.6-billion people are inadequately housed and100 million are homeless. The consequences of inadequate housing are stark: it has devastating impacts on health, well-being, and dignity, and it perpetuates marginalization and vulnerability. Yet, conversations regarding housing tend to focus on markets or finances; and ending homelessness is set as a lofty policy goal.

Housing is in a state of crisis - a human rights crisis. Housing is a human right, enumerated in numerous international human rights conventions and treaties, and recognized as such by state signatories around the world.

Thanks to an International Human Rights Program fellowship, I had the opportunity to spend this summer with Leilani Farha, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing, trying to understand why the disconnect between housing and rights exists and what states must do to fulfill their human rights obligations.

The Thematic Report: Right to Housing for Persons with Disabilities UN Special Rapporteurs are independent experts that conduct country-specific missions, respond to individuals’ complaints through official communications to respective state actors, and author two thematic reports per year, one presented to the UN General Assembly in New York, the other to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing is supported by a mandate team consisting of a human rights officer, a senior advisor, an executive assistant and a communications officer.

My primary responsibility this summer was to assist in the research and writing of the thematic report to the General Assembly on the right to adequate housing for persons with disabilities. The research required cross-referencing the right to housing as understood through the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights with the comprehensive framework of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) to outline a unified and coherent international legal framework.

Together with the mandate’s senior advisor

(and Ontario Human Rights Commissioner), Bruce Porter, I canvassed relevant jurisprudence, policies, and legislation from around the world to illustrate the legal and lived state of housing for persons with disabilities. Almost immediately, two things became clear to me.

First, due to the continued existence of institutionalization and inaccessible, unaffordable, and uninhabitable houses, the state of housing that many persons with disabilities live in is abhorrent.

Second, despite the fundamental importance of housing for persons with disabilities, the right to housing has received little attention. Human rights organizations and judicial bodies have narrowly addressed the right, if at all. Few countries have enacted laws or programs that seek to promote, protect and realize the right to housing for persons with disabilities. The issue has been largely neglected. While this deficit presented a challenge in finding relevant practices, it also demonstrated the necessity of this report.

pate in developing the Shift by providing follow up notes to the participants, creating info-graphics, drafting core social media messaging, and writing the first draft of the concept note that each partner will use to seek funding. Trying to convey the passion and the ethos in the room in a short document was a daunting though ultimately rewarding task.

The report delineated states’ obligations respecting the right to adequate housing for persons with disabilities, core principles courts should rely on to better adjudicate the right, and ultimately urged states to implement the disability rights paradigm to realize the right to housing in accordance with Agenda 2030.

Communication is a crucial element of the right to housing mandate. Housing is everyone’s issue. To successfully transform how housing is considered, talked about, and addressed requires that people everywhere recognize it as such. Strong messaging, strategic communication, and an effective platform are necessary to make that happen.

The Shift

Through the fellowship I came to realize that a strong communications strategy is an integral part of any successful advocacy effort. I learned about and contributed to the communications strategy of the mandate, including managing social media, curating media content in response to events, preparing for presentations at public events, translating important messages into info-graphics, and brainstorming and planning additional media opportunities such as podcasts and video blogs.

In addition to fulfilling the requisite duties of a Special Rapporteur, Leilani has initiated a global movement to reclaim the right to housing called the Shift. The Shift seeks to facilitate a paradigmatic change in the context of housing, to motivate states and individuals to refrain from further referring to housing as a commodity, an opportunity for investment, or a staple in a booming economy, and to instead refer to it as a human right.

In June, Leilani hosted the first global strategic planning meeting for the Shift. I had the surreal opportunity to prepare for and attend the meeting which included housing advocates from international organizations, national governments, national human rights institutions, the arts community, and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. I was, and continue to be, deeply inspired by the brilliant and committed advocates around the table.

Following the meeting, I continued to partici-

Strategic Advocacy – Communications

For example, a strong public response was required following the fire at Grenfell Tower which killed at least 80 people and left hundreds homeless and traumatized. In the wake of this tragedy, caused by government negligence and a complete disregard for the right to adequate housing, the importance of working on the issue became instantly and striking clear. Understanding housing as a human right would likely have prevented the tragedy, and it would have mitigated the retraumatization and deplorable circumstances survivors faced afterwards. In addition to

an official letter to the British government emphasizing their international human rights law obligations, the mandate team responded to the tragedy with a video outlining the human rights elements of the tragedy to ensure the public was aware of the victim’s rights in the circumstances. Social media platforms were used to monitor the response of the government, to document the situation of those affected, and to continue to inform the public of the human rights implications.

The public inquiry considering the issue continues to this day.

Overall Reflections I can say without hesitation that my fellowship with the Special Rapporteur was an invaluable learning experience that taught me about the international human rights framework, issues respecting the right to housing, and about the various facets of strategic rights advocacy. But a recap of my summer would not be complete without referring to unparalleled value of being part of this team specifically.

Being a part of the mandate team with Leilani, Bruce, and her executive assistant presented me with incredible mentorship and an unparalleled learning experience. This team is emblematic of the sense of community that the right to housing is meant to foster and protect. Not everyone has the chance to have line-by-line feedback on their work from an expert on socio-economic rights and human rights commissioner; or bounce ideas off the expert on the right to housing over coffee.

From day one I felt like I was part of the team, was given the chance to jump in on any project that came up and was empowered the bring my ideas to the table, or often in our case the Skype conversation. It was an experience that I believe will always inform who I am as a lawyer, and that I recommend wholeheartedly to anyone considering an IHRP fellowship this upcoming summer.

October 25, 2017 | 11

ultravires.ca

R IGHTS R EVIEW

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

IHRP ALUMNI PROFILE: LEILANI FARHA

By Karlson Leung (3L) and Faye Williams (4L)

Leilani Farha, Executive Director, Canada Without Poverty, is a leading expert and advocate on economic and social human rights, especially for women. She has a long history promoting the right to adequate housing, equality and non-discrimination in housing in Canada and internationally. Prior to joining Canada Without Poverty, Leilani was the Executive Director of the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation for 12 years. She has extensive experience addressing homelessness, poverty and inequality in Canada through advocacy, casework, litigation, research and community based work. She has been at the forefront of applying international human rights law to anti-poverty issues in Canada, and is known internationally for her work on housing rights and women’s economic and social rights. In 2014, she was appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council to the position of United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing.

Bio courtesy of Canada Without Poverty.

How did your time as an IHRP summer fellow shape your academic and professional interests? How did your involvement with the IHRP influence your career in law, and now in your policy and advocacy leadership roles?

It had everything to do with it! I was lucky to create my own fellowship at the Palestine Human Rights Information Centre (PHRIC). That summer was monumental. Yasser Arafat was returning from exile. Palestinian prisoners were being freed. The Oslo Accord was signed. And PHRIC was undertaking the first right to housing campaign in the region and had invited a UN Rapporteur on adequate housing to visit and assess the housing situation of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories including Gaza. As the most fluent English speaker in the staff complement, I was appointed to liaise with the UN official and his team and all of the NGOs on the ground. It was life changing. To be honest, I had a really hard time returning from Palestine to complete my law degree. I was so immersed in the culture and politics of the place and in the right to housing as essential to the Palestinian struggle. It was the first time Palestinians had turned to economic and social rights to support their claims – it felt monumental and important. And it was. And to make life even more complicated, I’d been offered a job there. I really wrestled with whether I could or should return to Toronto to complete my final year, bar ads and articling or whether I should stay. It felt like an abandonment of a peoples to leave. It felt like an abandonment of my intentions to become a qualified lawyer, to learn all that I could about law, if I stayed.

I decided to return to Toronto to complete my degrees and get called to the Bar. I wrote my MSW/ LLB thesis on the right to housing for Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. And through this experience, as well as my work placement at the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation I became completely committed to working to advance the right to housing in the domestic context using international human rights law. I really have never worked on anything else since! And of course it was through my IHRP summer fellowship that I was first exposed to international human rights mechanisms like Special Rapporteurs … And now I’m one!

What drove you to your current work and what were your initial steps following law school?

What motivated you to become a lifelong advocate for the right to housing, and women’s social and economic rights?

I had some amazing people in my life who helped me discover who I am – I mean essentially – what’s at my core. My MSW/LLB supervisor, Prof.

Janet Mosher, had this sense that I should be working in the human rights field. She suggested

the work placement at the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA).

I will never forget walking into CERA to meet the Executive Director, Bruce Porter, to discuss whether they would be willing to take on a student placement. They had never done so before. To be honest, at that time, I didn’t even know that NGOs or human rights organizations existed! I didn’t know some people wore jeans to work everyday, worked in low-rise slightly decrepit buildings, and spent their time working for justice and human rights. All of it was kind of intoxicating to me. It was a good fit. I spent a lot of years working with and for CERA. And though I left that organization for an international one, I have always remained connected to it and the issues the organization was and is concerned with. Bruce Porter and CERA were absolutely integral to my development as a human rights lawyer. I was challenged to think outside the box – always. To be creative with the law. To be a bit bold. And by nature I like doing things that haven’t been done before. I grew up as a bit of an outsider – an Arab Canadian in a pretty anglo, white, and privileged world.

So straying from the mainstream is second nature. So I was open to being on the margins of the legal world .

The women’s economic and social rights work I have done came about simply because of a glaring omission. In the mid-1990s when I got involved in the right to housing work I noticed that women were simply not there. There weren’t many women economic, social and cultural rights rights advocates, and as the dimensions of the right to housing were being explored by UN treaty monitoring bodies and international NGOs, I noticed women’s experiences were absent from those conversations, despite the incredible relevance of home to women.

After law school a number of things just fell into place for me. Immediately after I graduated, someone had heard about my interest in women’s right to housing and asked me to write a chapter of a book, which I did. That kind of put me on the human rights map, in a way. Then I managed to arrange to do part of my articles with the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, an international NGO that was based in Geneva. I had met the Executive Director when I was working at CERA – he was an expert in a case the organization was involved in. He eventually offered me a permanent job which I took up after I completed my Articles. And that put me firmly on the right to housing road!

Could you tell us a bit more about your dual role as the executive director of Canada Without Poverty and as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing?

Leilani Farha walking through a neighbourhood in Manila, Philippines in September 2017. Residents are resisting eviction.

Ha! In a word: tiring! I became the Executive Director of Canada Without Poverty in September 2012. And then in May 2014 I was appointed UN Special Rapporteur, which is an unremunerated position. CWP decided to continue to support me whilst I am Special Rapporteur on the understanding that I cannot, of course, fulfill all of my Executive Director functions. We have structured the organization so that we now have a Deputy Director who can deal with the activities that I are impossible for me to undertake. And we have a fairly horizontally structured organization, so everyone is used to doing everything. There’s a sense that the SR position is important unto itself, but also important for anti-poverty and right to housing movements in Canada and therefore should be supported. It’s not so common to have Special Rapporteurs that are connected to NGOs – most are academics – and we all agree it’s really important to have different types of Special Rapporteurs.

It is, of course, daunting to try to perform both roles. I feel so committed to Canada – and I feel the country is at such a precious moment in terms of its potential, especially for the inclusion of economic and social rights in our participatory democracy. I want to be part of that, I want to use my strengths and skills and determination to move that forward! And yet, I feel like I somehow belong to the world or in the world as a place. It’s where I often feel most at home somehow. Not with government representatives sitting in beautiful rooms in “palaces” in Geneva! But as an actor on the global stage. And I feel like I have a global message, that demands a global audience.

What has been some of the most challenging and rewarding aspects of your work?

Challenges … The travel and being away from my family, the long hours, the feelings of inadequacy (constant!), the feelings of incompetence, the feeling that I cannot possibly help change the world the way I want to – I mean I can’t even develop a decent website for the mandate (and yes, that’s a cry for help to all those techies out there

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

who want to do some pro bono work), and of course, the outrage, and deep sadness I feel about the living conditions that governments have created.

Rewards …. The people, the people, the people. I meet amazing people, all the time, everywhere I go. Residents who invite me into their homes and articulate the meaning of the right to housing better than anyone else. Advocates around the world who are persistent and clever and stay the course.

Academics and students who have volunteered hours and hours of their time to support the work.

Other Special Rapporteurs … the list goes on and on.

Now that I am in my third year, I am starting to see that I am helping to shape conversations, and that’s something. Right to housing advocates were not talking quite so uniformly about the commodification of housing, and now they are.

There is more unity around the need and capacity of governments to end homelessness. I think I helped contribute to those conversations. And those are conversations that need to be had.

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

Oh, it’s so difficult to give advice – my experiences are so related to the era in which I started out.

The mid 1990s was a very different time! And how I ended up here has to do with me having met some incredible people who supported my entry into this work, and then my family background, my racial identity, my subject positioning …

I suppose I can say this – obviously, everyone is happiest when they pursue work in an area or on an issue they actually care about. The trick is getting paid to do it! I have always been partial to students who work hard, are curious, are genuinely committed to the issues for the right reasons, and who show up! And show up again and again! I tend to hire those ones – if I can find the money!

12 | October 25, 2017

R IGHTS R EVIEW IHRP SUMMER FELLOWS SHOWCASE 2017

ultravires.ca

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

Sam Levy

Calum Agnew

Jeannie Pau

Amelia Fung

Year: 4L

Year: 2L

Year: 2L

Year: 2L

Which organization did you work for, and in which city and country?

Which organization did you work for, and in which city and country?

Which organization did you work for, and in which city and country?

Which organization did you work for, and in which city and country?

PEN International, London, UK

The World Bank, in Washington DC

Conservation Law Foundation, in Boston, USA

International Human Rights Program (IHRP), Toronto, Canada

What were the highlights of your fellowship?

What were the highlights of your fellowship?

What were the highlights of your fellowship?

What were the highlights of your fellowship?

Representing PEN at the UK Commonwealth Office during the release of the UK’s annual human rights report. Helping PEN’s advocacy efforts on behalf of the imprisoned journalists from the Cumhuriyet newspaper in Turkey.

I was one of the legal interns at the Integrity Vice Presidency, an independent unit within the World Bank responsible for prosecuting fraud and corruption within the World Bank’s sanctions system. The highlight was filing a major case and accompanying evidence—it was an important matter, and I’m really proud of contributing to it. That aside, there were lots of amazing moments. One fun moment was using the ‘diplomat’ line at the airport. Also, paddle boarding on the Potomac. And the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund’s unreal cafeterias.

Some of the highlights included engaging with environmental justice issues in Massachusetts, working on litigation files, and partnering with grassroots organizations in the city.

I had the opportunity to work on a range of international human rights projects over the summer, but the highlight of my fellowship was researching and drafting a petition to be submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, challenging the anti-sodomy law of a Caribbean country.

The petition involved a number of issues, from the right to equal protection before the law to the right to health. On a less serious note, having my own office was also definitely a highlight of my fellowship!

What were some of the challenges that you faced this summer?

Most of my projects were with 2 to 3 other people, and August was the month that many people took their summer holidays.

As a result, coordinating work turned out to be one of the trickier aspects of the fellowship.

What were some of your first impressions of the country/city where you completed your fellowship? How/Did these impressions change over time?

While I was nervous to go to London in the wake of several high-profile national tragedies, I soon realized how robust and unflinching London is. Throughout my fellowship, I kept finding things to love about London, from its incredible public transit system, to its jazz and theatre scene, to the many Pret-A-Manger stores.

Share anything interesting about your experience (best meal, favourite memory, etc.)

My top highlight was realizing my dream of going to Wimbledon – well worth the 5am wakeup. A close second was watching a cabaret show in an underground brasserie, followed by dinner with the show’s producer (who also owns the rights to the song ‘It’s a Small World After All’).

What advice do you have for students hoping to be an IHRP fellow next year?

Pick a place where you’ve always wanted to live, find a cause that you care about, and jump in. It is fantastic to live abroad as a student, so take advantage of this brief window.

What were some of the challenges that you faced this summer?

The World Bank is, for better and for worse, quite bureaucratic. Navigating these issues was a challenge both before and during the fellowship. The upside of this is that the World Bank provides pretty incredible support for its staff and interns.

What were some of your first impressions of the country/city where you completed your fellowship? How/Did these impressions change over time?

I expected Washington, DC to be all politics, all the time. Other than that, I had few preconceptions. It turned out that Washington is a lovely city! I was subletting from some young professionals and they were extremely friendly.

Share anything interesting about your experience (best meal, favourite memory, etc.)

Several senior staff members retired from the Integrity Vice Presidency unit during my time there, and there were a few retirement parties. At the party for Leonard McCarthy, the staff recounted his accomplishments over the nine years he led the unit. One of these was the Supreme Court of Canada case World Bank v Wallace, which serves as a leading statement of the Bank’s immunities in international law and has helped to facilitate the Bank’s cooperation with national law enforcement agencies. I was given the honour of leading the Integrity Vice Presidency team in an a capella rendition of ‘O Canada,’ to celebrate the SCC’s decision.

What advice do you have for students hoping to be an IHRP fellow next year?

Get started early! Especially if it’s a large international organization, as the human resources processes of these institutions can be very complex.

What were some of the challenges that you faced this summer?

To fulfil the responsibilities of my fellowship I had to learn about the American legal system, including its areas of law and court structure. I was also expected to juggle competing deadlines.

What were some of your first impressions of the country/city where you completed your fellowship? How/Did these impressions change over time?

While Boston is quite spread out the city is very accessible on foot and by public transit, which made exploring easy. Boston tries very hard to preserve its history and it’s definitely worth checking out some of its sites! I would recommend the Boston Public Library, Faneuil Hall, Boston Public Garden, and Freedom Trail.

Share anything interesting about your experience (best meal, favourite memory, etc.)

I stayed with a friend who goes to school in Boston, and one weekend we took a trip to Cape Cod. We spent most of the weekend at the beaches there, and we were very fortunate to have good weather.

What advice do you have for students hoping to be an IHRP fellow next year?

Look for organizations that are aligned with your interests and reach out to them early on. This gives you an opportunity to learn more about what they do before drafting your application, and this also means that you won’t miss the deadline!

What were some of the challenges that you faced this summer?

Over the summer, I worked on a number of diverse projects. One of the most difficult challenges was jumping into a project after it had begun, particularly because I lacked general knowledge of public international law.

Share anything interesting about your experience (best meal, favourite memory, etc.)

It was exciting to see both the relevancy and meaningfulness of my work whenever an issue I was researching appeared in the news.

What advice do you have for students hoping to be an IHRP fellow next year?

Working as a Summer Fellow for the IHRP was an incredibly rewarding experience.

Not only did it improve my legal research and writing, but I also developed advocacy skills and learned to take facts and use them to tell a compelling story. I greatly appreciated that I was able to make a meaningful contribution with my work, despite still being a student with minimal experience in law. I would recommend this experience to law students interested in pursuing a career in public international or human rights law. Keep an open mind, and explore all the fellowship options – these are fantastic opportunities that you do not want to pass up.

October 25, 2017 | 13

ultravires.ca

Brenda Chang

Alexandria Proctor Year: 2L

Year: 2L

Which organization did you work for, and in which city and country?

Which organization did you work for, and in which city and country?

Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada, Vancouver, Canada

UNHCR, Bangkok, Thailand

What were the highlights of your fellowship?

What were the highlights of your fellowship?

By the end of my fellowship, my supervisor gave me the opportunity to adjudicate my own family unity cases. I had prepared for it after hours of background country research and observations of other eligibility officers' cases. I researched the asylum seekers' backgrounds, interviewed them, worked with amazing interpreters, and made decisions on their status. I was also involved in creating a database and compiling research on many sensitive cases. For one particular caseload, I was able to present my database internally to my colleagues, and it has helped them adjudicate asylum claims.

Some of the highlights of my fellowship were contributing to a guidebook on illegitimate criminal charges; research for the Ontario Court of Appeal factum in the TWU case (Lawyer's Right Watch Canada was granted intervener status); working on the publication of a China Report documenting illegitimate criminal charges and violation of the right to fair trial of detained Chinese human rights lawyers.

What were some of the challenges that you faced this summer?

It was often difficult to determine where to begin research on an area of law that has not been well researched. I also had to learn to work with lawyers who have very different work styles.

What were some of the challenges that you faced this summer?

Share anything interesting about your experience (best meal, favourite memory, etc.)

It was extremely interesting contributing research to human rights cases that are currently ongoing and being able to see the tangible impact of your contribution.

What advice do you have for students hoping to be an IHRP fellow next year?

Start contacting organizations early and identify ones that align with your interests.

Once you have secured a position, go into the internship with a few ideas of what type of work you would like to do over the summer; there is always room to take on more and get the most out of your experience!

Jeremy Greenberg (2L) administering the weekly intern quiz at the MICT

Jeremy Greenberg Year: 2L Which organization did you work for, and in which city and country?

The United Nations Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT), The Hague, Netherlands

\What were the highlights of your fellowship?

Just being in The Hague meant countless opportunities to visit important courts, including the ICC and ICJ not to mention the ability to travel all over Europe.

Professionally, the highlight was working with a senior lawyer to reopen an older case and develop a prosecution strategy from the ground-up.

What were some of the challenges that you faced this summer?

In an international criminal court like the MICT, there are many simultaneous ongoing projects, all with competing deadlines. It was sometimes difficult to get everything done on time, but there were always other interns there to help.

What were some of your first impressions of the country/city where you completed your fellowship? How/Did these impressions change over time?

The Hague is a beautiful, small European city with endless bike trails, in a beautiful, small European country with endless bike trails.

Share anything interesting about your experience (best meal, favourite memory, etc.)

Over four months in Europe, I visited 9 countries. I saw some of the greatest art ever produced, and heard some of the best music in the most impressive venues. I ate mayo-soaked french fries in Amsterdam, and deep-fried breaded lángos in Budapest.

I danced until 5 in the morning on more than one occasion, with some of the nicest people I've ever had the pleasure of working with.

What advice do you have for students hoping to be an IHRP fellow next year?

Go out there and find something amazing to do! Look beyond the IHRP-organised internships! You'll have to put a bit more work into applying, but that means you're open to finding anything, anywhere, on any topic, leading to what's likely the best summer of your life. And don't be afraid to network, either with upper-years or people already at the UN agency, NGO, or wherever it is you want to go!

The emotional toil of the work was challenging – there’d be days when I was counselling asylum seekers and refugees back-toback for three hours straight. I would be completely drained by lunch. I had to learn how to manage emergency situations with a huge communication barrier and, limited time and power. I learned how to skilfully manoeuvre through those challenges over time, especially thanks to the strong support from my colleagues.

What were some of your first impressions of the country/city where you completed your fellowship? How/Did these impressions change over time?

Bangkok was a sensory overload with divergent sights, smells, and sounds. There was a lot of traffic, a lot of tourists, and a lot of heat. None of those first impressions changed over time but what changed was the sense of home and comfort I felt – I realized I could navigate the city with ease and was lucky enough to share the experience with an amazing group of friends.

Share anything interesting about your experience (best meal, favourite memory, etc.): My friends and I had a tradition of going to a local auntie’s restaurant for tom yum goong. Crossing the border on foot from Thailand to Cambodia was also a surreal experience.

What advice do you have for students hoping to be an IHRP fellow next year?

Start the search early, take initiative to reach out to people, and be open to try new things this summer! The IHRP fellowship is an amazing opportunity that gives you a chance to grow and strengthen your skills, so it’s important to take full advantage of the experience.

14 | October 25, 2017

Year: 2L

ultravires.ca

Daniel Sisgoreo

Which organization did you work for, and in which city and country?

Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), The Hague, Netherlands

What were the highlights of your fellowship?

My colleagues at the ICTY were definitely a big highlight of my fellowship. Although I have travelled extensively, I have never been in any single place with such a great diversity of people, in terms of national origin. The office had people from every continent, and conversations were always so fascinating as a result.

I also enjoyed the content of my work immensely.

It was interesting to see criminal law concepts and doctrines I had studied in 1L in a completely different and more extreme context: we would talk about actus reus and mens rea, but applied to crimes against humanity and genocide. The evidentiary record is invariably massive, the elements of the crimes are extremely complicated, and the trials typically take years. Convicting an accused in a war crimes tribunal is an almost herculean feat, and contributing to this project was rewarding and informative at every turn.

What were some of the challenges that you faced this summer?

The main hurdle I faced was familiarizing myself with international criminal law, which I had never studied.

What were some of your first impressions of the country/city where you completed your fellowship? How/Did these impressions change over time?

I had never visited the Netherlands prior to my internship, but I had read about the country’s relaxed and tolerant laws in number of areas that other countries choose to regulate more forcefully and, indeed, criminally. These details gave me the impression that Dutch society was more liberal than Canadian society. However, I came to realize that more progressive laws do not necessarily translate into more liberal politics. I didn’t find that the Dutch people held markedly different political beliefs than people in other countries in which I have lived or visited.

Share anything interesting about your experience (best meal, favourite memory, etc.)

My internship was particularly valuable because it helped me discover that lawyers who practice public international law do, in fact, exist! The community may be small, but gaining some exposure to that world helped me get a more realistic perception of the opportunities available and how I might pursue them after graduation.

What advice do you have for students hoping to be an IHRP fellow next year?

I recommend researching host organizations and applying for internships early. There are plenty of great opportunities out there, and while it is certainly possible to pull together an internship on short notice, it is far less stressful to apply for an IHRP fellowship with a clear internship opportunity already in hand.

Enbal Singer (2L) with staff and volunteers from Kav LaOved at the Supreme Court of Israel

Enbal Singer Year: 2L

Which organization did you work for, and in which city and country?

Kav LaOved (The Worker’s Hotline), Tel Aviv, Israel

What were the highlights of your fellowship?

I volunteered with Kav LaOved before law school, so a major highlight was being able to return to two active projects.

The first involved developing a more accurate system to calculate workers’ benefits and pensions. I had previously developed a system to accurately calculate these amounts using excel. By returning to Kav LaOved this summer I was able to test this system with clients, and to improve it so that other volunteers could also use it.

The other project that I had been involved in was drafting the organization’s submission for the UN Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Before law school, I wrote the organization’s submission to the CEDAW for Israel’s List of Issues Prior to Reporting (LOIPR), identifying areas of discrimination towards women in Israel’s labour market. By returning again this summer, I was able to write the organization’s response to CEDAW’s LOIPR for Israel to counter the biases of self-reporting by the state.

What were some of the challenges that you faced this summer?

The temporary nature of my position was perhaps the most challenging part. I was alway busy with casework and before I knew it, August had arrived and my projects had to be completed. These projects also had to be completed during the time when my boss and the volunteers were out of the country, and I was in charge of the refugees and asylum seekers division. Overwhelming as it was, I definitely was able to leave with a sense of accomplishment that the division did not collapse under my supervision.

What were some of your first impressions of the country/city where you completed your fellowship? How/Did these impressions change over time?

I was surprised at how easy it was to slide back into my work at the organization. I had fresh ideas after being away for a year and thinking about law at a macro level. To my surprise, I was able to resolve a conflict between one of the organization’s employees and an American client based on what I had learned the year before in contract law.

Share anything interesting about your experience (best meal, favourite memory, etc.)

One of my favourite cases over the summer was helping a young asylum seeker withdraw her pension before her resettlement in The Netherlands.

She was having difficulty doing so because of a common bureaucratic problem faced by asylum seekers in Israel involving the issuance of identification codes. After many calls and emails between myself, the employer, and the pension company to determine what ID number had been used for my client, the money was finally transferred on the morning of her flight.

What advice do you have for students hoping to be an IHRP fellow next year?

Don’t hesitate to ask the IHRP for advice on your application! The unique thing about IHRP is that the goal is to have as many students doing good work around the world as possible. This is a refreshing break from the competitive nature of law school and should be enjoyed by law students.

October 25, 2017 | 15

ultravires.ca

Year: 2L

Robert Chiu Year: 3L

Anda Wang

Holly Kallmeyer Year: 2L

Ritika Rai Year: 2L

Which organization did you work for, and in which city and country?

Which organization did you work for, and in which city and country?

Which organization did you work for, and in which city and country?

Which organization did you work for, and in which city and country?

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), The Hague, Netherlands.

AIDS-Free World (Code Blue Campaign), Toronto, Canada.

Human Rights Watch (Women’s Rights Division), Washington D.C., USA

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland

What were the highlights of your fellowship?

What were the highlights of your fellowship?

What were the highlights of your fellowship?

The highlights of my fellowship were getting to be part of a diverse and vibrant constellation of people working in international law; learning about international law in an institution that has been formative in the field's development; and travelling with other IHRP fellows.

It was a privilege to be able to participate in discussions with experts in advocacy, policy, and international law. The size of the organization allowed me to work closely with staff members on a variety of projects, and it was extremely rewarding to see how my contributions had a direct impact on the organization's work.

While the political establishment in Washington is not particularly sympathetic to the issues I was working on, I was heartened to see the mobilization among women’s rights organizations in the city. I attended meetings almost weekly where like-minded organizations would discuss strategies to pushback against damaging legislation or executive orders or ways to provide political decision-makers with the information they need to make rights-respecting legislation.

What were some of the challenges that you faced this summer?

I found it challenging to navigate certain cultural differences in the workplace and to familiarize myself with a large body of international jurisprudence. I also took up learning Dutch,which was anything but easy!

What were some of your first impressions of the country/city where you completed your fellowship? How/Did these impressions change over time?

There's this relatively pervasive notion - probably held by North Americans in particular - that the Dutch are uniformly tall, liberal, and laissez-faire.

They are indeed tall. But they're actually real sticklers for the rules (and not at all in a bad way!). Dutch governance is really interesting in that sense because there's a strong bent for respecting the law and for regulating forces that they feel might otherwise threaten their society. Although The Hague is largely an international community, it was incredibly interesting to learn about the Dutch in the context of their own culture.

Share anything interesting about your experience (best meal, favourite memory, etc.)

Some of the best moments of by fellowship involved food; Japanese food in Paris; doner in Berlin; and stroopwafels in the Netherlands!

What advice do you have for students hoping to be an IHRP fellow next year?

Apply broadly and don't be afraid to stray from the beaten path. Opportunities like this don't come along often and you should use them to venture as far as you're willing to go!

ihrprightsreview

The informal learning opportunities were also a highlight of my fellowship. These included impromptu email exchanges between staff members who were passionately opinionated on a wide range of subjects: relevant news and journal articles, developments in international law and policy, American politics, and the best ramen places in New York.

What were some of the challenges that you faced this summer?

When working in the field of international human rights, the problems you encounter can seem vast.

At times, the issues appeared large and abstract, but at other times, there was a keen awareness that this work involves terrible instances of human suffering, often with a human cause.

Share anything interesting about your experience (best meal, favourite memory, etc.).

I went into this fellowship without a very clear understanding of international law and international human rights in practice. After just a few months, I was surprised to realize that the international community suddenly seems much smaller. Names and faces have quickly become familiar, for better or for worse.

In terms of a small, practical luxury closer to home - we shared many lunches and post-work socials on the building's rooftop patio, which offered a nice view of the Toronto skyline (for those of us who don't get out much during the year).

What were some of the challenges that you faced this summer?

The atmosphere in Washington was particularly tense this summer and many of the issues I was working on were politically controversial. While Washington is a predominantly liberal city, the divisive political climate was palpable. I found my work often followed me home, so it was difficult to decompress.

What were some of your first impressions of the country/city where you completed your fellowship? How/Did these impressions change over time?

This was my second summer in Washington, so I had an idea of the city’s culture. I think, as Canadians, we put a lot of effort into distinguishing ourselves from Americans, but in reality the people I met on a day to day basis were no more or less polite and kind than any Canadian. The starkest difference is the way patriotism is expressed in the US; it is a much more vocal, exceptional patriotism than I see in Canada.

Share anything interesting about your experience (best meal, favourite memory, etc.)

My favourite memory from this summer is visiting the monuments and memorials along the Mall at night, when the crowds had died down.

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

What were the highlights of your fellowship?

My top two work-related highlights were: (1) Assisting the Special Rapporteur of Myanmar with her oral update to the Human Rights Council, attending private meetings at the Council and preparing the SR’s July mission to Myanmar by conducting research and drafting official talking points, and (2) Drafting the communication that resulted in the release of five prominent human rights defenders from prison.

What were some of your first impressions of the country/city where you completed your fellowship? How/Did these impressions change over time?

My first real impression of Geneva was the insane cost of living. Everything from rent to food was expensive, so I was super grateful for the funding I received from the Faculty, and for being able to cross the border into France nearby for affordable meals.

Share anything interesting about your experience (best meal, favourite memory, etc.)

Since the majority of UN interns are unpaid, we spent many evenings at the park sipping grocery store wine while soaking in Geneva’s iconic views and planning our next weekend getaway. It was always a good time.

What advice do you have for students hoping to be an IHRP fellow next year?

Start looking early and contact lots of organizations. IHRP fellowships are an amazing opportunity to spend you summer doing meaningful work while living in another city. Don’t miss out!

rightsreview

16 | October 25, 2017

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

Stuck Inside Toronto with the Bay Street Blues Again ANONYMOUS One morning, a few weeks into my summer job at a full-service Bay Street f irm, the student co-ordinator scheduled a meeting for me and my fellow students to see how we felt things were going.

“Does anyone have anything they want to talk about?” the co-ordinator asked.

“Yes,” I said, “I hate it here, I don’t know why I ever came here, and can I please just leave now?”

The co-ordinator looked at me, smiled, transformed into their true demon form, and let me know that I was now there for all eternity and advised me that it would be better for me to accept that.

Here’s what really happened: I didn’t say anything. I sat there quietly as the little pebble of doubt in my stomach grew three sizes every time the co-ordinator spoke, all the while remaining the friendly human being they’d always been.

“I hope you guys have at least had some free time on the weekend so far.” Now that little pebble is a stone.

“I hope you’re getting at least a couple hours of sleep a night.” Now it’s a rock.

“I hope you’re starting to network with people at the f irm and that you’ve connected with your mentor.” Now it’s in my throat and I sort of can’t really breathe.

“Let’s talk about articling. We’re starting to prepare offers and, of course, we’re hop-

ing you’ll all join us for articling, but if you want to talk to me about that, please let me know as soon as possible.” Now it’s exploded into a thousand little shards and it’s in my eyes and it’s in my ears and I can’t really focus and—oh, okay—the meeting’s over, thank you.

Not long after that meeting, I found myself out on the street delivering a document, f ighting to hold back tears because I knew that, if I let them come, it was going to be hard to dam that river. Later that night, I went through the f irms taking part in the articling recruit and made a list of the ones I would apply to. I emailed the CDO to ask about the politics of turning down your f irm’s articling offer. They replied that it was a tricky subject and it would be easier if I gave them a call or came in to talk. I never responded.

The very thought of articling somewhere else lifted the pressure. I settled in. And then something happened: I lost my nerve. I knew I didn’t want to work at the f irm long term, but it was f ine for now. I knew that “Big Law” was not for me, but the people at the f irm were nice. I knew that I wasn’t really happy there, but I thought about the possibility of going through the articling recruit and leaving empty-handed after having a guaranteed articling position in my hands. Telling myself I was being pragmatic, I convinced myself that I should stay.

I thought about it every single day until the application deadline passed and I didn’t have to think about it anymore. I was more scared of leaving than I was of staying.

I’m going to article there. It’s happening.

But let’s jump back in time. Because I knew before I ever started that I wasn’t going to be happy there. I knew when I said the words “I accept” on call day that I wasn’t going to be happy there. I knew because they had been the f irst f irm to call and I told them I had to think about it, and then I spent an hour waiting, hoping to get a call from a smaller f irm that I had in-f irmed with. I only accepted my offer when I got an email from the small f irm telling me the bad news. I knew because the only thing I had ever said when people asked me what kind of law I wanted to practice was “not corporate law.” That’s still true—it’s just that I’m going to be articling at a corporate law f irm.

So what happened? To put it one way, I have no idea. My rationalization to myself was that I was just going to try it to see what it was like, but I didn’t anticipate just how trapped I would feel once I got there. I didn’t realize that deciding to apply to article somewhere else would feel like such an unbearable, terrifying risk. Guys, I think I messed up.

Let’s take a second to acknowledge a few things before I get to my point. I am grateful that I got a job at all. I am grateful that I know where I’m articling. I really liked the students I worked with, the people at the f irm were all good to me, and I actually liked much of the work I did. This isn’t a piece for bashing corporate law.

Okay, here’s my point: if you are a 2L currently going through the recruit and you haven’t done it already, take a second to think about whether whatever job you’re

trying to get is actually a job that you want.

Imagine the second after you accept their offer. You hang up the phone. How do you feel? Does your stomach drop? Do you imagine calling back and saying that you’ve changed your mind?

Fear permeates the recruit. Fear that you won’t get a job. Fear that you’ll go into the winter searching desperately and fear that it will be spring and you’ll still be jobless.

Fear that this will mean you are not going to be successful.

I felt that fear, too, so I applied for the jobs I’d always said I didn’t want. I accepted the job, regardless of my reservations. I accepted the articling position. Was it the right decision for me? Not really. Was it what I wanted? Not really. Would it have been better if I had done something different? I don’t know. Now that I’ve taken this path, now that I’m doing what I’m doing, will I try to do something different? I think so. Will it work out? I don’t know. I hope so.

So ask yourself what you fear most: not getting a job at the recruit or actually getting one.

Better yet, stop thinking about your fear for a second. What if you had an offer from every single f irm, agency, off ice, organization, or clinic in Toronto? Or all of Ontario? Or all of Canada? What if you had no fear, because the choice was yours?

What would you do?

Why I Hate the Jackman Law Building SUJUNG LEE (2L) The f irst time I entered the Jackman Law Building, in 1L , I was excited about the beauty of the new space that was made just for us. A ll the natural light, the brand new adjustable chairs, the cozy reading room with a f ireplace—these features beckoned to me the promise of a successful next phase in my life.

But, as the year passed, the building slowly began to lose its charm.

During the September clubs fair, I started to feel a weird pressure to conform to popular expectations at the law school.

The atrium echoed with bits of advice like “You should apply to both PBSC and DLS!” or “You should join this club because it looks good on your résumé and is low commitment!”

During f irst semester exams, this pressure became palpable. Being in the Bora Laskin Library was unsettling, as I couldn’t help but be conscious of the fact that everyone else in the same room might be studying the same thing as me. Why didn’t I have a treatise on my desk? Why wasn’t I working on a practice exam? During the 1L recruit, this pressure consumed me. The Moot Court Room seemed to get bigger with every CDO event I attended, as if it could sense my FOMO about the recruit and was preparing to swallow my soul.

Eventually, everything about the building began to annoy me: the poorly ventilated single-stall bathrooms with faulty locks; the fact that we couldn’t eat lunch in the library study rooms we had paid so much to use; the lack of seating in areas where you could actually eat. The walls of

Jackman, once so clean and welcoming, became sterile and unforgiving. The longanticipated Goodmans Café turned out to be overpriced and mediocre. Walking the halls became an awkward game of eyecontact dodgeball with those acquaintances you didn’t know whether to say “Hi” to.

In short, I hated the building and felt like I didn’t belong in it.

As a result, I started minimizing my time at Jackman. I left the building as soon as class was done. I packed lunch so that I didn’t have to stand in line at Goodmans. I studied at other libraries on the U of T campus. In 2L , I even moved to an apartment that was further from school.

The physical distance has done me well.

The absence of visible pressure allows me

to feel more attuned to my studies and to create mental space for other important aspects of my life. More importantly, I learned I wasn’t alone in my resentment.

Like myself, others associated Jackman with an oppressive climate of competition and memories of failure. We bonded over a collective sense of disappointment at the fact that studying law wasn’t exactly what we had hoped it would be. Taking a step back allowed me to ref lect on what makes me happy, and to gain better perspective on what I wish to get out of law school.

So, to those of you who share a similar complicated relationship with Jackman, I hope you f ind your own peace in putting some distance between you and the building. And to the law school, I hope our experiences signal the need to address a suffocating culture that turns worthy students away from a beautiful building.

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

October 25, 2017 | 17

OCI Mistakes KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (3L) RE: October 2018 Student Article in Ultra Vires

Interviewer was shocked at the candidate’s knowledge of confidential merger negotiations:

Don’t worry, they definitely didn’t laugh about you in the elevator:

Please accept this compilation, with the enclosed commentary and screenshots, as my article for the October 2018 edition of Ultra Vires.

“I’m very impressed with Gowlings Jones’ commitment to mentorship.”

I was initially drawn to Ultra Vires by its reputation for excellence in reporting and creative approach to student stress and job anxiety. Speaking with [U of T upper year I found on your website] highlighted the paper’s [supportive/collegial/unique] approach to practice and commitment to [teamwork/diversity/ hands-on experience].

I mean, the firm gets half the blame in this one:

“I ran into some lawyers from a f irm I’d interviewed with in a lobby shared by a second f irm whose dinner I was heading to.

With that f irm’s dinner in mind, I said, “See you guys up there!” to the lawyers from the f irst f irm. They responded really confusedly, as they were clearly on their way home. Instead of clarifying my mistake, I turned all red and completely clammed up. Mercifully, one of them said, “This never happened,” and they walked away.”

Dear [Editor Name]:

Before law school, I developed a sense of humour not dependent on references to Lord Denning or mocking Supreme Court Justices. In my f irst year of law school, I volunteered at the Self-Deprecation Clinic, where I honed my skill at laughing about how far behind I was in my readings. This year, I’ve particularly enjoyed the opportunity provided by the 2018 Summer Recruit to make mistakes and laugh at myself.

I would appreciate the opportunity to apply these skills to the high-level articles Ultra Vires brings to the school.

Please do hesitate to contact me, as I would not welcome further discussion of the application process before in-f irms.

“I submitted my Cassels Brock LLP application to Blake’s (Blake, Cassels, and Graydon LLP).”

OCIs are temporally disorienting: “I was having a good interview until I cheerily told my 9:30 a.m. interviewers to “Have a good night!” as I left. I forcefully closed the curtains and ran away as fast as I could. I could only see the silhouettes of my interviewers as they turned to look at each other. But who’s to say it wasn’t night? Time is a construct. As are OCI’s.

Subtly signaling an interest in animal law so that you convey the interest, but don’t get asked whether you would feel unethical representing the firm’s animal agriculture clients. FYI, if this hypothetical in fact happens to you, the firm does not appreciate a comparison to criminal defence work: “Beast regards, Stephanie.”

Call me maybe?: “For the New York recruit, I had the wrong phone number on my cover letter and résumé. One number off, so I couldn’t even claim to have changed my phone number. I had four NY OCIs. At the end of each of them, I had to explain the mistake and pull out a fresh copy of my résumé. Really awkward end to otherwise solid OCI’s.

In the end, I’m not sure the mistake mattered. Two f irms called me back and one hired me. Dumb mistake, and 1Ls should take this as a lesson to go over their entire applications with a magnifying glass, but also remember that mistakes happen and they’re rarely fatal.”

:( “I once misspelled a f irm’s name. Got an interview. Turns out they wanted to point it out to me in person.”

I haven’t heard back from them. I think time-awareness may be important to the f irm.”

When you whisper your interest in litigation so the full-service firm doesn’t think you’re totally uninterested in corporate transactions:

Sincerely, Candidate #516

When you want to test their knowledge of gender diversity and existential identity politics: “Dear Mx. [Recruiter Last Name],”

It worked for the upper-year who used this line two years ago: “Please accept this letter, and enclosed résumé and transcript, as an application for a 2016 summer associate position.”

Staying hydrated is important: “I accidentally poured water all over myself during an in-f irm. Like fully tried to pour water into a glass and missed the glass and just poured water onto my shirt. I didn’t acknowledge it and neither did they. Did not get the job.”

U of T students tend to make their mistakes “with great confidence”: “I printed out my f irm research to study in the lounge area, but forgot that I hadn’t listed them in the order I would be interviewing. So, for my f irst time slot I walked with great conf idence into the booth of my second f irm and found another student already there. Confused, and not immediately realizing what had happened, I rushed over to the correct booth (arriving late) and started asking them the questions I had prepared for Firm #2. I’m pretty sure they f igured out what was going on before I did— probably around when I started asking my well-researched questions about their competitor’s practice.

So I managed to get bad starts to two interviews in two minutes. Otherwise, I’d say OCI’s went pretty well.”

“My cat stepped on my keyboard, sending an email well before it was ready”:

18 | October 25, 2017

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

Opinion: I Like The TV RYLEE RAYBURN-GIBSON (3L)

I like the TV. I like the TV at night before bed and while I am eating. Sometimes while I am watching another TV I will turn on the main TV and watch both.

The TV has movies, shows, sports, and news in standard def inition or in high def inition. Anything on the TV in high def inition is better than every book. You can watch the TV in all shapes and sizes. Not triangle though—yet. And not really really really really big. If I had to choose? Really big rectangle.

The TV has lots of channels, but they could add more and I would not mind. If you get tired of watching CBC News you can switch to The Simpsons or to CBC News in French. That’s just the freedom of choice that comes with the TV lifestyle. There is always something on the TV and sometimes I get distracted because I like what is on there. I’m reading a book, say, and then the

TV shows me Donald Trump, so I look at the TV instead. The book isn’t showing me Donald Trump. I hope this is clear.

Have you heard of “primetime”? This is the part of the evening when the TV gets very good on purpose. It is hard to believe this happens every day, but it’s true! When someone tells me, “I don’t like the TV,” I say, “You should try watching during primetime, mother.” Primetime is a good viewing experience. I prefer to not click the off switch during this period.

The TV is the place to go for sports fans.

That’s me! Football, basketball, hockey, soccer. They are all here. Women’s sports?

No, but everything else. I can’t lie, I like it when sports are on the screen.

Sometimes the TV can ask the hard questions. On Thursdays, do I watch Young Sheldon or Grey’s Anatomy? Or Thursday Night Foot-

ball? Or a horny cartoon from another land? Luckily, new technology means I don’t have to decide. But I do decide and I watch Young Sheldon.

The TV has The Big Bang Theory on it. But not all the time. I have the cables to use a computer so that the TV has The Big Bang Theory on it all the time. So that’s pretty cool. Not to go off track, but I like the computer too.

The TV has reality shows. I like those.

They are really putting a mirror to society.

I like that it could just be me in reality on the TV someday, living my life as a guy with a haircut or a gun or something. My favourite show is Suits and I am working on a long-term plan to be a contestant on that badass show. But so are other people, I think. We’ll see.

Has anyone seen The Wire?

Costume Ideas for In-Firm Interviews NORM YALLEN (2L) Halloween is just around the corner! This is a great time to show your special law f irm or government of f ice that you have what it takes!

Here are our top costume ideas for doing just that.

Che Guevara What better way to ingratiate yourself with a Bay Street f irm than to dress like everyone’s favourite anti-capitalist guerilla f ighter?

Oh, you watch Game of T hrones? How relatable and unique! A good way to separate yourself from the other candidates who probably read by candlelight in their spare time. Do you also watch the Leafs, or like travelling? The f irm will have no choice but to hire you.

Doctor Just walk right in and say, “I thought I would dress up for a worthwhile job, but ended up at a law of f ice!” Lawyers love nothing more than jokes about how they are less important than doctors.

Donald Trump Ugh, I’m sick of this.

The Founder of the Firm

Game of Thrones Character

Phantom of the Opera You can honestly say anything you want with this costume. As a matter of fact, you can wear anything you want. I am pretty sure no one has actually seen this play so who would know?

Editor’s Note: Apparently this is the longest running musical of all time. Maybe you should have denigrated Cats instead.

Bear Just don’t make a double entendre. Or do. I guess it depends on the of f ice.

Santa/Supreme Court Justice Same costume for either, but let the lawyer decide what it is. If they guess Santa, say that you plan on giving the f irm the gift of your hard work and dedication. If they guess the Supreme Court Justice, tell them you love the law and all that stuf f.

This will show you have respect for history. The bonus here is that you don’t even need to look them up: just wear something like a top hat, a cane, and a monocle. I guess you should probably make sure the founder is not still at the f irm. You wouldn’t want there to be a mix-up.

Suits Be that guy from Suits. You know, that guy who wins all those cases. Make sure you bring plenty of poorly written dialogue that leads to a boring and predictable conclusion. Suits is a bad show—there, I said it.

A Keen and Interested Student Maybe give it a try and see what happens?

ultravires.ca

DIVERSIONS

October 25, 2017 | 19

Ultra Vires Tests Three Law School Life Hacks to See if They Really Work KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (3L) If you’re anything like me, the Internet is your best friend. When you have a problem, who do you turn to? Your parents?

Please. Your friends? Ha ha, yeah right, like they know anything. No, you turn to the Internet. When I had a runny nose for what felt like an exceedingly long time, what did I do, go to a doctor? Do you think I’m stupid or something? No, I Googled it and found out that I was probably leaking spinal f luid out my nose. Problem solved. Knowledge is power.

It’s not only physical ailments though: the Internet can solve literally any problem you’ve ever had. Want to know who won an Oscar for best supporting actress in 1992? The Internet knows. Want to know how to properly boil an egg? The Internet knows. Want to know why life sometimes feels like one miserable damn thing after another and will you ever achieve your goals and will you ever again experience true, unfettered joy like you felt when you were four years old and you found a shell on the beach but then it was actually a living hermit crab and for a f leeting, ecstatic moment you knew that the universe was a mystery but also that it was good? The. Internet. Knows.

All this is to say that the Internet has a lot of advice on how to successfully make it through law school. Over the past few months, I tested out several common law school life hacks to see if they really work.

Life Hack #1: Reverse Procrastination

Life Hack #2: Get to K now Your Profs

Source: www.lawlife.ca

Source: www.lawschoolscience.org

Life Hack #1: Find People Who Have the Job You Want Source: killingatlawschool.tor

The Idea: The idea behind this life hack is that you need to disrupt your natural procrastination instincts. Don’t tell yourself you’re going to get lots of work done this weekend. Instead, tell yourself you need to watch as much TV as humanly possible. Tell yourself you have to go out for every meal. Tell yourself you absolutely must spend hours at the pet store picking out a Halloween costume for your cat. Now that you’ve put all this pressure on yourself to succeed at having a nice weekend, you will put these things off and do work instead.

The Results: Guys, have you seen the new season of Bojack? Have you watched American Vandal? Have you caught up on Scandal? Have you gone to Brooklyn Nine Nine discussion boards and commented at all? Have you watched the complete series of Parks and Recreation the appropriate f ive times yet? Have you seen that ninehour Netf lix show of a train going from Bergen to Oslo?

Have you ever seen a cat dressed up as Mickey Mouse?

OMG.

The Idea: This one is simple. If you get to know your profs, the frequent close proximity to them will result in knowledge jumping through the biological Cloud from their brain to your brain. This occurs through a process recently discovered by legal biochemists called aethercognitionis transfer. This process is still being studied, but what is known at the moment is that it cannot occur through email. It requires proximity of no greater than one metre, for intervals of at least 119 minutes.

The Idea: Law school is all well and good, but it’s easier to get through if you know where you want to go afterwards and how to get there. Finding people who have the job you want is a big step in f iguring out a plan.

They have your job. You need that job. Do not let them keep that job from you. That job is yours. They need to be made aware that they have something that belongs to you. Let them know that, one way or another, you will have that job.

The Results: I tried this with Professor Hamish Stewart.

I didn’t really learn any more about evidence law than I would have from going to class, but I have now seen My Cousin Vinny approximately four hundred times and Professor Stewart has convinced me that it is, indeed, “the only movie that has ever mattered.”

The Results: People do not respond well to this life hack.

Do not, under any circumstances approach a justice of the Supreme Court and tell them that they have your job. Do not approach Michael Moldaver and tell him, to put it bluntly, that you are “not fucking around.” Do not ask Michael Moldaver about his pet cat, Squirrels, who likes to chew on the catnip growing in his backyard and in the same sentence mention cat poison. Do not take off the mask you are wearing and say, “Remember this face. It’s the face of the person whose job you stole.” He will remember your face. He will report you to your dean. You will have a heck of a time explaining that you’re just a student journalist trying out law school life hacks you found online. This will not make law school easier.

On a different topic, does anyone have maps for all my classes that I can borrow in December?

The Final Verdict The Internet is the best place to go for medical advice and awards history, but these law school life hacks were ineffective at best and resulted in pending criminal charges at worst. In the end, the only law school life hack you need is the time-honoured strategy of doing just enough to get by and hoping for the best.

20 | October 25, 2017

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

News of the Legal World KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (3L)

Hips Not Credible Witness, Court Rules In a decision that sent a wave of shocked murmurs throughout the courtroom, a judge ruled this week that she would not allow evidence from Shakira’s hips, f inding that there were “severe credibility issues” that could not be overcome.

The hips were set to testify that they had overheard the accused, Dennis Nedry, speaking with an unknown accomplice about a plan to steal conf idential scientif ic materials from the InGen Corporation.

When asked why she herself did not overhear the conversation, Shakira replied, “I was talking to my agent at the time, so I didn’t hear it. My hips, on the other hand, hear everything.”

Crown Counsel repeatedly argued that it is a well-accepted proposition that Shakira’s hips don’t lie. But Judge Tennille Ingolsby found that there was too much uncertainty in allowing hips to testify—regardless of their reputation—in spite of the fact that, last year, the Supreme Court held that, under certain circumstances, a heart may testify because, as they say, “the heart knows what it knows.”

Some legal commentators, such as Professor Henry Michael Church, believe that even if Judge Ingolsby had found the hips credible, there might still have been hearsay issues. “The hips, I assume, would have

to testify through Shakira, who would tell the Court what her hips told her. This testimony would then be used for its truth, so I’m not sure the testimony would have been accepted in the end, regardless of the decision on credibility.”

In response, Shakira said, “This, of course, is preposterous. My hips speak for themselves.”

UV’s Pivot to Video Fails Earlier this year, Ultra Vires Editor-inChief, Aidan Campbell, announced that the paper would be pivoting to video starting in November, 2017. “The age of physical print is over. Also, the age of digital print is over. The time of the video has come,” Campbell said in a speech to investors.

This week, however, Campbell’s spokesperson, Timothy Cruller, announced that the pivot had been canceled after a beta testing period was, as one participant described it, “a baff ling disaster.”

This participant, who agreed to speak only under conditions of anonymity, described what he saw: “It was just videos of printed articles. If the article was too long, the camera would just pan slowly over the whole thing but, like, way slower than a person reads. Parts of it were out of focus

too. I really don’t think they know anything about making videos. There was one actual video. It was called something like ‘Editors hard at work planning the next edition,’ but it was just, like, actually twenty minutes of the Editorial Board eating pizza in silence and then it ended.”

While Campbell acknowledged that this was a devastating blow so early in his term as Editor-in-Chief, he said he’s not ready to give up on his plan just yet. “Yes, mistakes were made. Maybe by me, who can really say? But hardly anyone knows now that Youtube began as a local RadioShack f lyer.

Only after seventeen unsuccessful pivotsto-video did their plan work—and now look at them.”

Law Student Successfully Makes Rote Statement of Law on Facebook Thread About Social Issue, Is Celebrated Clay Pennington successfully became the hero of the Internet this week when he had the courage to post a rote statement of law on a Facebook thread f illed with emotional and personal reactions to the undesirable outcome of a controversial trial.

“My friends,” Pennington wrote, calmly, collectedly, level-headed as can be, “we, as law students and future lawyers, must be

better than this. It is not our role to ask what is the outcome we would like, but to ask what is the outcome that a rote understanding of the law demands.” Pennington went on, stoically, bravely, understanding the real issue much better than anyone else in his class, “The law is simple. It says, ‘if x, then y.’ Not, as was the case here, if ‘x-ish, then y.’ The judge simply had to rule the way he did. That is the law and we are lawyers. Q.E.D.” The immediate reaction was one of celebration. “Thank you so much for teaching us the law, Clay,” wrote Grace Tripp. Class President Kendra Slotnick added, “Yes, thank you Clay. I don’t know what we would do without your super-helpful input.” Another comment that read, “You are fucking dumb, Clay,” was confusing at f irst, but Pennington informs us that this is slang used at the school to mean “cool.”

This having taken place on the Internet, however, meant that the trolls soon showed up and took over the thread. The general idea of their comments was that Pennington should do any number of different things to himself. Pennington assures us, however, that he received many more positive comments by direct message from people afraid to make themselves targets for the trolls than there were negative comments on the thread itself. He promised to show us some of these messages but had not done so at press time.

TORT or NO TORT: 3L Edition MAUD ROZEE (3L) I have class from 6 to 8 p.m. two days a week this semester. Am I supposed to eat dinner at 5 like a farmer? Or at 9 like some kind of European? Either way, I suffer unacceptable levels of hanger. TORT or NO TORT? Nobody in Biz Org leaves a side seat open for me, although they must know I am going to be late. I am always late. Perhaps somewhere deep deep down I just don’t want to go to BizOrg. The feeling is def initely buried extremely deep. If I accidentally whack your laptop with my backpack as I reluctantly navigate into the Heart of Darkness, a.k.a. a seat in J140, well, that should’ve been in your contemplation when you chose to treat

me like this. TORT or NO TORT?

posed. LITERAL TORT or NO TORT?

The new 1L class is too sweet. Their supportive comments on pics of clique-free hangouts and offers to share food with each other are making the rest of us look like drama-loving, SNAIL-hating Grinches. TORT or NO TORT?

Halfway through the f irst day of my intensive course, the visiting professor asked if we usually took a break during classes, and if we wanted to take a break right now. Due to the cowardice of everyone in the room, including myself, I was forced to attend eighty total extra minutes of class over the course of the intensive—the equivalent of one (1) amazingly long nap. TORT or NO TORT?

Every time I walk past the railings up to the dais in the Moot Court Room I stab myself on the invisible two-inch piece of protruding metal/stiletto dagger attached to each one. I have two identical bruises on either hip, and this may be the closest thing to an actual tort that this column has ever ex-

Basically everyone in 3L has chosen to go on exchange. This unbelievably rude conduct has caused me to experience strong feelings of abandonment and envy on a daily

basis. Pub nights have become bleak and meaningless. Their beautiful Instagrams add insult to injury. Every time I “like” an Exchange-agram, I feel like a wretched orphan watching my true family celebrate Christmas without me. A single tear rolls down my face. TORT or NO TORT? The way a day supposedly rolls over into a new day at 12:01 a.m. is upsettingly formalistic. I’m still sitting in my PJ’s watching Grey’s Anatomy but suddenly this episode began “yesterday” and my readings need to be done by “tonight”? Getting that “Today’s Events” email at 12:06 a.m. is as jarring an experience as any I’ve ever known. TORT or NO TORT?

ultravires.ca

DIVERSIONS

October 25, 2017 | 21

How to Get Away with Financial Crimes NORM YALLEN (2L)

T his is a student’s record of a dark chapter of U of T Law History. T he author’s name has been kept anonymous for obvious reasons.

When I saw “Criminal Financial Intensive” on a poster in the alley behind the Jackman Law Building, I immediately was drawn in. I had always been a big fan of Bernie Madof f and that guy from T he Wolf of Wall Street. I thought this seemed like a good opportunity to dive into the world of stealing people’s money by using long and confusing words like “derivative” and “asset.” I was not put of f by the course time at 11 p.m. on Sunday night, or the fact that it weirdly wasn’t on E.Legal. The sign in the alley said it would be worth 2.32 credits and that sounded of f icial enough to me.

Plus, it was pass/fail, which beat working hard for a P. The f irst day I got to the class, there were only a few people that I had never seen before. The professor walked in and

introduced himself to us as “Mr. S.” He told us that we were going to learn about practical application of the law, not the theoretical principles that this law school often gets bogged down in. By the end of that f irst class, we were shredding documents and falsifying information. I raised my hand and asked the professor if this was all kosher, legally speaking. He explained, “I’m a lawyer, and lawyers can’t do anything illegal,” which sounded right to me.

When I went the next week, there were a lot more documents to shred and even more to falsify. Mr. S would not tell us any of the legal theory behind our practical application, which bothered me because I am at this law school in part to get broad legal knowledge. There were so many assignments and they were never graded so I had no feedback on how I was progressing in the course. With Add/Drop quickly approaching, I made the dif f icult decision to drop the Criminal Financial Intensive. It

was taking up too much of my time and taking away from my extra-curricular activities like Ultra Vires. It was also taking away time from Business Organizations, which I need to give me a clear foundation of business law and a lifetime of memories.

I dropped the class and thought nothing of it until, a few weeks later, I saw something about how a “criminal syndicate was operating out of the law school.” Apparently, the students were in legal trouble. It probably would have been helpful to have Mr. S there to defend them, since he was an expert on the law and f inancial crimes.

Unfortunately, he was on an extended vacation to somewhere without an extradition treaty with Canada. As for me, I am trying to move forward to a career in the corporate law world. With the knowledge I have gained in Business Organizations and the Criminal Financial Intensive, I have a feeling I will go a long way.

Can You Take Me Higher: The Case for Raising Tuition KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (3L) There are many things that we students of law accept as truths about law school.

Few would argue, for example, against the proposition that law school is dif f icult. A ll but a small minority of ornery nitpickers would agree that the practice of law is amongst the highest of callings. I think we can all agree that LPPE is truly the most useful and intellectually stimulating class that any one of us has ever taken. That, of course, is a joke.

There is, however, one issue which we are supposed to take as an absolute law school truth above all other truths. The third rail of law school politics: touch it, and you will be killed. I am talking, of course, about tuition. “Tuition is too high” is practically the motto of our faithful SLS. “Tuition is too high” is the refrain that the student body sings day in and day out. I am quite sure I have not gone a day since Orientation Week without hearing somebody, somewhere—oftentimes to no one in particular, as if a prayer in the wind—saying, “tuition is too high.”

Well, my friends, it is about time that someone had the courage to do battle against this received wisdom. If law school is for nothing else, it is for learning to

make arguments based in logic, reason, and rationality rather than feeling one’s way through issues. We feel that tuition is too high and so we believe it. We feel a sense of impending f inancial destruction when we max out our lines of credit and we let that feeling steer us toward the conclusion that tuition is too high. If paying for law school makes us feel like we will have no control over our own lives for as long as we and are our heirs shall live, then tuition must be too high, right?

In short, no, tuition is not too high. It is the exact opposite. We must raise tuition.

Right now, the administration increases tuition f ive percent each year. That simply will not do. We must form a united front and force the government to legislate a return to the glorious Eden that was 1998, when tuition was deregulated and people had values. We must remind the administration how good it felt in the early 2000s, when tuition could be raised whenever someone wanted a new car or there was a hot new restaurant in town selling thousand dollar steaks.

I can hear the critics now: “But Kevin,” they’ll say, “it’s already dif f icult for anyone who is not possessed of vast wealth to

af ford tuition.” They’ll say, “This is wrong, Kevin. This will hurt people. This will make our law school an even more uniform place than it already is.” Isn’t it just like them to exaggerate this way? To speak about that which they do not truly understand?

No, increasing tuition by f ifty, sixty, even seventy percent will not hurt people.

No, it will not make our school a more uniform place. The true magic of this plan to signif icantly increase tuition is that it will actually mean more people will be able to af ford U of T Law than can af ford it now.

The next Justice Brown will not be left behind simply because he cannot raise the necessary tuition money.

It’s really quite simple. Tuition goes up.

Let’s say that it has been raised to $100,000 per year. Surely there are at least one hundred students in Canada who can af ford that. That’s $10,000,000 right there. With all that extra money we improve f inancial aid, and that’s another hundred students from all walks of life who can now attend U of T Law for free.

Except, some of that new money will

have to go to hiring and retaining even better faculty. We can’t have our brightest legal minds leaving for somewhere else, now can we? So maybe that’s $5,000,000 for faculty, leaving $5,000,000 left over.

That’s f ifty students from low-income households attending U of T paying no tuition. Just to be safe, though, let’s assume another $2,500,000 will go to operating costs, so that leaves $2,500,000 for f inancial aid. Twenty-f ive students attending on full bursaries!

The mathematically-inclined among you will have noticed that my calculations result in a class of only 125 people. But don’t forget, Scotiabank will surely raise the limits of our lines of credit commensurate with the increase in tuition. Surely there are seventy-f ive people out there willing to go $300,000 into debt for the chance at a high-calibre legal education from U of T. The plan works.

Finally, some of you will try to say that this is all nonsense. You’ll try to coin a catchy term like “trickle-down tuition,” and you’ll make ad hominem attacks without ever actually making an argument. To that I have nothing to say. Some people are just too stupid to listen to reason.

DIVERSIONS

22 | October 25, 2017

ultravires.ca

Poetry Review: If We Had Dreamed Better We Might Not Be in Law School KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (3L) In If We Had Dreamed Better We Might Not Be in Law School, LegalArts Press presents a collection of poems from current and former law students across Canada. Edited by Emily Wallace, the collection offers, to varying degrees of success, poems on topics ranging from the mundane (“Writing the LSAT”) to the emotional (“Breakdown in a Bay St. Food Court”), while the worst of the collection is merely grade school-level rhyming couplets, like this pedestrian line from Christopher R. Malschrift’s “What the Law Student Saw”:

I frowned at the grade that I saw On my exam on the criminal law

Other poems are more formally playful, as is the case with Mariev LaChef ’s “Logic Game”:

A graduating law student must rank her choice of practice areas from the following: Business Law, Criminal Law, Family Law, Human Rights Law, and Immigration Law. Her ranking is subject to the following conditions: She cannot afford to practice Criminal Law

She cannot afford to practice Family Law

She cannot afford to practice Human Rights Law

She cannot afford to practice Immigration Law

She does not want to practice Business Law

1. Which, of the following, represents the law student’s correct number one choice? a) Business Law b) Do not practice law

LaChef ’s poem also illustrates the undercurrent of disconcerting despair that runs beneath even the lightest of the poetry in the collection. A poem about a funny typo on a job application ends with a student crying in the bathroom. Another poem, about a squirrel on the loose in a school building, ends with a student crying in the bathroom. A poem about a student f inally having a weekend off with no work to do somehow—it’s not made clear why in the poem but this is true—ends with the student crying in the bathroom. If this collection is accurate, the bathrooms of our nation’s law schools must be like salt mines, caked with the dried tears of law students.

Perhaps it should be no surprise that this is not a book that skews happy, given that the collection takes its title from the gargantuan, twenty-eight page stream-of-consciousness free verse at its centre, in which the author, Catherine Carthage, describes in detail all of her life’s dreams that she abandoned. Rare is the book of poetry that does not contain some sadness, but this book is enough to give one pause. Do our law students need help that they’re not getting? Carthage herself, in the title poem, asks:

Is it law school that makes us miserable or did we go to law school because we’re miserable?

I had a dream once. In the dream I was smiling.

In the dream I had accomplished something That I was proud of.

In the dream I had made a choice to do something That I loved.

In the dream I knew what that thing was But when I woke up it was gone.

I no longer knew.

If only I had dreamed better.

Ms. Carthage, if you’re reading this, it’s not too late. If this book is, ultimately, an exercise in despair, let it also be a reminder: remember to dream, dear reader.

Dream, Ms. Carthage. Dream, law students of Canada. Whether you dream of making partner, whether you dream of being a Supreme Court Justice, whether you dream of becoming a freelance literary critic, do not give in to despair. Dream.

If We Had Dreamed Better We Might Not Be Law Students (LegalArts Press) is available wherever books are sold.

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

October 25, 2017 | 23

Non-Law Career Options JESSY VAN KOOTEN (2L) This time of year, many of us are ref lecting on our future careers. Are we making the right decisions? What can we do if the day ever comes where we decide to leave the practice of law? Here are eight extremely unhelpful suggestions for possible alternative career choices if that day ever does come.

1. Ultimate Fighting Champion Like Pete Becker from Friends, you’ve mastered the business world and you’ve mastered the legal world. Now it’s time to master the physical world. Become the Ultimate Fighting Champion.

2. Doctor It’s never too late to go to medical school and actually make your parents proud. Bonus: the coveted Doctor/Lawyer combo will surely be a big hit at dinner parties.

3. Politician

5. Financial Advisor

7. Board Member

I used to think this was only an option for the truly noble, those who self lessly devote themselves to public service and have mastered the qualities of empathy and leadership. Turns out, it takes a lot less—start nonsensical rants on Twitter and you’ll be well on your way!

Not the kind that helps people save money or invest but, from personal experience, the kind who helps people learn to spend money they don’t have on things they don’t need.

Who knew this was an option until taking Biz Org? Turns out, in a lot of cases, it really isn’t that much work and pays pretty well.

All you have to do is make a “reasonable” effort to attend periodic meetings. Sign me up!

4. Building Namer

Our legal education has actually prepared us well for this one. Is anyone’s palate better tuned to discern the value of a free lunch than that of a law student? I, for one, can tell the difference between Pizza Pizza, Pizza Pizza, Pizzaiolo, and Pizza Pizza with my eyes closed.

This one is a well-kept secret of a career choice. Do you think the various wings, classrooms, study rooms, and locker areas of our law school named themselves? Edit: on second thought, it appears that they may have.

6. Food Critic 8. Reality TV Star All you have to be is interesting, dramatic, and likeable (law students typically go at least one-for-three on those). Bonus: lots of people already don’t like lawyers, making that always recurring “villain” role an easy snag.

What's Good at Goodmans: Spinach, Egg, and Fed Up ALADDIN DIAKUN (2L) Another year in law school means another year of f inding things to complain about and take too seriously. It also means another year of meals from our favourite sponsored café. A few rambling jokes appear to have coalesced into the conviction that UV needs a food column of indeterminate tone and purpose, so consider this my inaugural column.

It’s been awhile since I last visited Goodmans. The f irst year is often tough for any new food joint, so I was curious to see how the place is faring. I recall some growing pains from the early days, including a rather unconventional launch. Excited passers-by noticed a humble plaque, indicating that, eventually, something would be built, certainly no later than the end of O-Week 2016. A year later, there’s no shortage of young students lined up to accrue debt in Jackman, which is, by all off icial accounts, at least a superf icial sign of success.

I suppose I could lead by saying something about the integrity of operating forprof it (as far as I can tell) when a large pro-

portion of your customer base is literally living of f of credit cards for three years.

Perhaps the school could drive prices down towards the poverty line that some of us have toiled under by of fering sponsorship opportunities on individual croissants and cof fees, handed out in secular Communion by the CDO, helping us to fully internalize the Bay Street Spirit. However, if there’s one thing U of T Law has taught me, it’s to keep ethics discussions contained in the classroom where they belong —no need to worry about such trif les as tuition and f inancial aid when there are pastries to be had!

In any case, what might have instead been named the Debtor’s Deli of fers a variety of goods that could give even the perpetually carb-loading Yak a run for his snacks. Standing in line, I notice one particular standout, which I’ll spotlight today.

The Spinach, Egg, and Feta wrap features spinach, egg, and feta in a low-prof ile wrap. It’s a little watery, but no more so than the eyes of a 1L upon receiving

their f irst LRW grade. Grab a few napkins for the wrap and you’ll be f ine, unless you’re accustomed to people cleaning up after you, in which case, by all means, scatter your leavings on the closest table, f loor, chair, or desk. If you do decide to try one, be sure to order carefully, as it’s not easily distinguished from the similarly named, but utterly distinct, “Spinach and Feta”—one of a number of of ferings that seems to have been stripped of its core identity upon entering the law school.

Where the other fast-breaking options seem to boil down to “sweet carbs or savoury carbs,” the wrap acquits itself well.

Featuring an actual protein source and some greens, the wrap precludes a sugar crash and of fers the dim possibility of staying awake in the windowless, still-aired, and overheated basement classrooms in which knowledge and critical thinking skills are ostensibly transmitted, as unidirectionally as possible, defying all evidence-based research into how human beings actually learn. The wrap has everything you want in a wrap. It is a

wrap. It is fresh, tasty, and healthy. It will be lightly grilled for a satisfying crunch unless you refuse when asked (don’t). It’s possible that it even sets U of T apart from other schools.

However, sure to ignite a f lame war on somebody’s “Class of 20_ _” page this year is the presence of cilantro, an insidious herb that lurks unannounced in the pico de gallo. If you aren’t suf f iciently #Woke, you may not realize that cilantro tastes like #Soap to approximately half of the population, who, under the current breakfast regime, are being discriminated against on the basis of their genetic makeup. Probably. More or less. I don’t mind cilantro myself, but privilege is like an invisible spice rack that you carry around with you. Unpack that shit. Nobody should have to struggle for tasty, healthy, af fordable food.

Stay tuned for next month’s column, Pizza: Why get it for free when you can pay for it?

Putting Goodmans to the test against its “nocost” competitors.

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