Ultra Vires Vol 19 Issue 3 2017 Nov by Ultra Vires

NOVEMBER 29, 2017 | ULTRAVIRES.CA

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

Choose Your Own Adventure: The Map to HH Island KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (3L) For those of you who somehow grew up with books that dictated your adventure to you within the strict confines of traditional narrative, a Choose Your Own Adventure book gives you the freedom to take the reins of your own story. Do you jump into a dark chasm, or try climbing over it on a rickety bridge? Do you go on a quest for gold, or do you try to live a quiet life in your quiet village, which is subsequently invaded by brigands? No matter what you choose, there is always a chance you will end up being killed in one gruesome way or another. If you came here looking for study advice, then you came to the wrong place. It’s time to go on the adventure of a lifetime–that is, if you choose to do so. Part One: Desperately Seeking Summaries You’ve avoided thinking about it for weeks now. You wake up at night and you almost let it get in; your heart starts to pound, your mind begins to race, but you fight it off. You count down from one thousand and you fall back to sleep, but you know it’s out there waiting. It’s coming for you. The Dread. Exam dread! Paper dread! Having to see your family dread! Real spooky stuff. So, for the first time in your entire life, you decide to be proactive. You’re going to tame this dread before it has a chance to rear its ugly head, and you’ve got a plan to do it. You’re going to start studying early this year. It’s only November —wait, what, it’s November 29 already?! Okay, that’s fine, it’s still early. You’re going to start studying right now. Just as soon as you have a little snack. Do you: Have the bag of celery sticks you brought to school with you? OR Go home and eat an entire Domino’s pan crust pizza? This was only a practice round—you of course go home and eat an entire Domino’s pan crust pizza. You also eat an entire thing of cheesy bread, whatever, who cares? You’re now at home, in a position on the couch you might describe as “snake that just ate a deer.” You’re still going to study today, but you need a second to digest. All of a sudden, you remember— there’s part of a bottle of wine left! Wine helps you digest, right? You read that somewhere. I’m pretty sure you saw it somewhere once. Was it on goop? It doesn’t really matter, the point is you’ve read it at least once and so you drink the rest of the wine. Now you’re getting sleepy. Verrrrry, verrrrrrry sleeeee—

You wake up and it’s—WTF?!—a week later! You know this because you set a calendar notification for your first exam and it’s going off and the exam is twenty minutes from now. “How can this be??” you ask yourself. “What is happening!?” you say aloud. Suddenly there’s mist all around you, and a sort of weird smell you hadn’t noticed before. A disembodied voice speaks: “It was Buster, the Spirit of Dread.” With every word from that raspy voice, a figure begins to form, starting as a translucent spectre and becoming more and more corporeal until a woman stands before you, dressed in a sort of worn-out pirate outfit. Imagine Tilda Swinton starring in Pirates of the Caribbean and you get the idea. No bandanna or hat though, so don’t picture that. Do imagine what you think Jack Sparrow probably smelled like and that is what the woman smells like. It is not great. And somehow you are still full from that pizza so you really don’t need that right now.

She speaks again: “Buster stole your time. He wants to claim you as his next victim. But I can help you avoid this fate!” “The Spirit of Dread’s name is Buster?” you ask. “We don’t have time for this right now,” the woman replies. “If you’re going to foil Buster, you need to start immediately!” “But like… Buster?” You are having a hard time letting it go. The woman gives you a stern look and you remind yourself to get into it again later if you have time. “Okay, but what’s your name?” you ask. “Julie, the Spirit of Last-Minute Exam-Preparedness. Yes, Julie. I don’t know where the names come from, okay? What’s your name? Something sooo cool, I bet.” You start to answer, but she cuts you off. “Shut up, you don’t think I know your name? I just appeared in your living room.” You’re starting to feel a little bit annoyed with this spirit who just showed up out of nowhere and is now stinking up your apartment.

“Listen, Julie—” you begin. “No, you listen. You have an exam in twenty minutes. No more wasting time. You have two choices. You can come with me to Mapland, and I will lead you through the Ultimate Map of TrutHH to HH Island, where you will have access to the UrMap, which will guarantee you an HH in every class. Or, you can go to school now and write the exam using just your notes and hope that you can somehow manage to get a passing grade even though you haven’t studied at all. What’s it going to be?” You lie on the couch paralyzed. On the one hand, you can follow a weird, sort of rude, smelly woman whom you’ve never met to another land that she claims will lead you to guaranteed HHs. On the other hand, you can try to write an exam using only your own notes. What do you do? If you go with Julie, turn to “Julie” on page 23. If you go straight to your exam, turn to “Why Would You Choose That?” on page 16.

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE FALL FEAST

RECRUITMENT REACTIONS

ART HEIST

PAGE 5

PAGE 8

PAGE 4

2 | November 29, 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.

A Letter from the Editors: Aidan & Amani Kill Your Vacation Vibes AIDAN CAMPBELL (3L) & AMANI RAUFF (3L)

Brains not Brawn (continued from “Make MRAs Mad” on page 11) You consider your response carefully and realize that you could obviously never beat Buster in a battle of strength, so you tell him that you choose a battle of wits. “Wits, eh? You law students all think you’re so smart. Okay, very well then. All you have to do is answer this riddle: I am spotted, but I don’t have fur. I am unique, but I am part of a pattern. I will hurt you if you don’t say my name. What am I?” You collect your thoughts and concentrate. Buster taps his wrist, trying to rush you, but you ignore him. You sit on the ground and close your eyes. Think! And then the answer just pops into your head. You jump up and say: If you say, “A narcissistic bald leopard,” turn to “Oops” on page 7. If you say, “An issue on a law school exam,” turn to “HH Island” on page 21.

Surprising no one, this year’s grad trip will be at an all-inclusive Carribean resort. The annual spectacle of several dozen law students, pale from a winter under f lorescent lights, sunning their exam-soft bodies on a tropical beach, a drink in one hand and a three-year-old bestseller we’d really been meaning to get to in the other, is a tradition that stretches back at least to the days when Lord Denning set his powdered wig aside to delight in some summertime beach volleyball.

tions, a further 135,000 Black Dominicans f led into Haiti in the year following the end of registration. Most are now living in temporary housing. Though many remain in the DR, they are without status and vulnerable to summary deportation. Human rights groups and journalists continue to report on checkpoints where off icials check the papers of only those who look Haitian. This has ultimately led to an increased level of harassment and discrimination in a society already built on a racial caste system.

This year, the Class of 2018 is headed to the Dominican Republic, a destination that should give us pause. In 2014, a decision of the country’s constitutional court declared that children born to so-called “migrants in transit” would lose their birthright citizenship and have to register with the government under a “regularization” program. The program was run in a manner widely condemned as purposefully inaccessible, and those who were unable to register by a July 2015 deadline are now considered removable. This means that thousands of Black Dominicans without Haitian citizenship are effectively stateless.

This is not to suggest that the situation in the DR is uniquely horrible. Immigration authorities targeting those who cannot establish their Dominican bona fides through overt racial prof iling is just one instance of a pervasive anti-blackness that infects all countries complicit in the African slave trade. The retroactive denial of citizenship even echoes recent, thankfully abandoned, efforts by our own government to rescind citizenship of dual nationals convicted of terrorism offences.

After more than 50,000 forced deporta-

Every vacation destination is also a country with a particular history and social reality. No country exists without some great unresolved crime at its core. However, this

campaign of administrative ethnic cleansing is exactly the kind of creeping legalistic horror that we, as soon to be lawyers, have an ethical duty to guard against. By the end of April we will all need a break, but being on vacation does not remove us from the world—as much as it might feel that way at an all-inclusive resort. We are still collectively accountable for what we condone or promote in the way we choose to celebrate our accomplishments. This is not a call for a boycott, but for ref lection. Be informed. Learn about where you’re going. What you do after that is up to you. Maybe you don’t go. Maybe you go, enjoy yourself, and when your housecleaner is a black woman of Haitian descent, understand what she’s up against and tip exceedingly well out of guilt (or out of an ideological commitment to direct cash transfers being the great social leveler). We each have to decide, in light of the information we have, what our ethical duties are. So, go forth and get shitfaced, but let this inform your trip—and, later, your lawyering.

NEWS

ultravires.ca

November 29, 2017 | 3

Faculty Council Increases Contribution to Financial Aid, Surprises Students with Winter Intersession HONGHU WANG (1L) Winter Intersession Unveiled Assistant Dean Kerry Rittich unveiled plans to release the Curriculum Committee’s proposal for the Winter Intersession. While a report was not available in time for the Faculty Council meeting, the full recommendation has since been released (see Students give Feedback on Proposed Intersession Ahead of January Vote on page 4). Students’ Law Society (SLS) President Katie Longo expressed concern that there would be inadequate time for student consultation, given the proposal was released in late November, before exams, and voting has been scheduled for midJanuary. She was worried that the decision was being made unilaterally. She claimed that the SLS had been operating under the assumption that concrete proposals would first have been made available for student consultation before the final proposal went before Faculty Council. Dean Ed Iacobucci seemed unfazed that there would be inadequate time for student consultation. Rather, he was concerned that if a vote were not scheduled in January, changes to the program could not be made in time for the 2018–19 academic year. He reiterated that the decision was ultimately Faculty Council’s to make. SLS President Longo, when reached for comment, provided: The SLS has two priorities in navigating the possible implementation of an intersession. First, that students are properly informed about this matter and have their opinions taken into account and, second, that a fair and transparent process is undertaken by the Committee and Faculty Council. To those ends, we have been sharing all information that we have received respecting the potential intersession and are available for students’ comments, questions, and

concerns. Shaun Parsons, Jamie Parker, and Brendan Cassidy are the SLS members on the Curriculum Committee and will be ensuring that student opinions are given voice at Committee meetings. We will be hosting a Town Hall in early January to get widespread feedback on this matter. As ever, we strongly encourage students to engage with this information and to contact us with their thoughts. The SLS will take no position on the intersession until we receive feedback from students, but we do have concerns about the process that has been undertaken. For the past two years, our understanding has been that there will be a point of widespread consultation with all stakeholders (including students and faculty). This need for extensive consultation was recognised by the Dean at a Faculty Council meeting last year. However, it seems that in a rush to implement this intersession by next year, the Committee is prepared to forego this level of consultation. We are deeply concerned by this development, as our advocacy and outreach on this issue over the past two years would have taken a different form had we been aware that the Committee would eventually decline to engage in the expected consultations. We are concerned that the Curriculum Committee did not meet until November, and now relies on the tight timeframe as a justification for foregoing the extensive consultation that we believe is required for changes of this magnitude. We remain committed to representing student voices on this matter and to ensuring the decisions that are made are in the best interest of this Faculty. Moot Court Committee (MCC) member Stephanie Lewis expressed concern that a winter

intersession would negatively impact upper-year competitive moots. In a statement later provided to Ultra Vires, the MCC said: None of these [draft proposal] documents examine or address the potential impact of an intersession on the competitive mooting program. We have a number of concerns and hope that there will be time for robust consultation amongst the mooting community and between the MCC, the SLS, and the Faculty. Faculty Council plans to vote on the intersession recommendation in January. Financial Aid Update Dean Iacobucci opened the meeting by announcing that the Faculty would be able to increase the financial aid pot by 10%, up from the 7.5% increase promised at the last Faculty Council meeting. Assistant Dean Alexis Archbold provided an interim update to the ongoing work of the Financial Aid Committee. No final recommendations or reports were put forward. The Council approved $475,000 in financial endowments to support financial aid, with one award earmarked for a JD/MBA student, and approved a separate $25,000 endowment, from which a prize for a top JD student paper applying economic analysis of law to a legal topic will be awarded. SLS and GLSA Update SLS President Longo spoke to the success of the SLS Halloween Party, the planned Coffee House (now past), and the Library survey (now published). The SLS organized “stories of success” from previous students who were unsuccessful in the Fall Recruit, but received jobs regardless.

Study groups for 1Ls were also organized. Graduate Law Students’ Association (GLSA) President Haim Abraham spoke to the success of the GLSA Pumpkin Carving and Board Games Night, a recent Food Law Conference organized by SJD Candidate Nadia Lambed [see Food Law and Policy Takes Root on page 7], and an upcoming LGBTQ+ Workshop on Religious Faith vs Gay Wedding Cakes in the United States, with Professor Anna Su (this afternoon, November 29, at 4 p.m. in Falconer Hall FA1). Graduate Admissions Report unveiled, graduate students express concerns over funding Professor Jutta Brunnée presented the Graduate Admissions Report. Forty new LLM students and seven new SJD students were admitted; total applications were slightly up from last year. Graduate students’ funding was increasingly reliant on external sources. Of the doctoral students last surveyed, in 2012, 76% were placed in academic positions in Canada and internationally (80% of the doctoral students participated in the survey). No report of doctoral student outcomes has been conducted since. A graduate student expressed concern that graduate funding, or a lack thereof, negatively impacted yield rates into the SJD program. She claimed that graduate students received less funding per year and for fewer years than other graduate students at the University of Toronto. While she expressed gratitude for Dean Iacobucci’s promise to top up graduate funding to the university level for the next two or three years, she remained concerned that this was only a short-term measure. In particular, she spoke to the University funding being only available for three years despite the average time to complete a doctoral degree being 4.7 years.

Scratched Door (continued from “Julie” on page 23) There’s just something weird about the pristine door. It seems creepy in a way you can’t really explain. So you decide to open the scratched door. Before you open it, you place your ear against the wood to see if you can hear anything. You think you may hear the sound of water, but you can’t be sure. You try knocking on it. There’s no response, but did you hear some movement? Finally, you resign yourself to the fact that there’s only one way to find out.

You are falling. A second later you land in water, but also on something sort of hard and pointy, but, oh shit, alive. And it’s not just one something, it’s a bunch of them. You reach out, trying to find something to grab, anything, to climb out of there, but it’s too late. Something is biting our hand. And your arm. And come to think of it, is that also something biting your head? And your legs?

You turn the knob slowly and pull the door open just a crack, but you can’t see anything. You open the door completely, but you still can’t see anything beyond the door frame. You sense though, that it’s not just the lightless void you came from; there’s a sense of place out there. You wish you had a flashlight, but you don’t. You realize your iPhone is still sitting on your coffee table at home. You’re going to have to step through blindly.

You are in an alligator pit. Your life flashes before your eyes and your only regret is you wish you had watched more TV. You die. You do not get an HH.

“Hold onto your butts,” you say, channelling Mr. Arnold from Jurassic Park. You take a step.

Do you: Rest in peace? If so, enjoy. Come back as a ghost and haunt your enemies? If so, tell us how that goes at editor@ultravires. ca.

NEWS

4 | November 29, 2017

ultravires.ca

Students Give Feedback on Proposed Intersession Ahead of January Vote MAUD ROZEE (3L)*

On January 17, 2018, Faculty Council will vote on whether to adopt a one- or two-week January intersession term. This upcoming vote has put pressure on the Students’ Law Society (SLS) to quickly gather feedback from students before the start of exam period and the subsequent Winter Break. Initial student reactions indicate concerns about whether the intersession proposal can be adjusted to accommodate various other activities scheduled for January.

Harvard students can spend their “Winter Term” taking classes, writing a research paper, or participating in a clinic.The University of Ottawa also has a “January Term”, during which students can take a class or participate in a directed research program. Classes are a maximum of three hours of instruction per day, and students can choose to be graded on a “Satisfactory/Non-satisfactory” basis. Notably, mooting fulfills a student’s “January Term” requirement.

The Proposal

Opportunities for Consultation

In the document outlining the history of the proposed intersession, sent out by Assistant Dean Sara Faherty, the Curriculum Committee frames the intersession as a better way to achieve the goals of the Distinguished Visitor Program—providing students with the opportunity to take an intensive academic class with a visiting professor. The program would be “credit neutral,” meaning credits taken in the intersession would count towards students’ Winter semester credits. Participation in the intersession term would be mandatory for upperyear students. The 1L program would continue unchanged.

At the Faculty Council meeting on November 15, the Curriculum Committee proposed that Faculty Council vote on the intersession at its first meeting in January. SLS representatives expressed surprise and concern over this timeline, which provides for only a few weeks around exams and holidays for consultation.

Assistant Dean Faherty also sent calendar models for the one- or two-week intersession. The oneweek intersession would be scheduled into the first week of January. The rest of the Winter Term would be pushed back one week. The two-week option would require adding four deemed Fridays to make up an extra week of classes over the term. The calendar does not contain information about how many hours of class would be scheduled each day, or when exams or paper due dates for intersession courses would be scheduled. In the past, Dean Iacobucci has compared the proposed intersession to Harvard’s “Winter Term”, a three week intensive term in January.

At Faculty Council in February 2017, Associate Dean Kerry Rittich said that the Committee would consult widely before committing to a plan. The Committee’s report of March 30, 2017, also promised further consultation with faculty and students on the implementation of an intersession before a final decision would be made. The report stated “We recommend that this consultation continue over the summer and early next fall.” Instead, consultation will happen in late fall and winter of this year—around exam period and the winter holidays. The email sent by Assistant Dean Faherty solicited feedback, indicating that “there will be more opportunities for dialogue over the next months—organized primarily by your student representatives.”

that the Committee itself would organize opportunities for dialogue before bringing the intersession proposal to Faculty Council. In a statement to Ultra Vires, SLS President Katie Longo wrote: “For the past two years, our understanding has been that there will be a point of widespread consultation with all stakeholders (including students and faculty). This need for extensive consultation was recognised by the Dean at a Faculty Council meeting last year. However, it seems that in a rush to implement this intersession by next year, the Committee is prepared to forego this level of consultation. We are deeply concerned by this development, as our advocacy and outreach on this issue over the past two years would have taken a different form had we been aware that the Committee would eventually decline to engage in the consultations as expected.”

personal and professional connections, form strong friendships, and create lasting memories unique to law school and Law Games.” The Moot Court Committee released a statement expressing concern that none of the documents circulated by the Curriculum Committee examine or address the potential impact of an intersession on the competitive mooting program. January is a busy time for many mooters, who may prioritize their moot work above class to meet factum deadlines. Students involved in clinics have also questioned whether attending the mandatory intensive course would prevent them from volunteering during the first week or weeks of January, decreasing the quality of service for their clients.

Student Concerns

In the 2020 Facebook group, a student noted the impact of more deemed Fridays on commuter students: “For students who commute from the suburbs of the GTA, those weeks with deemed Fridays are particularly tough and heavy! [...] For those commuter students, a Monday-Thursday 9 a.m.–4/5 p.m. schedule translates to a 7 a.m. to 5 p.m./7 p.m. schedule […] It makes for a very heavy week.”

Individual students and student groups have already begun raising concerns about the effect of an unknown amount of mandatory class time in January on activities like Law Games, mooting, and clinics. In a statement to Ultra Vires, the U of T Law Games Captains for 2018 wrote:

Students also raised concerns about exams deferred from the Fall term, which are usually written in the first weeks of January. The materials circulated by the Curriculum Committee do not address how deferred exam-writing would be scheduled with the mandatory intensive course.

“The proposed intersession will directly conflict with law games, prohibiting any students from further participating in the tradition. Law Games relies on upper-year students to carry the tradition year to year, and denying the ability to participate takes away an opportunity from a large number of students to build lasting

Concerned students are encouraged to email Assistant Dean Faherty or their SLS representatives with feedback as well as to attend the SLS-organized Town Hall in January.

President Longo also wrote that the SLS will be hosting a Town Hall in early January, and strongly encourages students to engage with information about the intersession and contact the SLS with their thoughts.

SLS representatives have expressed concern over this timeline. At the Faculty Council meeting on November 15, SLS student representatives indicated that they had been under the impression

*Maud Rozee is a member of the 2017–18 Moot Court Committee.

Art Heist Rocks Bora Laskin Law Library LILY HASSALL (2L) A break-in. Stolen electronics. A painting, commissioned to honour a deceased classmate, torn from its moorings. This is not a fact pattern—it happened right here in the U of T Faculty of Law. On October 6, staff arrived to what they thought was just another day at the Bora Laskin Law Library. What they found was the site of a theft. The missing items included an iPad, a computer, a book scanner, and, perplexingly, a very large painting.

Medves also speculated that this was simply a crime of opportunity. The painting, however, was bolted to the wall, which might suggest that the thieves came prepared with tools. Further, the fact that the perpetrators evaded the security cameras could mean they had prior knowledge of where the cameras are located.

When reached for comment, the SLS President from 1999-2000 said he could remember neither King nor the painting.

All of the items were taken from the area near the western end of the library services desk. The iPad and book scanner were on a trolley, while the computer and the painting were directly across from the service desk. How the crime was carried out remains unclear. The security footage of the main exits contained no traces of the thieves. Head Librarian Gian Medves reasoned that because the items were located so close to the services desk, the crime must have happened after hours. However, there were no signs of forced entry or exit.

The history of the painting adds another layer of mystery. The piece, entitled “Roots,” was commissioned by the class of 2000 to honour the memory of one of their classmates. MaryAnne Maghekan King, who specialized in aboriginal law and was practicing in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador, passed away unexpectedly in November 2004. The painting was produced by Indigenous artist Holly Pichette and unveiled at a reception at the law school in 2006.

At present, the investigation is on hold while authorities attempt to value the painting. The valuation will determine whether the matter is handled by the Campus Police or the Toronto Police Services.

Roots by Holly Pichette, 2006

In the meantime, the wall that housed the painting remains empty, scarred by deep gouges where the bolts were previously installed, crying out for justice.

Class Photo of MaryAnne Maghekan King, 2000

NEWS

ultravires.ca

November 29, 2017 | 5

Indigenous Law Students Association Hosts 2017 Fall Feast MAUD ROZEE (3L) The Fall Feast put on by the Indigenous Law Students Association (ILSA) has been a U of T Law tradition for about thirty years. “The Fall Feast is a way for us to bring the community together to share and laugh with each other and just have a positive peaceful community vibe,” said ILSA Co-President Zachary Biech. “It’s been going for so many years, there’s almost an obligation to put it on and do a good job!” ILSA co-President Joshua Favel said. Indigenous Initiatives Manager Amanda Carling started the festivities by bringing those in attendance, including ILSA members, law students, undergraduates, and law faculty, outside for a smudging circle. Academic Elder Ernie Sandy, a native Objiwe speaker and educator on Ojibwe history and culture, led the smudge. Next, Fall Feasters returned to the Rowell Room for a delicious lunch with live music. Academic Elder Ernie Sandy started the feast by putting together a spirit plate to bring back to his land in Barrie, a way to give back to the Mother Earth. ILSA members served hearty turkey soup and

veggie chili from Pow Wow Cafe, as well as potluck-style sides and desserts. The stand-out lunch item, in this reporter’s opinion, was the bannock with maple butter, which was life-changingly tasty. Two members of the Metis Fiddlers Quartet, including ILSA member Conlin Delbaere-Sawchuk (1L), provided lively fiddle music that had many toes a-tapping. After lunch, Academic Elder Ernie Sandy spoke movingly about being thankful for what is given to us and what we can give. He shared stories and teachings about gratitude and our connectedness, and emphasized his willingness, happiness, and pride to be able to share Indigenous culture at the Fall Feast.

Artist in Residence Tanya Murdoch (left) with Elder Ernie Sandy

“It went terrific! Great turnout. A lot of familiar faces but a lot of new faces as well,” Biech. “It was good to see some students come from outside the faculty as well, to see the community together. It was very positive and a lot of fun.” This reporter can confirm that it was very positive and a lot of fun. See you at the 2018 Fall Feast!

Indigenous Initiatives Manager Amanda Carling (left) with ILSA member Veronica Guido (2L) serving up bannock with maple butter, and turkey chili.

Alyssa Delbaere-Sawchuk (left) and ILSA member Conlin Delbaere-Sawchuk(1L) of the Metis Fiddlers Quartet

Intramurals: the independent student sports teams of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law SAHIL KESAR (1L) & ALEXIS VAUGHAN (3L) This year, the Faculty of Law saw a drastic increase in both intramural participation and performance. The faculty fielded fifteen teams across six different sports this past semester, with more in store for the Winter semester. Law students continue to surprise other faculties with their athleticism, but not with their arguments on rules and close calls. This semester also saw the introduction of our Faculty of Law jerseys, which have been a huge success among athletes, non-athletes, and even members of the administration. Every team would be happy to welcome new members in the Winter semester. Men’s Flag Football The men’s flag football team lost the Championship Ring by a hair in a heartbreaker at Varsity Stadium. However, they can take comfort in the fact that all the fans in attendance agreed that they were the better looking of the two teams. Co-Ed Soccer While not always the most skilled team on the field, the Law team definitely gave others a run for their money. This was the first year that U of T has offered a co-ed intramural soccer league, and it didn’t disappoint! The Law team, most of whom didn’t know each other, really came together at the end of the season while battling weather and low turnout. Hope to see everyone again (and some new faces) when we move under the bubble next semester!

Women’s Soccer The women’s soccer team has also had a great season. At the time of printing, the team is still in contention for the coveted Championship T-shirt after emerging victorious from their first playoff game against a deep UTSC side. Team Captains Chloe and Michelle had the following to say of their teammates: “It’s been a great season with a great group of girls, and a huge shout out to all of our awesome 1L ladies who came out this semester!” Co-Ed Ultimate (Frisbee) The co-ed ultimate team concluded a wildly successful season on November 19. The team went undefeated in the regular season, finishing with a perfect 5-0 record, and went on to win the division Championships against the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education (KPE) team in a nailbiting 7-6 finish—an even greater achievement considering the opponents study how to play sports well. The game was hard-fought on both sides, with both teams doing their best to stave off the blistering cold. The game was tied 6-6 when wunderkind Joel Voss made a gravity-defying hammer throw cross-field to speedy Scott Lin in the end zone, securing the team’s victory as well as his very own place in history. Men’s Basketball The “A” Team had a great season, despite falling short of the success they had become accustomed

to in the glory days of their franchise (i.e. Winter 2016). Law A ran roughshod over its pool—the competition was ill-equipped to respond to the team’s dynamic combination of size and tight hamstrings. Only a buzzer-beating thirty footer from PT/OT could stop Law A in the regular season. In the playoffs, the team made it to the quarterfinals before being handed a loss from a long, athletic KPE ‘B’ squad. A great season all around!

The co-ed soccer team

Women’s Basketball The women’s basketball team had a learning season. They often struggled with having enough players on the court, but the team has really come together as the season wraps up. The team has improved its passing game and the offence has started to distribute itself well. The team is showing promise and it looks to be a force to be reckoned with come next semester.

The co-ed ultimate frisbee team

Co-Ed Basketball Co-Ed Basketball had an interesting season, full of ups and downs. The highlight of the regular season was a close game—which they will continue to argue should have been called a draw— against Trinity College. They went toe-to-toe with a strong team and lost by two points. The best thing to come out of the season has been the cheer squad from University College that came to watch and support all of HoopLaw’s games! Apparently people really don’t like Trinity College. The men’s flag football team

6 | November 29, 2017

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

How Difficult is a Jaydee Embiée Anyways? MIMI PICHETTE (1L, JD/MBA) One of the biggest challenges facing those in the JD/MBA program is the vast difference in the academic and social approaches between the two distinct parts of that program. Upper-years note this when advising those of us in our f irst year of the MBA, pointing out that the MBA is much busier and the grading approach is quite different. For example, exams and assignments at the law school are graded by professors, whereas MBA deliverables (assignments) are graded by TAs. This may not seem like it would matter that much, but it means that, in the MBA, you’re trying to hit all of the points on the grading rubric, rather than demonstrating that you really understand the material and can apply it creatively. I didn’t think much of this when I f irst heard it, but it has turned out to be quite a frustrating aspect of the MBA. Having just gone through a round of midterms, it was very disheartening to get results back where marks were lost not because the concept was incorrectly conveyed but because the exact words on the rubric were not transcribed verbatim. This seems to me less an

exercise in learning than in pointless memorization and chance. Another key differences is the amount of class time and deliverables. Aamir Chherawala (2L) explains: “In some respects, the MBA is more work than law school; while law is stressful, there are few deliverables and not as much class time.” The MBA is more work in that there are constant deliverables and four to six hours of class daily. Then there are group projects, and group meetings can take time and organization. This is one of the differences that def initely takes adjustment, because you constantly feel like you are trying to just get work submitted regardless of its quality. This is in contrast to law, where mastery of the subject is key. The MBA is touted as being no more challenging than an undergrad degree in commerce (or, at the very least, quite similar to it). Aamir comments that the MBA is similar to undergrad in the sense that “you can get away with doing a lot of the work last minute and, while they are important, readings are not imperative for understand-

ing the course materials.” This sounds reassuring, as we’ve all gone through undergrad successfully and know how to do that kind of work. What it neglects to take into account is that, as with a law degree, most people taking an undergrad commerce degree are more or less on the same footing in terms of exposure to the subject matter. At Rotman, however, you are taking introductory accounting with accountants and introductory f inance courses with people who have CFAs. This alters the playing f ield. Devon Willitts (2L), for example, entered the JD/MBA with a commerce background and, therefore, found 1L much more diff icult than the MBA. This extends further than just commerce backgrounds: having an undergrad degree in economics, math, engineering, accounting, or any other f ield tangentially related to business will likely give you a leg up. Therefore, when people qualify the MBA as more work but conceptually easier than 1L, it may be because those people have backgrounds that are well suited to f irstyear MBA courses. Rotman draws attention

to the fact that its classes are composed of people from all ranges of backgrounds, making it seem accessible to anyone with previous academic and professional success. However, based on how the curriculum is structured, it gives a direct upper hand to those with the backgrounds I’ve mentioned. I entered my MBA year expecting some people to have a bit of an advantage based on work experience or background, but I didn’t anticipate exactly how large this advantage would be. In considering all of this, and all that is to come, would I still choose to do this rigorous program? Well, it’s easy to feel disheartened two weeks before f inals. Ask me again in June. When I asked upper years whether they would do it again, some responded with an unequivocal yes, while others were less sure. This is very fair, considering the rigours of the program. For those thinking about entering it, it is well worth some serious consideration.

Non-Fan Tries Their Luck at the Hockey Arbitration Competition of Canada RABIYA MANSOOR (3L) I’m not a hockey fan by any stretch of the imagination. Well, there was that time I was really into the Calgary Flames—when, like the shameless bandwagoner I am, they made their Stanley Cup run in 2004. When I saw the Hockey Arbitration Competition of Canada (HACC) being advertised, I thought, “Heck yes! Arbitration! I love labour, so it’ll be like that, right?” Oh, how wrong I was. While the basis for arbitration comes out of the collective agreement between the players and club, the most important factor for salary arbitration is other players. You take the stats of the player the arbitration is about and then f ind comparable stats from other players. The salaries of these comparable players are then used to argue if the player in question should be paid more or less than the midpoint salary. These “comparables” are what all three judges focused on. If you’ve got bad comparables, you’ve got a bad case—and have royally screwed

your fake client, who is either the player or the club. Finding good comparables was like looking for a needle in a haystack. Maybe one guy has a good plus/minus but a much lower shooting percentage and just god-awful powerplay goal totals in the playoffs (all hockey lingo that you, too, can learn in a single afternoon). And maybe this other guy has good comparable stats, but he is out because you’re representing the club and his salary is way too high. On the positive side, at least there is no actual law involved. A true novelty in law school, and one that I was happy to embrace. Even for a non-hockey fan, the HACC was an interesting and, dare I say, fun experience. The judges provided feedback not only on the nitty-gritty of our arguments (a.k.a. hard-hitting stats and comparables) but on our advocacy in general. They were pretty thorough with our written submis-

sions and pointed out areas for improvement. During our oral submissions, they asked pointed questions. Probably like real life advocacy, you need to know every little thing about your case and your arguments, even if you only present one percent of your vast knowledge to the arbitrator. Otherwise you’ll end up like me, repeating, “I’m not sure at this time” ad nauseam. The downside to the competition was the learning curve. Not only the stats, but also just hockey in general. The lingo that goes beyond the stats just seemed never-ending. What the heck is an offensive defenseman? How many starting lines are there? What stats are most important for each position? There was just too much to learn for a nonfan like me, especially since I needed that precious space in my brain for longform improv formats. Overall, I’d give the HACC a score of four hockey sticks out of f ive.

Strength (continued from “Make MRAs Mad” on page 11) “I choose a battle of strength!” you shout defiantly. At that, Buster charges towards you, grabs you with his worm fingers, which are covered in poison, by the way, and lifts you toward his razor-sharp-toothfilled mouth. This was a pretty bad choice you made. You are a law student, not a gladiator. Did I not describe to you Buster’s spiked wings and worm fingers and snake tongue? I’m sorry, but you do not get an HH, because Buster eats you. The End

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

November 29, 2017 | 7

Food Law and Policy Takes Root NADIA LAMBEK (SJD CANDIDATE), INDIA ANNAMANTHADOO (1L) & MADELEINE GOTTESMAN (1L)* Have you ever wondered why manufacturers can divide up sugars on a list of ingredients, or why soy milk is sometimes labeled as a soy “beverage”? Do you know why there are no federal animal welfare standards, or why Canada is one of the only developed countries without a national school feeding program? Have you heard of the SAWP or been disturbed by how migrant agricultural workers are treated under the law in Canada? These questions, and other pressing issues in the governance of our food system, were discussed at “Taking Stock: The State of Food Law and Policy”, the second national food law and policy conference in Canada. From November 2–4, public and private lawyers, legal academics, law students, and others interested in the emerging f ield of food law and policy came together in Ottawa to take part in three keynote sessions and twenty-two panels with over eighty speakers. Participants had the opportunity to take stock of the various laws and policies that govern the food system—from farm (agricultural inputs, production, processing) to table (transportation, retailing, labelling), and even afterwards (waste management)— and ref lect on how to make these laws and policies better. This year marks a critical juncture for Canada’s food system and the laws and policies that govern it, particularly at the federal level. The Trudeau government, through the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, has begun to draft a National Food Policy. Though it is still unclear what this policy will cover, what resources will be attached to it, and what underlying principles will guide it, the policy could be a signif icant move towards systemically governing the food system. The federal government is also in the process of revising the Canada Food Guide and the Safe Food for Canadians Act, which will have major implications for

Canadian producers and consumers. As these national efforts to govern our food system continue, the 2017 federal budget has set an ambitious target to increase Canada’s agri-food exports to at least $75 billion annually by 2025 (about a f ifty percent increase). This year also marks the f ifth anniversary of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food’s assessment of Canada’s food system and recommendations for improving governance to realize the right to food for all, particularly for the roughly four million Canadians that remain food insecure. Rather than viewing these developments as separate and distinct, conference-goers discussed them together. Participants and speakers were encouraged to examine these legal and policy developments and to think critically about their intersection and impact on consumers, producers, the food insecure, farm animals, the environment, and those who grow our food. For example, panel topics included Indigenous food sovereignty, the impact of new technologies on the food system, feminism and food, food fraud, and the introduction of geographical indications in Canada.

work and a platform for developing the f ield of food law and policy in Canada. We are already building a community of people interested in food law and policy here at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. The newly formed Food Law and Policy Society will be holding a speaker series in 2018, and we hope you will join us. Please contact any of us if you are interested in joining the Society—and look out for our speaker series starting this January! Further, if you are interested in joining the national food law and policy organization (still to be named) or assisting in the 2018 conference, which will be held at Laval University, please email conference@foodlaw.ca. You can also check out the conference website: www.foodlaw.ca. *Nadia Lambek was a Conference Co-coordinator; India Annamanthadoo and Madeleine Gottesman were conference volunteers.

This conference also marked an important moment in the development of the f ield and practice of food law and policy in Canada. The practice and study of law and policy as it relates to the governance of our food system is largely fragmented. The annual food law and policy conference provides a venue for scholars, lawyers, and students to break out of the silos of their specif ic areas of study and practice, to think across the food system, and to recognize the connections between their work, cases, and projects. The hope is that the conference will foster cooperation between these parties and help to create better food law and policy. To this end, a national food law and policy organization was launched by participants to serve as a net-

In Vino Veritas TOM COLLINS (1L) I only know one Proverb: “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.” I suspect that many of my fellow law students can relate; that passage probably sounds something like your last pre-drink. Wine does have a magical, antidotal quality. You might say, “That’s just the alcohol,” and I would reply, “Yeah… that’s the point.” But I would also say that wine is so much more than alcohol—in fact, few bottles top 16% ABV. For me, the joy of drinking wine is that the journey to sweet serenity can be tremendously tasty. There are so many interesting flavours to discover, and all you have to do is open a bottle. It

doesn’t have to be expensive. It doesn’t have to be a special occasion. The wine can be the occasion. Just the other day, I went to a tasting between classes. I had a $13 bottle of VQA gamay nouveau. It smelled and tasted like McIntosh apples and cinnamon. It was thoroughly bizarre. I didn’t like it. But, I’ll tell you, class was much better when I got back! What I’m trying to say is that wine tasting often has an air of snobbishness about it, but it doesn’t need to. Tasting can be great fun, even if you can’t quite pick up on the hints of “freshly cut garden hose,” to quote one Master Sommelier. But if you don’t know where to start, In Vino Veritas can be of assistance. We’re the Faculty of Law’s wine club, and we want to share our love of wine and help you discover yours.

Priscilla Settee (University of Saskatchewan) discusses the importance of ensuring Indigenous food sovereignty in the context of Canada's first national food policy.

Lorraine Fleck (Fleck Innovation Law), Shane Martinez (Justicia for Migrant Workers), Camille Labchuck (Animal Justice, Executive Director), Tammy Switucha (Domestic Food Safety Systems Planning and Requirements, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Senior Director) and Cathy Bate (Miller Thomson, Partner) provide conference participants an update on many of the key developments in food law and policy in Canada.

We are a simple club. There are just five of us: Sarah Strban (2L), Anne Marshall (2L), Danica Bennewies (1L), Jason Lamb (1L), and myself. All of us are committed to making wine accessible—this is 2017, after all. You might have seen that we will be doing a “Wine of the Month” feature, starting in December. That’s where we pick a varietal (a wine made from a single variety of grape) and suggest some good bottles for student budgets, and maybe for the odd splurge. December’s wines are going to be a selection of gamay, riesling, and prosecco. If you have suggestions, we’d love to hear from you at: uoftinvinoveritas@gmail.com. Next semester, we plan to organize some tastings. You’ll hear more about them in the New Year. In the meantime, we thought it might be fun to share some of our own favourites:

Sarah: Agostino Finca Malbec ($13.95) and Funf 5 Riesling ($10.95) Anne: Cave Spring Dry Riesling ($15.95) and Malivoire Gamay Noir ($17.95) Danica: Inniskillin Late Autumn Riesling ($13.95) and Georges Duboeuf Beaujolais ($23.90) Jason: Ovidio García Esencia Crianza ($18.95) and Famille Bougrier Vouvray ($15.40) Tom: Château d’Esclans Rock Angel Rosé ($44.95) and Bollinger Spécial Cuvée Brut Champagne ($45.95)

Oops (continued from “Brains Not Brawn” on page 2) You shout your answer with confidence. Buster gives you a disappointed look and suddenly the ground drops out from under you and you are falling into darkness. You land in water. It’s an alligator pit. You are eaten by alligators. You do not get an HH. The End

FEATURES

8 | November 29, 2017

ultravires.ca

Recruitment Special Feature: Hiring is Up, Trust is Not CHLOE MAGEE (2L) Alarm goes off. I check my phone—it’s Wednesday morning, 8 a.m. Head is pounding. I take a look around my room for clues—blazer on the chair, shoes by the door, business cards strewn all over my desk. Fuzzy memories begin to resurface— hand-shaking, head-nodding, smiling… lots of smiling. This was no hangover folks: this was Day Three of the Toronto Recruit.

In Your Own Words

To everyone else who went through the wringer this year: Congratulations on getting through it. It was a uniquely exhausting week, a sentiment that is repeatedly expressed in the survey responses below. I hope everyone found something to take away from the experience, whether it was a free coffee, a connection, a job, or the knowledge that you can now make it through anything. To anyone feeling disappointed, you’re not alone.

• That I don’t work very hard or like the law very much.

According to last year’s Recruitment Special Feature, 2016 was “objectively awful” on a number of fronts. Recruitment week was a particularly disappointing time for some: on Tuesday of that week, Trump was elected into off ice; by Thursday, hiring on Bay Street was at its lowest level since 2013. By many standards, 2016 was not a great year. As for this year, Trump is still President. And there are many other valid reasons to complain about 2017. Fortunately, the hiring numbers from this year’s recruit are not one of them. Roughly 428 students were hired this year (including returning 1L hires), compared to 375 in 2016.1 Hiring increased by about 7% at U of T specif ically, and also increased at Osgoode, Western, and Queens, while remaining constant at McGill, Windsor, and Dalhousie. We will be publishing a much more comprehensive hiring report in January. For the time being, we have assembled the following preview containing preliminary hiring statistics and qualitative feedback from students about the process. To everyone who took the time to f ill out our survey, we thank you. Finally, a word of caution to any readers considering participating in next year’s recruit: please take the responses you read with a grain of salt. Although student feedback can be quite helpful, everyone experiences the process differently. There is no single or “best” way to go about it.

The following is a compilation of selected responses from our survey. We have made an effort to represent as many different viewpoints as possible. Is there anything you didn’t want your interviewers to know about you?

• That I didn’t really want to work for them. • My mental health condition. • My moral and political beliefs. • Relationship status. • That I have tattoos. • That I don’t drink alcohol. • That I had very few OCI’s; they were the only in-f irm I had. • LOL. • I had a nervous fart in the hallway and it stank up the whole place. I was worried I might be pointed out as the culprit. • I felt, going in, that interviewers had a preconceived notion of the people that they wanted in their f irms/agencies and that I had to adhere to that as best I could to be considered. I also felt the need to be very sociable and not come across as introverted, as this is a personality trait that is not promoted as desirable in the profession. Being of mixed race was not something that I could hide, but I did question whether or not it had an impact on my chances of being offered a summer position. This was especially true in light of the “Black on Bay Street” article that was recently published in the Globe and Mail. Did any of the employers you interviewed with ask you inappropriate questions or make you feel uncomfortable? If yes, please explain. • Some asked me where else I was interviewing, which did not feel great. • Lots of pressure to say, “You’re my f irst choice.” • Not at all. Absolute beauties.

• One f irm asked me what my other top choices were and proceeded to say negative things about them.

should choose them instead. Needless to say, I did not tell them which other f irm was my f irst choice.

• Many questions about my religious beliefs because I attended a Christian college.

One hour before the Wednesday blackout period, the f irm called me and told me that they were concerned I wasn’t going to accept an offer. I was forced to openly tell them that they were not my f irst choice, which should have been ascertainable by my prior interactions with the f irm, in which I refused to tell them that they were my f irst choice.

• One f irm asked me for my f ive- and tenyear plans and I just wanted to answer, “In ten years I want to be the commissioner of the NFL,” but f igured that was not what they were looking for. • I’m 99% sure a senior partner at one f irm referred to my prior education and career experience as “kinky.” • A white man from a f irm told me that diversity is important “BUT, at the end of the day, they just want to hire smart people.” • One employer asked me what I thought of the controversy regarding Robert E. Lee statutes in the U.S. • One (white) partner at a litigation boutique made some weird comments about Hadiya Roderique’s article in the Globe, and he seemed to not understand what racism is. He described the issue discussed in the article as an issue every lawyer faces (universal pressure to f it in) and said he knew what she meant because he didn’t like wearing suits but felt pressure to wear them anyway. • “Can you tell me about the worst moment of your life?” • They asked which neighbourhood I live in and asked me to explain how I am f luent in Mandarin, e.g., if I attended Saturday school or if it is the language I speak at home. • One f irm said, as a “ joke,” that they were trying to keep me in the interview as long as possible so that I wouldn’t be able to see other f irms. It was uncomfortable in the context of them trying to gauge whether I would accept an offer. • One of my interviewers was putting excessive pressure on me to convey that I was going to accept a job offer with them if they offered me a position. I never caved, and still ultimately received a job offer (which I rejected), but I felt that the f irm was overstepping its mandate by pursuing me so aggressively. The f irm asked me which other f irm was my f irst choice so that they could tell me why I

This difference is partially attributable to an increased number of employers responding to our request for hiring data

• Two of my interviewers engaged in a lengthy political debate while I smiled and nodded. Is there any advice you would give to someone participating in the process next year? • Network a lot, approach everything as cynically as possible. Find a time machine and don’t go to law school if you can help it. • Be yourself. If you don’t feel like you can be yourself in a f irm/off ice, then it isn’t the place for you. There will be many more amazing opportunities in the articling recruit, so don’t feel like you have to be someone you’re not or else you won’t get a job. • Take advantage of all the free food and drinks at open houses, receptions, dinners, etc. • If you are looking for a split, tell the recruiter during OCIs, but then try and avoid the subject during interviews with individual lawyers. Some will know and bring it up, but it really hijacks the conversation and can be a buzz kill for selling your interest in a Toronto f irm which you’ll very likely not be returning to. • Prepare some “thank you” emails in advance. I was up until 1 a.m. both nights sending these out. • Don’t feel bound to any f irm. It’s all a game to them. They will lead you on and then leave you hanging when offer time comes. Play the game and look out for yourself. • Interrogate upper-years at f irms you’re interested in about their experiences and recommendations. Try to talk to upperyears who really know you if you can.

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

• It’s pretty awful. You have to be aware of how to read signals that places are interested in you and when they are not, to make the best use of your time. It’s really diff icult. Also, talk a lot during government interviews, especially when they are writing down what you are saying. Get those extra points! • Don’t. But if you do, be prepared to be treated badly and with palpable disrespect. Some people come out on top of the process, but the horror stories are true and can and do happen to anyone. Don’t expect to be treated with basic respect and consideration just because you’re a bright, decent, personable, and highly capable human being who has proved yourself to be worthy of the job and made it right to the end of the process. Don’t think that any of the f irms are different or that they won’t pull shady shit on you. Don’t think that they won’t string you along, all but promise you a job, and then gaslight you two hours later after call time. The process is a bloodbath and has very little to do with you as a candidate. The f irms are better at this game than you are and don’t care who they screw over if it gets them what they want. Approach them with the same caution you would use with a known sociopath and steel yourself for whatever outcome materializes. Above all, always behave with integrity and don’t compromise your own values. Lead by example. We are the future of these f irms and we will increasingly have the power to hold them to a higher standard, but only if we choose to wield it. • OCIs are not the only option for getting summer positions. This cannot be stressed

enough, especially for people who are not interested in Bay Street employment. There are many f irms that put out advertisements after the fall process. Furthermore, as I have been told by many practicing lawyers, 2L summer recruitment does not determine the path your career will follow. Not getting “the perfect job” will not mean that your law career is over. Students need to challenge the CDO to do more to help them discover job opportunities that f it their interests and not mainly advertise the conveyor belt to Bay Street. • It’s an inherently stressful process. Don’t make it any more stressful than it needs to be by worrying about things you can’t control. • Be open to changing your mind about f irms. Have a few questions you ask to all the f irms so you can really compare them. Ask for specif ics if you feel like you’re not getting honest answers. • There is a large degree of randomness to the process and certain elements of it are beyond your control. Recognizing this may help avoid disappointment or frustration when certain outcomes may not make sense. • Understand the politics as much as the interview process itself (e.g., saying who your #1 is, scheduling dinners, personal thank you notes, Monday vs. Tuesday interviews). • Remember to carve out time to rest! If you do twelve hours of interviews, you will not perform as well at the end of the day. I wish I taken less in-f irms so I could

have given each one my all. • Check for fucking typos. What, if anything, would you change about the recruitment process? • Everything. • Midday PFOs can PFO. • I think this process is beyond stressful overall. I would like to see more standardized questions and less emphasis on culture f it. • I hated the schmoozy reception but, meh, that’s law, I guess. • It’s arduous, but I think it needs to be in order to give students enough time to network and think through their options. • More transparency through the process would be nice. I would really appreciate it if ALL f irms sent out rejections and intent-to-calls so you know immediately where you stand. • I’d love to see the f irms actually follow LSUC rules, both the letter and the spirit. I also wish the CDO would equip us better for the process and stand in our corner. Firms should be held accountable for how they treat students. • The New York process is very spread out time-wise and I think that this greatly benef its students to allow for you to maximize your time and effort with each employer. I understand that spreading out the process would also spread out the stress, but most people were stressed from July through to November anyways. Al-

November 29, 2017 | 9

lowing for the inf irm interviewers to take place over the course of a month (or even two weeks) would allow for more opportunity to spend equal amounts of time with each f irm. I hated my four o’clock on Monday in-f irm and declined a second round, but I think that is at least half because they were my fourth of the day and I was exhausted. Similarly, you send messages to f irms when you skip their receptions or dinners in favour of others, but in a spread-out process there would be enough time to meet with everyone fairly. Furthermore, getting an offer and having to accept right away is crazy. A spreadout process would allow you to return to the f irm, offer in hand, and really distinguish between places. Firms wouldn't like it because they have to spend longer courting students, thus necessitating more money and effort, but I believe it would be greatly benef icial to all students. • Have employers give out offers at 5 p.m. and bar anyone from accepting for twenty-four hours. Force people to really think about their options without any pressure to accept. It’s a major life decision and should not be taken lightly. • Allow employers to make offers before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, especially when you have indicated f irst choice on Monday and have gotten strong signals in return. It wastes everyone’s time and resources having to wait. • Dispel the myth that grades are everything (though they def initely get your foot in the door). If you can’t connect with people and have great conversations with interviewers, your chances are shot. I was successful despite average grades because (continued on page 11)

* From all schools, by all responding firms that participated in the OCI process

10 | November 29, 2017

Firm Aird & Berlis LLP Baker & McKenzie LLP Bennett Jones LLP Bereskin & Parr LLP

ultravires.ca

2017 Total

U of T

Osgoode

5 17

Western

Queens

Ottawa

1 4

Windsor

McGill

Other 1

Dalhousie

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Dale & Lessmann LLP

3 13

3 4

Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP

Dentons LLP

1 1

1 3

Dickinson Wright LLP

DLA Piper (Canada) LLP

1 1

DOJ Ontario Region Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

9 16

Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

Gardiner Roberts LLP

Gilbert's LLP

1 1

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP

Koskie Minsky LLP

KPMG Law Legal Aid Ontario

Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP

MAG - Crown Law Office - Civil

MAG - Crown Law Office - Criminal MAG - Ministry of Labour Mathews Dinsdale & Clark LLP

1 1

3 1

Did not respond 3

Did not respond 1

1 2

Miller Thomson LLP

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP

1 2 30

2 1 2

1 1 10

Owens Wright LLP

Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Toronto Office)

Polley Faith LLP

Public Prosecution Service of Canada (Ontario Regional Office)

Ridout & Maybee LLP

Shearman & Sterling LLP (Toronto Office)

Shields O'Donnell MacKillop LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Toronto Office)

Smart & Biggar LLP

Stieber Berlach LLP

Stikeman Elliott LLP

Thorsteinssons LLP

% Employers Responding

Count of employers

Wildeboer Dellelce LLP

Torys LLP

Torkin Manes LLP

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

1 3 2

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

McCague Borlack LLP

Office of the Ontario Ombudsman

McCarthy Tetrault LLP McMillan LLP

1 3

2 2

Goodmans LLP Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP

1 2

2 1

1 1

2 2

428

110

1 5 1

3 1

2 99

2 50

54 96%

Approximate Class Size

205

290

175

200

310

245

180

170

% with Toronto Jobs

54%

34%

28%

25%

11%

13%

11%

Total

U of T

Osgoode

Western

Queens

Ottawa

Windsor

McGill

Dalhousie

Other

375

Previous Years 2016 2015

420

106

2014

398

2013

351

2012

379

2011

403

2010

444

104

2009

427

100

2008

406

2007

435

2006

409

2005

355

2004

361

2003

312

November 29, 2017 | 11

ultravires.ca I knew how to maneuver social situations effectively. • Something needs to change in order to highlight the options out there apart from the Big Law jobs. I pretty much blindly applied to government positions and thankfully it worked out fantastically for me. But it could have gone very differently and I would have gone down a path that I have always known isn’t right for me. Yes, this is U of T Law, which is a bit of a feeder for Bay Street, but I maintain that many of my peers feel as I do: Bay Street just isn’t where they want to be. It’s the same old story that we’re warned about, but it seems as though it replicates itself every year. I’m tired of our collective tacit acceptance that you have to apply to the big firms just for the sake of not missing out on potential hiring opportunities. I know there are people stronger than I who opted out of the entire process for exactly that reason. But for some reason I didn’t, and that could have ended badly for me. • Thank you emails: get rid of them. Closing thoughts • I got straight Ps and got the exact job I wanted. Don’t screen yourself out of something if it’s what you really want. • My ref lection on the OCI process: I feel emotionally assaulted, naive, humiliated, and undervalued. • I never thought it would be as bad as everyone said it would be. In fact, it was much, much worse. • The LSUC rules are a joke and only disadvantage students. The rules are broken all the time. A f irm told me through relatively clear language before the in-f irm stage that I had an offer if I accepted their in-f irm and they did in fact give me an offer at the end of the day. Any rule that the f irm doesn’t like, they can get around. This “strictly” regulated process only creates a system where anxious, stressed, and exhausted students are forced to make major life decisions in an extremely short time window. • I love the f irm I’m at. I am so thrilled. Just about everything else was shameful. LSUC could do a lot better, most of the f irms could do a lot better, and, above all, the law school could do a hell of a lot better. • By telling me a career in private practice was unlikely, the CDO discouraged me from fully interacting with them. • My biggest cause of stress was fearing the judgment from peers at law school. That was a very alarming realization because my friends have always been a crucial support system, not a source of anxiety. I had to keep reminding myself that anyone who would judge my eventual job choice was not worth my time. Having my support network inf iltrated by toxic, competitive behaviour is not what I needed. Some of my role models at the school did not get a job through the process and I'll always respect them and value their advice over a judgmental “Seven Sister-ite.” • I've been thinking a lot about our school’s yield on admissions. We have a 95+% yield in Ontario, yet f irms allocate at most eighty slots for OCIs to us. That means a bunch of talented people choose to come to the most competitive law school in Canada and f irms do not account for that.

Overall, I've realized the ceiling at U of T is incredibly high, as evidenced by our placements in New York. But the f loor is much, much lower than it was represented during the admissions process. The school itself doesn't do much to help. It just benef its from a student body made up of type A high achievers who would work hard to get a job regardless of where they went to school. Coming here was a terrible investment. • I thought that U of T program prestige would open more doors than it did. I had hoped that my unusual background would not get me laughed out of the recruit. I’m used up, I’m deep in debt, I'm not well, and the walls are closing in. I feel defeated; everything I've done in life to better myself has led me to a broken promise. This one was just the most expensive of those.

Make MRAs Mad (continued from “Nice Door” on page 18) You know that you should say some Zack Snyder movie, but you can’t bring yourself to do it, so you shout the first thing that comes to your mind, which is probably the worst possible answer you could have given.

• I heard about what happened with BLG last year, and also heard that things would be different this year. They were not different. I was manipulated, played, and lied to by BLG, and it cost me an offer from another f irm. Throughout the three days, everyone made a point of coming up to me and telling me how much positive feedback they were hearing about me and how much everyone loved meeting me. On the f irst day, I received a personal note from recruitment about how they received nothing but “strong feedback” about me. I was invited to come back the second day for an interview and a dinner. On the second day, I received the same positive treatment. They also had me come back in the afternoon to meet with lawyers, so I ended up seeing them three times in one day. When I spoke to other lawyers involved in recruitment after the process, I realized that what BLG was doing was tying up my time.

“My favourite movie is Ghostbusters,” you shout, “the all-female version!” You don’t even wait for them to react, you just start running. You can hear them chasing after you, screaming for blood. You reach a dead end and turn around. They have you cornered. There’s nowhere for you to go. A familiar voice comes from above your head...

I didn’t receive information about my dinner, where it was or when it would be, till twenty minutes after the lawyers were already there. I had to run out of my apartment and hail a cab, and I felt absolutely terrible about being late, even though I had tried a dozen times to f ind the information throughout the day. Although they were profusely apologetic about not communicating the information to me in a timely way, I don’t know if this was a sign of disorganization or lack of care on their part towards me.

“What is the Dreadful Task?” you ask. All of a sudden, there is a flash of lightning, a crack of thunder, and there is a hideous monster standing before you. It has worms for fingers, gnashing teeth, spiked wings coming out of its back; it has countless eyes, like a spider, and its tongue is a snake; it has scaly clawed feet, and it’s wearing a fedora. Julie gives you an ominous look.

On the third day, I went back for a lunch that was set up for their “top candidates.” We were reminded about this numerous times throughout the lunch. I did not think once throughout the three days that they were lying about their intentions. I was torn between them and another f irm during the process, who had also been very clear in signalling their intentions towards me, but I was caught up in the thick web BLG spun around me, so I ultimately gave up the opportunity from the other f irm. BLG did not make me an offer. They did not give me a reason for what happened. Believing them cost me a job.

What do you choose?

Going into law school I didn’t want to end up on Bay Street or be a part of that corporate cutthroat culture. But like everyone else, I followed the motions and did it anyway—“ just in case.” So I got all the heartbreak and pain of going through the recruitment process and not ending up with a job—and I hadn’t even wanted it to begin with. • It’s a sprint. It’s two and a half days. It’s hard. It’s tiring. Be like Nike—just do it.

“Grab my hand!” You look up and see that a ceiling tile is missing and there’s an arm reaching down. You jump and miss. Brett is stalking toward you, a copy of The Game in his hand, ready to bludgeon you. You jump again, grazing the outstretched hand, but you can’t get a grip. Brett lifts the book over his head. You gather all your strength and jump one last time. You just barely grasp the outstretched hand and you are pulled up into the ceiling with surprising ease as Brett brings the book crashing down on the spot where your head used to be. “That was close! Sorry! It took me forever to find you.” It’s Julie! You’re saved! Julie takes both of your hands in hers and whispers something. You feel yourself being whisked away once more by the tornado of colour, shapes, and sounds. You keep your mouth shut this time and when Julie shouts, “Stop!” you find yourself falling gently, like a feather, toward a tropical island. “Is this HH Island?” you ask. “No,” Julie says, “but we’re close. There’s no time now to go through the Ultimate Map of TrutHH. There’s a quicker, but more dangerous way. You have to complete the Dreadful Task.”

“This is your task. You must tame the Spirit of Dread. If you do, he will fly you straight to HH Island. If you don’t, well...” she trails off. “This is Buster?” you ask. “YES, I AM BUSTER,” Buster roars. “IF YOU WANT ME TO FLY YOU TO HH ISLAND YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES: FACE ME IN A BATTLE OF WITS, OR FACE ME IN A BATTLE OF STRENGTH.

If you choose battle of wits, go to “Brains not Brawn” on page 2. If you choose battle of strength, go to “Strength” on page 6.

12 | November 29, 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

ETHNIC CLEANSING IN RAKHINE STATE: LAW STUDENTS ASSIST AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL WITH DIGITAL VERIFICATION IN MYANMAR authenticity of this digital content. Specifically, the DVC undertook a lengthy process of ‘geolocation’ to pinpoint villages destroyed by the Myanmar military in vast and remote areas of the Rakhine State. For example, after poring over satellite images from Google Earth and matching them to content taken inside Rakhine State, the DVC was able to identify before and after images of Chein Kar Li that established the village had been razed in August 2017.

By Bethanie Pascutto (3L)

Over the past two years, more than 900,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar’s Rakhine State across the Naf River into southwestern Bangladesh. In response to a campaign of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Myanmar military, 530,000 men, women and children made this journey between August and October of this year alone. Photos and videos of this horrific humanitarian crisis have flooded the internet, making visible the suffering of the Rohingya people. In an age where technology is an asset to human rights monitoring and advocacy, the ability to verify digital content is crucial. Such evidence is essential to hold those responsible for human rights’ abuses accountable. The International Human Rights Program’s Digital Verification Corps (DVC) at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law is doing just that for Amnesty International researchers. The DVC is a network of volunteers that reviews and verifies digital content, including pictures and videos of alleged human rights abuses. This content is often posted by civilians caught in a conflict zones that cannot be easily accessed by advocacy organizations. The DVC mitigates these challenges by assessing the credibility of sources, gathering external information, and evaluating markers of authenticity. Much of the DVC’s work this year has been focused on the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Myanmar. The Rohingya people are an ethnic minority who have long faced discrimination and persecution by the Burmese government. The vast majority of Rohingya are from the Rakhine State in Myanmar. Prior to the military crackdowns and resultant refugee crises of the past two years, the Rohingya

population in Myanmar was about 1.3 million. The Myanmar military began a renewed campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya population in August, 2017, after members of an armed Rohingya group attacked about 30 security outposts in northern Rakhine State. In this latest round of violence, the Myanmar military has killed unknown numbers of Rohingya, subjected Rohingya women and girls to sexual violence, and burned entire villages in the region.

As Amnesty International researchers have not been granted access to Rakhine State, it has been difficult for the organization to acquire first-hand evidence of the atrocities. In addition to interviews conducted with Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, Amnesty International has relied on an analysis of satellite imagery and data, as well as dozens of photographs and videos taken inside Rakhine State. The DVC groups from the University of Toronto and the University of California, Berkeley reviewed and verified the

The DVC’s efforts contributed to Amnesty International’s report released in October detailing atrocities perpetrated by the Myanmar military. “‘My World Is Finished’: Rohingya Targeted in Crimes against Humanity in Myanmar” documents crimes against humanity taking place in Myanmar, including unlawful killings, deportation and forcible displacement, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution based on ethnic and religious grounds, looting, denial or severe restrictions on humanitarian aid and other inhumane acts. Amnesty International is using the report in its advocacy efforts directed at Myanmar, the United Nations, the European Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and the international community as a whole. The report has received extensive media coverage across the world and prompted the international community to face the reality of what is happening in the Rakhine state. Note: The International Human Rights Program’s Digital Verification Corps was profiled in the September 2017 issue of Rights Review (see The Next Generation of Human Rights Researchers: U of T Students Hone their Digital Verification Skills).

November 29, 2017 | 13

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: ANDREW BROUWER

By Per Kraut (3L)

Andrew Brouwer is Legal Aid Ontario’s Senior Counsel in Refugee Law. He leads the organization’s refugee law test case program which is geared to improving access to justice for vulnerable non-citizens and refugees. Andrew appears before all levels of court and immigration tribunal, including the Supreme Court of Canada and United Nations Treaty Bodies, and frequently testifies before Parliamentary committees studying immigration and refugee legislation. Andrew is also Vice President of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, having previously co-chaired its Litigation and Advocacy committees. He advises the Canadian Council for Refugees in addition to working with the IHRP on their immigration detention projects. Andrew has written and advocated on issues relating to statelessness, interdiction, refugee protection and immigration detention. He is currently representing the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International and the Canadian Council of Churches in their constitutional challenge to the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement. 1. As a student at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, you were an IHRP summer fellow at the UNHCR. How would you describe that experience? I spent a fascinating summer in the legal department at UNHCR’s headquarters in Geneva, drafting proposed Guidelines on state responsibilities in the refugee interdiction context. While I had previously incorporated international human rights principles through my involvement in policy advocacy in Canada, I had never looked at these issues from an international, inter-state perspective. At UNHCR, I had the opportunity to dig into what international human rights, refugee and maritime law had to say about a state’s obligations to the asylum seekers they encounter at sea or in airport transit zones. I was privileged to work with some of the leading thinkers in international refugee law, and to glimpse the inner workings and realpolitik of this global institution in its interactions with the countries that form its executive committee, including Canada. I also worked with brilliant interns from law schools around the world who were placed at the various human rights bodies headquartered in Geneva. For a refugee law nerd like me, it was a heady experience.

2. How did your time as an IHRP summer fellow shape your academic and personal interests, as well as the course of your career? The IHRP fellowship at UNHCR give me a firsthand look at how and why states were getting away with circumventing their refugee protection obligations, as well as some of the gaps in the international human rights and refugee protection regime. These obligations arguably only kick in when an asylum seeker or refugee claimant arrives at the frontier. By stopping migrant ships at sea or barring potential refugee claimants from boarding flights to our territories, states are able to sidestep their responsi-

Andrew Brouwer (centre), Senior Counsel in Refugee Law at Legal Aid Ontario, at a recent press conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa with the IHRP. Photography by Yolanda Song.

bilities. The experience was an eye opener, but it also served to sharpen my critique and spike my commitment to finding ways to resist and oppose barriers to protection for refugees. It’s an issue that has motivated much of my refugee advocacy work ever since, allowing me to seek out opportunities to raise the issue in various fora, including in the courts in the context of litigation challenging the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement.

3. What drove you to your current work and what were your initial steps following law school? In retrospect, it seems like human rights and social justice have been a lifelong focus. My parents were immigrants from the Netherlands so I grew up hearing stories about the Nazi occupation of Holland, where my dad was part of the Resistance. In Grade 7, I learned about Apartheid in South Africa and the repression and imprisonment of liberation leaders like Nelson Mandela. These stories made a huge impression on me. When I was in my twenties, I taught English to injured workers in Toronto, some of whom were refugees. I was deeply inspired by their stories. This led me to get involved in the refugee rights movement, and that was the start of my trajectory in refugee law. By the time I began my legal studies, I had been engaged in refugee solidarity and public policy advocacy for several years. For me, law school was a place to gain tools to become a more effective advocate for refugees. After law school and then articling with a union-side labour law firm, I started practicing refugee law with Barbara Jackman and a couple of friends. My intention was to do it for a short time and

then return to macro-policy work with an NGO. However, it turned out that representing refugees is incredibly fulfilling; more so, for me, than policy work alone. Continuing to practice ever since, I have remained very involved with NGOs doing policy advocacy work.

deportation to a real risk of persecution is devastating. Explaining to a mother that her application to sponsor her child has been refused, and she has little chance to succeed on an appeal, is an almost impossible task.

4. You have recently collaborated with the IHRP for our project on immigration detention in Canada. What motivated you to get involved with the IHRP again and what has that experience been like?

At the same time, calling a client facing imminent deportation to tell them you have won them a last minute stay of removal from the Federal Court is a highlight of the job. As is accompanying a client to the airport to meet the spouse and child for whom they have been waiting for seven years.

It has been a wonderfully rewarding experience. I have worked with both the current director, Samer Muscati, and his predecessor, Renu Mandhane, and a variety of brilliant and passionate UofT Law students on reports and advocacy regarding immigration detention of children and the mentally ill.

Refugee law is full of these extreme ups and downs. But the opportunity to work in solidarity and community with people of so many different backgrounds and perspectives, and to have a real impact on the lives of vulnerable people, is incredibly rewarding. I cannot think of a better use for a law degree.

I love working with the IHRP because they have been able to dig into these policy issues at a level that, as a practitioner, I just don’t have the time or resources to do myself. Even more, the energy, brilliance and passion brought to these projects by the law students themselves has been incredibly rewarding and inspiring.

5. What have been some of the most challenging and rewarding aspects of your work as a refugee lawyer? The stakes can’t get much higher than they are in refugee law. Refugee lawyers deal daily with issues related to life and death, torture, persecution, detention, family unification or separation, and national security. Of course, the challenges and rewards are likewise very high. Losing a case when the result is going to be

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

6. Do you have any advice for students interested in following a similar path? Get involved now! Don’t wait till you are done law school – become engaged while you are still a student so that you can make connections, learn, and explore whether this area is right for you. There are so many ways to participate in refugee law as a student--by enrolling in one of the UofT Law programs such as IHRP, the Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, Downtown Legal Services or Pro Bono Students Canada; by joining a student chapter of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers; or by volunteering with an advocacy organization like Amnesty International or No One Is Illegal, or even one of the refugee law offices in Toronto.

14 | November 29, 2017

ultravires.ca

R IGHTS R EVIEW

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

TECHNOLOGY-FACILITATED VIOLENCE, ABUSE, AND HARASSMENT AGAINST WOMEN AND GIRLS: A 21ST CENTURY CHALLENGE By Chelsey Legge (2L JD/MPP) In October 2012, 15-year-old Amanda Todd from Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, committed suicide after being manipulated into exposing her breasts via webcam by an online predator and enduring months of torment and blackmail. Between January 2015 and August 2016, Mexican television personality and investigative journalist Carmen Aristegui, along with her son Emilio, was heavily targeted with surveillance spyware as a result of her reporting on government corruption. In 2015, two prominent lawyers and human rights defenders representing the families of three slain Mexican women were targets of infection attempts with spyware. In 2010, a Manitoba judge retired early and endured a years-long disciplinary hearing after nude photos taken by her husband and posted online without her knowledge or permission became public. These are just a few examples of a widespread phenomenon, variously labelled as cyber-misogyny, online violence against women, or technology-facilitated violence, abuse, and harassment against women and girls. In her report to the Human Rights Council last year, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Dubravka Šimonović, addressed the challenges posed by online violence against women and the barriers to prevention, protection, prosecution and redress for such acts. Ms. Šimonović noted that while the use of information and communications technology has contributed to the empowerment of women and girls and to a fuller realization of their human rights, there is a need to examine this recent phenomenon and the applicability of national laws to it. She intends to make recommendations for states and non-state actors to

fight online violence against women and girls while respecting freedom of expression and the prohibition of incitement to violence and hatred, in accordance with Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In order to inform her work on the topic, the Special Rapporteur issued a call for submissions on online violence against women. Through these submissions, Ms. Šimonović hopes to collect input and views from different stakeholders, including states, national human rights institutions, non-governmental organizations, and members of academia, on existing legislative models, policies, and jurisprudence related to online and technology-facilitated violence against women. The Citizen Lab, an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, responded to this call on November 3 of this year. As an International Human Rights Program (IHRP) clinic student, I assisted with the preparation of the Citizen Lab’s submission in response to Ms. Šimonović’s call. With the guidance and supervision of Samer Muscati, the IHRP Clinic Director, and Lex Gill, a Research Fellow at the Lab and my Project Supervisor, I undertook research on various topics related to technology-facilitated violence, abuse, and harassment against women and girls. My first assignment involved researching the nature of technology-facilitated violence, coming up with a workable taxonomy of the different forms of violence, and exploring the harms experienced by victims and survivors. After reviewing academic literature, publications from advocacy organizations, and reports from international bodies, I had a good grasp on the most common forms of technology-facilitated violence and the various harms that flow from this violence.

Forms of technology-facilitated violence, abuse, and harassment • Cyber stalking • Non-consensual sharing or distribution of intimate photos and videos (“revenge porn”)

• Harassment • Hacking • Denial-of-service (DOS) attacks • Use of gender-based slurs • Publication of private and identifiable personal information (“doxing”) • Impersonation • Extortion • Rape and death threats • Electronically enabled trafficking • Sexual exploitation or luring of minors The Citizen Lab's Director Ronald Diebert

November 29, 2017 | 15

ultravires.ca

Harms resulting from online and technology-facilitated violence, abuse, and harassment may be physical (e.g., stress-related illness, injury, and physical trauma), psychological or emotional (e.g., experiences of shame, stress, and fear; loss of dignity; costs to social standing), and/or financial (e.g., costs related to legal support, online protection services, missed wages, and professional consequences). Online and technology-facilitated violence, abuse, and harassment can also have an adverse impact more broadly by increasing needs for health care, judicial, and social services; impeding the exercise of free expression and other human rights; and disturbing the sense of peace and security required to fully participate in economic, social, and democratic life. I also drafted some substantive sections of the Submission. This included drafting a part of a section on the Necessary and Pro-

portionate Principles, a set of principles that provide civil society groups, states, the courts, legislative and regulatory bodies, industry, and others with a framework to evaluate whether current or proposed electronic surveillance laws and practices are compatible with human rights. I also drafted a section on the newly proposed Bill C-51 which, if passed, would revise the “rape shield” provisions in the Criminal Code to include communications of a sexual nature or for a sexual purpose (e.g., text messages, emails, video recordings) within the definition of the complainant’s prior sexual history. The rape shield provisions provide that evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual history cannot be used to support an inference that the complainant was more likely to have consented to the sexual activity at issue, or that the complainant is less worthy of belief. I also drafted a section on education, training, and capacitybuilding for legal professionals, law en-

forcement, frontline anti-violence workers, and the information and communication technology (ICT) sector. Taking responsibility for the section on education, training, and capacity-building was a daunting but ultimately very rewarding experience. In the Submission, the Citizen Lab calls for evidence-based, rightsprotective, proportionate, and targeted measures to address online and technology-facilitated violence, taking care to respect both women’s safety and the full panoply of human rights that are implicated in the digital sphere. An emphasis on education, training, and capacity-building challenges the presumption in favour of potentially overbroad and disproportionate new powers to surveil, de-anonymize, police, and censor in the digital sphere. For instance, rather than providing greater generalized power to law enforcement, training law enforcement on the search powers and grounds to investigate that they already possess, and how to use these powers to identify legal wrongs in a technologically-mediated context may be more effective. Likewise, digital literacy training for prosecutors and judges could help these professionals understand the ways in which new technologies can be misused by stalkers, abusers, and other violent perpetrators, and the ways in which new technologies can make it more difficult to hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes by creating investigative and evidentiary barriers. In many cases, there will be no need for Parliament to create new offences or civil wrongs. Instead, training on how women’s experiences of violence, abuse, and harassment online map onto existing categories of unlawful wrongdoing would be sufficient. In some cases, it might be necessary to make minor amendments to existing provisions in order to fill gaps created by technological change - the proposed Bill C-51 is one example of this kind of amendment.

My contributions comprise only a fraction of the Citizen Lab’s submission, which makes sixteen recommendations in total. Most of our recommendations are directed to states - for example, in Recommendation 12, we recommend that states should hold manufacturers of commercial spyware accountable and engage legal measures to ensure that these tools are not abused to facilitate surveillance against women and human rights defenders. Other recommendations are directed to intermediaries - for example, in Recommendation 10, we recommend that intermediaries engaged in the moderation of online content adopt transparency reporting mechanisms, publish clear and comprehensive content moderation policies, and develop explicit review and appeal processes . Still others are directed to the Special Rapporteur herself - for example, in Recommendation 1, we advise the Special Rapporteur to collaborate with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression and the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy when formulating policy responses to technology-facilitated violence against women . Working on this project with the Citizen Lab has taught me so much about the intersections between violence against women, digital security, and freedom of expression, and I’ve had the enormous benefit of learning from researchers and advocates from vastly different fields and areas of study. Of course, the potential that our work might have far-reaching impact on the development of international human rights norms is a huge bonus --the cherry on top of an immensely rewarding and educational experience! The Special Rapporteur will present her report to the Human Rights Council in June 2018. Link to submission: https://citizenlab.ca/ wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Final-UNSRVAG-CitizenLab.pdf

Founded in 2001 by Professor Ronald J. Deibert, the Citizen Lab is an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, focusing on research, development, and high-level strategic policy and legal engagement at the intersection of information and communication technologies, human rights, and global security. The Citizen Lab uses a “mixed methods” approach to research, combining methods from political science, law, computer science, and area studies. Some of the Lab’s research includes investigating digital espionage against civil society; documenting Internet filtering and other technologies and practices that impact freedom of expression online; analyzing privacy, security, and information controls of popular applications; and examining transparency and accountability mechanisms relevant to the relationship between corporations and state agencies regarding personal data and other surveillance activities.

Save the Date On February 6, 2018 in the Moot Court Room (J250), Human Rights Watch and the IHRP will co-host a Conference titled “Darker Side of Digital: The Human Rights Implications of Technology in Canada and Abroad.” Lex Gill will be speaking at the Conference, as will Professor Lisa Austin of the Faculty of Law. All are welcome! United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Dubravka Šimonović

ihrprightsreview

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

rightsreview

OPINIONS

16 | November 29, 2017

ultravires.ca

Is the Law Greener on the Other Side? COMPILED BY RACHEL CHAN (2L) & YOUSSEF AZIZ (2L) As students who have been at U of T Law since day one, we can get a little jaded about Canada’s top law school. We get used to the sponsored hallways, internalize the competition, and accept the fact that the TTC is here to ruin our day. Let’s also not forget that we tend to have a certain *~reputation~* for being cut-throat and self-righteous. Four 2L transfer students have provided us with some refreshing reminders of the things we take for granted and insights into how students at other law schools perceive us. UV: Tell us a bit about yourself and why you decided to transfer to U of T. Youssef Aziz (YA): I grew up in Egypt and moved to Canada when I was sixteen with my family, settling in Oakville. My undergrad was in Business at Wilfrid Laurier and, afterwards, I took a year off to work and travel before deciding to go back to school at Windsor Law. I plan on practicing business law at a fullservice firm. My end goal has always been to live and build a career in Toronto. Having the opportunity to be closer to my family and build roots early in the city where I want to settle was hard to turn down. It was not an easy decision—I gave up all the connections, friendships, and experience developed in 1L— but it made the most sense to transfer and I’m happy with my decision. Sahil Kesar (SK): I grew up in both Vancouver and the Toronto area. I did my undergrad at York University’s Schulich School of Business, after which I started school at Windsor Law. I hope to practice in either business law or commercial litigation. I had some personal reasons for transferring, but I ultimately wanted to work in Toronto and I knew that being in the city would make that easier. I knew other schools could not compete with the plethora of business law courses that U of T offers.

Health Sciences. Upon graduation, I attended Lakehead’s Bora Laskin Faculty of Law with no specific practice area or career trajectory in mind. My decision to transfer was based on three things I wanted: to ensure that I was a competitive applicant to private and public sector employers; to have access to diverse course offerings and professors; and to be immersed in a student environment more conducive to a stimulating legal education. UV: What were your initial impressions of U of T Law, and have they changed in the past few months? YA: I did not have any specific expectations. I had heard about the new law building and how great it is, and some comments regarding the “competitive” environment. Fortunately, I have not experienced this competitive reputation, and everyone has been very welcoming. Definitely the fact that every single room in Jackman is named after a law firm stood out to me, coming from a law school with a big focus on social justice as opposed to Bay Street. Speaking of, there is definitely a big focus towards business law and Bay Street here, despite a breadth of other opportunities, resources, and clubs geared to fostering interest in other areas of law. SK: Everyone hears the stories of uptight and competitive U of T Law students. I did not get that vibe when I was first here. Some of the students here don’t know how well they actually have it. The facilities and opportunities this school provides its students are incomparable. The amount of students in the library also amazes me, until I learned about all the SNAILS (Students Not Actually In Law School). But overall, I feel like I’m in a fairly welcoming place with a lot of bright people.

Muhammad Ansab (MA): I’m from Toronto, and my undergrad was a BCom in Public Accounting and Economics from Rotman. I went to Windsor Law afterwards. I’m generally interested in Business Law, but haven’t narrowed it down to a specific area. I decided to transfer because my family is in Toronto and I wanted to be closer to them.

MA: Before I started at the law school, I heard terrible rumors about how the school was super competitive and how students would undermine each other (e.g. ripping pages out of books). I was very glad to find out that people were not like that and were generally very friendly. It’s also a lot easier to get involved in the school than I originally thought, and there are so many more opportunities here that I did not know about before.

Joshua Foster (JF): I grew up in Mississauga and attended U of T in Mississauga to pursue an undergraduate degree in Biology for

JF: My initial impressions were positive. In the interest of brevity, I was surprised that the law building was not bigger and that it lacked a

sense of warmth. My impressions have remained positive. UV: What has been most surprising about your experience at U of T so far? YA: I would say the connections and breadth of opportunities available to law students are unequalled. The location plays a huge part: being in the center of Toronto provides us with a big advantage over other law schools. Being able to walk to the financial district, or having easy access to guest speakers from different areas is a huge asset. SK: The amount of resources available to students in all regards of law school. How equipped the CDO is. The amount of student involvement in administration of the school. The amount of clubs here at the school. It really is just amazing. MA: I found it a little surprising that some of the professors’ titles were named, and I thought it was cool that we had lockers. JF: I had two surprises. First, the quality of instruction is not any better than my former law school despite the institution’s zeal for hiring academic leaders. Second, the student body, despite being relatively large, remains very friendly and approachable. UV: What is something that your previous law school does better than U of T? What is something that U of T does better than your previous law school? YA: Something that I noticed was the tight-knit community environment at Windsor. However, U of T is definitely better for its connections. The quality of guest speakers and lecturers that are invited to the school is very impressive. Getting the chance to hear from Supreme Court justices, notable practitioners, and well-known authorities in the field is truly a privilege. SK: I think Windsor fosters a closer environment because of its geography and most people not being from Windsor. I think people at U of T may not form as close bonds here because most people are still in close touch with nonlaw friends. At Windsor, you see each other all the time—at the school, mall, gym, bars, and even at brunch—because it is a smaller city.

Windsor also does a better job at promoting non-academic interests through their student groups. I think U of T clubs are generally geared towards different practices of law. In contrast, I think U of T has better facilities, a vastly larger and diverse alumni pool to draw on, and a better practical legal education. While the academic professors are all of similar vintage , I think it is in the quality of practitioner-taught courses that U of T really thrives. MA: Windsor is better at community building and support. Although the location of U of T gives the Faculty a tremendous advantage, being in the heart of Toronto makes it a commuter school. People don’t usually stick around in the school, so the student body doesn’t bond the same way as in Windsor. Because most of the students weren’t from the city, everybody stuck around the school and hung out together. The friendships were stronger. In addition, the Windsor SLS student notes database had a lot more contributors and was a lot more current than at U of T. Also, the financial aid at Windsor is more generous: at a certain level of undergrad debt, they provide enough aid so that you do not need to open a line of credit. On the flip side, being in downtown Toronto means U of T offers a lot more opportunities for students, whether that’s networking, jobs, events, or getting guest speakers to visit. The career services and admin here are better, more synchronized, and more effective. The CDO prepares you a lot better for landing a position and has a lot more resources available for students. U of T also has a lot more going on with events, workshops, and networking opportunities. There’s actually so much stuff going on that it can be difficult at times trying to go to all of the events you’re interested in. JF: The pedagogical strategies used at Lakehead are more conducive to student learning than those relied on in my current courses. With that said, my experience remains relatively uninformed given that it has only been a semester. U of T provides far more resources to its students than available at Lakehead. These include access to mentorship and learning opportunities, career development and support, as well as outreach and extra-curricular opportunities.

Why Would You Choose That? (continued from “Part One” on page 1) Congratulations, you win the award for being the most honest, ethics-y student around. Well done. I bet you’re really happy. YOU HAD THE CHOICE TO POSSIBLY OBTAIN UNLIMITED ACCESS TO HHs! DON’T YOU WANT THAT?

“Yes, I’m really sure. I am really smart and amazing, Julie, you don’t even know.” Julie disappears without even really looking at you, but I know for sure that she talks about you to her friends, and not in a favourable way.

No, you’re just another dime-a-dozen risk-averse law student who chooses to write an exam they haven’t studied for instead of following a magical pirate spirit to a far off land.

You get to your exam and sign in. You forgot that it’s a closed book exam. Also ExamSoft Examplify crashes two seconds into the exam and your computer lights on fire so you can’t restart it. You handwrite your exam.

“No thanks, Julie, I’ll just go write my exam that I haven’t studied for because I’m a little chicken baby,” you say, your voice dripping with unwarranted self-righteousness. “Suit yourself,” Julie says with a shrug, and disappears. You gather your things and leave for your exam. As you’re walking, Julie reappears beside you and walks with you. “Like, are you really really sure about this?” Are you really, really sure? If yes, continue reading (I would be remiss if I didn’t warn you that the story ends here if you stick with this choice. But you’ve made strange choices before, so…). If no, turn to “Julie” on page 23.

You remember the basics of some of the law and so you manage an LP. One day you are being considered for the Supreme Court of Canada, but the committee sees the LP on your transcript and doesn’t nominate you. Julie appears and just sort of gives you a look for a few seconds. Finally, she speaks: “Do you want to go back in time and take my offer?” Do you take her offer? If yes, turn to “Julie” on page 23. If no, you either don’t get this, or you’ve really hated this story so far. The End

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

November 29, 2017 | 17

Black at U of T Law RACHEL CHAN (2L) Just before Bay Street in-f irm interview week, in mid-November, the Globe and Mail published “Black on Bay” by Hadiya Roderique. This article explored the obstacles that women of colour face both in landing and working at a Bay Street f irm. The piece was shared widely among students and employers, and it sparked a dialogue about the ongoing challenges of inclusivity in the legal profession. Many students have expressed that the problem starts with admissions and the law school experience, long before anyone gets to Bay Street. David Rybak (2L), who met Hadiya through the First Generation Network, kindly put me in touch with her. We discussed some of the concerns addressed in her article as well as her experience at U of T Law. UV: Can you tell us about your experience at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law? Do you think the school contributed to, or was complicit in, the problem?

Hadiya Roderique: My experience at the law school was largely positive in terms of my class and my participation in the school’s social fabric. I and another person of colour, Khalid Janmohamed, were two of the most involved/visible people: we were the two elected f irst year SLS reps, President and VP of SLS the next year, orientation co-chairs, and the two DLS elected execs in our second year. I’d say the overemphasis on Bay Street as the option, however, was problematic and limiting, as people of colour are less likely to get those jobs, and a lot of resources at the school are poured into that pipeline. UV: What do you think can be done at the law school level to improve diversity in the legal profession? HR: Programs like LAWS are great, but I think the admissions process is a place where we can see improvement. Someone who has a 3.7 [GPA] and had their tuition

and living expenses paid for by their parents and had all sorts of fun résumé-boosting summer activities and jobs, in my opinion, had to work a lot less for that 3.7 than someone who got the same grades but had to work all throughout school and summers, and support and contribute to their family. To me, that person is the person who would have had a 4.0 if they had the life of the other individual, if they had an easier road. I had a conversation with the head of the Canadian Center for Diversity and Inclusion, who told me that if he, a white male, and I got to the same place, that I had to be more talented because I had to overcome way more to get there. I also think presenting law as a means to change and shape communities will help. People need to see themselves here, and see themselves afterwards—clearly see a path afterwards that aligns with their goals.

UV: There have been some reactions to the piece from progressives who think you've left something on the table. Do you think the difficult working conditions and economic model of the legal industry intersect with racial and gender dynamics? HR: This piece was a memoir, a recounting of my experience, and, as such, can only do so much. No piece can do and be all things, and someone will always think you could have explored something further or talked about something else. I think one of the reasons it has been successful in sparking dialogue is because it is that—a recounting. It’s hard to “argue” with someone’s actual experiences. As I learned, a lot of people don’t know or understand the experiences of people of colour. And I’m not done talking about these issues, and other pieces can and will address things left on the table!

Is Legal Professionalism a Gendered Construct? LILY CHAPNIK ROSENTHAL (1L) At the 1L Joint Professionalism Training, in September, a portion of the day was dedicated to speaking about what constitutes “professional conduct” in the legal profession. I could not believe my ears when a female member of the senior administration gave “leaving work to take care of your kids” as an example of unprofessional conduct. Characterizing childcare as “unprofessional conduct” disproportionately targets women. According to Statistics Canada, participation by mothers in childcare during the workday exceeds that of fathers in every age bracket. 68% of women engaged in childcare activities during the day when their youngest child was between f ive and twelve years old, as opposed to 51% of men in the same demographic.1 Therefore, it is warranted to explore the question, “How do traditional notions of ‘professionalism’ negatively affect women in the legal workplace?” Hours in the Off ice Law is a time-consuming profession. According to the Career Guidance Off ice at Yale Law School, the typical f irst-year as-

Professional Dress Codes sociate is expected to bill between 1,700 and 2,300 hours per year. 2 It is a universal truth, especially in “big law” settings, that the more billable hours one accrues, the more valuable they become to the f irm and the more likely they are to be promoted. Children, especially young children, have greater and more intensive needs. This can interfere with hours in the off ice and, as previously stated, women tend to bear the brunt of childcare responsibilities. Sandra Nishikawa, a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), asserted in an interview that, as a mother, “Sometimes, you need to say, ‘I need to leave to pick up my kids from daycare.’” 3 This can falsely signal to employers that women are not serious about their careers, while, conversely, “It seems to be more acceptable, even charming, when men do this.” This illustrates that, although women perform more childcare tasks, when men leave the off ice to perform the same tasks, they do not suffer the same unprofessional implications. Boardroom Conduct The f irst obstacle for women in boardroom-level positions is simply that too few

women reach this level. According to a 2017 report from the American Bar Association, although 45% of associates in private practice are women, women only make up 18% of both equity and other-level partners .4 LSUC’s Retention of Women in Private Practice working group found that women “have been leaving private practice in droves largely because the legal profession has not effectively adapted to [the] reality” of women balancing responsibilities at work and at home. 5 This means that many women leave the legal profession before their voices can be heard in a meaningful way. Even when women’s voices are heard, gender expectations often colour perceptions of women’s abilities. Our own Career Development Off ice (CDO) advised women to “try not to reduce” themselves in presentation-style settings while simultaneously advising men to “not overwhelm.” (This advice was provided in a PowerPoint on the CDO’s Resource Library.) 6 They also advised both men and women to adopt “power poses!” This implies that professionalism involves some variation of masculinity and that women should downplay feminine traits to succeed. This approach is not unique to law, but it demonstrates how masculine traits seem to be equated with success.

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2017001-eng.htm https://law.yale.edu/student-life/career-development/students/career-guides-advice/truth-about-billable-hour 3 http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/author/alexia-kapralos/battling-sexism-in-law-7298/ 4 https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/marketing/women/current_glance_statistics_january2017.authcheckdam.pdf 5 http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/convmay08_retention_of_women_executive_summary.pdf 6 This powerpoint can be found in the “Professional Development” folder, and is entitled “Advance your Legal Career 2016 - Essential Skills for Success Presentation.” 7 http://lawandstyle.ca/style/fashion-advice-for-young-lawyers/ 1 2

Men and women lawyers alike are expected to dress to impress. But what does this mean for women specif ically, when society expects women to be pretty but not too “sexy,” to have a body type that f its societal norms, and yet somehow show her personality through her style—all at the same time? In an article from Precedent, entitled “Fashion Advice for Young Lawyers,” Emma Williamson, an associate at Dentons Canada LLP, claims that a new recruit should wear “conservative pieces.” She asserts that for women, “to make daring fashion choices when you’re just starting out takes the focus off your talent as a lawyer.” 7 Conversely, Peter Sullivan, an associate at Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP, claims that, to look professional as a man, all that’s needed is “that you take care of yourself and walk into any client meeting with conf idence, looking like you’re ready to do business. This means being well kempt and well rested, with your shirt ironed and your shoes shined.” While the female associate focuses on “f itting in” as her end goal, the male associate prioritizes projecting conf idence. If this is a ref lection of the general culture surrounding dress at law f irms, then different messages may be sent to men and women concerning how they project their personality into the workplace. Considering that the f irst Canadian female lawyer only gained access to the Bar in 1897, it is remarkable how far women have advanced in the profession. However, dated conceptions of professionalism hold women back from their full potential.

OPINIONS

18 | November 29, 2017

ultravires.ca

How I Learned to Start Worrying and Love Hate Speech Laws ADIN WAGNER (2L) When my first year Constitutional Law class covered the right to freedom of expression, the hate speech laws under s. 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code gave me pause. The heated class discussion that followed our reading of the case law demonstrated the divisiveness of the issue. As I saw it, while s. 319 is intended to protect human rights and fight discrimination, it still represents government-sanctioned censorship. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the law represented an infringement on freedom of expression—albeit a justified one. My issue with the laws was simple. The phrase used in s. 319—“wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group”—is necessarily broad. That being the case, its enforcement is potentially subject to the whims of those in charge. As a Jew, whose grandparents survived the Holocaust, such power of censure coupled with discretion makes me incredibly nervous. Large-scale censorship was an integral part of the propaganda campaign launched by Joseph Goebbels and the Nazi Party in the lead up to, and during, World War II. Despite the drafters’ good intentions, I worried about how these hate speech laws would manifest themselves if co-opted by malevolent leadership. As we debated the merits of s. 319 in class, I argued that the value of protecting freedom of expression outweighs the short-term gains of limiting that right in order to combat discriminatory speech. We must protect ourselves from the ultimate evil rather than just the one directly facing us. I was wrong.

Nice Door

Recent political and cultural events have exposed the naiveté of my former opinion. NeoNazis and white supremacists marched in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, and swaths of demonstrators in Warsaw carried banners making their case for a “white Poland” on November 11, Poland’s Independence Day. Instead of dismissing these movements as fringe, we must recognize that hatred is present and people are working to normalize ideas of racial purity. It is also clear that America’s absolutist conceptualization of freedom of expression enables such groups in their goal. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) actually represented the organizer of the rally in Charlottesville, David Kessler, when he was in danger of having his permit revoked. David Cole, national legal director of the ACLU, defended the representation of Kessler, arguing that protecting any speech is imperative to “preserving these avenues for advancing justice and preserving democracy.” Cole opined that this is especially important in the era of President Donald Trump. But his position ignores a key question: how was Donald Trump elected in the first place? A convincing argument could be made that there would be no President Donald Trump if not for the proliferation and normalization of xenophobia. In his article, “The First White President,” Ta-Nehisi Coates argues that, based on Trump’s statements, policy, and rhetoric, Trump was elected president by way of his whiteness. Coates puts it frankly: “If you tallied the popular vote of only white America to derive 2016 electoral votes, Trump would have defeated Clinton 389 to 81, with the re-

maining 68 votes either a toss-up or unknown.” The issue is not Trump in and of himself, but rather that he tapped into the racial resentment that had been percolating long before he ran for office. Herein lies the reason for my change of heart: the Canadian hate speech laws are meant to curtail the very unrest that Donald Trump appropriated and exploited. The alt-right, the far-right movement at the heart of the rally in Charlottesville, has largely recruited through social media and online forums. In her viral Twitter thread from 2016, writer Siyanda Mohutsiwa outlined how white nationalist online groups find young white men and indoctrinate them by “radicalizing their sexual frustration into bigotry.” Mohutsiwa’s assertions are affirmed by the statistics: as of 2016, followers of white nationalism movements on Twitter have increased by about six hundred percent since 2012, according to a study from George Washington University. The study further found that these online movements were pointed and organized, as the activities were “primarily carried out by a highly interconnected network of users drawing on common themes.” In contrast, the Canadian hate speech laws have been used to limit the speech of Nazis online. Human rights lawyer Richard Warman infiltrated neo-Nazi forums and brought successful complaints under s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act against those posting hate propaganda online. These cases, however, were not without controversy, and s. 13 was later repealed after the legislature found it to be ineffective and overreaching.

What we are left with now is the criminal provision regulating hate speech. But many critics, including Warman and various liberal politicians, rebuke this provision for being toothless. Under the repealed s. 13, any citizen could file a human rights complaint, but criminal charges for hate speech require the Attorney General’s approval. Moreover, Warman argues that “there is an institutional reluctance to lay these charges.” There have recently been criminal hate speech charges laid against the pro-Nazi newspaper Your Ward News, but that was still only after a “years-long effort” by a human rights coalition urging that step to be taken. Perhaps in response to such criticisms, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that our hate speech laws are effective as symbolic touchstones of tolerance and multiculturalism. That may be the case, as white supremacists have certainly been less politically visible in Canada as compared to America. But the same fear that made me hesitant to initially embrace the hate speech laws now pushes me to argue for a more stringent application. In the past, I was able to dismiss anti-Semitic speech as less threatening than that of ultimate censorship. However, as xenophobia continues to infect the political and cultural discourse, it’s become clear that I had underestimated its effect. I am a Jew and there have been Nazis marching in the streets of the country bordering mine. It is no longer about principles, it is about pragmatics. Effectively applied hate speech legislation is the best path to stemming the tide of their bigotry.

(continued from “Julie” on page 23)

There’s something about those scratches on the other door that makes you nervous, so you decide to choose the pristine door. But even so, there’s something off about this door and you can’t quite put your finger on it. Is it somehow aggressively trying to tell you how nice it is? Like, if you didn’t choose it, maybe it would ask why people always choose the scratched door when they could be choosing such a nice door? No, doors are just doors, they don’t say things. So you approach the door. You put your nose to the gap between the jamb and the door and a soft breeze blows out, filling your nose with a scent you can’t quite place. You feel something come over you. You decide to just go for it. You grab the handle and you yank that door open. A wave of the mystery scent washes over you as you feel yourself being sucked through the doorway. But, oh god, recognition sets in and you start clawing at the frame, trying to prevent yourself from going in. Whoever is on the other side, you don’t want to meet them, because you know what that smell is, you’ve smelled it before. You’ve smelled it on Chad, your college floormate, who said he had that poster of two women kissing on his wall because it was art. You’ve smelled it on Derek, who was in your film class and had multiple tattoos of Fight Club quotes. Worst of all, you’ve smelled it on Gary, about whom the less said the better. You’ve never been so sure in your life. That smell is Axe body spray, and you are certain you’ve chosen the wrong door. But it’s too late. In spite of your herculean efforts to resist, you are sucked through the doorway and the door slams shut behind you. As you turn around and reach for the knob, the door vanishes, replaced by a door-sized version of that poster Chad had. You turn around and survey your surroundings. This place is dimly lit. You seem to be in an open space, something like the atrium of a building. In the distance you see the flickering of what seems to be a campfire. You can make out the shapes of people around it, but you’re not sure how many. You creep towards them, not wanting to to be noticed if you can help it. You can hear a man’s voice talking and the group around him giving short responses and cheers. As you approach, you start to make out the words: “And we’re forced to meet here in the middle of the night, because if any of those sheeple

knew we were having the inaugural meeting of U of T Law’s Men’s Rights Club, they would have a meltdown.” He pauses briefly for shouts of “Yeah!” and “You said it!” before continuing: “Because the rest of our class just can’t handle the truth. And the truth is that men these days, aren’t allowed to be men. To get a modern woman to love us now we have to what? Love romantic comedies? Have more than one pair of jeans? Be kind to people? My buddies, where do we draw the line?” You are so mesmerized by this torrent of nonsense that you stop paying attention to where you are walking and, with a loud crash, you knock over a garbage can. “Who’s there?” the leader demands. You desperately look around for somewhere to run, but there doesn’t seem to be any way out, so you approach the group. The first thing you notice is that it’s not a real campfire, just a video of one on someone’s iPad. The next thing you notice is all of these goateed, clean-cut, Axe body spray-wearing men are looking at you like you’re some sort of alien. You put on your deepest, gruffest voice and say: “Men. I’ve come to join you.” The leader approaches you now. He’s wearing a shirt with the words “This is what a Meninist looks like” on it. He is wearing khakis. “You?” he asks, looking shocked. “Yes,” you reply, “it’s just not right what’s happening to men these days.” He thinks for a second. Someone in the group shouts, “It’s a lie, Brett!” Brett speaks again, slowly, deliberately: “You say you’re here to join us. If that’s true, tell me, what’s your favourite movie?” He’s calling you out. You need to come up with an answer, and fast: If you say Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, turn to “DC Rules” at page 19. If you say any other movie at all, turn to “Make MRAs Mad” at page 11.

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

November 29, 2017 | 19

Reactions to “Black on Bay Street” RACHEL CHAN (2L), SOLOMON MCKENZIE (2L) & ANONYMOUS Rachel Chan (2L) Hadiya Roderique’s article sparked a dialogue about persistent racial inequality on Bay Street specif ically and the legal profession generally. The piece, published just before in-f irm week, was a manifestation of many thoughts and feelings that I, as a 2L woman of colour, have not always been able to put into words. Born and raised in Canada by immigrant parents, I feel like I can “f it” in relatively easily—but the question is how much of my culture I should (or can) bring to the table. My thoughts on this constantly shift, likely because of the duality of my identity. I recognize that I carry implicit biases, including the internalization of stereotypes about my own ethnicity and culture, that I have to actively recognize, address, and interrogate on a regular basis. Another part of this uncertainty is being unsure how much of that culture I can claim for myself in the f irst place. I cannot read or write in Chinese, my command of the spoken language is likely at a grade-school level, and my family in Hong Kong think I am too outspoken. At the same time, I grew up cooking traditional meals and going to dimsum with my family, as well as watching Chinese television. While I embrace this Chinese-Canadian identity, it is not without its challenges: it means that I often have to pick which sides of my identity I want to highlight. At other times, different parts trickle out beyond my control. For example, I was paired with an East Asian female associate host for one of my inf irms, which seemed presumptuous. “Of course,” said my gut reaction. (Some of my friends have had similar experiences: they disliked f irms pairing them with ethnic minority associates because they did not identify with that culture and saw the pairing as a ploy). But as the process went along, I was happy to be able to speak with someone with similar experiences and ask them frank questions about diversity. I made a point of doing this at most of my interviews, feeling emboldened by Hadiya’s piece. Throughout inf irms, it became apparent, particularly when scrolling through the list of partners, that people at these f irms did not often look like me. While I knew that going into the process, it is another thing to feel it. As a second generation Canadian at U of T Law, it is easy to start thinking that I do not face barriers. Sometimes I am hesitant to speak out about discrimination because of the opportunities and privilege I have been presented. The integration of Chinese immigrants into Canadian society has been hailed as a success, with this group often dubbed “model minorities.” But it is important to question these seemingly positive stereo-

types, which distort lived experience. Hadiya’s article and the in-f irm process was a reminder that there is still a lot of work to be done. Solomon McKenzie (2L) This article had signif icant impacts on my recruitment experience, but even more substantive impacts on my thinking about law school. I talked about race and diversity repeatedly during the recruit. Most of it was engaged by employers; some of it was very healthy and resulted in some really meaningful conversations. Employers who were able to discuss fallibility and issues in their workplaces as well as point to concrete steps being taken to address the issues with diversity and race were particularly impressive and appealing. However, I found that some folks used this as an opportunity to label the f irms named in the article as being the problem, which I found unconvincing. It could be exhausting having to continuously talk about racial identity and diversity—naturally fraught conversations. Having to manage that awkwardness during what is already a draining experience can be tiring. While I appreciated the opportunity to discuss these issues, on occasion I wish I could have just spent more time talking about my excitement for various courses or past work experience. However, I don’t think it’s suff icient to solely point f ingers at employers. Law schools are a gatekeeper to this profession. According to Faculty Council’s 2017–18 J.D. Admissions Report, there are currently three 1L students who identify as Black or Mixed-Race—roughly 1% of the student class.1 Toronto is a city where over half the population was born outside of Canada (51.2%) and is the f irst city in North America where a majority of its citizens are visible minorities (51.5% according to the City of Toronto). The 2011 Census found that 8.5% of Torontonians identify as Black. 2 Three Black or Mixed-Race students is a horrendous ref lection of the diversity of our city. This is not a hidden problem: amongst law students, it’s actively a joke, somewhat self-ref lective, that there are precious few Black (or other racialized) students here. The law school can’t meaningfully say it’s making commitments to diversity, Truth and Reconciliation, and equity in the legal profession if representation stays this low. I’m not trying to impute ill-will. I know there is a well-meaning purpose behind the school’s actions; there are attempts to complete outreach to underrepresented communities, and there are people in the administration, faculty, and beyond who are excited about and engaged in attempts to diversify the school. However, if the effects remain that our com-

munity is not representative, what we are doing is insuff icient, ineffective, and—ultimately—illusory.

not going far enough to question the underlying culture in the legal profession, with one student noticing that:

There is an element of this issue that is beyond the grasp of the school: there are inarguably larger sociological forces that hinder enrollment of a large number of racialized (and otherwise marginalized) students. But a meaningful commitment to these issues means doing something to proactively counteract these forces. Moreover, we need to engage in a much longer and more tangled conversation, one that transcends mere admission to U of T, about how to build a school that promotes the successes of racialized students. And this intersects with a huge knotty mess of factors (e.g., gender, accessibility, socio-economic status) that can bedevil attempts by racialized students to thrive at law school.

“[Hadiya] grouped her complaints all under not f itting in on Bay Street, but there were also complaints about her desire to lead a life outside of work, which is hard, if not impossible, to do. For example, she complained about a partner getting mad about her memo being late because she was off playing ultimate frisbee. Sure, it probably was a great memo, but if it's late then it's late, and she skipped work to go play ultimate. That's work-life balance that she didn't want to compromise (which, fair enough) and, regardless of how diverse your workplace is, it won't change the working hours. That part seems to say she wants more diversity on Bay Street in terms of work-life balance, which is unrelated to her blackness and law’s lack of diversity.”

Ultimately, I think savvy recruiters understand that Canada and Toronto are diverse and diversifying, and that we live in an increasingly interconnected world. Having a workforce that at least ref lects the make-up of your city is an invaluable resource that will pay dividends. I am very glad that this article forced recruiters to centre their efforts on proactively discussing issues of diversity. The employers who could show that they were trying to wrestle with this issue were immediately more appealing to me. I hope that this leads to more expansive efforts on the part of everyone involved. But I still think it necessary to emphasize that if the gatekeepers to the profession remains so stoically unrepresentative, it’s not surprising that the legal profession remains the same. Anonymous Hadiya’s article has received criticism for

Anonymous Another 2L who just went through the inf irm process shared a story that exemplif ies the need for continued improvement and discussion: “During an interview, a partner (a white man from an all-white f irm) made an alarming comment about Hadiya Roderique's article. I thought he was going to address the diversity issue at the f irm, but he seemed to be completely unaware that the article was about racism. He went on this weird rant, comparing Hadiya's experience to the pressure he feels to f it in—not wanting to wear suits or take on cases that conf lict with his political views. It was shocking that the whole point of the article went right over his head, and it was concerning that this might be a perspective many lawyers have.”

DC Rules (continued from “Nice Door” on page 18) Your mind is racing. What movie will appease them? Think! Just as Brett starts saying, “Get this garbage out of here,” and two shitty baby men grab you by the arms, it comes to you. You shout, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is the greatest film of all!” It works! They release you. “A true believer,” Brett says, and smiles. “Welcome to your new life.” You must now live life as a Men’s Rights Activist. Eventually you even grow fond of some of them. Brandon isn’t so bad, he just wants to belong somewhere. And Tim? You’re sure Tim doesn’t really believe the total trash he spews just to impress Brett. He feels trapped, like you. But a day comes, years and years down the line, when you know you have to put an end to it. You challenge Brett to the “Trials of Zack,” a stupid series of contests to determine the rightful leader of the group, and you defeat him. In your first act as leader, you disband the group and order each member to go have a conversation with a woman who is not their mother, and to maybe read a book or something. Your exam is long past, of course. Law school is a faint memory. You do not get an HH. But you tear down Chad’s poster and find a new door behind it. You open the door and step through. You find yourself standing in a sunny park. There are patches of snow on the ground, but the breeze feels warm, and there is a smell in the air of growth, of life. It’s a new day. The End

https://www.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/documents/2017-2018_admissions_report.pdf; The president of Osgoode’s Black Law Students Association has indicated that their membership is approximately 60–80 students. 2 Statistics from Toronto Diversity Facts. https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=dbe867b42d853410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD 1

20 | November 29, 2017

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

In response to “Stuck Inside Toronto with the Bay Street Blues Again” JENNIFER POWER (3L)* In the wake of its publication, I’ve watched as a few of my peers continued to share this article† on Facebook with captions ranging from “heartbreaking” to “ ” to “sad reality.” I wondered if those who posted were reading much more into the seemingly one-dimensional article that I had read. How did they parse through the whining to f ind something relatable and worthy of reposting? My f irst thought was that this article reeked of privilege; only those who have satisf ied the f irst four levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs could possibly f ind themselves in the position to be asking, “What do I want? Where do I really want to work?” I thought of the many Canadians who struggle to make ends meet, who choose jobs simply based on what will pay the bills, and how far removed they are from notions of being happy, engaged, and meaningfully employed. This article was a reminder of how privileged most Canadian law students truly are. I wondered why and how they could feel so entitled to one hundred percent job satisfaction right out of the gate. After some careful consideration, I realized that there is a lot more reading-between-the-lines that can be done if you can

get past the bellyaching. It is undeniable that law students are making career decisions based on fear instead of desire. I am still not convinced that this is such a horrible thing (fear can be a strong motivator) or something that is unique to law students. I do believe, however, that deconstructing where that internalized fear comes from is a much more worthwhile pursuit and could help to channel our efforts in a constructive direction. There are eighteen schools with common-law programs in Canada, and 163 students are admitted to each, on average, every year. This means that 2,934 new law grads are produced annually, all of whom need to secure articles if they wish to practice law. Law school tuition is at an all-time high and students are graduating with considerable amounts of debt (yes, you can be privileged and still carry debt). If a student does not secure articles with a f irm that is willing to cover Bar fees, these tack on an additional cost to that debt. Our market is becoming increasingly oversaturated and law schools are not paying attention or adjusting accordingly. How is it ethical of law schools to continue to increase their admissions numbers? How is it

ethical to charge so much for the LPP program? The Bay Street allure is not exclusive to Ontario law schools. Here at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, I’ve heard multiple references to Bay Street as if it’s Everest. We are told that only big f irms hire or attend OCIs, that you must identify other opportunities for yourself if you want to be hired outside of the process, and, further, that you will make comparatively less money by pursuing these other opportunities. Is anyone considering why mid-sized and small f irms feel excluded from the OCI process and campus activities? On the other hand, this problem goes far beyond provincial law society recruitment regulations. Perhaps a look into how small businesses and not-for-prof its are regulated in Canada could provide insight into why they cannot seem to afford to take on students or adequately compensate those they do. Being offered employment at any large full-service f irm in Canada seems to represent success and the validation of your worth as a burgeoning lawyer, while everywhere else sounds inferior. Nobody likes to feel inferior. There are some factors fuelling fear that

may be completely out of our control. For instance, law students may face cultural pressures where f irm name, practice area, and the associated status dictate how well your family thinks you’re doing and how much pride they feel. There are two ways that this seems to happen: (1) students grow up in a rich family and landing at a prestigious f irm is an expectation; or (2) students grow up in an immigrant family and if they don’t “succeed” they have insulted the “sacrif ice” that their family has made. How do we nurture a strong sense of self and individual conf idence in decision-making in law school? The answer isn’t to remit the problem back to second-year law students and have them confront it simply by resolving to be fearless and apply more broadly. If we believe that fear is causing us to work for employers that we don’t want to work for, then let’s spend our energy getting to the root of that fear and attempting to dismantle it. * Jennifer Power is a third-year student at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University. She reached out to us with this response after discussing one of our articles with some of her Dalhousie colleagues. † “Stuck Inside Toronto with the Bay Street Blues Again” appeared in the Features section of the October 2017 issue of this paper.

DIVERSIONS

Semi-Recurring Article by a Follies Writer: Confessions of a Research Assistant, Volume III CHARLIE MILLAR (3L), WHO WISHED TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS This is the third volume in an ongoing series revealing the reality of what it means to be a research assistant for University of Toronto legal academics.

proofed her work, while another had me hand-copy entire legal texts from the Osgoode Great Hall library because he “liked the colour of pen ink better” for reading.

To begin, I must apologize for the vitriolic tone of my last volume in this series of R A memoirs. While I stand by its accuracy, it is important that this work remain professional. Moving forward, I will strive to be as even-handed as appropriate.

During my time as a legal R A, I have performed all sorts of degrading tasks and only some of them have seemed semi-directly related to research. Unfortunately (as I came to learn), the more related to research a task appeared to be, the more I was doing something borderline evil.

As those who are following this series will recall, a research assistant is expected to complete all tasks that professors assign to them. While these tasks are restricted to only those that assist your professor with their research and writing, professors take great liberty in determining the scope of “assistive” tasks. For instance, one professor insisted that “assisting” her in research involved me painting her toenails while she

Take the following story for example. One summer, I was assigned a task by my overlord that seemed related to research— an instant red f lag. The task was to deliver an envelope to a “potential investor” down at City Hall. Seeking additional funding is related to future research, and delivering an envelope seemed less degrading than the

other tasks I have been assigned, so I was unaware of exactly what I was doing. In fact, I was happy to do this. I arrived at City Hall and found the off ice of this “potential investor.” The man was polite, had pictures of his family on his desk, and was quite happy to receive a letter of request from a prestigious University of Toronto law professor. However, when the man opened the letter, he read only a few lines before his face paled. His hands began to tremble and a look of fear spread across his face. He looked up at me and swallowed before saying: “Tell him I understand. I’ll do it.” Puzzled, I returned to my advisor to report what the investor had said as well as the curious reaction he had to the letter. My professor smiled and nodded at my news, but then cocked an eyebrow when I asked

him what was written. “Charlie,” he said, “I could tell you what was written on that little piece of paper you brought that good man, but once you know you can never then ‘unknow.’ Once you cross that line, son, you will walk with a little more weight on your shoulders knowing that you delivered that letter and all its contents to a good man. Do you want that?” I did not want that, and shook my head. My advisor nodded and turned back to his desk, “Wise choice, lad. Now, go to Goodman’s café and f ind out which muff in they are out of, then yell at them for no less than eight minutes for not having that muff in. After, go to the store and procure me the muff in they did not have at Goodman’s. Pray it’s a muff in I wish to eat, boy.”

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

November 29, 2017 | 21

Exchange Student Attends Class NICK PAPAGEORGE (3L) With November rolling around, the timing just felt right: I should try going to class. Like every exchange student, I had f led U of T Law to spend four months in a land of make-believe while many of my classmates back home writhed in Biz Org agony—and I had not been disappointed. There was whisky and highland cows and nary a commitment in sight! The beginning of my journey to class was inauspicious. The classroom building was hard to f ind. See, the university here didn’t seem to understand that a good law school must be housed in a conspicuously repellant building teetering near the edge of campus.

All I could f ind here were elegant old buildings of stone and beauty. One looked like it had a steeple on it. “That’s not it,” I thought. “Churches can’t be accredited law schools.” I think I heard something like that in admin law once. Eventually I stumbled upon a singularly ugly building on the edge of campus. “Ah, now this is more like it,” I murmured to myself, feeling more at home. That comfort quickly dissipated. I was bemused to f ind myself amongst a bunch of undergrads. Maybe I hadn’t found the right room after all. Then I remembered I was, in

fact, back in undergrad. The horror I felt at being surrounded by a bunch of people who still had ideals and stuff is indescribable. Then the prof came to the lectern and said something about EU law and I blacked out. When I came to, she was talking about an assignment. Two thousand words? That’s such a poor use of my time, it’s beneath me. You can’t say anything profound in two thousand words; our Supreme Court can’t even introduce a plaintiff in less than two thousand words.

And then I heard there would be an exam—surely the sort of formality I had gone on exchange to avoid—and that it was closed book. Travesty! I would be forced to memorize case names containing silliness like “Lord Advocate” and “Dimbleby” and “Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jonge Volswassenen Plus” (that’s a real thing). This suggestion of schoolwork had me ready to storm out indignantly. Then I got an email from Sara Faherty, and another from the CDO, and I realized that life could always be much, much worse. I wondered if maybe the school here would let me stay for a couple more months. Just long enough to come to class again.

Bribes for a Positive Recruitment Blurb NORM YALLEN (2L) Here at UV, we sometimes run critical comments about certain law firms in our recruitment special. In Diversions, however, we focus on positivity and transparency. With that spirit in mind, I wanted to let firms know what bribes I would prefer and what comments they will receive in exchange—or, as they say in conspiracy cases, the quid pro quo.

Big Mac “Bribe LLP seemed fine at the time. Not the greatest firm I’ve ever had, but I definitely felt full after. Until a bit later, when I felt kind of unwell and I realized it was probably because of my experience at Bribe LLP. With that being said, I would go again if there were no other good options.” If you want a better review, buy me a better burger.

Signed copy of that famous case (you know the one I mean) “Bribe LLP showed me what it means to really practice the profession of law. All the other firms wear their robes and powdered wigs, but this firm is the one that stands head and shoulders above the rest as true barristers and solicitors. They cut me very quickly when I mixed up what barristers and solicitors do. Oh well, next time. Just having the experience of rubbing shoulders with these advocates was more than enough to satisfy.”

An unused HH exam answer for Business Organizations or Canadian Income Tax Law “This firm gave me a real roadmap for success. My meetings with them really gave me the answers to do well on the exam after not going to class or doing the readings really gave me the answers I needed to start an exciting legal career in a fastpaced office full of supportive colleagues. Unfortunately, that won’t be with Bribe LLP after I was an hour late to my final interview.”

A course credit for that new intercession thing “When the managing partner looked into my eyes, I knew this firm was the one. This firm is the only one with a strong mentorship program and an emphasis on professional development. For example, after the managing partner and I locked eyes, he said, ‘If you don’t leave, I’m going to have to call security,’ which taught me that trespassing is not good for my legal career.”

A summer job You can just write whatever you want for this one.

HH Island (continued from “Brains Not Brawn” on page 2) “An issue on an exam!” you shout with glee. Buster smiles. He runs toward you and hugs you. He is tamed. Julie approaches you, her eyes glistening, holding back tears. She places a hand on your shoulder. “I knew you could do it. My job here is done. Goodbye, my friend.” With that, she disappears in a cloud of smoke, leaving only a faint whiff of her strange smell that you’ve grown slightly fond of. You wipe the tears from your eyes and Buster motions to you that it’s time to go. You climb onto his back and he flies you across the sea. You land on HH island. It is full of books. There is a small stool with a phone on it. “This is HH island,” Buster says. “Time does not flow here. You have as long as you need to read these books until you know everything you need to know for your exam. You can use that phone to call any member of the Supreme Court, living or dead, and ask them about the law. Just let me know when you’re ready, and I will take you back to Toronto at the exact time you left. Then you can write your exams and get the HHs you deserve.” “What about the UrMap?” you ask. “Isn’t that supposed to have all the answers?” Buster looks at you with a warm smile. “Don’t you see? The UrMap is your brain. It always has been.” “You’ve gotta be fucking kidding me,” you think to yourself. The way you see it, you have two choices: Study on HH Island for as long as is necessary to learn everything you need to know OR Study on HH Island for max a couple hours and then just hope for the best. The choice is obvious. The End

DIVERSIONS

22 | November 29, 2017

ultravires.ca

Legal Locutions to Class Up Your Exam Writing HONGHU WANG (1L), WITH TRANSLATIONS BY THE UV EDITORIAL BOARD Whereas the writers for Ultra Vires desire to help students complete their examinations with a style and verve which might showcase their most fulsome potential; and Whereas the writers draw inspiration from cases past; Therefore we present a brief guide containing phrases that you can drop on your way to an HHH, with translations provided for those who have not attended a British boarding school.

Now the boot is on the other foot. (Your foot is going to hurt because boots are cut for specif ic feet.)

Ex post facto (She was your post facto until she and your ipso split up.)

Liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class. (You’re going to lose your shirt.)

That is a distinction without a difference. (The heaviest academic shade you can throw against a nitpicking argument.)

Straws in the wind.

Carry the day. (Sweeeeeeeeeet, sweet victoryyyy, ya.)

Viz (Lookit that.)

Intimated (Getting your point across without really “going there,” not to be mistaken for intimidated.)

A priori knowledge. (You knew what you were getting into.)

It doesn't lie in your mouth to say… (Shut up and let me talk...) My learned brother. (This asshole over here.) With respect. (Fuck you.) ..., without more, ... (This argument should not have been advanced.) Shocks the conscience of the court. (Wash your hands—they’re dirty.) Inter alia (A subgenre of Tropicália, the 1960s Brazilian art movement.) Ex ante (She was your aunt until she and your uncle split up.)

(I’m so busy and important that I can’t even be bothered to write out “etc.”)

This party is now trying to have his cake and eat it too. (Nobody came to my birthday.) Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Throw them out separately.) While the ship of state now sails on larger ventures and into foreign waters she still retains the watertight compartments which are an essential part of her original structure. (Antonin Scalia was right.) Our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life. (We’re really just making this up as we go along.) The length of the Chancellor’s foot. (As opposed to the length of his [redacted].) Enter contracts with eyes wide open. (Always drop acid before any big negotiation.)

(I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on f ire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.) Donning the cloak of a soothsayer to plumb the intent of the legislature. (Who the hell knows what those commoners are really thinking.) Sounding like Molly Bloom's eulogy in the f inal chapter of Ulysses. (I am very smart and I have def initely read all of Ulysses.) Do indirectly what you can't do directly. (How I got my Panamanian pass-through corporation set up.) What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. (Translation lost to the ages. What kind of weirdo feeds sauce to geese?) In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. (It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of good fortune, must be in want of a cricket game.)

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

November 29, 2017 | 23

Trust No One: A List of Suspects LILY HASSALL (2L) & MAUD ROZEE (3L) A priceless/price-unknown piece of art that was bolted to the wall goes missing from the Jackman Law Library? The thief takes the only exit not monitored by security cameras? And campus police are left with not a whiff of a lead on the culprit? Open your eyes sheeple: the Jackman Heist was an inside job. We interviewed everyone within a hundred miles of the scene, reviewed the security footage dozens of times, and did a dramatic reconstruction of the event to get insight into the timing, execution, and psychological profile behind this heinous crime. After careful consideration, Ultra Vires has narrowed down its list of suspects to the following members of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law community:

Professor Jim Phillips

Professor Anthony Niblett

Professor Malcolm Thorburn

Dean Iacobucci

Motive: Believes all private property is theft anyway. Circumstantial evidence: Dresses like a cat burglar every day of the week.

2 Any law student Motive: Crushing debt.

Motive: Wants to earn the nickname “Blue Blood Bad Boy.”

4 The Law Librarians

Motive: Developed a burning hatred of the art in the library after staring at it from behind the circulation desk for too long.

The Ghost of Bora Laskin

Opportunity: Prime.

Julie

Motive: Can’t be bothered to think up new fact patterns or exam questions so is trying to manifest them in his day-to-day life.

Motive: Accidentally spent the entire $300 financial aid budget and needs to come up with some cold hard cash. Opportunity: Is also incorporeal and likely all-powerful.

Motive: Innate love of mischief. Opportunity: Is incorporeal and likely all-powerful.

(continued from “Part One” on page 1)

Julie seems to have read your mind, because all of a sudden you are swept up in a tornado of colours and shapes and sounds. You see stars, you hear birds; for a second there’s an orangutan floating beside you, but it doesn’t seem super friendly. Amid the din, Julie’s voice emerges, each word elongated as if she’s shouting from a great distance. “Whatever you do, don’t think or say the word ‘pots’ backwards until I tell you!” she shouts. “Pots backwards?” you think. Why would you ever think or say that? “Why would I say or think that?” you ask. You’re starting to feel a bit of motion sickness. You shout to Julie, “By the way, is there any way to stop this?” “You iiiiiiddddiiiioooootttttttttttt!!” you hear her yell. All the shapes and sounds and colours disappear like someone turned off a switch, and you notice that you seem to be slowing down. You come to a total stop and you are hovering in a complete void. “Julie?” you whisper into the void. But you receive no response. Abruptly, you start plummeting. At least, you think you’re plummeting, it’s impossible to tell in this expanse of lightless nothingness. In the distance you see something: a speck of light racing toward you, or you toward it. As it grows larger you see that it’s what looks like a room without a ceiling. You close your eyes and brace for impact, but all you feel is a slight whoosh.

You open your eyes. You’re standing in the room. It’s a very splendid room. There is wood paneling around the bottom halves of the walls and the upper halves are painted a majestic burgundy. And the light fixtures! Oh boy, they are just marvelous, ornate pieces that cast a very friendly glow throughout the room. I’m sure you are picturing them perfectly and there’s no need for more specific description. There are two heavy wood doors on opposite walls. You are just about to investigate them when it hits you. “Ohhh, ‘pots’ backwards is stop!” you say to yourself. “Oops.” Now you investigate the doors. They are the same basic door, but one has a number of scratches on the lower half and— is that blood? You can’t tell, but it could be blood. You have no idea what could have caused the scratches. The other door is almost too pristine, like it’s overcompensating for something. You delicately try the handle of each door and they are both unlocked. You have no idea what’s on the other side of these doors, but you just naturally assume that this is a sort of Narnia situation and that they lead to some completely different place. You have to make a choice. If you choose the door with scratches on it, turn to “Scratched Door” on page 3. If you choose the door that seems to really want you to think it’s a nice door, turn to “Nice Door” on page 18.

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