FEBRUARY 28, 2018 | ULTRAVIRES.CA
THE INDEPENDENT STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW
James Schneider: The More We Learn, The Less We Know MAUD ROZEE (3L) I am twenty minutes into my interview with James Elliot Tiberius Schneider before he will speak to me on the record. “May I write that you are obsessed with keeping things of f the record?” I ask. “Put that in. It’s honest,” James replies.
same questions. “He wears boat shoes without socks in freezing weather,” close friend Zachary Parrott reveals to me. “He loves to wear clothes that are wildly inappropriate for the weather,” Brendan Bohn conf irms.
On the morning of our interview, James shows up late. He is tall and slender, with boyish good looks. His green-brown eyes are twinkling with mischief as he slides into the seat across from me. He is wearing a hoodie over a t-shirt, with grey shorts and sandals. It’s the middle of February and probably 4° outside.
James tells me that his 2018 is all about training —he has qualif ied to compete in the Boston Marathon in April, even though it’s the day before his Admin exam. “I’m going quick… Real quick. I don’t want to put a number on the record in case I don’t meet it. I don’t want people to be disappointed.” Sports and athleticism are incredibly important to James: he loves to climb, hike, cycle, mountaineer, and especially to run long distances. “Tell people to check me out on Strava!” he says, before telling me that his dream is to become a better mountaineer so that he can climb Mount Logan. “But
Right away, I am intrigued. Why wouldn’t this man wear pants to an interview for a prof ile in the law school newspaper? Why would he force everyone to look at his bare toes when it’s actually really cold outside? Further research reveals that others have the
Continues on page 5
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE SUMMER 2018 RECRUITMENT
1L CLASS FIRES BACK
PAGE 19
PAGE 12
INDEFINITE SEGREGATION UNCONSTITUTIONAL PAGE 6
NEWS
2 | February 28, 2018
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 Copy Editor 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.
Faculty Council Did Not Meet Quorum HONGHU WANG (1L)
“The Partner Intensive Program at Torkin Manes is a truly incomparable experience. I was mentored and encouraged to grow as a young lawyer. The work I did mattered.” Noorin Manji - 2017 Associate - 2016/2017 Articling Student
Partner Intensive Program Mentoring Program Hands-on Experience Supportive Work Environment
HEALTH LAW CHARITIES
•
•
•
BUSINESS LAW
INSURANCE DEFENCE
•
•
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
•
CONSTRUCTION
LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT • LITIGATION
PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE & LIABILITY
•
TAX
•
•
•
CORPORATE FINANCE
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
TECHNOLOGY, PRIVACY & DATA MANAGEMENT
• •
•
Chair’s Update
TRUSTS & ESTATES
The GLSA is organizing a games night, escape room, and tour of the Art Gallery of Ontario. GLSA President Haim Abraham also welcomed the new funding initiative for international SJD students. Sessional Dates & Gender, Accessibility, and Diversity
The Dean also praised Law Follies for being funny in its own right, and funny in an inside-joke kind of way. He especially found the Court Reporter video amusing.
Career Development Off ice
SLS President Katie Longo spoke to the success of the Candy Grams initiative for Valentine’s Day, with all proceeds going to Red Door, a family shelter charity.
FAMILY LAW
President Longo also promised to move away from a f irst-past-the-post to a rankedballot voting system for SLS elections next year. The SLS is also working on an event in response to the recent Gerald Stanley decision.
International SJD tuition in the new school year will be the same as domestic SJD tuition. This is part of a larger effort by the University to increase funding for international Ph.D. students in exchange for allocating some spots reserved for domestic students to international students. The law school was not bound by the University decision but still followed its lead. Dean Iacobucci acknowledged that it would come at a cost, but aff irmed that it was “the right direction to move in.” The Dean was pleasantly surprised by the “rapturous” response to the recent decision by the University and the Faculty of Law.
SLS and GLSA Update
TO R K I N M A N E S L L P www.torkinmanes.com/students
BANKING & INSOLVENCY
On February 14, Faculty Council met and food was plentiful—because quorum was not met. Quorum is thirty-seven voting members, and only about twenty members were present. SLS President Katie Longo noticed the shortfall in attendees. Consequently, no motions could be passed. However, the members present did take this opportunity to speak to the agenda items provisionally.
The theme for this year’s law ball will be “Carbolic Smoke Ball.” The SLS is still brainstorming ideas, but perhaps expect smoke and mirrors, old-timey advertisements, and lots of silver balls.
The proposed sessional dates were released and provisionally passed. Both terms will have twelve weeks of class (thirteen for f irst-year students), which f ixes the asymmetry found in this year’s calendar. Assistant Dean Alexis Archbold promised that the Gender, Accessibility, and Diversity survey results would soon be released. She forewarned that there was a low response rate to the survey, so results may not be representative.
Director Jordana Laporte of the Career Development Off ice (CDO) welcomed two new staff members, Karen Williamson and Waleska Vernon, who joined the off ice earlier this year. The CDO also organized a Public Interest Day with the Ministry of the Attorney General and Osgoode Hall that took place on February 16. Ms. Laporte reported that there was a 12% increase in positions secured by U of T students during the off icial 2L Recruit versus the previous year (in line with f igures reported by Ultra Vires in November).
ultravires.ca
NEWS
February 28, 2018 | 3
Law Follies Recap DARYNA KUTSYNA (2L) On February 8, hundreds of students and a handful of professors trekked out to the Opera House on Queen East in anticipation of the annual Law Follies. The night featured three hours of comedy sketches exploring the hopes, dreams, and worst fears of law students, complete with an afterparty raging on until the early hours of the morning. Like any good show, the Follies started with a few commercials that encouraged keen 1Ls to buy HHighly necessary items like the highlight roller (useful for dipping in yellow paint for when you need to highlight every single word of your readings on offer and acceptance) and the Learned Hand™ for when the Prof is not keen on letting you answer the fourth question in a row. The series of sketches then proceeded to highlight and poke fun at every aspect of law student life, from the irritation at the most innocuous of library noises when you’re cramming for a paper to the ever-present grade stress (hello, HH Hammers)! Between the short, pointed sketches and the beers at intermission, the night flew by. The highlight of Follies, however, was the Faculty cameos. Professors Jim Phillips, Martha Shaffer, and Abraham Drassinower starred in a student-written sketch interrogating a student on whether he should go to law heaven or hell. Professor Shaffer’s quip about using a 1L research position to buff up one’s résumé for a future of selling out to corporate law firms undoubtedly resonated with many 2Ls coming out of the OCI process and many 1Ls that have yet to dive into it. In his usual fashion, Professor Phillips went off-script to wish a happy birthday to one of the students in the audience. Although other professors did not participate in the sketches, the reel of Faculty members reading mean Twitter comments supposedly made about them by their students highlighted some of the quirks for which we love our profs most.
"LOOK WHAT YOU MADE DEAN DO"
The corporate recruitment process was, of course, a heavy presence throughout the evening. From good (and not-so-good) natured jokes about the sponsor, Borden Ladner Gervais to a hilariously crafty remaking of Dua Lipa’s “New Rules” into a guideline for infirm week, student hopes and fears about securing gainful employment made for easy comedy. Most of all, Follies showcased the strong camaraderie that exists among the students despite the pressure and stress. Between the slideshow of 3L exchange photos (fellow 1Ls, only two years til we’re there!) to lighthearted barbs directed at those students most involved in the social life of the Faculty, Follies was a fun and unifying night in a semester gravid with deadlines and recruitment stress. The cast and crew worked tirelessly for several months to put on an incredible show, and to remind students in the audience to not take themselves and law school life too seriously. If you did not make it out this time around, make sure to carve out the time to go next year—the sacrificed study time and (generously sponsored) ticket price are more than worth it. PROFESSORS DRASSINOWER, SCHAFFER, AND PHILLIPS; ERIC PATENAUDE (3L) AS THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
NEWS
4 | February 28, 2018
ultravires.ca
Bathroom Camera Hidden In Garbage Can, No Footage Recovered by Police MAUD ROZEE (3L)
On February 1, 2018, Toronto Police Service officers recovered a hidden camera from one of the single-stall accessible bathrooms in Bora Laskin Law Library. According to Detective Madiol from the Toronto Police Service’s 52 Division, the camera was hidden in a garbage container with a hole drilled into it. The camera was not operating when police recovered it, and officers did not find footage on the device. Det. Madiol’s understanding was that a student noticed the camera and called it in. He further speculated that, because of where it was found, the device “was pointed towards the toilet and probably would’ve just captured where people were sitting” rather than faces. He did not know whether the device was using local storage or sending data over the Internet. Police also found no clues about how long it had been there. The camera has been submitted to a police forensics team, but it is unlikely that fingerprints or footage can be recovered at this point. Detective Madiol referred to the voyeurism pro-
visions of Criminal Code as a potential charge for the person who placed the camera. Assistant Dean Alexis Archbold notified students via email on February 20 that, “Unfortunately the camera cannot be traced to a suspect, and the matter is now closed with the Toronto Police Service.” Officer de Kloet of the Toronto Police Service’s Corporate Communications Division confirmed that police were no longer searching for a suspect, although the case remains open (in that if additional evidence is discovered, it will be investigated further). Det. Madiol said that there was nothing the Toronto Police Service could do to prevent a similar incident happening in the future: “You can have increased patrols but there’s no real security cameras inside the [ Jackman Law] building that would capture someone doing this sort of thing.” He added that similar incidents happen occasionally in office buildings around downtown Toronto. “Be aware of your surroundings,” Det. Madiol advised.
FEATURES
In Vino Veritas TOM COLLINS (1L) Did you have a good Reading Week? I hope so. But I suspect you will agree with me when I say that Reading Week is never as relaxing as it is supposed to be. I tell myself that I’m going sleep more than six hours a night. I tell myself that I am going to read ahead. Maybe I’ll even watch a movie in bed! Of course, none of that ever happens. By the end of Reading Week, I’m ready to take another break. A real break… I dream of crisp, white linen sheets and an airy duvet that wraps around me like a cocoon. I dream of getting a foot massage while I eat fresh Alphonso mango and rewatch Arrested Development for the hundredth time. And, of course, I dream of wine… Laid out like that, my dreams don’t seem so out of reach. Surely, no one would judge me too harshly if I hauled my duvet into school. And even if they did, who cares? I’ve got a bottle of wine. Bottoms up, in Bora Laskin Library! I admit it: I’m fooling around. But I do think that I’m onto something with the wine. If you’re feeling worn out and it’s only the beginning of the week, open a bottle. If
you’re missing someone, open a bottle. If you just need something to take the edge off, open a bottle. You know that we at In Vino Veritas will be. Below are some of our favourite comfort wines to cuddle up to. Danica Reading Week is over. Maybe you were away on vacation or maybe you spent the week catching up on sleep. Either way, we’re back, and now is the time you’re probably looking for a nice, easy-drinking bottle of wine to take the edge off as reality sinks in. My recommendation for such an occasion is the Beronia Rioja Tempranillo. At $13.90, this is a good value Tempranillo. It’s medium bodied, f lavourful, and also quite versatile. I found it good on its own, but it also paired nicely with red meat. What I like about this wine is that it’s fairly light but still has the typical spiciness that young Tempranillos are known for. Overall, this Tempranillo is great for those on a budget and looking for a lighter red wine that’s still f lavourful. I recommend enjoying a glass while curled up on a couch, watching Netf lix, and ignoring your responsibilities.
Tom Being cosy is one of my favourite things in life. So, it might surprise you when I say that I don’t immediately go to traditionally “cosy” and “warm” wines like Merlot. There’s just something about a chilled, taut white that lets me know everything is going to be okay. Perhaps it’s not the wine itself, but its effect. The cool temperature and refreshing palate remind me of winter and make my wool Afghan seem quite compelling. A current favourite of mine is La Guardiense’s Janare Sannio Fiano 2016 ($16.95). This dry Southern Italian white has an invigorating acidity which gives way to f lavours of young pineapple and d’Anjou pear. The f inish is long and has a cleansing minerality to it. Drink this wine on its own, or pair it with buttered popcorn and a night at the Oscars. Sarah Sandbanks Sleeping Giant Foch-Baco Noir is my current go-to comfort wine. It’s a full-bodied, ruby-red VQA wine—very smooth, with no tannins. It also has the
barest hint of an effervescence, which, strangely, works for the wine. The palate is fruity but f irm. It has a deep plum taste and a soft, silken f inish that is almost like sweet vanilla. $19.95 at the LCBO. Jason With my selection, I haven’t so much gone for a quiet night in as I have for a tropical escape. Moulin Touchais Coteaux du Layon 1994 is older than many of our 1Ls, and it has a deep, golden hue to prove it. Apparently, 1994 was an unimpressive year for this Loire Valley Chenin blanc; it is the cheapest pre-2000 vintage at the LCBO. Admittedly, it costs $44.00, but I assure you that it is worth every penny. Uncork this wine and take in the unique aromatic blend of fresh rubber tyres, bananas, and overripe pineapple. Then dive into a pool of fruit juices: peaches, grapefruit, and even papaya make up this wine’s captivating, if unbalanced, palate. This is a very sweet wine that stands in joyous contrast to Tom’s almost austere Fiano. Even the f inish dances on the tongue with notes of honeysuckle. Pair it with brioche, stone-fruit jellies, and a sense of humour.
ultravires.ca
FEATURES
February 28, 2018 | 5
James Schneider: The More We Learn, The Less We Know (Continued) that won’t be for a long time. Maybe like f ive years… And then, last night, I had this dream that part of my leg came of f. But that’s not a dream like something I want to do, it’s just a dream like something that happened when I was asleep.” Most of us know James as a Social Affairs Committee Co-Chair on the Students’ Law Society. “I ran unopposed,” he tells me. “I wasn’t even acclaimed, I was just there. I feel I owe nothing to any students at this school. I’m interested in the 1Ls though. I mean, I don’t care. But I do care.” James was also the architect behind this year’s wildly successful OCIthemed haunted house [Editor’s Note: Maud Rozee was involved in the haunted house as the spooky werewolf recruiter.] “Was making this haunted house a cathartic experience for you?” I ask. James gives a coy look. “Maybe there was a deeper meaning,” he says. As I speak to James, a pattern emerges. He is evasive, answering questions by asking me what I think he should say, or telling me the real answer but insisting I keep it of f the record. He def lects serious questions with humour, keeping his inner thoughts unknown. “It’s like ‘Who is he? Is he vain or is he not?’ Even the fact that I pose the question is kind of interesting. Like, who would say that?” James says. I comment that there is an interesting duality between his vanity and self-deprecation, and between his humourous exterior and his deeper self. “That’s really powerful stuf f,” says James, laughing nervously. He sips on his plain Earl Grey tea—the simplicity of the drink contrasting with his complex and mysterious spirit. Eventually, of course, I have to mention the elephant in the room. When I ask about rumours of a potential Valedictorian campaign, James acts surprised. “Oh wow,” he says. He tells me the truth, of f the record. “Write that I gave another coy look,” he instructs me. “And tell people to vote for me because it would be funny. But don’t really vote for me. But it would be funny. But I don’t actually want to do it.” James is a man of eclectic tastes. “His favourite song is ‘Boys of Summer’ by Don Henley, which is honestly an insane favourite song to have as like a twentyf ive-year-old in 2018. I also randomly asked him about another Don Henley song (‘The End of the Innocence’) and he seemed more familiar with it than a normal person should be. He said that it was a good political song that called out George Bush Sr. He's very clearly wellversed in Don Henley's discography,” Zach tells me.
This enthusiasm is classic James. “One time I ran into him at the Distillery District, totally unplanned, and he got so excited that I think he spilled his drink all over his mittens and shoes,” Zach continues. Still, his deepest love—for adventure—he takes completely seriously. “There’s nothing funny about rock climbing,” James insists. “You’re taking on nature. You’re making love to a mountain. It’s… incredible.” Overall, James reveals very little of his innermost thoughts. When I ask him how old he is, he spends about f ive minutes trying to decide what he will tell me. “Write down ‘probably twenty-six’... On the record, it’s twenty-six.” “He told me to say he’s a creature very much in f lux,” says close friend Amani Rauf f. I can’t help but ask James why he wanted this prof ile. “Maybe I wanted people to know who I am…” James muses. “And I thought it would be funny.” “Will people know who you are though?” I ask. “No,” says James with a wink. “They won’t know anything!”
FEATURES
6 | February 28, 2018
ultravires.ca
Courts in BC and Ontario Find CSC’s Administrative Segregation Framework Unconstitutional, Severely Lacking in Procedural Protections AMANI RAUFF (3L) In December 2017 and January 2018, trial courts in Ontario and British Columbia declared legislative provisions authorizing prolonged solitary confinement (officially termed “administrative segregation”) unconstitutional. Justice Marrocco, for the Ontario Superior Court, found that the appropriate remedy was to declare that sections 31–37 of the Act did not authorize administrative segregation after the fifth working day, as the Act did not provide sufficient procedural protections to guard inmates’ section 7 rights. Justice Leask, for the Supreme Court of British Columbia, found violations of both section 7 and section 15 of the Charter. He declared that the impugned provisions were invalid under section 7 to the extent that they: authorized and effected prolonged, indefinite administrative segregation; authorized the institutional head of a prison to be the judge and prosecutor of his own cause; authorized internal review; and deprived inmates’ right to counsel at segregation hearings and reviews. He declared that they were invalid under section 15 to the extent that they authorized any period of administrative segregation for the mentally ill/disabled, or authorized a procedure that resulted in discrimination against Aboriginal inmates. A number of high-profile cases brought the issue of prolonged solitary confinement into the public eye in recent years. In 2007, Ashley Smith died in a segregation cell after spending more than a year in uninterrupted solitary confinement in federal institutions. Despite her documented troubled past in the juvenile system, the federal system failed to provide her with a comprehensive mental health assessment or treatment plan. Rather, she was placed in administrative segregation immediately upon entering the federal system and kept there indefinitely. Her segregation status was not reviewed, as required by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, because her segregation status was erroneously lifted every time she was physically moved from one federal facility to another, or temporarily admitted to a psychiatric facility. In a report, the Office of the Correctional Investigator pointed to abuse of administrative segregation as contributing to Ashley Smith’s death. Administrative Segregation The Act provides for two types of segregation: administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation. Disciplinary segregation is punitive: it follows a disciplinary proceeding for a serious offence, but it comes with greater procedural protections. It is limited to thirty days for a single offence or fortyfive days for multiple offences. Administrative segregation is not punitive but is not subject to a cap and did not—until now—attract the same proce-
dural safeguards as disciplinary segregation. Justice Leask referred to a 2014–15 report by the Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI), which stated that that the administrative segregation framework was “used as a punitive measure to circumvent the more onerous due process requirements of the disciplinary segregation system.” International Norms Both decisions referenced the Mandela Rules— the most recent version of the United Nations’ Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. The Mandela Rules prohibit both indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement, defining solitary confinement as confinement for twenty-two hours or more a day, and prolonged solitary confinement as that in excess of fifteen consecutive days. Justice Leask found that this was a generous but defensible standard. Findings on Effects of Solitary Conf inement Both judges—but especially Justice Leask—made a number of findings about the adverse effects of solitary confinement. Both found that solitary confinement can alter brain activity, with the harmful effects of sensory deprivation caused by such confinement appearing as early as forty-eight hours into segregation. Justice Leask found that administrative segregation placed inmates at significant risk of psychological harm and increased incidences of self-harm and suicide (specific harms included anxiety, withdrawal, hypersensitivity, cognitive dysfunction, hallucinations, rage, paranoia, self-mutilation, and suicidal thoughts and behaviour). Justice Leask found that many inmates were likely to be permanently harmed by the confinement, although the most acute symptoms are likely to be reduced upon removal from segregation. As a result of these problems, he held that the provisions engaged inmates’ section 7 rights to life, liberty, and security of the person. Justice Leask noted a number of times that the indeterminacy of administrative segregation placements added to the pain, frustration, and depression that accompanied those placements. Expert witness Dr. Haney explained: “[p]risoner after prisoner subjected to this pernicious form of segregation has told me that the fact that they have no way of knowing when their suffering will end, and no way of hastening its end, leads to anger and to a deep sense of helplessness.” Procedural Fairness The principles of fundamental justice include a guarantee of procedural fairness. Much of the On-
tario decision focussed on the serious lack of procedural fairness, especially the right to an impartial decision-maker, in reviewing a decision to segregate. The existing statutory regime was found to “permit […] the warden to quite literally be the judge in his or her own cause with respect to placement decisions.” This is because the Institutional Head would make the decision to place someone in segregation, and although the Act calls for a review within five working days of that decision, the Institutional Head would decide the membership of the reviewing board, which would then make its recommendation to the Institutional Head. There is no independent review mechanism whatsoever, despite many previous calls for independent adjudication (both in reports and in the Mandela Rules). Justice Marrocco called this obvious conflict “an anomaly even within the context of penitentiary decision making.” BC Court Goes Further Both decisions declared the requirement for an independent review of the decision to segregate, but parted ways on what constitutes such a review. Justice Marrocco rejected the suggestion that an independent review could not be conducted by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). He found that a review could be independent and impartial as long as the reviewer was not chosen or influenced by, and did not report to, the person whose decision is being reviewed, and if the reviewer is able to substitute its decision for the decision under review. Justice Leask disagreed, holding that the evidence led in the case had demonstrated CSC’s inability to fairly review segregation decisions. He held that the party undertaking the independent review must also be independent of the CSC. He noted that core principles of fundamental justice require “that the rule of law must prevail inside Canadian penitentiaries, and that justice must be an essential condition of corrections.” Breach of Section 15 While the Ontario decision’s analysis was limited to section 7, the British Columbia decision further considered section 15. Justice Leask found that the administrative segregation framework was especially flawed in its treatment of two groups: mentally ill or disabled inmates, and Aboriginal inmates. According to the 2014–15 OCI Report, administrative segregation is commonly used to manage mentally ill and self-injurious inmates as well as those at risk of suicide. Justice Leask found that inmates with mental disabilities are over-represented in administrative segregation, which has
disproportionately harmful effects on the mentally ill. He found that a recent Commissioner’s Directive aimed at excluding these inmates from administrative segregation was vague and unduly narrow, rendering it inadequate to address the issue of their over-representation in administrative segregation. He found that, since the CSC does not keep any data on the number of mentally ill inmates in the system, it could not conduct strategic planning with respect to them. As a result, the Act and the Commissioner’s Directives failed to respond to the needs of mentally ill inmates and instead imposed burdens on them that reinforced their disadvantage. They were, therefore, in breach of section 15. With regards to Aboriginal inmates, he found that they are even more greatly over-represented in administrative segregation than they already are within Canadian federal prisons. He further found that that their average length of stay in segregation was greater than that of Black or Caucasian inmates, and that a third of Aboriginal inmates spent part of the fiscal year in segregation as opposed to one-quarter of non-Aboriginal inmates. The CSC had failed at using Aboriginal social history to reduce the impact of administrative segregation on Aboriginal inmates, a requirement set out by R. v. Gladue in the sentencing context, and extended—at least formally—to the correctional decision-making context by the CSC. In the Judge’s words: “There is a box to be ticked on a form and it is ticked. Meaningful results have not followed.” A Ways to Go These decisions concerned the federal administrative segregation framework, but provincially-run facilities are vulnerable to the same criticisms in the way that they use administrative segregation. In fact, provincial cases can often be even more jarring since inmates may be placed in segregation without ever having been found guilty of a crime. In 2016, the case of Adam Capay made headlines when it was revealed that he had spent 1,560 days in solitary confinement in pre-trial detention. Capay had been placed in an empty cellblock with no windows, and the lights were kept on twenty-four hours a day. When Renu Mandhane, Ontario’s chief human rights commissioner, met Capay in jail, he was losing his ability to speak and was having trouble discerning night from day. While Ontario promised to reform its correctional system in its entirety last fall, the only sign of action so far has been an announcement that inmates with mental illnesses will no longer be placed in solitary confinement, in response to a order by the Human Rights Tribunal.
DIVERSIONS
ultravires.ca
February 28, 2018 | 7
Self-Publication Scandal at the Law Review NORM YALLEN (2L) Second year student Hubert H. Hammerson was recently caught up in one of the biggest scandals the University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review has ever seen, when he attempted to use his editor position to publish his own paper. Hammerson serves as an editor at the Law Review, where he is part of the decision-making process that chooses which submissions will make publication. Hammerson’s behaviour started raising eyebrows when he began passionately arguing for the publication of I Kant Even: Fitting Abstract Legal Issues into a More Abstract Philosophical Context.
Review. “Most of the editors share the secret method behind the Law Review: we skim the papers, then just try to think of reasons to reject them so we don’t have to keep editing.” Hammerson’s genuine interest in the subject matter also tipped people off. Charlamagne Souvignon, a 1L editor, explained that even he felt that Hammerson’s interest in the paper was suspect. “As a 1L, I tried at first to read the papers, but there’s no way someone could have actually read this whole thing. Hammerson was citing paragraph numbers like he had read every paragraph. Eventually the editors came to an inescapable conclusion: Hammerson wrote this paper.”
Fellow editor Maximillian Bookreader explained that arguing for a paper to be published is highly unusual behaviour at the Law
Hammerson vehemently defended his conduct and argued that what he was doing
was in line with the spirit of the Law Review. “I was just trying to get my Kant paper published so I could put it on my résumé. What’s so wrong with that? Isn’t that why anyone becomes an editor? Do you mean to tell me that people become editors and don’t even try to just publish their own papers? Everyone else also speaks exclusively in rhetorical questions, right?” Hammerson has been reassigned to another editing group, and gave a terse “No comment” when asked if he would be editing any of his own papers in his new group.
senior editor revealed that they have determined that 23.69% of papers that have been approved for publication were approved by editors who also wrote the paper. Shrugging their shoulders, they said, “That’s actually somewhat lower than we expected.” Author’s Note: This is complete satire. I always conscientiously read the Law Review papers I was assigned to, and so has everyone else, I am sure. Everything is on the up and up, nothing to see here.
After Hammerson’s conduct was exposed, the Law Review did an internal review of publications over the past f ive years. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a
NOTICE OF (LITERAL) CLASS PROCEEDING THIS NOTICE IS DIRECTED TO ALL PERSONS IN THE CLASS OF 2020 AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW. TAKE NOTICE that on February 28, 2018, Tenderheart, Wonderheart & Harmony Bear LLP commenced a class proceeding against Kevin Schoenfeldt ["Kevin"] in court f ile #500-3232-23232, Class of 2020 v. Kevin Schoenfeldt, on behalf of all persons that are included in the class def ined as follows: "Every person in the Class of 2020 at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law who claims to be suffering or to have suffered as a result of the Ultra Vires article entitled 'The 1Ls Must be Stopped: An Open Letter to the 1Ls’ ["The Article"]" [the "Class"] Every person domiciled in Canada who claims to be suffering or have suffered a loss of reputation owing to the publication of The Article is a member of the Class and will have their rights affected. THE CLASS MEMBERS WHO WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLASS ACTION are automatically included and need not do anything at this time. The ones who wish to receive updates or further information as this matter progresses, may visit the website www.stopkevinschoenfeldt.ca or call the Representative Plaintiff 's counsel at 1-800-STOP-KEV.
DIVERSIONS
8 | February 28, 2018
ultravires.ca
Crossword Crossword
By Chloe Magee (2L) and Norm Yallen (2L)
CHLOE MAGEE (2L) AND NORM YALLEN (2L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Down 1. Fake Canada, Bora’s neighbour. 2. Check your privilege before visiting this destination; it’s cool if you go, but we want you to 18
feel bad about it. 3. Famous constitutional test; if you remember it you are very special and important.
Across
4. New CJ; not the anti-Semitic composer. but the is. 6. The name isn’t bad, food 8. Wrote every decision 1Ls read, harboured a disdain for “exotic” French food.
5. Year after law school, where you actually learn things allegedly.
Across
11. Kanye’s favourite legal research tool.
12. Former Chief Justice and library namesake; for some reason there is a sculpture of an old Dean instead of him at the library.
Down
7. Citation system named after the best law school in Canada.
14. Three hours long, remembered by few, enjoyed by many.
9. Snails enter at your own risk.
15. Former CJ; have yet to figure out how to spell her name, hopefully it’s right.
10. Coldest classroom named after warmest judge. 13. Formerly mandatory class; as Jay-Z once said, “_______man, I’m a ________, man.” There is also a second word. 16. Where you go to further your chances in the profession; if you got a good job, please fill out their survey. 17. Thing you read, hopefully, consisting mostly of complaints and the occasional bad joke. 18. Everyone’s three favourite letters; opportunity to enjoy curtains, small talk, and hearing about the cohesive culture of a law firm.
DIVERSIONS
ultravires.ca
February 28, 2018 | 9
Stop Asking Questions Part Two: Start Asking Questions KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (3L)
In Part One, we learned that, in early January, in an incident known as “Question Day,” a brawl took place in a U of T Law classroom after a group of students continued to ask the professor questions after he had said that class would f inish an hour early. But what appeared to be a case of a bunch of nerds ruining things for everyone else may actually have been part of a broader conspiracy. “Our plan worked perfectly.” In the moments after I left Franklin Crewson’s apartment, those words kept f lashing before my eyes. Had Franklin and Professor Feversham actually planned Question Day? Or was the email about something else? Franklin’s behaviour after I showed him the email certainly didn’t look good, but I couldn’t quite accept the idea that a student and professor would conspire to wreak such havoc on the law school. There was a time, however, when nobody believed that a sitting president would cover up a break-in at his opponents’ headquarters, but then Watergate happened. So, I threw out all my preconceptions and started asking questions. In the past month, I’ve questioned every student, staff, and faculty member who would talk to me; I submitted FOI requests; I sat in on Professor Feversham’s classes; and I hired fellow students to follow Professor Feversham and Franklin Crewson. This investigation has led me to one incontrovertible conclusion: Feversham and Crewson are the masterminds of a vast conspiracy designed to destroy the Faculty of Law itself. This may sound paranoid, but after hearing the evidence, you’ll have no choice but to acknowledge the truth: we are under attack.
Beginnings: Crewson and Feversham Have Been Meeting for Months Before I address their future plans, let’s take a look at how the two conspirators began. According to a Faculty source who has an off ice near Feversham’s, Crewson visited Feversham’s off ice almost every single day, beginning sometime in the summer. The source told me that she just assumed that Crewson was an R.A. In the directory listing students’ jobs there is, in
fact, a student listed as an R.A. for Prof. Feversham, but it’s not Crewson. It’s another name we’ve already seen in this story: none other than the alleged f ight instigator, Kermit Steingart. But more on that later. What’s even more interesting than when these meetings started is when they ended: right around the time of my interview with Crewson. “I remember it well,” my source told me. “I was coming back from the Faculty kitchen and I saw Crewson knock at Feversham’s door and then I heard something that sounded like, ‘You shouldn’t be here.’ And then Crewson left. I never saw him at Feversham’s off ice again. Oh, and I have a photographic memory so I know it happened whatever day you said the interview was.” Friends of Crewson told me that even in f irst year he seemed obsessed with Professor Feversham after the two met at Welcome Day. “Franklin would say things like, ‘Benjamin Feversham is the only professor in the school that actually knows what’s going on,’” one of his friends told me. Another friend described Crewson as “disappointed with the level of discourse” at the law school. Was Question Day a ploy to target people who Feversham and Crewson considered unserious? Or was it something more sinister?
Feversham and Crewson Want to Bring Down U of T Law There are a number of factors that lead me to believe that the ultimate goal of Feversham and Crewson’s actions is to bring down the Faculty of Law itself, f iguratively and possibly literally:
•
Professor Feversham’s tenure process is rumoured to be going poorly;
•
Crewson was said to be furious when he was denied the role of Editor-inChief of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review;
•
Professor Feversham once self-published a short story called “How to Bring Down a Law School, both Fig-
uratively and Literally,” which I mysteriously received a copy of in my mailbox a week ago;
•
Crewson recently approached me and, unprompted, said, “I hear you’re writing another article about me. Well, you can say anything you want about me, but one thing I def initely wouldn’t do is try to bring down the law school.” Which I found very strange and, perhaps, telling.
Kermit Steingart is Involved I’m positive Steingart is mixed up in this. But how? Why? He works as a research assistant for Professor Feversham for a whole summer and then starts a f ight in his class? That can’t be a coincidence. Moreover, Steingart has been accused of putting another student in a headlock but has faced no disciplinary consequences. How can that be? Could this go straight to the top? Is the whole administration implicated in this conspiracy? It’s too soon to say, but my journalistic instincts say yes.
What is Phase Two? There is no reason to believe that Feversham and Crewson have abandoned their plan, whatever it is. The student who I had follow Feversham said he saw the professor visit a wrecking ball rental company and attend a do-it-yourself Faculty subversion course (something I didn’t know even existed). I myself followed Crewson one afternoon and saw him drop an envelope into a garbage can in Queen’s Park. I then furtively retrieved the envelope and found a piece of paper with the words “Kevin, U R Dumb” written on it. I replaced the envelope and waited hours in the cold hoping to witness Feversham pick it up, but to no avail. He must have spotted me. I have not yet f igured out who this co-conspirator “Kevin” is—it’s probably a pseudonym— nor have I cracked the code used in the letter. My feeling is that when we crack the code, we crack the conspiracy. I don’t know what’s coming, dear readers, but things might get bad. We cannot let this conspiracy destroy us. Stay vigilant.
DIVERSIONS
10 | February 28, 2018
ultravires.ca
I Want a Pupper RACHEL CHAN (2L)
I would be so happy if I had a pupper.
I do not have time for a pupper. I am in the wrong profession.
Paper Topics for Dummies Geniuses NORM YALLEN (2L)
I am sure all of you used reading week to get started on your f inal papers, as opposed to sitting at home and watching curling. Honestly, curling is a lot more entertaining than you might think. Anyway, here are some paper titles that you can stash away to write about three days before the paper is due. As always, the longer the paper title, the better the writer.
The Best of Crimes, The Worst of Crimes: A Betrayal of Trusts: I Would be Very Disappointed Charter-Based Approach to Rating Crimes by an by a Bad Mark on this Trusts Paper Arbitrary Metric I Made Up When There’s a Will, There’s a Way: Exploring how Wills and Estates are Really Interesting and Totally Cool
Business Dis-organization: Toward an AnarchoMarxist Destruction of the Corporation ( just kidding, I love Corporate Personhood and believe whatever the professor believes)
Why Does Everything Need to be a Competition: Please Administrative Professor, Give Me An Argument Against Competition Law and how Substantive Review and Procedural Fairness: Monopolies are Actually Good Why This Paper Should Not Be Penalized for Being Eight Days Late When Chyna Departs from the Wests: How Public International Law should Regulate the Breakup of Blac Chyna and Rob Kardashian
Hey, Teacher, Leave Those Kids Alone: Why Teachers Should Not Have Guns. Yes, I know this is supposed to be a Securities paper but please respect me for taking an easy political stance. If Yesterday was History, Tomorrow is a Mystery, anyone has any good ideas for a Securities paper, Today is the Law: Exploring the Intersection hit me up. We have a lot of fun here at between Law, History, and Dumb Expressions Diversions, but seriously any ideas just shoot that I Like Using me a message.
ultravires.ca
DIVERSIONS
February 28, 2018 | 11
Intra Vires: Faculty Council Fails to Meet Quorum, Sings Kumbaya Instead HONGHU WANG (1L) Let me tell you about the sandwiches. I have never seen so many sandwiches in all my days covering Faculty Council. There was egg salad on white bread. There was tuna on rye. There was smoked meat on olive bread. There was hummus! In other news, Faculty Council failed to meet quorum and so could not pass any motions. I don’t think they actually sang Kumbaya but let’s just say they did. Did I tell you about the cookies yet??
Tell Us How You Pronounce “Bona Fide” and We’ll Describe Your Flaws with 100% Accuracy KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (3L)
Bone-uh Fee-day You unironically post pictures of yourself in bed on Instagram with the caption “I woke up like this” and think that people actually believe that you woke up with your hair perfectly styled and your partner lying next to you smiling instead of covering their nose and trying not to faint from your rotting morning breath. Every chance you get, you try to convince people that the correct plural of octopus is octopodes. You claim to have never tried McDonald’s.
people who are sensitive to that sort of thing. When you stay in people’s guest rooms, you make the bed in the morning, but you don’t do it very well, so your host has to remake it anyway. You text at the dinner table. Your biggest f law is not being Vincent Chiao. [Note: If you are Vincent Chiao, thank you for reading.]
Your biggest f law is obsessing too much about what your biggest f law is. Also, you don’t always take out the garbage when you say you’re going to.
Bawn-a-fied
Bone-uh Fye-dee
You show up to every class 1.7 minutes late but are still miffed when someone has taken the seat you usually sit in. You won’t stop telling people that Halt and Catch Fire is one of the best shows you’ve ever seen, but that the f irst season takes awhile to f ind itself. Instead of laughing at people’s jokes, you say the words “That’s funny,” because you are incapable of laughing like a normal human being.
You share this pronunciation with Professor Vincent Chiao and so it would be easy to think that you, like him, are f lawless. If you are not Vincent Chiao, you def initely chew too loudly. Not enough to be disgusting, but just enough to annoy
Your biggest f law is that if anyone says anything that remotely suggests they don’t
like you, you spend the next three days thinking of why that might be and what you can do to change it. You need a haircut.
Your biggest f law is that you are the worst. Your other f laws include interrupting people, but especially women; talking too much about the bottle of vodka you totally killed with your buddies last weekend; and your inability to truly love anything.
Bean-y f lerd You need to seek medical help immediately. You should also invest in a little thing called deodorant.
Boner-fied Every time you say this you make eye contact with every person in your vicinity and smile at them in a way that lets them know that you are not a person that anyone should ever take seriously. You fail to notice that nobody has ever laughed at your “funny” pronunciation. This is illustrative of your general personality. Even when you say other things that actually are funny, you ruin it by being the worst.
Bone-uh Fee-day or Bone-uh Fyedee or Bawn-afied You don’t know how to pronounce bona f ide and you refuse to settle on one consistent pronunciation. You’ve been afraid to pronounce words with conf idence ever since your Grade 11 biology teacher humiliated you in front of the whole class for pronouncing infrared to rhyme with ensnared. You pronounce prima facie approximately thirteen different ways, just like everyone else in the Faculty of Law. Your biggest f law is fear of commitment. Say it loud and say it proud, my friend.
DIVERSIONS
12 | February 28, 2018
ultravires.ca
BETWEEN: Class of 2020 Plaintiffs and Kevin Schoenfeldt Defendant
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
TO THE DEFENDANT A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the Plaintiffs. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages. The Plaintiffs really didn’t want it to come to this, and they feel kind of mean for doing it, but they hope that the Defendant will understand that, at some point, enough is definitely enough. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of Defence, serve it on the Plaintiffs’ lawyer, and file it WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this Statement of Claim is served on you. The Plaintiffs would like to emphasize that if the Defendant needs emotional support during this twenty day period, they are perfectly willing to provide kind words and warm smiles in spite of the circumstances leading to this claim. IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. The Plaintiffs, however, knowing what it’s like to be judged in their absence by (ahem) someone, agree that they are willing to put off judgment for as long as the Defendant needs to get his act together, which, they acknowledge, could be quite some time. Date
Feb 28 2018
To: Kevin Schoenfeldt Ultra Vires Office Toronto, ON Y0U 5UK CLAIM 1.
The Plaintiffs claim against the Defendant: (a)
general and special damages for defamation, speaking ill of an entire class out of pure jealousy, and just sort of not being a great guy, in the amount of $7,200,000; and
(b) aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of one hug, one cheerful greeting, and one batch of cookies for every 1L who so desires. (c)
such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just. Like maybe, for example, requiring the Defendant to publicly shame himself in a future edition of Ultra Vires.
Parties 2.
The Plaintiffs, the Class of 2020 (“the 1Ls”) are a class of law students at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law with a pristine reputation for being kind, friendly, and generous people. For approximately six months, they have been taking classes such as Torts, Contracts, and Criminal Law, amongst others, all while working to build a supportive community for themselves and for the law school at large. While focusing on being the best possible global citizens, the 1Ls came under attack by the Defendant, Kevin Schoenfeldt (“Kevin”), in an article in the failing student newspaper, Ultra Vires (“UV”).
3.
The Defendant Kevin is a 3L wannabe hipster slacker who writes stupid articles in UV every month because the appalling lack of strong leadership at that so-called publication means nobody will stop him. Kevin resides in the City of Toronto. Kevin has said multiple times, in public, that Titanic is a great movie. Kevin is also well-known to like Taylor Swift, even though he very much knows that it’s not cool to like her anymore. You don’t even want to know how often Kevin eats boiled eggs.
4.
The only good thing about Kevin is his cat, Fishsticks (“Fishy”), who is a living miracle.
DIVERSIONS
ultravires.ca
February 28, 2018 | 13
Kevin’s Article in the January Edition of UV 5.
6.
On February 1, 2018, UV released its January edition. The January edition being released in February is illustrative of the level of care that is taken by the UV editorial staff. The “January” edition of UV contained an article written by Kevin entitled, “The 1Ls Must be Stopped: An Open Letter to the 1Ls” (“The Article”). In The Article, Kevin: (a)
Implied that the 1Ls would obediently respond to a joke set-up as trite as “the 1Ls are so nice”;
(b)
Stated that the 1Ls “make me sick”;
(c)
Implied that a 1L would only make 600 pancakes for the school when clearly at least 1,200 would be required to feed the whole student body, and a 1L would never exclude other students from a communal breakfast;
(d)
Implied that the 1Ls are making the world more of a nightmare than it already is;
(e)
Implied that the 1Ls are making the upper-year students look bad when it is an accepted fact that the upperyear students are inherently miserable and do it to themselves; and,
(f )
Claimed to have made cookies and not shared them with anyone, which is wrong and should shock the conscience of the court.
Kevin is Liable to the 1Ls for Defamation 7.
The Article constitutes defamation. It was published, both in print and online. Only one reader is required for publication and the Plaintiffs submit that it is very likely that Kevin sends all of his articles to his mother. The Article is clearly about the 1Ls, as they are referenced in the title of The Article, and it begins with the words, “Dear 1Ls.” The words of The Article are defamatory in nature, in that they would tend to lower the reputation of the 1Ls in the eyes of others.
8.
An objective person reading The Article would think that the 1Ls are pretty nice, but slightly over-the-top about it. In reality, the 1Ls are much nicer than The Article implies and their niceness is 100% genuine. The 1Ls are truly better than all of us. As their counsel, I had to fight to keep that sentence in this Statement of Claim, because they insisted that they are no better than anyone else. This is only more proof of their greatness. Kevin’s article, in failing to properly illustrate the absolute goodness inside each and every 1L, lowered the 1Ls’ reputation in the eyes of others. A nice person would fix a classmate’s sweater; a 1L would knit sweaters for the entire world.
Entitlement to Damages 9.
Because of the Defendant’s defamatory article, the 1Ls have experienced profound sadness from knowing that a person like Kevin is out there feeling miserable enough that he has to lash out at a whole cohort of students. The 1Ls have also noticed that upper-year students start to smirk whenever a 1L does something nice, which interferes with the natural high that comes with doing something good for others.
Entitlement to Aggravated and Punitive Damages 10. Kevin’s conduct demonstrates a level of pettiness heretofore unknown amongst law students, and therefore warrants aggravated and punitive damages. Plaintiffs’ Willingness to Settle 11.
The Plaintiffs agree that if the Defendant is willing to look the 1Ls collectively in the eye and sincerely apologize, they would revoke this claim and give the Defendant the biggest group hug that the world has ever seen. The 1Ls hope that Kevin will choose love.
February 28, 2018 Tenderheart, Wonderheart & Harmony Bear LLP 77 Kindness Lane, Suite <3 Care-A-Lot, Ontario LUV A11
14 | February 28, 2018
ultravires.ca
RIGHTS REVIEW 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
PANEL DISCUSSION ON THE ‘DARKER SIDE OF DIGITAL: HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY IN CANADA & ABROAD “THE FUTURE IS ALREADY HERE – IT’S JUST NOT VERY EVENLY DISTRIBUTED” By Chelsey Legge (2L JD/MPP)
FULL HOUSE: ‘DARKER SIDE OF DIGITAL’ DISCUSSED THE INTERSECTION OF TECHNOLOGY, PRIVACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS. PHOTOGRAPHY BY ALISON THORNTON / HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH.
We are living in an era of unprecedented technological change that is rapidly and fundamentally altering nearly every aspect of human life. From biometric identification software and advanced robotic technology to stem cell treatments and lab-grown meat, emerging technologies are characterized by their novelty and impact. While these technologies have enormous potential to improve our lives in various ways - to make us happier, healthier, smarter, safer, and more efficient - there is a darker side to technological progress. Technology that enables the collection of massive amounts of digital information has the potential to compromise privacy interests. New and developing surveillance technologies threaten individual liberties such as freedom of expression and association. People from diverse fields and all walks of life are asking: how do we protect human rights in the digital age?
On Tuesday, February 6, a panel of experts convened at the Faculty of Law to discuss the human rights implications of new and rapidly evolving technologies. “Darker Side of Digital: Human Rights Implications of Technology in Canada & Abroad,” co-hosted by the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) and Human Rights Watch Canada, drew a sold-out crowd. It took place in the Rosalie Silberman Abella Moot Court Room at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law, and was also livestreamed on Facebook -- the irony of which was not lost on the organizers and panellists. Samer Muscati, IHRP Director, opened the event by welcoming the full house of attendees and introducing the panellists: Stephen Northfield (moderator), digital director at Human Rights Watch; Felix Horne, Ethiopia and Eritrea researcher at Human Rights Watch; Lex Gill, research fellow at the Citizen Lab; and Professor
Lisa Austin, chair in law and technology at the Faculty of Law.
Northfield began by discussing some of the positive aspects of technology, noting that “technology can be a real help in investigations and effecting change.” He explained how technology figures into the Human Rights Watch research methodology. For example, Human Rights Watch recently used satellite imagery to document the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya villages in Myanmar.
report on telecom and internet surveillance in Ethiopia in 2014. The Ethiopian government strictly controls internet and mobile technologies so it can monitor their use and limit the type of information that is being accessed and communicated. Unlike most other African countries, Ethiopia has a complete monopoly over its rapidly growing telecommunications sector through the state-owned operator, Ethio Telecom. This monopoly ensures that the Ethiopian government can effectively limit access to information and curtail freedoms of expression and association without any oversight, since there is a lack of independent legislative or judicial mechanisms that would ensure that surveillance capabilities are not misused.
Horne shared some of his experiences conducting research in Ethiopia, a country engaged in pervasive censorship and surveillance. He mentioned that Human Rights Watch released a
Gill gave the audience a brief introduction to the Citizen Lab, an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the Munk School of Global Affairs, focusing on research, development, and high-lev-
Before launching into the discussion, the panellists each talked about how their work has intersected with technology and human rights.
February 28, 2018 | 15
ultravires.ca
el strategic policy and legal engagement at the intersection of information and communication technologies, human rights, and global security. She talked about her extensive work around encryption and anonymity laws, and told the audience about the Citizen Lab’s recent collaboration with the IHRP to produce a submission on technology-facilitated violence against women to the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women. She also made a point of “challenging the idea of a dark side and light side [to technology],” suggesting instead that we think about darkness “not as malevolent or evil, but as unknown.” Austin spoke about her work on privacy issues and how the way we think about public space and privacy has changed as we have shifted from an analog world to a digital world. She encouraged the audience to consider, for example, what it means to be in public in the age of video surveillance, sensors, and “smart cities.” She proposed that we think about “how [we can] enlist new modes of technology to help us navigate this new [digital] space.” Northfield then posed a number of discussion questions, eliciting answers that were both informative and thought-provoking. He began by asking the panellists how worried people should be about infringements on their privacy. Gill suggested that some paranoia is reasonable, but also pointed out that certain communities (e.g., indigenous communities, activist groups, political dissidents) have more cause to worry than others, since those communities are subject to disproportionate levels of surveillance. Quoting American-Canadian writer William Ford Gibson, Gill said, “The future is already here – it’s just not very evenly distributed.” Austin added that privacy is highly contextual: “that you share something in one context does not mean you have no privacy interest in other contexts.” She discussed the very real example of Presto card users’ private travel records. Presto users may be comfortable with their records being used to improve the public transit system, but considerably less comfortable with their records being shared with the police without a warrant. The conversation shifted to the increasing powers of governments to surveil their citizens, and the implications of this surveillance. Using Ethiopia as an example, Horne talked about how pervasive state surveillance can impede the work of journalists, activists, and human rights organizations. Moreover, the ubiquity of surveillance and spying spreads paranoia and “tears at the social fabric of a community, [which] really affects every facet of life.” These effects can spill across borders – for example, the Ethiopian government has begun using spyware to surveil the diaspora. This has a chilling effect on Ethiopians around the world. Horne noted that “[the diaspora] are self-censoring because of this perception that they’re being surveilled.” Naturally, the discussion moved toward the trade-off between national security interests and individual privacy interests. Horne pointed out that “governments conflate peaceful expression of dissent with terrorism all the time.” Gill questioned whether there is always a tradeoff between security and human rights. For example, governments and police forces have long complained about encryption technology impeding investigations, but fail to consider how much crime is prevented by encryption (e.g., safe online banking). “This is a very narrow view of what it means to be secure,” said Gill. Austin suggested that we think about the security-privacy balance as we constructed it in the analog world, but we need to be thinking about how it has changed as we have moved to the
digital world. For example, what does it mean to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in the digital world? What is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and how has our understanding of what is reasonable changed? “What is getting lost in translation?” asked Austin. “Is the surveillance power growing because we’re not paying attention to what’s happening as we shift?” Northfield then asked the panellists how well Canada protects privacy interests. Gill gave the audience a brief primer on Bill C-59, the current government’s answer to some of the problems with Bill C-51 (the anti-terrorism legislation passed in 2015 by the Harper government). She said this new legislation represents “two steps forward, six steps back.” On the one hand, Bill C-59 introduces new oversight and accountability functions. On the other hand, it normalizes mass surveillance through bulk collection, and gives extraordinarily broad powers to Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), the Government of Canada’s national cryptologic agency. Safety measures and restrictions on the use of data collected by CSEC will be set out in regulations later, but Gill said that this “trust us” framework is not good enough, adding that “democracies are fragile, institutions are fragile – we need to have a longer-term view of what kind of infrastructure we want to be building.”
ALL EYES ON THE PANELISTS AS NORTHFIELD OPENS THE DISCUSSION. PHOTOGRAPHY BY ALISON THORNTON / HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH.
Corporations, like governments, are key players in the field of technology and human rights. Northfield asked the panellists to talk about some examples of ways in which technology companies are impacting human rights, and what governments ought to do in response. Austin talked about balancing privacy rights and the legitimate needs of businesses. She also discussed the central role played by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). PIPEDA sets out the ground rules for how private-sector organizations must handle personal information in the course of commercial activity. “[This legislation] was about allowing people to feel okay about shopping online. [It is] consumer-friendly ecommerce legislation, and now we’re trying to make it do a bunch of things it was never meant to do,” said Austin. “PIPEDA is really inadequate to deal with this new era of platforms [like Facebook] that give you free services on the condition that you give up all your data.” Gill added that there are companies “actively engaged in the business of ‘Black Mirror’ – spyware companies, companies that sell hacking tools, internet filtering and censorship companies.” She said that businesses have a responsibility to account for and respect international human rights, and that our own governments should be mindful about doing business with these companies. Horne agreed, and noted that commercial spyware companies are “giving [these] technologies to an oppressive government with no monitoring [and] no accountability.” He said that with such rapid change, laws and policies cannot keep up, and so there is an absence of oversight. One of Northfield’s final questions was on emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and their potential impacts on human rights. Austin pointed out that there are different kinds of machine learning algorithms, and she would like to see human rights bodies focus on “algorithmic responsibility.” She said, “When you’re automating decision-making, or doing certain kinds of analysis, [the question is] how do we make sure that those processes are transparent? How do we make sure the algorithms are non-discriminatory?” Austin discussed examples such as predictive policing
STEPHEN NORTHFIELD, FELIX HORNE, LEX GILL, AND PROFESSOR LISA AUSTIN. PHOTOGRAPHY BY ALISON THORNTON / HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH.
and automated sentencing decisions, and talked about the risk of discrimination being “baked in” to these models. “We need a broader conversation about what it means to be responsible and fair in the context of algorithms.” Audience questions after the panel discussion ranged from inquiries about how the panellists manage their own online presences, to the ability of governments and regulators to keep pace with technological change, to the implications of biometric security software. One theme that wove through many of the questions was the role of ordinary individuals and communities in challenging excessive or rights-infringing state surveillance and censorship. All of the panellists expressed optimism on this front. Horne noted that “many tools exist that can be used to protect oneself and minimize risk, such as Tor, VPN, and encryption applications.” Gill pointed out that we all have different concerns about privacy, but “tools like the Citizen Lab’s Security Planner can help people to develop safer habits
over time and at their own pace.” She cautioned, however, that the answer to state surveillance is not individual self-defence, and suggested that we focus on building censorship- and surveillance-resisting communities organized around an ethic of care. Austin encouraged civic action, and stressed the importance of “showing up, and insisting on best practices above the baseline.” The questions continued to pour in, and even after the panel concluded, many people in the audience approached the panellists to thank them for their insights and to continue the discussion. The degree of engagement suggests that the audience members had already internalized the advice of the panelists: learn, discuss, and don’t be complacent. We all have a role to play in creating a rights-respecting digital future. Check out the discussion on Twitter, at #darksideTO.
16 | February 28, 2018
ultravires.ca
RIGHTS REVIEW
Q&A: ELIOT HIGGINS By Bethanie Pascutto (3L)
Eliot Higgins is an award winning investigative journalist, and Founder of the Brown Moses Blog and Bellingcat. He publishes the work of an international alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed extraordinary findings on subjects such as the downing of flight MH17 in Ukraine and the August 21, 2013 sarin attacks in Damascus.
SUSPECTED LAUNCH SITE OF MISSILE THAT HIT MH17. BEFORE AND AFTER SATELLITE IMAGES SHOW TRACK MARKS. PHOTO CREDIT BELLINGCAT.COM
Bellingcat has become the biggest name in open source and social media investigations. What motivated you to start the organization? I had been blogging for two years, using open source investigation, and there had been an increasing amount of interest in my work, and open source investigation in general. There were also an increasing number of people who were doing their own open source investigations, but weren't getting as much attention as me, so I wanted to launch a site where I could show people how to do open source investigation and give people a space to publish their own work.
Your work on the conflict in Eastern Ukraine has attracted the ire of the Russian government. Why was it so important to oppose the rhetoric coming out of Moscow? Simply, because they keep lying about stuff, from their involvement in the conflict to what happened to MH17.
GEOLOCATION OF HOSPITAL BOMBED IN IDLIB, SYRIA. PHOTO CREDIT BELLINGCAT.COM
Why have you chosen to focus much of your investigative work on the Syrian civil war? Initially it was because I had been following the Libyan civil war closely, and when I started my blog that had died down and the conflict in Syria was escalating. There was a lot of open source content that was being ignored, so I decided to have a look at it, and see what I could write about. With the various allegations and denials there's always been a lot to write about.
Recently, during an uprising by its citizens, the Iranian government limited access to the internet. Are you troubled by the use of technology by those who violate human rights? Absolutely, and it's a constantly evolving space, so keeping track of all the methods using to violate human rights is in itself a full time job, let alone addressing the issue. PHOTO CREDIT BELLINGCAT.COM
What is the future of open source and social media investigations? I think its use will continue to spread through a range of fields. Organisations like the International Criminal Court and the UN International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism on international crimes committed in the Syrian Arab Republic have been very interested in its application in their work, and the investigation into MH17 uses a lot of open source material, so I think the next big event will be a major court case where open source material plays a significant role.
How can students get involved in this space? There's a lot of guides and other resources for anyone to teach themselves how to do this work, so the best advice I can give is to just do it. Anyone can set up a blog, and that's how I got started. The main thing is building up a reputation, so start small, do some simple but solid cases, and build a reputation so people will actually be bothered to read your longer investigations. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING THE MISSILE CONVOY TRAVELLING THROUGH SEPARATIST-CONTROLLED UKRAINE. PHOTO CREDIT BELLINGCAT.COM
ihrprightsreview
ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/page/rights-review-magazine
rightsreview
OPINIONS
ultravires.ca
AIDAN CAMPBELL (3L)
February 28, 2018 | 17
Faith and the Law (School)
As a third-generation secular agnostic who grew up in and around many communities of faith in a small Northern Alberta town, I’ve often held a mystified respect for how much a religious worldview can shape and focus a person’s life. Throughout law school I’ve often wondered how the external moral framework and well-defined community of organized religion might impact the study of law. So, as ever the nosey news-boy, I decided to ask. The results of these conversations are not meant to be authoritative or even representative. They are simply a collection of thoughts from folks who either possess a strong personal faith or who grew up in religious households and carry those traditions forward. For me, the major takeaway was a barely disguised envy at people’s ability to draw on the support of a community and external guidance to help in withstanding the rigors of law school. But, I’ll let them speak for themselves:
Ian’s (2L) Christian faith has had a huge impact on his law school experience. He told me that he couldn’t imagine what it would have been like without it. “I think many law students have had a moment where they ask themselves, ‘Does any of this matter?’ For me, my faith provides the answer for that question. It gives meaning in a way nothing else has been able to. Law school can be a stressful environment for everyone, but I can honestly say God has brought me through it all, and that’s a great comfort to me. “I’m grateful that the law school has been a respectful and tolerant environment towards my faith and others. While the number of Christians at the Faculty is very small, I have felt reasonably supported by the administration in my role as Christian Legal Fellowship president, and as a Christian personally. While I naturally find myself disagreeing with the majoritarian perspective on certain issues both inside and outside class, I have felt able to express my beliefs when I wanted to. There was one instance where a professor said something which was offensive and deprecatory towards a certain group of Christians represented in the classroom. I approached the professor after class, and he offered a full apology the next day.”
Lily (1L) says religion has helped her to step back and connect with her classmates as friends rather than simply as colleagues. She explains that: “Jews traditionally have two large meals in the home over the Sabbath (Shabbat), and inviting friends is a great way to connect. As I personally do not use electronics on that day, in accordance with Orthodox practice, I am forced to engage more fully with my guests, without distraction. I have taken the opportunity to reach out to people to invite them to my home to cook for them and try and create community. Judaism does not believe in proselytizing, so the gettogethers are very non judgemental and lowkey. It was important to my husband and I to create an open home environment, and it has been such a pleasure and joy to bring this to life in the law school setting.”
Lily extends an open invitation to her Shabbat dinners to anyone of any faith or background who might want to attend, so get in touch.
Amir (2L) finds that his faith doesn’t conflict much the principles we’re learning in class. “There is Islamic scholarly work which supports a distinction between legal duties and the moral realm even when they are not congruous. Law school has actually made me more interested in delving into the tenets of Islamic law. When I come across a thorny problem in class I now often go look up what Islamic legal thinkers have to say on the matter. It’s a very positive feeling when you have two different epistemic traditions that often lead to the same answers. You could say it’s mutually enriching.” When it comes to the culture of the school he brought up the there are strong principles of non-interference in Islam. “There a popular verse that reads: to you your religion, to me mine. I would never expect the dominant law school culture to change for for the benefit of a minority. However, I think adherent Muslim students might feel more welcome if students had more opportunities to participate in dry events. It’s really just about respectful pluralism, same as the rest of Canadian society.”
Ben (2L) says that going to church provides him with an alternate community in which the metrics of law school success are neither interesting nor relevant. This leaves him better able to attach his self-worth to things other than the law and his performance at school. He added that the skills and aptitudes associated with a religious practice are helpful, such as reading dense text, looking carefully for meaning, epistemic humility, rhetoric, and keeping the centrality of community standards in mind. Things can get tricky when abstract discussions of religious liberties feel deeply personal. “It feels like a burden to navigate things like the Trinity Western and Carter decisions when religious/Christian rhetoric around them is not particularly attentive to marginalized people and to necessities of a secular civil society. Feels like I have a lot of explaining to do and I often just can’t be bothered to do it.” He adds that these cases raise interesting theological debates over the extent to which religious people ought to push for their ethics to be implemented as general rules. To him such a project often conflicts with a social commitment to religious autonomy and the protection of marginalized groups. “I feel that debate in my own life and practice because I need to both support my friends and relations at law school in their own personal careers, goals, struggles and successes, while at the same time maintaining a bit of critical distance and thinking carefully about my participation in the law as an institution that is at least parallel to and maybe at cross purposes with Christianity.”
Maryam (3L) says that for her, faith is deeply personal and entirely separate from academics, but added that “every time I get stressed, my dad preaches to me about having faith to fall back on in these times for mental health. But I’m not practicing enough to have that benefit.” She went on to say that “socially, it’s impacted me mostly because of how alcohol-soaked the law school’s social scene is. But more generally being Muslim at the law school and in law can be alienating.” “I’ve met a number of great friends in class and through the Muslim Law Students Association. A shared cultural experience has left me particularly close with other South Asian students.”
Daniel (1L) had this to say: “My religious faith has been a very important part of the law school journey so far. At times, I felt overwhelmed by the environment and workload, but my faith has been critical to being grounded. “Academically, I try to remind myself that I
am not defined by how well or poorly I might do in school; though it's easier said than done. I am thankful to have the opportunity to study law with such an amazing group of colleagues, and having faith that it's all a part of God's grander plan gives me comfort. Through highs and lows, prayers have certainly carried me through. “Being in law school, I am constantly amazed by how bright my colleagues are and how different we all are. I have had the pleasure of exchanging thoughts with so many people with different views, and personally, it has helped me to grow both intellectually and spiritually. It has given me to the chance to test and reaffirm my faith. Christian friends at school have been very supportive in my journey. “Lastly, I try to stay active at my local church. As much as I love my law school friends, it's always nice to step outside the bubble. My church has been a great support for me both as a place of worship and community. Being at church reminds me of who I truly am, as defined by my faith, and the community is very loving and encouraging.”
OPINIONS
18 | February 28, 2018
ultravires.ca
Let’s Fix Legal Process and LRW KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (3L) I think we can all agree on the worst class in 1L. It’s Legal Process, right? Or wait, is it LRW? I’ve spoken to people who liked their LRW section, so maybe it depends on who’s teaching it. My LRW instructor read out the same PowerPoint slides in multiple classes and literally fell asleep in class once while Susan Barker was actually teaching us something. So, needless to say, Legal Process (formerly LPPE) was still my least favourite 1L class—but only by a little. The only reason I disliked Legal Process more than LRW was probably that it was held twice a week instead of once, and there were actually readings assigned, which I definitely sometimes completed. What we’re supposed to learn in these two classes is important. Every one of us will need to know how to write in our legal careers, and it would benefit all of us to know the basics of civil procedure, even if it’s just so we can answer the million questions family members ask us about the law at holiday gatherings. The problem is, most of us don’t come out of first year with a solid grasp on either of these things. On the other hand, at least we learn something about them: most 1Ls, except for a small group of students, get no exposure
whatsoever to oral advocacy. Shouldn’t we be learning at least a few of the skills we need to actually practice as lawyers? I think so. So let’s fix Legal Process and LRW. Here’s my pitch: merge them together, add in an oral advocacy component, and call the whole thing something like “Introduction to Lawyering.” It would be a full-year course and, since these are new skills that everyone’s learning, let’s make it credit/no credit. Maybe that would create an effort problem, but are you really going to tell me there’s not already an effort problem with the two courses as they stand? The coursework would be modeled after working on a case at an actual firm (but without the obsession over billable hours). In the beginning, students would still learn basic legal writing by being assigned memos on legal issues. Throughout the year, they would keep working on the same case. In other words, you’ve given a legal opinion on some issues and then started strategizing about moving the case forward: Are there limitations issues? Should you file a motion to dismiss? Can we
please just leave jurisdiction out of it because, oh my god, how boring is jurisdiction? The idea is that students would learn legal writing and civil procedure at the same time and then apply both skills to their case. Maybe the first semester would focus on writing and the second semester would focus on procedure and oral advocacy, starting with a small motion, or something like a mini-trial, and then culminate in a moot based on the result of that mini-trial. If you are anything like me, you’re thinking, “That sounds like adding a lot of extra work to 1L.” That’s not what I want! Given the fact that there’s already time in the schedule for everyone to have two Legal Process classes a week, there’s no reason one of those classes couldn’t be spent working on assignments while the other class would still have a lecture. Or maybe the issues and assignments could be kept simple enough that they wouldn’t take hours and hours of students’ time. Or maybe, since you can apparently learn all of Legal Process in a couple of days and pass the exam, the school could make an exception in this one instance and just tell us the law instead of making us read a bunch of civil proce-
dure cases, which would leave more time to spend on actually applying that law in practical assignments. By the end of the class, students would have learned the fundamentals of legal writing, civil procedure, and oral advocacy. I think this could actually be an interesting class—and possibly even a fun one—that would help do something law school generally doesn’t seem designed to do: teach students how to be a lawyer. There are surely a billion logistical problems in doing this that I haven’t thought of and am not equipped to solve, so maybe this would never work. And maybe I am the only person who thinks this sounds remotely interesting. But I really do think that there must be a more useful way than LRW and Legal Process to teach us legal writing and legal procedure, and I really do think that every 1L should get to have some exposure to oral advocacy before deciding whether to try out for a competitive moot or not. The best part is, if every student got mooting experience in their first year, maybe nobody would have to do the Upper Year Moot ever again.
PM’s Assurances Not Enough to Quell Fears Over Ideological Jobs Program Restrictions ADIN WAGNER (2L) Under the Canada Summer Jobs program, Members of Parliament fund summer student hires for select small businesses, non-profits, and public-sector organizations. While that may seem innocuous enough, the program has been at the centre of a heated controversy this year. Following reports published by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada detailing how MPs were using the program to fund anti-abortion groups, the Liberal government took action. This summer, in order to receive funding for job grants, organizations had to sign an attestation expressing that their core mandate respects reproductive and LGBTQ rights. The attestation specifically includes “reproductive rights, and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.” The outrage that followed was as intense as it
was predictable. The Toronto Right to Life Association launched a Federal Court challenge contending that their freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and right to equality had been violated. One CBC opinion piece went as far as to draw a parallel between the attestation requirement and persecuted Christians from a thousand years ago who were forced to dedicate a sacrifice to the Roman emperor. The new rules have also prompted protests from religious groups who say that their religious beliefs are inseparable from their “core mandate.” Even Joyce Arthur, Executive Director for the Abortion Rights Coalition, has expressed concern over the wide net cast by the attestation. She has requested that the government clarify the wording to something more palatable to religious groups.
resent any infringement on freedom of religion, conscience, or any other rights that people in Canada enjoy.” They simply prevent the use of government funds to undermine human rights, and the legally recognized right to safe abortion, the letter continues. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberal government have stood pat. They have, however, somewhat clarified their position, with Trudeau saying that the rules are only targeting “organizations with the explicit purpose of limiting and eliminating Charter rights like women’s rights.” He further stated that the government will work with any faith-based groups to make sure their concerns are addressed.
That is not enough. A statement of intent to address concerns is not an appropriate substitute for Conversely, eighty pro-choice and human genuinely addressing those concerns. rights groups co-signed an open letter to Canadian political leaders expressing their support for the The Prime Minister is right. The government new rules. The letter states that, counter to widely should not fund organizations that engage in anticirculated misinformation, “the safeguards introabortion activities. Access to abortion is a human duced […] are not discriminatory, and do not rep-
rights issue. Organizations that protest abortion are discriminatory and damaging in the misinformation they spread about health and safety. However, the wording of the attestation is unnecessarily broad. A clarification from the federal government on what the attestation should actually be taken to mean is little comfort to a faith-based group that believes signing it would betray their religious principles. It is the government’s role to protect the rights and health of its citizens. Trudeau and the Liberal government should be lauded for withholding funding from groups that actively undermine reproductive rights. But, in refusing to reword the attestation to be more inclusive to faith-based groups, they undermine their own efforts. An admirable action has now become far more complicated and politically polarizing than it has to be. The Liberal government can still uphold its moral values without requiring faith-based groups to violate theirs to be included. A little flexibility here would go a long way.
RECRUITMENT SPECIAL
ultravires.ca
February 28, 2018 | 19
Toronto Summer 2018 Recruitment Special CHLOE MAGEE (2L) Shortly after in-f irm week in November, Ultra Vires gathered survey responses from U of T Law students who were eligible to participate in this year’s Toronto OCI process. Ultra Vires conducts a survey of this nature every year in an effort to promote transparency around the hiring process and to gain valuable insight into the 2L class.
the process and the fact that the survey responses were submitted almost immediately after arguably the most intense seventy-two hours of law school. For the sake of nuance, we’ve included two more personal accounts written by students ref lecting back on the recruit experience.
The questions covered a range of topics, from basic demographics, to the outcome of the recruit, to whether or not Trump was discussed during interviews (he was, 41% of the time). All information contained in this report is based on the answers to those questions.
We hope that current and future students will f ind this information useful. This comes with an important caveat: this report is not meant to provide any indication of what grades students should or should not aim to have going into the recruit. A stellar transcript is not your ticket to Bay Street; it is neither necessary nor suff icient. Just so we’re perfectly clear, yes, you absolutely can get a job through this recruit with all Ps. As you head into your second semester, remember that the most important part of your résumé is you. Take care of yourself, f irst and foremost.
As noted in our November preview, the hiring numbers proved more heartening than in recent years. The majority of Canadian law schools for which we collected data experienced an increase in the number of students hired on Bay Street. (For comparison, see previous Ultra Vires article “Bay Street Hiring a Bloodbath This Year” from 2013, or last year’s “Recruitment Special Feature: Bay Street Hiring is Down. Like, Way Down”.) While the quantitative data is indicative of a relatively prosperous year, the qualitative data provided an earnest check on optimism. This was not surprising, given the rigours of
Thank you again to all who took the time to complete our survey. This recruitment special was produced by Kyle Jackson (2L , JD/MBA), Chloe Magee (2L) & Honghu Wang (1L). They would like to note that they do not necessarily endorse the views expressed by students in this feature.
Reader beware: Please note that all data is collected via an anonymous survey. A total of 150 responses were submitted.
71%
428
of respondents received at least one job offer
total students hired
54%
of U of T Law Class of 2019 hired
RECRUITMENT SPECIAL
20 | February 28, 2018
ultravires.ca
Class of 2019 Demographics 78%
37%
22%
First in family to attend law school
One year or more work experience
Completed a postgraduate degree
What is your age?
22 or younger
23
24
25
26
27
28 or older
UV also collected data on gender identity, sexual orientation, visible minority identity, and whether respondents were the first in their family to attend law school. We chose not to publish this information as our data does not diverge significantly from the JD First Year Class Profile published by the Faculty.
Financial Information Parental household income Prefer not to answer 12% >$1MM 4% $500k - $1MM 3%
Expected debt upon graduation
<25k 2% $25k - $50k 7%
$25k - $50k 12%
No debt 20%
$50k - $100k 20%
$300k - $500k 8%
$50k - $100k 21% Prefer not to answer 7%
$200k - $300k 13% $150k - $200k 10%
<25k 4%
$100k - $150k 22%
>$200k 3% $100k - $200k 34%
RECRUITMENT SPECIAL
ultravires.ca
February 28, 2018 | 21
Mental Health Do you have a mental health condition? Prefer not to answer 9%
If yes, has the frequency or severity of your experience with the condition(s) increased during your time at law school?
Yes 20%
If yes, have you accessed mental health resources through the law school or the university? No 33%
No 27% Prefer not to answer 3% Yes 60%
No 71%
Yes 70%
Top factors contributing to increase in frequency or severity of mental health condition: â&#x20AC;˘ Academic factors (workload, stress, culture, etc.) â&#x20AC;˘ Personal and relational factors
Political Life Which federal political party do you support? Conservative 11% Prefer not to answer 29%
Other 4%
Liberal 40% NDP 16%
Prefer not to answer 7%
RECRUITMENT SPECIAL
22 | February 28, 2018
How often did you attend pub nights in 1L? Never 19%
How often do you binge drink?
Weekly 18%
Monthly 30%
Couple of times a year 34%
ultravires.ca
Weekly 23%
Never 25%
Monthly 24% Couple of times a year 28%
How often do you partake in any other illicit drug use?
How often do you use marijuana?
Monthly 5%
Weekly 13%
Couple of times a year 10%
Monthly 8%
Never 55% Couple of times a year 25%
Never 85%
Toronto Recruit
131 respondents participated in the Toronto Recruit. Of those respondents who did not participate in the recruit, top reasons cited were returning to a 1L summer job or going to New York
Of those respondents who did participate in the recruit...
5%
40%
told more than one firm they were their first choice
networked with the employer from which they accepted an offer
RECRUITMENT SPECIAL
ultravires.ca
February 28, 2018 | 23
Employers that hired the most UofT students
15
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
10
10
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
7 Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
6 Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Boutique firm Boutique Firm 10%
If you accepted a position with an employer through the Toronto OCI process, was it at a...:
Government office 16% Government Office
Mid-size firm 7% Mid-size firm
Large fullservice firm Large full-service 67% firm
No 23%
Did you engage in any form of networking before OCI applications were due?
2 1
Yes 77%
55%
said their first choice employer changed during the recruitment process.
Respondents ranked these factors as most important in ranking firms during interviews: • Culture/Work-Life Balance/People you met • Strength of Practice Area(s) of Interest • Firm Prestige
RECRUITMENT SPECIAL
24 | February 28, 2018
ultravires.ca
Stuff About Grades KYLE JACKSON (2L, JD/MBA)
Almost from the moment they begin 1L, anxious students in the pre-employed phase of their law school careers are consistently reminded that “grades matter.” Unfortunately, this ominous reminder is usually abstracted from any concrete data relating to (i) the distribution of grades among the law school class and (ii) the relationship between a student’s grades and his or her employment outcome. For many students, the uncertainty surrounding what amounts to “good” grades generally, and what grades are “good enough” for securing employment, is a source of anxiety. And so, under the view that more information is better than less, the purpose of this article is to eliminate some of this uncertainty—in so far as is possible with our limited data set. Distribution of Grades Among the Class of 2019 137 survey respondents disclosed their 1L grades. This includes both students who did and did not participate in the Toronto 2L
recruit. Note that since our survey is targeted only towards 2019 graduates (i.e. those were eligible to participate in the recruit), our sample includes JD students who began 1L in 2016 as well as combined degree students who began 1L in 2015. For this reason—as well as the likelihood of bias in terms of who chooses to respond to our survey—the information presented here does not necessarily ref lect the actual distribution of grades at U of T Law among the 1L class that began in September 2016. To assess the distribution of grades among our sample, we use an unweighted GPA. This unweighted GPA is based on the values used by the Faculty for calculating a student’s off icial, weighted GPA (5 for HH, 4 for H, 3 for P, 1 for LP, and 0 for F). We use unweighted GPA in our analysis because we assume that employers do not pay attention to the credit weightings of individual courses when reviewing a student’s transcript. If true, then unweighted GPA more accurately ref lects how an employer perceives a student’s academic performance.
26.3
Median
26
Mode
24
85th percentile
30
50th percentile[1]
26
25th percentile[2]
24
dicting both the likelihood of receiving at least one offer and the number of offers a successful candidate will receive.
Success Rates at Each Stage of the Recruit
Evident from the above is that although grades are an important predictor of success in the Toronto OCI recruit, they are not “everything.” As such, we applied regression analysis to determine other factors correlated with getting OCI interviews, getting in-f irm interviews, and getting a job.[3]
Of the 137 survey respondents who disclosed their grades, 121 also provided complete information as to their number of OCI applications, OCI offers, OCIs attended, In-Firm offers, and Job offers. Using this data, we computed OCI-Offer-to-Application-Rate (the number of offers to attend an OCI interview received per application sent), and OCI-Conversion-Rate (the number of in-f irm offers received per OCI interview attended). In addition, we computed the percentage of students within each percentile grouping who received a job offer. Finally, for students within each grouping who received at least one offer, we computed the average number of job offers received. From this data, it appears that grades are most important when it comes to securing OCI interviews, with students at the top of the sample receiving offers to attend OCI interviews at signif icantly higher rates than students at the bottom of the sample. However, when it comes to converting those OCI interviews to in-f irm interviews, the importance of grades signif icantly declines. This conf irms that employers use the OCI interview to screen for non-academic qualif ications. That said, once students have passed the OCI stage, grades are still important for pre-
Unweighted GPA Mean
The median student has an unweighted GPA of 26, which corresponds, for example, to a transcript of 1 HH, 3 Hs, and 3 Ps. A GPA of 24, which places a student at the 25th percentile, corresponds, for example, to a transcript of 3 Hs and 4 Ps.
Other Factors Correlated with Success in the Recruit
Self-reporting as an extrovert was positively correlated with both getting a job and with converting OCI interviews to in-f irm interviews. Further, studying with others in 1L at least half of the time was positively correlated with getting OCI interviews. Perhaps more interesting is that using illicit drugs was positively correlated with converting OCI interviews to in-f irm interviews, and binge drinking (def ined in our survey as f ive or more drinks in one sitting) on a weekly basis was positively correlated with receiving OCI interviews. Admittedly, we are unsure what to make of these f indings. [1] The actual 50th percentile begins roughly in the middle of the group of students with an unweighted GPA of 26. [2] The actual 25th percentile begins roughly in the middle of the group of students with an unweighted GPA of 24. [3] As expected, the regression results conf irm that grades are positively correlated with success at each stage of the recruit, even when controlling for other factors.
GPA Position in the Sample
OCI-Offer-to-
85th to 99th percentile
83%
69%
89%
2.1
50th to 85th percentile
65%
55%
73%
1.9
25th to 50th percentile
42%
50%
68%
1.4
1st to 25th percentile
28%
52%
58%
2
ApplicationRate
OCI% of Students Average Number of Conversion- with at Least Offers, for Students with Rate One Offer at Least One Offer
ultravires.ca
RECRUITMENT SPECIAL
February 28, 2018 | 25
Looking Back on the Recruit ANONYMOUS (2L) & JEREMY UNGERMAN-SEARS (3L)
Anonymous Early September was a hard time for me. At the pre-OCI stage, I was slowly getting rejected by the majority of the big Bay Street f irms and I was terrif ied that this was indicative of my future OCI success. Like many students at U of T, I had never struggled to achieve my goals before. I worried that if I did not get the “right” position at the summer recruitment stage, my professional development would be limited. I also worried that people were going to think less of me. My worries were unproductive and irrational. I ended up having a reasonable number of OCIs and a full slate of in-f irms. I was lucky enough to walk away from the process with a job and I am very excited for my upcoming summer. However, I wish I had approached this process differently. What I would have told my pre-recruitment self:
1. Don’t
let the names on the walls phase you. Brilliant lawyers exist beyond the Seven Sisters.
2. Talk
to people who are out in the profession. Lawyers move around more than you might think.
3. Be kind to yourself. The hard reality is that there are thousands of qualif ied people and
far fewer positions at this stage. But more importantly, remember how arbitrary this process is. Assessments are going to be made about you based on one year of your academic life at U of T, one seventeen-minute interview and a few hours spent with a few people. I truly do not think these snippets represent the totality of the person you are or the person you are going to be.
Jeremy Ungerman-Sears If you landed a summer position through the November Recruit, you can stop reading. This article isn’t for you. But before you turn the page, take a moment to appreciate the position you’re in. Although it may seem normal given the strength of your cohort, you are part of a very select group of law students in Canada. Congratulations, you earned it. But having an articling position effectively guaranteed at the midpoint of law school is not the norm, and it shouldn’t be taken for granted. Enjoy the security, feel free to slack off in classes, and make sure to count your blessings. Now, onto the rest of you overachievers. Likely, many of you are experiencing career-related rejection, stress, and anxiety for the f irst time. I certainly did last year after not securing a summer position during the Recruit. It was a rough time. Yet it ultimately turned out to be one of the best things to ever happen to me. I came through the experience having grown immensely, both personally and professionally. This article aims to give you all hope for the upcoming months. I was hired as a second year summer student by Blakes on April 13, 2017, just days before my f inal exam. The preceding f ive months included an inordinate amount of phone calls, meetings, unanswered emails and applications, and Monster.com searches for anything “legal.” Working at a top f irm had been off the table for months—until it wasn’t. If I could pull this off, you can too. More than hope, I want to provide my strategic blueprint. You’ve all been told ad nauseum about the importance of “networking” and “relationship building.” It turns out that these things can actually work. The mechanics of my networking slog were neither complicated nor unique, but I hope you will f ind value in my story. I did my best to get back on the horse as fast as I could following the initial shock and frustration of not securing a 2L position on Call Day. I doubled down on my effort in classes (many of your newly hired colleagues will do the opposite, and you should take advantage of this) and began an all-out networking blitz. My objective was to talk with as many lawyers as I could. I started with deconstructing the Recruit by reaching out to every lawyer with whom I’d had a meaningful personal interaction during interview week. Many lawyers were happy to arrange a phone call or to meet up over coffee or lunch. While the feedback was underwhelming—there was a lot of “You did nothing wrong”, “Everyone liked meeting you”, and “Great candidates always slip through the cracks”—the lawyers were generally impressed with my initiative and routinely advised me to “Keep doing what you’re doing.” Although their f irms were done hiring, I believed that there was value in strengthening these personal connections. I reached out to every other legal professional I could access. My channels included family, friends, former work relationships, and faculty members who worked in my area of interest. I also focused on contacting as many Student Directors of Bay Street f irms as I could, and several of these relationships later proved invaluable in ultimately helping me land where I did.
Although I was making great contacts and gradually building a strong legal network, none of these connections yielded any imminent payoff in the form of a summer job. Throughout it all, I continued to apply to virtually every job posting on U of T’s career website. As February turned into March, without any interviews or job prospects in sight, I began pursuing websites like Monster and Indeed. Needless to say, these months were both humbling and stressful. But my break was just around the corner. I decided to attend my f irst “Lawyers Doing Cool Things” presentation in late March, where a former U of T Law graduate, and current legal counsel for Google, discussed his career path. Given the networking habits I had developed, I ref lexively reached out to him following the talk and shared with him my situation and aspirations. Although he was already on his way back to San Francisco, he offered to put me in touch with an old friend of his from law school. As I went to meet his friend the following week—just another coffee meeting in a long line of them—I had no idea that this would be the connection that would change my life. His friend had recently left Blakes, where he had been heavily involved with the student hiring, and he still maintained a close relationship with the Student Director. He offered to connect me with her to see if she had any ideas about f inding employment for the upcoming summer. As luck would have it, Blakes had hired an unusually low number of 2Ls during the recruit and was willing to bring me in for an interview. Note that I hadn’t done anything particularly innovative or special to get myself into a room with these people. It was purely a matter of persistence, leaving no stone unturned, and synchronicity. Following constant rejection, and with the pressure mounting, the stars f inally aligned and an amazing opportunity presented itself. Imagine how many opportunities exist out there right now, waiting for someone to f ind them. Figure out where you want to be, and start reaching out to those who are already there. Build relationships and leverage them into new ones. Send handwritten notes. And, as one Student Director suggested to me, “Be fearless.” The most important thing is to maintain perspective. If you haven’t yet found your position, recognize that this is not real adversity. It is at most a temporary setback—and an opportunity for growth and ref lection—in what is certain to be a successful career. You have not chosen an easy path. But you’re all at U of T Law for a reason. Don’t forget what that reason is. You have the time, you have a methodology, and you have the ever-important precedent. Put your talents and capabilities to work, apply these networking principles to your own fact pattern, and trust the universe. Good luck!
26 | February 28, 2018
RECRUITMENT SPECIAL
ultravires.ca
Feedback for the Career Development Office 75% of respondents considered the CDO helpful in helping them prepare for the recruitment process. In response to the question, “Do you have any comments on the CDO's services during the recruitment process?” respondents said, among other things:
• They were amazing, there is absolutely no way I
would have gotten through this crazy process without them. The CDO were not only my career coaches but at times they served as my support system as well.
• I love you guys. • They did the best they could. • Clearly oriented towards Bay Street, but the gov-
ernment guidebook with potential interview questions was good.
• It was heavily implied that I would struggle to find
a private practice job—let alone a Bay Street job—based on a personal attributes I have. I ended up at a major Bay Street firm. Let's just say I liked the CDO events where I didn't have to deal with people from the CDO. Twenty minute miracle was fantastic.
• I wish the CDO would collect more pertinent in-
formation about each firm and publish it somewhere that is easy to access. The process is overwhelming, especially for those of us from outside of
Ontario and who don't have family or friends in the legal profession, and having to do research from scratch on the fifty-plus firms that participate in the OCI recruit is highly inefficient and frustrating. The current model favours extroverted types and those with existing social connections— factors that don't necessarily relate to one's ability to do a given job. I don't see why this initial step can't be simplified. The information is out there, but it would be great if it were easier to find.
• I had two senior partners commend me for not using the CDO for cover letter help.
It seems absurd that every year, students are expected to go out and reinvent the wheel to collect very basic information about firms. What are their areas of expertise? Is their lit department in service of the others, or more independent? What are recruiting and hire-back numbers? How many offices do they have? It would be great if the CDO kept a proper database encompassing as many employers as possible, including some kind of "X employer, at a glance"-type profile. Relatedly, the CDO should be doing exit surveys. They should be transparent (and track & publish data on) the relative importance of grades for securing OCIs, in-firms, and offers from particular employers. It's a waste of everyone's time to pretend that grades don't matter for some employers, and that one LP won't (irrationally, arbitrarily) freeze you out from some. No one should have to schmooze all summer with a
firm that they never have a shot with anyway because they have a hard grades cutoff—better to be transparent so everyone can focus their efforts efficiently. The CDO should discourage people who have accepted jobs in NY from applying to thirty-plus jobs in the Toronto market as well. I get that you want to split, but you're on track to *start* at $180K US in your early twenties. Don't be greedy. Commit to a decision. Save some interview spots for the rest of us. Same goes for people who are still schmoozing and stringing along seven different firms on Wednesday because you're too fickle and afraid to make a decision and stick with it. The CDO should publicly rank and/or grade firms based on how they treat students throughout the process, and year to year. Bad firms and recruiters should be named and shamed, so students aren't surprised when they're wink/nudge on Wednesday ("You have nothing to worry about, we've been telling some candidates to look elsewhere, but you have no reason to worry") and then they don't even get a call or an email. The CDO should not reward or facilitate gaslighting of students. Instead, name and shame, and give firms an incentive to improve and strive towards excellence in professionalism and ethics.
• Why doesn’t the CDO offer mental health services for people who did not get any OCIs or infirms? By emphasizing the importance of mental
health TO ONLY “participants” of the OCI process, they perpetuate the idea that only those who are successful in the OCI process deserve the Faculty’s attention and resources.
• I found Yukimi's session on mental health during the CDO's interview preparation and student panel during the Wednesday lunch before interview week very unhelpful. I'm sure it was well intentioned, but I found it very counterproductive. As I felt calm going into the process, her session made me think I should've been more anxious. It struck me as fear-mongering. However, I found hearing from the student panel very helpful.
• Panels should have more variety; I know the
recruit was easy for you, you got straight HHs. I want to hear about how the P student fared. Also, the CDO was way too cheerful about this process. Yes, they told us it would be stressful and we would be tired, but I was in no way prepared for how broken and empty infirms left me. This is a grueling process; just tell me that.
• Absolutely awful. Not only gave almost zero help for government interviews but they said it was okay if we didn't really study because interviewers would understand we hadn't taken Evidence or Crim Pro and we could just say "pass." Yup, that's how not to get a government job.
Thank You, But I Know That Life Isn’t Over After OCIs SUJUNG LEE (2L) The concept of OCIs was strange to me from the beginning. Why would anyone create an acronym for “on-campus interviews” that don’t even take place on a campus? What’s the difference between doing interviews on or off campus? Having completed a degree in philosophy, the idea of employers competing to hire me seemed funny. Nevertheless, I understood since my first day in law school that the OCI was kind of an important, omnipresent force. The dominant narrative at this school goes something like this: the OCI is the primary source of jobs, the jumping off point of your career, so long as you have a decent set of grades. If you’re unsuccessful, then it may be very difficult for you to find a well-paying job for the summer, or even after graduation. Even if you don’t particularly want to work on Bay Street, the OCI is an integral part of your law school experience. I bought into this narrative. As someone who had no idea what kind of law I wanted to practice, the OCI was a comforting next step. It offers a structured, step-by-step route into potential job security with a high salary. I reached out to people for coffee chats; I went on firm tours; I enrolled in less classes during the fall term to prepare. In short, I did all the things that I thought I was supposed to do.
The narrative, however, falls short from reality. Every year, about forty percent of U of T students do not secure employment from the Fall OCI process, taking into account those who choose not to participate in the OCI. This figure makes sense, given that OCIs present a skewed picture of the legal market. Participation is limited to only those employers that receive a high volume of annual applicants, such as big Bay Street firms and some government positions. By its very nature, OCIs obscure smaller and lesserknown firms, for whom the costs of participation outweigh the benefits. In fact, other law schools in the province (except perhaps Osgoode) do not seem to care much about OCIs for this very reason. For example, a recent graduate from Western told me that she was not expected to find summer employment in 2L, and spent her summer travelling. She successfully secured an articling position that she is happy with. Moreover, success in the OCIs goes beyond mere grades or professional experiences. One need only read Hadiya Roderique’s “Black on Bay Street” article to understand that “fit,” a key determinant in one’s success at OCIs, can operate to disadvantage people of colour and lower socio-economic classes. How well you click with your interviewers depends heavily on the existence of shared experiences, the breadth of which is a matter of luck—luck that may start from the circumstances of your birth.
If the OCI is not applicable to almost half the student population, then why does it figure as such a significant part of the U of T psyche? A part of it, I think, has to do with the fact that U of T is the top law school in Canada. From this status, we feel a sense of entitlement to the best employment opportunities in Canada, in spite of market realities. More problematic is the fact that the school feeds into this entitlement by normalizing the OCI process. Throughout the school year, the CDO litters our schedule with information sessions and workshops on how to improve our résumés, interview skills, and networking in order to succeed in OCIs, which are so important that they even merit cancelling a day’s classes in October—a privilege that even the worst Canadian snow storms don’t confer on us. Our colleagues casually discuss OCIs in the hallways as if it’s a universal experience. An innocuous, “Where are you working this summer?” presumes that there is some place that I should be working, and that the default is a successful OCI experience. Ultra Vires is not guiltless in this; we publish annual OCI recruitment specials and it is often our most read—and certainly most shared—issue of the school year. Unfortunately, this normalization produces a sense of shame when students are unable to obtain jobs through the OCI. We believe that our lack of success reflects on some defect in our grades, application materials, or personality.
The school reinforces this shame through subtle actions and messages. In the 2018 Winter OCI information session, the CDO started off with the “good news” that there are more employers looking for summer students in the winter. The session itself felt like a big consolation session that we shouldn’t give up hope after OCIs, by way of stories from students and alumni telling us that it was possible, rather than perfectly normal, to secure jobs after OCIs. Were we supposed to think otherwise? What was the “bad” news? Considering that a significant proportion of the class is currently without job, shouldn’t it be a given that there are still jobs left? Framing the OCI as the reference point against which the rest of our job-search experience should be measured perpetuates the idea that there is something wrong with not getting a job through OCIs, whether it’s because we were unsuccessful or chose not to participate. While I would have been happy to obtain a job from the OCI process, I shouldn’t be made to feel sad that I didn’t. The OCI narrative is false. Striking out at OCIs does not reflect on your abilities or talents, nor does it necessarily decrease your chances of obtaining employment. Like all things in life, opportunities will come and go. The OCI process is just one of those opportunities. Let us not over-inflate its importance.
ultravires.ca
Firm Aird & Berlis LLP Baker & McKenzie LLP Bennett Jones LLP Bereskin & Parr LLP
RECRUITMENT SPECIAL 2017 Total
U of T
Osgoode
10
4
1
5 17
Western
February 28, 2018 | 27
Queens
Ottawa
3
1
1 4
2
5
1
3
Windsor
McGill
2
2
Other 1
1
1
Dalhousie
1
2
1
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
37
15
8
3
2
2
2
1
1
3
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
30
7
7
2
4
2
3
3
1
1
3
1
Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Dale & Lessmann LLP
3 13
3 4
2
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
10
Dentons LLP
11
1 1
3
3
3
1 1
1
3
1 3
Dickinson Wright LLP
3
1
DLA Piper (Canada) LLP
7
2
1 1
1
3
4
4
1
1
1
DOJ Ontario Region Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
9 16
Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP
4
1
Fogler, Rubinoff LLP
6
1
Gardiner Roberts LLP
4
1
Gilbert's LLP
1 1
2
1
2
1
15
4
6
4
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP
6
1
14
3
6
2
Koskie Minsky LLP
5
2
1
1
KPMG Law Legal Aid Ontario
11
Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP
7
MAG - Crown Law Office - Civil
7
MAG - Crown Law Office - Criminal MAG - Ministry of Labour Mathews Dinsdale & Clark LLP
3
2
1
1 1
3 1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
4
2
3
Did not respond 3
1
2
Did not respond 1
1 2
1
1
9
4
2
2
Miller Thomson LLP
14
4
3
3
1
2
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
18
6
4
1
3
1
1 2 30
2
2 1 2
1
2
1
1 1 10
Owens Wright LLP
2
Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
4
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Toronto Office)
1
Polley Faith LLP
1
1
Public Prosecution Service of Canada (Ontario Regional Office)
4
1
Ridout & Maybee LLP
0
Shearman & Sterling LLP (Toronto Office)
0
Shields O'Donnell MacKillop LLP
2
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Toronto Office)
1
Smart & Biggar LLP
3
Stieber Berlach LLP
3
Stikeman Elliott LLP
18
Thorsteinssons LLP
0
% Employers Responding
1
1
3
Count of employers
2
1
5
Wildeboer Dellelce LLP
1
1
2
Torys LLP
3
1
10
Torkin Manes LLP
1
1
6
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
2
1 3 2
26
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
1
1
McCague Borlack LLP
Office of the Ontario Ombudsman
1
1
McCarthy Tetrault LLP McMillan LLP
1 3
2 2
Goodmans LLP Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP
1
6
1 2
3
2
4
2 1
1
2
1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
2 2
2
5
15
5
3
5
1
428
110
3
1 5 1
3 1
1
4
1
2 99
49
1
1
1
1
1
2 50
35
32
19
14
20
54 96%
Approximate Class Size
205
290
175
200
310
245
180
170
% with Toronto Jobs
54%
34%
28%
25%
11%
13%
11%
8%
Total
U of T
Osgoode
Western
Queens
Ottawa
Windsor
McGill
Dalhousie
Other
375
93
83
42
44
30
33
20
14
16
Previous Years 2016 2015
420
106
84
49
48
32
40
25
18
18
2014
398
97
83
48
46
35
26
27
15
21
2013
351
94
75
44
43
30
23
13
13
16
2012
379
89
89
43
43
39
28
18
14
16
2011
403
96
83
53
47
36
27
27
18
16
2010
444
104
99
55
43
44
44
25
15
15
2009
427
100
98
48
53
31
31
21
20
25
2008
406
85
92
42
49
34
37
23
18
26
2007
435
88
93
43
48
42
37
19
32
33
2006
409
91
86
47
42
35
34
26
25
23
2005
355
96
74
39
32
30
33
15
16
20
2004
361
91
80
41
36
24
32
23
18
16
2003
312
77
73
28
33
18
28
16
17
22
THE INDEPENDENT STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW