Ultra Vires Vol 15 Issue 5: 2014 February

the independent student newspaper of the university of toronto faculty of law First Edition February 26, 2014 Vol. XV, No. V ultravires.ca

Feature Number One Students Outraged

Feature Two of the 1LFeaturePoint|Counterpoint Number Three AnNumber Overview

Otasim nonet pedi doles as utaqu unt nonet pedi doles as utaqu unt Curriculum Changes over Faculty Blog Post Otasim arum fuga. In conecus acea sape sen arum fuga. In conecus acea sape sen News, Page 6 Alarie assures students there ducil et rectus aut dolor. ducil et rectus aut dolor.

is no cause for concern News, Page 3

News, Page 3

News, Page 5

Otasim nonet pediFollies doles as unt Is Law or utaqu Law Ball arum fuga. conecus Event acea sape sen Law theInLeading of the ducil et rectus autCalendar? dolor.

School

Features,Opinions, Page 7 Page 15

Law Follies Photos

Feature Number Four Reading Week:

Otasim nonet pedi doles as utaqu unt Expectations arum fuga. In conecus acea sape sen Reality ducilvs. et rectus aut dolor.

Diversions, Page 20

Features, Page 9

TKTKTKTK

See Features, Pages 8 -11

Will the 1Ls Get to See the New Building?

University Secures Building Permit Eight Months After Construction was Set to Begin DAVID GRUBER (2L)

C

ity Council passed a motion approving the University of Toronto's request for a tree removal permit on Wednesday, February 19. The permit, which allows the University to remove thirteen trees and “injure” two more that surround Flavelle House, had been holding up construction of the new Faculty of Law building since the spring.

Late last month Faculty of Law Dean Mayo Moran circulated an email to “Members of the Law School Community,” indicating that construction of the new Jackman Law Building has

been delayed.

“Although construction has started, for reasons beyond our control it has proceeded somewhat slower than we had hoped,” said Moran in the email.

If construction is underway, it hasn't been obvious from the looks of it. The fenced-off area on the south side of Flavelle House has been whisper-quiet. Well into the new year there's no sign of any workers or construction equipment. A single building permit from the City of Toronto, issued on May 28, 2013, is posted on

the exterior of Flavelle House. Under Project Description it reads “Interior Alterations.”

The Faculty of Law's Construction Blog features some evidence of destruction—including photos showing the demolition of part of the interior of Flavelle House, and removal of the elevator from the Bora Laskin Library—there hasn't been any sign of construction per se.

In her email Moran indicated that while construction has started, she expects “that a much more intensive phase of construction will begin shortly.”

A Groundbreaking Event The official “groundbreaking” ceremony for the new Jackman Law Building was held on June 4, 2013. The event, which according to the Construction Blog was attended by “more than 170 alumni, friends, faculty, students and staff,” featured a 42-minute speech from Dean Moran and ball caps that read “GROUNDBREAKING JUNE 4, 2014”. Photographs from the event show a select group of dark-

Continued on page 4

2 | FEBRUARY 26, 2014

EDITORIAL/NEWS

ultravires.ca

An Open Letter to Everyone Who Considered Writing for UV This Year Submit by March 19th (pretty please) EMILY DEBONO (3L)

M

any of you have told me that you’d write something for UV this year. In the middle of completely unrelated conversations, you’ll say “Hey, when’s the next issue of UV coming out? Why didn’t you remind me to write something?! When’s the next deadline? I’m totally going to write for that one. Yeah, I actually mean it this time.” You know who you are.

Well guys, this month I’m holding you to it. The next and final deadline is Wednesday March 19th. Each and every one of you is cor-

dially invited to write. Tell everyone you know.

Mark it in your calendars, highlight it and underline it twice. Do whatever it takes. It’s going to be the last issue of the year and we want you to be a part of it.

Being a law student at U of T certainly has its pros and cons, but what we often take for granted is that—unlike students at many other faculties—we have access to a newspaper to air our (sometimes serious, sometimes not but always numerous) grievances. This issue addresses some deep concerns- building delays,

unfair prejudice against transfers, the Faculty Blog map controversy, and 1L curriculum change to name a few. It also highlights some of the lighter aspects of law student life: Follies, LBTD (see Point/Counterpoint for David Pardy’s enlightened analysis of the phenomenon described by this acronym), and the disappointment of a reading week wasted.

If you’ve ever considered writing for UV, please take the plunge. Our hope is that the final issue of the year will have more contributors than any before, and be reflective of whatever

measure of diversity the Diversity Survey can plausibly claim exists in our community. Feel free to contact at us at ultra.vires@utoronto.ca with any questions or to run ideas by us. But do it soon… March 19th is fast approaching and you’re totally going to write for this one.

In Your Own Words Students Talk About the Effects of Tuition and Debt LISA WILDER (3L)

I

n the last week of January, the student-run Tuition Action Committee launched a campaign to collect students’ stories about tuition and financial aid. Concerned about the lack of data on how tuition affects the overall student experience, the Committee solicited entries from students in-person and online.

At the most recent Tuition Town Hall on October 16, students raised concerns about the lack of data on how tuition affects accessibility, diversity, career choice, and mental health. In the past year, the Faculty acknowledged the importance of improving its data on accessibility and diversity. Statistics on diversity and accessibility featured prominently in the Faculty’s latest promotional materials.

Even if the Faculty’s statistics are accurate, they don’t tell the whole story. The Tuition Action Committee collected about 60 messages from students on colourful construction paper, which it posted outside the Reading Room, and received about 30 longer messages online.

The stories are a valuable addition to existing data because they reflect students’ lived experiences. Some students discussed how tuition affected their career choice. Many students described the sheer quantum of tuition as “terrifying”. Financial aid helps, but the uncertainty that goes along with it (i.e. not knowing whether you will qualify from year to year, or how much you will receive), is a significant source of stress. Stress about finances stretches beyond school walls.

Students described how their debt levels affect not just themselves, but their families. If students lay awake at night wondering how they will pay for school, there are likely other people in their lives who stay awake worrying for them too, and who make sacrifices so they can be in law school.

As the stories revealed, students’ financial situations can also affect their social lives. Socializing is not just about having fun with friends. As some students pointed out, it is a way of maintaining balance, getting to know your classmates better, and sometimes, networking. Reaping these benefits by going out for drinks or a meal with friends is out of reach for some students, or is a decision that is not to be made lightly.

The Faculty’s current statistics about accessibility, based on students’ parents’ income levels (gathered from census data by postal code) do not come close to capturing these realities, nor do they accurately reflect students’ financial situations while in law school.

Not all of the students who participated in our campaign have concerns about tuition. Some students indicated that any problems associated with high tuition are adequately addressed through financial aid and the back-end debt relief program. Those views were in the minority.

Dialogue on tuition and financial aid needs to continue. Dialogue will be enhanced by filling in the gaps in data collection and by paying heed to students’ lived experiences.

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.

Editor-in-Chief Editor-in-Chief, Emeritus News Editors Features Editors Opinion Editors Diversions Editor Special Content Editors 1L Editors VP Finance Web Editors Layout Editor

Emily Debono Patrick Hartford David Gruber & Katherine Georgious Marita Zouravlioff & Jacquie Richards Louis Tsilivis & Paloma van Groll Alanna Tevel David Feldman & Eryn Fanjoy Alexander Carmona & Lisana Nithiananthan Daanish Samadmoten Kevin Siu & Aron Nimani Alyssa Howes

Errors If you find any errors in Ultra Vires, please email ultra.vires@utoronto.ca

Advertising Advertising inquiries should be sent to vp Finance Daanish Samadmoten at ultra.vires@utoronto.ca.

Submissions If you have an article submission or a tip for us, please contact us at ultra.vires@utoronto.ca.

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

NEWS

ultravires.ca

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 | 3

Students Outraged over Faculty Blog Post

Alarie Assures Students There is No Cause for Concern DAVID GRUBER (2L) & PATRICK HARTFORD (4L)

E

arlier this month student outrage erupted over a Faculty of Law blog post that featured a map of where current students are living in Toronto.

The entry, titled “Revealed preference 2: the immediate area”, was posted by Associate Dean Ben Alarie to the Faculty of Law’s tumblr on February 4. The post included a Google map of Toronto with many pins identifying specific points. Several students noticed pinpoints on their exact residences.

Alarie says the map was intended to give incoming students a sense of where current students choose to live. The map was not interactive and did not include the names of any students or any specific addresses.

“WE DON’T CONSULT THE SLS ABOUT POSTS WE MAKE ON THE ADMISSIONS PAGE.” —ASSOCIATE DEAN BEN ALARIE On February 10, the Faculty of Law tweeted a link to the post to their over 8,000 followers.

The tweet has since been deleted.

A concerned alumnus sent Alarie an email around 1:30 a.m. on the morning of Thursday, February 13. The offending blog post was taken down by 5:30 a.m. on the same day.

Alarie insists students have nothing to worry about.

While he would not agree to a recorded interview, Alarie sat down with UV and explained that the pins only represented postal codes, not specific addresses. He added that the map only included information from a sample of UTLaw students and that no students could be identified from the information posted.

On February 13, the administration posted a new entry on their tumblr, explaining that they removed the map to address student concerns.

The entry notes in bold that “no student personal information was ever made public.”

Many students were not convinced. Several students approached UV and said that pins were located exactly on their houses.

Part of the problem may be that downtown Toronto has some of the smallest postal codes in the country. Some have a radius of only 20 meters. Apartment buildings often have their own postal code.

Genevieve (*L) told UV that a pin was located directly on her house. She says she is concerned by the administration’s approach to students' personal information.

“I realize that they associated no names with the addresses. That is not the point,” explained Genevieve. “The point is that my personal information is being put to a very unorthodox purpose, which I did not have in mind when I consented to give it. If this information is being treated so trivially, in such an open fashion, how am I supposed to trust that my information is being protected or confidential in other contexts?”

Aurora (2L), expressed concerns over student safety: “Having spent eleven years as a police officer before coming to the Faculty of Law, I found this

A recreation of the administration’s map, without the pins, showing how zoomed-in the map was

“THE FACULTY IS SMALL, AND THIS MAP IS, NOT TO PUT TOO FINE A POINT ON IT, A STALKER'S DREAM.” —AURORA (2L) map of student addresses to be cause for safety concerns. The Faculty is small, and this map is, not to put too fine a point on it, a stalker's dream.”

When asked about the issue of women feeling concerned about the posted information, Alarie responded: “I understand the concern. I have trouble imagining how it would play out [in

terms of the information being misused].”

Alarie underscored that the Faculty took down the post within hours of hearing students complaints and reiterated that the school takes student privacy very seriously.

“We thought hard about whether particular students could be identified,” he said.

The administration says they did not consult any students or the SLS before posting the map.

“We don’t consult the SLS about posts we make on the admissions page,” said Alarie.

4 | FEBRUARY 26, 2014

NEWS

ultravires.ca

Continued from page 1 suited alumni and administrators awkwardly pressing shovels into the grass to announce the beginning of construction.

Actual construction, however, wasn't quick to follow.

In order to proceed with its construction plans, the architect and University officials had to secure a number of variances from the city, including the tree-removal permit that eluded them until late February.

Faculty of Law Professor Jim Phillips' office is on the ground floor of Flavelle House.

Phillips says that back in the summer he and his colleagues were warned that construction of the new building would bring heat, dust, and noise. The administration offered to move them to a building on Wellesley Street, but most professors declined.

While the Flavelle-based faculty members prepared to withstand a summer full of inconvenience, in the end the building project was hardly noticeable.

“The only disruption we've had was the three times workers set off the fire alarm,” said Phillips.

According to a report from Toronto's City Planning Division, the University's application to the Committee of Adjustment wasn't heard until July 2013, about a month after the official start of construction. On October 10, 2013, the Department of Urban Forestry, Tree Protection & Plan Review denied the university's application for a permit to remove the trees. According to an official at the department, such a permit can only be issued with the approval of the local city councillor.

It appears that the permit was held back after some residents had expressed concern about how the new building might affect the neighbourhood.

On July 15, following talks with the University Area Liaison Committee, members of four local neighbourhood organizations wrote to the Committee of Adjustment, indicating they would not object to the new application, “despite the controversial encroachment into Philosopher's Walk.” In exchange for this concession, the University agreed to designate the open area beside Philosopher's Walk as University Open Space, which will be open to the public.

The next day Councillor Adam Vaughan wrote to the Committee of Adjustment, supporting the application on the condition that the University follow through on the concession it made to the neighbourhood associations.

The concessions included making changes to its landscaping plan, satisfying unspecified standards for sun, shade, and water for developments adjacent to the University Open Space, providing benches “and other improvements” around Philosopher's Walk, and providing an open space buffer between Philosopher's Walk and the new building.

With the support of Councillor Vaughan, the University appealed the decision to deny the tree-removal permit. The new application was heard by the Toronto and East York Community Council on November 19, 2013, and was then forwarded to City Council, to be heard on December 16, 2013.

On December 12, four days before the upcoming City Council meeting, the University wrote to Council, confirming its commitment to

providing public space between the new building and Philosopher's Walk. Two days later, the Chair of the Grange Community Association—one of the four groups that had previously agreed not to oppose the application—also wrote to City Council. In it the association complained that the their original letter to the Committee of Adjustment was meant only to refer to the issue of public space, and that they had not discussed the matter of tree-removal. The letter suggests that the University failed to disclose its plan to remove trees from the area between Flavelle House and Philosopher's Walk.

Council voted on December 16 to postpone consideration of the application. The motion passed with 29 votes in favour, and the item was deferred until February 19, 2014. The sole dissenting vote came from Mayor Rob Ford.

Then on February 19, more than eight months after the official start to construction, Council finally approved the motion to grant the University's application.

After the University received the tree-remov-

al permit, Moran told Ultra Vires that there are now no more major permits needed for the project to be completed.

“We are currently working with Eastern, the construction manager, to begin exterior demolition and construction as quickly as possible,” Moran said.

Despite the delays, setbacks, and controversies, Moran has said she and the administration, “remain confident that the Jackman Law Building will open during the 2015-16 academic year.”

Doubtless this is a measured confidence, since in the following sentence Moran says the Faculty is also arranging to remain in Victoria College through 2016 if need be.

Meanwhile the Faculty continues to advertise the new $54 million building project as a draw to current and prospective students, even as it becomes increasingly doubtful whether the current crop of first-year students, or next year's incoming class, will ever get to enjoy the facility.

Hal Jackman Discusses the Law and his Life KENT KURAN (1L)

H

al Jackman (B.A. ’53 Vic., LL.B. ’56) is a pillar of the Toronto business and political community. Amongst his many accomplishments, he has served as Chancellor of U of T, Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, and is currently Visitor of Massey College.

Most recently, he donated $11 million to the Faculty of Law in support of its new construction campaign. Only a few years back he also contributed $30 million to the new Jackman Humanities Building, Jackman Humanities Institute, and Massey College.

Sitting in his office overlooking University Avenue surrounded by oil paintings of Canada’s beautiful landscape, Jackman recalls his time at U of T. “I enjoyed law and have a huge admiration for professors. The ones we had there, they were first class people. I took general arts before that. It was like night and day. I never really got a real education until I got into law school. Which is one of the reasons why I gave them a lot of money. I felt somehow an obligation to them. You cannot define that I succeeded in life because of some specific experience

such as at law school. But you do know you are the sum total of what you did before.”

He explained that law school changed since his time there. At the time, Toronto Law School, which joined U of T, had broken off from Osgoode Hall Law School. Dean Caesar Wright was leading Toronto’s efforts to become an independent community of scholars, and this transition needed new people.

“It was different back then. To get into law school now, you need very high marks as I understand it. That was not the case when I was there. There was battle going on between the provincial law society and the provincial university. We had 17 in our graduating class of 1956 [at U of T], while the first year class at Osgoode [Hall] was about 150. The new U of T Law was struggling, in the sense that they had put together a first class faculty, but it was being heavily subsidized by the centre of the university. I think some of the other faculties were getting a bit annoyed. ‘You have to get more bodies into those seats.’ So it was relatively easy to get into U of T law school. I got in with I believe a ‘C’ average. Though a ‘C’ may be about a ‘A-‘

now based on how marks have been inflated [over the decades]. It was a good time and we had good students. Though, it is much more competitive nowadays.”

When it comes to the legal profession’s future, he sees a need for the law to serve the public, much like the other professions do.

“When I was chancellor of the University of Toronto, I sensed the other professional faculties such as medicine and engineering were more practical. For instance, medicine is interested in making people live longer and healthier for the most reasonable cost possible. Engineering is to build that structure and make it last and function for the lowest possible cost for humanity. The law does not have that as a mandate.

They should service society. I do not like the hourly billing rate. They should bill not by how long it takes to write the paper but by what it says. In particular, in these family law cases divorce and custody. The law should be able to help them out.”

Regarding money in the legal profession, he was not and is still not in favor of inflated tuition fees or hourly rates. “I think we paid

around $300 or so back then for law school with about $150 per year for arts” Jackman said. “I spoke out against the law school tuition fee increase. Former Dean Daniels wanted to increase it one big hunk. But ultimately, I think, the government stepped in and did not allow him to do it. And the other law schools in the province were very much against U of T doing it because they felt they would have to do it too. Because they were a little ingenuous in their arguments that this would allow more people to attend. I think 30% of the new money was going to student aid increases while the rest of it was for raises and pay for new faculty.

Some want to go to law school, but can’t go because they can’t pay. I think the law profession is not as highly regarded by society as other professions, and there are higher rated professions such as physicians and dentists.”

Talking about the changes happening in Ontario today, Jackman, though a retired businessperson now, is still as engaged as ever with the law.

ultravires.ca

NEWS

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 | 5

Inside the Faculty Council Big Changes Coming to First-Year DANIEL CARENS-NEDELSKY (1L)

T

his month, at what was by the far most packed Faculty Council session of the year, the council voted on a series of proposals that will substantially change the first-year curriculum.

The most controversial proposal, the semesterisation of the first year curriculum, passed with a clear majority, but a more than trivial number of council members who opposed the motion or abstained from voting. The overwhelming impression in the room was that people were impressed with the Curriculum Committee process in making its proposals, and that from a faculty perspective, it had felt a like a truly consultative process.

However, Professor Arial Katz brought up the fact that at no point in the proposal or during the discussion was it made clear what proportion of those who actually teach the firstyear large sections approved of semesterisation.

A poll taken prior to the meeting, or even just a quick show of hands at the meeting itself, would have clarified for all those voting what those instructors thought about the changes.

The less controversial proposal involved a combination of smaller changes that, taken together, introduce a second substantial change to the first-year curriculum. The committee proposed removing Administrative Law from first-year and replacing it with three things.

The first is an extension of each semester from 12 to 13 weeks. The second is the conversion of Legal Research and Writing into a 2-credit, assignment-based course that would meet for two hours every week over a single semester. Last is the creation of an intensive

course on Legal Methods, with 24 hours of classes spread over two weeks, during the last two weeks of August.

Of the components of this proposal, only this last measure proved controversial, and criticism of it focused on its scheduling rather than its proposed content. Ultimately, the proposal passed easily with very few opposed or abstaining.

The first part of the proposal, the removal of Administrative Law from the first-year curriculum, appears to have been driven by near-universal agreement amongst students and faculty. Because of Federation of Law Societies’ requirements, Administrative Law remains a mandatory course, but students are now free to take it any time during their second or third years.

Those professors who believe Administrative Law provides a necessary foundation for their courses may list it as pre- or co-requisite for registration. It was suggested in the report that more sections may be available in the fall semester than in the winter to encourage students to take the class early in their degree.

The proposals to lengthen the term by a week and expand the legal research and writing course were not met with resistance. The additional week was added to bring average instructional hours closer to those of schools considered to be peers of U of T (Osgoode, UBC, McGill and a number of top-tier American schools), while hopefully reducing pressure on students by spreading the year’s material over a greater length of time.

The expanded course was proposed in response to a perceived need for addition train-

ing in legal research and writing from both students and professors. It will be based partially on the upper-year Legal Research and Writing course.

As a result of the changes, Legal Research and Writing will be taken during the first semester, and Legal Process, Professionalism, and Ethics (LPPE) will be moved to the second semester.

Unlike the other proposals, the creation of the 2-week intensive Legal Methods course in August did create some controversy at the previous Faculty Council meeting and the recent town hall. There was no opposition to the goals of the course, but concern arose over the effectiveness of the chosen format and timing. Students and professors alike questioned the ability of a 2-week ungraded course to improve students’ skills before they begin their legal studies.

However, these concerns were overshadowed by questions about the timing of the course. The committee argued that first-year students would greatly benefit from a crash course in the basics skills needed for law school.

Many raised concerns centering on the additional economic burden that an extra two weeks of school would place on a number of students. It was argued that the course may present undue challenges to those incoming students who are relocating to the GTA, have family obligations (especially those with young children), or depend upon a full summer’s employment to finance the academic year.

The committee was aware of these concerns, but in the end decided that the benefits of the

new course outweighed its costs, and made certain that the financial aid office was aware of the increased burden the course would place on incoming students.

While a number of topics were raised in discussing both proposals, a recurring theme was the issue of student wellness, and what measures would most likely reduce (or increase) stress among students. Two things became clear to me during these discussions. First, there is very obviously no consensus within the faculty about what student wellness is or how best to promote it. Second, however important student wellness is to the administration, keeping up with our peer schools is equally, if not more, important to them.

On page 16 of its report, the Curriculum Committee discusses overall student workload and notes that “…fifty hours does not strike most members of the Committee as an unreasonable demand on a first year student’s week, even bearing in mind that assignment and exam preparation and extracurricular activities represent additional claims. The Committee is also aware that, measured in annual instructional hours, our program cannot be said to be heavy in comparison to our peers.”

Professor Colleen Flood noted that by frequently altering the first-year curriculum (Administrative Law was added only four years ago), U of T might be engaging in a process of “re-disorganization” rather than making actual improvements.

Minister Increases Regulations on Universities KENT KURAN (1L)

O

ver the past year Ontario has brought in a raft of new regulations restricting the fees that universities are permitted to charge, while also providing more assistance to students to pay for the ever-increasing cost of higher education. Under Premier Kathleen Wynne, Brad Duguid, Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities, has implemented a series of new measures—much to the universities’ objection.

The changes have included reducing the cap on tuition fee increases, imposing limits on parttime tuition fees (commonly known as flat fees), removing deferral fees on government loans, and new agreements with universities about their role in the province.

Duguid has brought a clear strategy to the table, trying to “support the needs of our economy and students,” as he puts it. He took over from Glen Murray, a minister under former Premier Dalton McGuinty, who dealt with multiple leaks and policy turnarounds, leaving the university sector unclear about the government’s direction. A year ago there was talk about implementing a governmentset undergraduate tuition fee, and switching to three-year bachelor’s degrees with three terms per year. There was also talk of having three-fifths of courses delivered online, possibly by a government-run institute. All of that now seems to have disappeared (the prov-

ince's new online institute will merely provide courses from universities, while taking a cut of the tuition fees).

For now, Duguid wants to focus on educating the next generation entering Ontario’s economy. The first thing was reining in tuition fees.

“The best we could do was that we put in place a tuition framework that was going to lower the ability of institutions to increase fees as much as they had in the past. That is why we lowered the tuition framework to 3 percent for undergrads and 5 percent for grad and professional students.”

For reference, in the same period the Consumer Price Index in Ontario rose 1.5 percent.

“At the same time, I know it is challenging for students. There is OSAP [Ontario Student Assistance Program] available, but the problem with that is law students will graduate with a very large debt load.”

Currently the province no longer provides the majority of the funding to universities and even most of its funding is now in the form of loans and grants to students rather than teaching funding to universities.

Duguid went into detail explaining how the Liberals are trying to help students financially, both before (“front-end”) and after (“backend”) graduation.

“There are breaks at the back-end, but it

is still tough,” said Duguid. “We are spending about one billion dollars per year through OSAP grants and the 30 Percent Off program, and the fact is we are in a deficit situation fiscally. I am not anticipating anything new in terms of big new costly assistance programs.

We have put forward a number of program in the last few years that have made a substantial impact. We recognize the challenge and there are not a lot of easy answers to bring down the cost.”

Law students, much like other graduate and professional students, do not qualify for the 30 Percent Off program.

“It is something we would love to do at some point in time. Our fiscal situation does not allow us to do that because that would be very costly,” said Duguid, adding that the government can not afford professional school tuition fees without taking on further debt, which it is trying to reduce.

As for the future, Duguid said the government is investigating the possibility of increasing aid post-graduation.

“For now, what we are focusing on is that back-end assistance that most students are not even aware about,” he said.

That kind of assistance can make a large difference. A typical U of T law student who is eligible for OSAP will get about $22,500 dollars in grants (some upfront, but mostly back-end) and

another $22,500 dollars in loans. Additionally, federal education tax credits should provide about $30,000 dollars more in back-end relief, bringing the cost of a $90,000 U of T Law degree down by less than half to about $12,500 dollars per year before living expenses.

With an election widely expected sometime later this year, there is also much talk about alternative approaches. The Conservative opposition has put forward plans to deregulate fees for “research-intensive” universities as part of a series of “white paper” proposals.

This will allow universities to charge much higher fees.

“Tim Hudak’s plan for post-secondary education is very short-sighted,” said Duguid.

“First and foremost they want to do away with the 30 Percent Off program, taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the pocket of lowand middle-income students. It is incredibly short-sighted, because we need those students to attend post-secondary education and join a competitive labour force.”

“Secondly, the plan was very elitist. The province has a role to play in terms of stewardship. We—I—want to make sure our world-class globally competitive universities, such as U of T, which is highly ranked globally in a number of different areas, continue to excel.”

NEWS

6 | FEBRUARY 26, 2014

ultravires.ca

An Overview of the 1L Curriculum Changes BRENDAN STEVENS (3L) AND PETER FLYNN (3L)

A

t the Faculty Council meeting on February 12, a strong majority of the Council voted to approve the recommendations in the Final Report of the Standing Curriculum Committee (the “Committee”). This vote arrived after 6 months of research, consultation and discussion by the members of the Committee. In this article we aim to explain what was approved, the process that was employed, and areas that will require continued advocacy.

What is Changing?

There are four main curriculum changes as a result of the Faculty Council vote: (1) Administrative Law is becoming a mandatory Upper Year course; (2) Legal Research and Writing is becoming a 2-credit course for first year students; (3) a Legal Methods intensive course will be offered for two weeks before the start of the core first year courses; and (4) the core first year courses will be offered on a semestered basis, with each student’s small group course continuing to be offered on a year long basis.

First Change: Administrative Law Administrative Law is being removed from the 1L program and will become a mandatory Upper Year course. The course can be taken in either 2L or 3L, but will become a preor co-requisite for appropriate Upper Year courses. Based on the feedback received from students and professors, this was an uncontroversial proposal.

Second Change: Expanded Legal Research and Writing LRW will become a graded 2-credit course offered in the fall semester of 1L. In the Committee’s consultations with students, enhanced LRW instruction emerged as the most widely desired curriculum change. The Committee

also heard loud and clear that the current first year LRW program suffers from a variety of issues that can be rectified under the proposed approach. Based on the feedback received from students and professors, this was an uncontroversial proposal.

Third Change: Legal Methods Intensive Course After a review of the current academic orientation program, the Committee felt that students were not receiving an adequate introduction to the legal skills and foundational techniques necessary to succeed in law school. This course will be structured as a two-week intensive introduction before Labour Day. The course will be ungraded (it will be offered on a credit/no credit basis), but each student will receive individualized feedback on a practice exam written at the end of the course.

This proposal was more contentious than the previous two, as it will require 1L students to begin school in August rather than September. This will undoubtedly impose burdens on some first year students (for example, lost summer income, increased childcare needs, and the cost of another month’s worth of rent).

However, we believe students will benefit from this change overall. First, the Legal Methods course is filling a curricular need and standardizing our approach to inculcating foundational legal skills in the first year program.

Second, students will also benefit from having more total instruction in first year while at the same time having less instruction per week.

(When compared to a variety of law schools in North America, Uof T Law’s annual instruction hours are low whereas our weekly instruction hours are high.)

The Financial Aid Committee will be incorporating the increased costs associated with potentially moving a month earlier into the 1L fi-

nancial aid considerations. As discussed below, the SLS will continue to advocate for increased accommodations for first year students as a result of this change.

Fourth Change: Semesterization The largest change to the 1L curriculum is the move to a semestered model. There was a large amount of research and debate that went into the consideration of a semestered format for 1L courses, with many points raised both for and against the model. Some of the main trade-offs concerned the benefits of intellectual pluralism versus increased focus on a smaller number of subjects; and the length of time it takes for some students to effectively learn how to study law versus the distribution of the exam burden at different times of the year. After extensive consultation, the Final Report endorsed a semestered model that incorporates a year-long small group.

Students will have two final exams in December and three final exams in April, resulting in more preparation time between exams. When 1L students finish their first semester, their Statement of Grades will contain four reported grades: 2 core courses, LRW, and small group.

Please see Figure 1 for a visual depiction of the new format of the 1L curriculum and an indicative academic calendar.

Figure 1—New Format of the 1L Curriculum The Process The process leading up to the Final Report involved extensive consultation and discussion, reaching back over a number of years.

The Committee consulted previous reports put together by Dean’s Committees and the SLS regarding the 1L curriculum, LRW program and student workload. The SLS members

of the Committee conducted focus groups in November, solicited email feedback regarding perceived curricular gaps in the 1L program, and helped host a Town Hall on the proposed changes. The Committee also hosted two Faculty-specific Town Halls and received oral feedback on the Interim Report at the January Faculty Council meeting. An extensive discussion also took place at the February Faculty Council meeting.

The Final Report was voted on at Faculty Council in two segments. The first segment, comprising the first three changes, passed almost unanimously. The second segment, comprising the semesterization question, passed with roughly 75% support.

The Road Ahead Our work is not done simply because the changes have been approved at Faculty Council. The SLS will continue to work on the appropriate implementation of the changes. Specifically, the SLS will take an active role in developing the Legal Methods and LRW courses. Now that December practice tests will no longer be offered, innovation will be required to ensure students feel prepared for their two final exams in December. Further, the SLS will advocate to ensure students arriving in August will receive sufficient support, and that all changes are closely monitored.

We believe that these changes will improve the 1L program and student experience, and we hope that next year’s SLS will continue to take an interest in ensuring our first year program is the best it can be.

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 | 7

What’s Happening in Animal Law SANAA MAHMOOD (3L)

O

n February 19th, 2014, a couple dozen Torontonians gathered inside a dark theatre underneath Palmerston Public library to discuss current affairs in animal law. Camille Labchuk, a recent graduate of U of T Law, explained that legally an animal is property, with essentially the same rights as an Ikea table. Although cruelty to animals is covered by the Criminal Code, courts have interpreted the phrase “willfully causing unnecessary pain” to mean deliberately causing pain without any objective. Pain that is inflicted with some human objective in mind, however frivolous, is not considered unnecessary (as long as a person is not overly sadistic about it). Case in point, it’s perfectly legal to inflict pain on a horse to get her to buck to provide entertainment at a rodeo. It’s also perfectly legal to take a blow torch to a dog to create injuries for the sake of research.

There is an objective, and so the pain is not considered unnecessary. Of course raising animals for food is a common objective, with roughly 700 million animals slaughtered in

Canada every year. Compared to countries like New Zealand and Australia, Canada permits gross abuse in its animal farms. Animals live entirely unnatural lives in intensive confinement, raked by stress, pain, isolation and a variety of surgical mutilations. Archaic and draconian are appropriate words to describe current farming practices, legislation, and the approach of courts.

After Camille, writer Sonia Faruqi took the stage and shared how she stepped away from Wall Street to travel across the world investigating animal farms. She described how the scream of a pig sounds just like that of a human. Thousands of screams are heard daily in pig farms across the country. Why are they screaming? Pigs are social animals, like we are.

Yet they are alone their entire lives, in cages so small they can’t even turn around. Sonia said those days were the darkest of her life.

Not a pretty picture, but I include it to make a point: animal rights is not an area of law for the faint of heart. It’s difficult to confront the sheer magnitude of atrocity that hu-

man beings are inflicting on animals. It is also demoralizing at times to see so few take an interest. But it is an area of law that is gaining momentum, and is filled with some of the most driven, compassionate human beings on the planet. Change is slow, because of human greed and ignorance, but every drop in the bucket counts.

Who are the players on the field? The OSPCA is a creature of statute that has been granted some powers, including the right to investigate and seize animals in certain situations. However, it receives very little funding from the government and it limits its work to companion animals such as dogs and cats. The battle is fought mostly by organizations like the WSPA and PETA and independent activists: investigators, bloggers, organic farmers, and animal rights lawyers. Some of the challenges lawyers are facing in animal rights: deciding which cases are the most fruitful to pursue, getting standing in courts to fight on behalf of animals, and getting paid for what they do (basically, they don’t get paid).

The good news is this: anyone and everyone has the ability to make a change for the better.

We can reduce or eliminate animal products from our diet, or choose to buy animal products from alternative, humane sources. This would not only benefit our health, but also the environment. We can adopt animals from shelters, instead of supporting pet stores, and encourage people to get their animals spayed or neutered. As law students we can have an even greater impact by getting involved in some of the legal work done by Animal Justice Canada, Mercy for Animals, or Zoocheck. We can sign petitions or drop a line to our local MPs. We can educate ourselves and others.

We can donate.

The tide is still pushing against those who stand for the humane treatment of animals. It is a battle and each of us is standing on one side of the line. Whether by conscious choice or not. As more people step over the line and join forces for those who can’t speak for themselves, things will inevitably change for the better, for everyone.

Transfers on Trial TALI GREEN (2L)

T

here used to be a way to get into the Salvador Dali museum in Paris for free. All you had to do was enter the gift shop, walk directly to the bathroom, and, upon exiting the bathroom, emerge into the first exhibition hall. In your miserly glee you might end up splurging all your savings on a droopy clock postcard, but that is not the point.

The point is that some native U of T law students might think that transfer students similarly got into U of T for “free” through the back door: they put in just enough work to get into Acme Law School, worked just hard enough to get barely transfer-friendly grades,

and then proceeded unscathed to the same prize without having to suffer through 1L at U of T law. To put some extra salt on that wound, they also saved thousands on tuition and expanded the OCI applicant pool.

It doesn’t seem fair. Why would a law school subject its 1L natives to such a grave injustice?

And come to think of it: what are these transfer students doing here anyway?

First, the facts. U of T accepted 10 out of 119 transfer applicants in 2013 – an 8.4% acceptance rate. In 2013, the 1L acceptance rate was around 15%. The 2015 class “bulged” by 8% as a result of these transfers. Some top US

1L Hires

law school classes bulge much more. Columbia Law’s transfers will increase the 2016 class by about 17% and Berkeley Law’s transfers will increase it by about 12%.

Before we burn these transfers at the stake, though, it is important to understand why law schools accept them in the first place.

Few schools provide an official rationale, but various blogs and articles sordidly claim that transfers are attractive for law schools because they bring in cash without defiling incoming class statistics.

This reason is amusing but doesn’t account for why U of T’s transfer acceptance rate is low-

er than the 1L rate. If U of T was just poaching transfers for easy cash, it could have accepted more of them. Eager to get to the bottom of this, I approached Professor Benjamin Alarie, the Co-Chair of the U of T Law Admissions Committee. “We admit transfer students with a view to improving the JD class for 2L and 3L, in terms of academic excellence, diversity, and extracurricular accomplishment,” he said.

And who can blame a school for wanting to improve its 2L and 3L classes? Helpfully, this explanation also rebuffs the myth of the

Continued on page 12

F

Tot a

l

r

d so

Win

awa

Ott

sie

hou

Da l

's

een

Qu

G ill

Mc

We ste rn

e

ood

O sg

Law

UT

Law

UT

Fi r m

JD/

MB

A

irst year recruitment concluded on Thursday, February 20th. Toronto's legal offices hired 42 1Ls this year, versus last year's 44.

All data is self-reported by firms. Heydary Hamilton, who hired one student last year, could not be contacted for information.

DAVID PARDY (2L) Five firms hired less than last year: BLG, Cassels, Davies, Sherard Kuzz, and Torys. Notably, Davies hired only four versus last year's nine.

Three firms hired more this year: Blakes, Goodmans, and Osler. Note that Osler hired first years for the first time this year. Aird & Berlis, Bereskin & Parr, Dentons, and Smart & Biggar mainAird & Berlis LLP 1 1 1 1 4 tained last year's levels. When reviewing these Bereskin & Parr LLP 1 1 numbers, also remember that some firms made offers that were not accepted.

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, LLP 2 3 2 2 2 11 UT Law students took 19 spots last year (9 JD/ Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 1 1 2 MBAs and 10 JDs). Despite the shrinking first Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP 2 1 3 year recruiting numbers, our peers were fortuDavies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP 2 1 1 4 nate to increase the total number of hires to 23.

Even if we ignore the second year JD/MBA stuDentons LLP 1 2 3 dents, who snagged 13 spots (17 applied out of the Goodmans LLP 3 2 5 class of 24), the first year pure JDs still had the Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP 3 3 greatest presence in the market. Keep in mind Sherard Kuzz LLP 2 1 3 that the counts from Osgoode, Western, and Queen's also include JD/MBA students.

Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh 1 1 Congratulations to all. And, if you applied Torys LLP 1 1 2 but did not receive an offer, remember that this process is just one of many opportunities to start a career at a firm.

2013 Total 10 13 7 3 3 2 2 1 1 42

8 | FEBRUARY 26, 2014

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

ultravires.ca

FEATURES

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 | 9

10 | FEBRUARY 26, 2014

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

ultravires.ca

FEATURES

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 | 11

12 | FEBRUARY 26, 2014

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

House of Cards Toronto A Journey to the Heart of the Rosedale Club LYCURGUS (3L) AND CHOMSKY (3L)

W

e both step onto the porch of the Annex townhouse. Chomsky knocks, and we are greeted by a young man, in a full suit and tie, who introduces himself as “Ben”. We later on realize this probably added formality; his friends and everyone else that night calls him “Benji”.

We are both visiting the “Rosedale Club”, a sort of informal club organized by young political activists who meet once a month for a speech and Q&A from prominent local public figures.

In order to preserve our anonymity—after all, it can be risky business to report on the inner sanctum of Toronto’s political youth élite—we are using the pseudonames “Lycurgus” and “Chomsky”. This evening, Karen Stintz, the Toronto City Councillor and former chair of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) who is running for Mayor, is giving the talk and taking questions.

The club has made it to the radar of our law school community through a combination of the Toronto political blogosphere and connections to local Liberal Youth and budding politician and club co-founder Zach Paikin, who is a current MGA student at the Munk School (and a classmate of Lycurgus’). Chomsky and Lycurgus are paying the Rosedale Club a visit to learn more about this unique local club and to paint a picture of this posh political playground for the benefit of Ultra Vires readers.

Our $10 entrance fee gets us snacks (grapes, crackers, cheese, and bite-sized pieces of pizza) and alcohol (for everyone, two bottles of scotch and a bottle of Jackson-Triggs). We both grab drinks and pizza and do our best to make some friendly introductions. There is a crowd of about 23 in the fairly large and well-furnished living-and-dining room.

Lycurgus is approached by a 1L that he knows from school, who had requested his name be not given. We shall refer to him by the pseudoname “Starfish Dolphin” to respect his wishes of anonymity.

“Starfish Dolphin”, he says. “I like that for a pseudoname.”

When we ask why he’s here, Starfish Dolphin points to a well-coifed young man and says his friend brought him here. “I had no idea where we were even going.”

Starfish Dolphin’s attire is evidence that he did not know where he was going this evening; he is dressed in a simple light blue dress shirt, while almost every other male in the room has a tie and either a blazer or a suit jacket. Chomsky is in a suit and tie, and Lycurgus is wearing a blazer and tie. Some of the other patrons are wearing suits that are solid black or that are extremely ill-fitting. Regardless, Starfish Dolphin is now our companion—a kindred soul from the law school who speaks our language—in our bold adventure to stare into the intense, beating heart of the Rosedale Club.

The small talk is dominated by one topic: Zach Paikin’s decision to run for the Liberal Party nomination in Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, which was publicly announced earlier in the day. The son of TVO journalist and media personality Steve Paikin, Zach is a titan of the Liberal Youth and notably ran in the election for the Liberal Party’s policy chief in 2012. Zach is also a frequent commenter on iPolitics and The Huffington Post and has written extensively on, inter alia, criminal justice issues, the Israel-Palestine dispute, the Arctic, Senate reform, and the need for “grand strategy” to play a role in Canadian foreign policy.

“What do you think of the big news?” we ask a much older man.

“Well... it’s news,” he replies.

One of the Rosedale Club’s organizers asks Lycurgus to move away from the dining table (where the plate of mini pizza pieces is kept), because that particular spot is where the organizer

would like Karenz Stintz to give her speech.

The organizer introduces Stintz, and the crowd replies with a modest round of applause.

“C’mon!” she laughs, and the crowd offers her a much louder and more robust round of applause. She then says that everyone should get on social media and talk about how loud the clapping was. “Hashtag rousing applause!”

Stintz offers a speech that was good, if without flare: she focused on her record as a politically moderate councillor who can offer reasonable policies and bridge-building politics, and who has experience on the crucial transit issue from her record as TTC chair.

Her address is not a barnburner, but she is a very pleasant speaker who seems quite nice and approachable.

The organizer thanks Stintz for her speech and reminds the group to stick around after the Q&A for a photograph, as is club tradition.

He makes an uncomfortable joke about the crowd being put half to sleep, promising the flash will wake us up. We both keep our heads down in our phones.

The organizer then opens the floor to a Q&A. One young man wants to know why it is that Montréal’s Metro has ads for “theatre and the opera”, while the ads in the TTC are all for businesses and “personal injury law”. The young man’s tone suggests that he really has a problem with this state of affairs and would like a prospective Mayor of Toronto to solve this problem. Stintz gracefully sidesteps this very stupid question.

Another young man says that, whenever he visits Dubai (it is implied that he visits Dubai frequently) the Emiratis say they want to make their city like “New York, London, and Paris”.

He asks: “Why is there no Canadian city on that list [of global alpha-cities]?” It is apparent that he is ashamed that everyone in Dubai talks about New York more than they talk about Toronto, and that this makes him feel very bad about himself on his many frequent trips to Dubai. Stintz says that Toronto is on the rise, is booming in population and construction, and that people from all over the world are moving Toronto because it is a very liveable city.

With the Q&A over, the man of the hour arrives: Zach Paikin, dressed in a Team Canada hockey jersey, enters the townhouse. Immediately, a crowd surrounds him. We wait for a while before making our introductions to Zach.

Winning a nomination contest for a political party is a challenge for anyone – and that’s all before the general election against the parties’ candidates takes place. Zach seems excited for the challenge.

He tells Lycurgus that the date for electing the Liberals’ candidate in Hamilton West— Ancaster—Dundas has not yet been set and will happen later in the year, possibly in the spring or summer. When we ask how big the current riding membership is, Zach tells us there are about 150 members registered with the local Liberal riding association.

Earlier in the day, Zach was criticized on social media for not having a connection to Hamilton. Despite living in Toronto now, Zach says his family has deep roots in Steeltown and lived there for “over 100 years”. When we ask if he is moving to Hamilton, he says he is planning to move in the spring. “Got any leads on places?” he asks us.

The Rosedale Club’s current leadership brings out a chocolate cake for the one-year anniversary of the club’s founding. Zach, as one of the co-founders, is given the honour of making a few words and cutting the cake.

As the makes the first cut, he smiles and remarks how “one men’s scotch night in Montréal [several] years ago has turned into this tremendous, diverse event.”

Rosedale, which, despite the club's name, is not where the Rosedale Club hosts its gatherings.

Of the now 25 people present for the Rosedale Club event, only four are women.

Despite its name, the gatherings are not actually held in Toronto’s posh Rosedale neighbourhood, the historical and spiritual homeland of the city’s wealthy white Anglo-Saxon Protestant élite. The gatherings are usually held somewhere in the Annex.

We both head to the porch after having a slice of cake. We join the porch crowd in some celebratory cigars (it is unclear what we are celebrating), as is the custom of the club.

“Are you going to the convention?” a friendly undergraduate female asks us.

We both fumble for words.

“Oh sorry, I just assumed you were Liberal,” she says. She is, we both learn, referring to the Liberal Party’s biennial convention in Montréal the coming weekend.

Several other people also try and strike up conversations about the upcoming Liberal convention with us. Neither of us is a member of the Liberal Party, nor do we self-identify as Liberals. The Rosedale Club is officially a non-partisan club, and its leadership—while admitting “a centre-right-ish” leaning in most of its members—says it is open to people of all

political stripes and that it has patrons who are Tories and NDP members.

“Are you guys Liberals?” a woman asks us.

We appreciate that she does not assume we are Liberals.

“No,” we both reply.

“What are your politics?” she asks.

“I’m kind of centrist,” Lycurgus says. Chomsky remains silent.

“You belong in the Big Red Tent!”

We both say our goodbyes and head to the Pizza Pizza at Bathurst & Bloor, where we both order slices of garden veggie and talk about our experiences that evening. Kathering Georgious, 3L, taps on the windows to say hello and then comes into the Pizza Pizza to engage us in a bit of conversation before she rejoins with her friends.

Overall, we enjoyed our experience at the Rosedale Club. For an evening, we both got a rare glimpse into a unique subculture—a place where the élites of youth and Liberal Youth politics play host to Toronto’s political élites. We may have spent the evening with several future Members of Parliament or maybe even a future Prime Minister. Yet one thing is certain: we really enjoyed the snacks.

Continued from page 7 so-called back door entry. If the 10 accepted transfers were able to demonstrate that they can improve the U of T class, it is very likely that they were at least as worthy of their admission as were the native 1Ls. But sceptics will press further and ask: then why didn’t these sufficiently awesome transfers get in as 1Ls? According to Professor Alarie, “it is natural that we admit some transfer students who we had rejected for admission into 1L because we have much better information about their abilities as law students once they have proven themselves elsewhere.”

Still, transfer animosity can run deep, and some might feel that transfer students, even those who “deserved” their admission, faithlessly exploited their 1L law school (the one that was actually willing to accept them in the first place) as an easy stepping stone to U of T pres-

tige. While this may be true (though I can assure you that for most transfers, prestige was not the number one motivation), it is also important to remember that transferring is not exactly a walk in the park. It involves giving up on very valuable 2L opportunities, foregoing lifelong smallsection connections, and joining a student body whose maximum security cliques are more impervious than the Shawshank prison.

So yes, perhaps one can argue that transfer students are akin to those who break into the Dali museum for free. But don’t forget that along the way they may have tripped over some droopy clocks, bumped into several protruding mustaches, and produced a few masterpieces of their own before emerging, slightly bruised but eternally grateful, into the main exhibition hall.

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

Articling Fees and Access to Justice BHUVANA SANKARANARAYANAN (3L)

O

n February 5th, thousands of third-year law students across Ontario each received invoices totalling $4,859 for the articling licensing process (an increase of 79% from last year’s fee of $2,712). I was one of the lucky ones; after having a brief panic attack, I was able to forward the invoices to the law firm at which I will be articling to have them paid off.

But for many, the fees present yet another barrier to entry into an already restrictive profession.

The increased fees, of course, restrict fair access to the legal profession—many students are forced to take out further loans to pay licensing fees even after their education is complete, simply because their employers cannot or will not pay candidate licensing fees. However, wider implications stem from the fact that increasing licensing fees further limits access to justice. By putting pressure on employers and students to pay higher fees, we force students off the paths that deal with every-day legal problems and encourage them to pursue high-paying careers that have little impact on the access to justice crisis. This is particularly problematic in the context of students graduating with ever-

increasing law school debt: as students look to make crucial career decisions while graduating, the added—and somewhat unexpected— weight of almost $5,000 in licensing fees has a disproportionate impact on shaping legal career paths. The current strategy of proposing that firms encourage pro bono legal work attacks the symptoms of restricted access to justice, rather than the cause: the lack of affordable lawyers.

A March 2012 report published by LSUC highlights the connection between articling and access to justice, concluding that there is a shortage of access to justice-oriented articling positions. This derives, in part, from the economics of the small firms who are the major providers of legal services for day-to-day legal problems; few such firms can afford to offer articling positions to students. Moreover, given the massive debt with which many articling students leave law school, too few are able to choose freely to accept lower-wage positions that have higher social impact than higher-paying positions.

Higher fees will serve to further decrease the number of employers that can afford to pay licensing fees for articling students, and will also

prevent students from being able to accept positions where employers cannot pay their fees.

One of the reasons for the massive increase in fees over last year is the implementation of the Law Practice Program (LPP), which is designed to be an alternative to the articling process. The actual impact of the LPP in the context of these added fees, however, will be to doubly penalize its candidates: first, they will have to pay their fees out of pocket, instead of being able to expect an employer to pay such fees for them; and second, they will face potential discrimination as graduates of the LPP rather than students who have completed articling. Many such students whom I know personally have indicated their intentions to take out further student loans to fund the process, or to take a year off from law in order to raise the funds they need to complete the program (or to potentially find an articling employer). This defeats the point of the LPP and further penalizes poorer students who already face barriers to entering the legal profession.

Even for students who have secured articling positions, the increase in licensing fees pushes qualified candidates towards Bay Street. The

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 | 13 Ministry of the Attorney General and several social justice-oriented employers provide limited stipends (or in some cases, no help at all) to be used towards licensing fees. Candidates articling at these places face, at best, a cash flow shortage until they actually receive the stipends later in the year; they also face the difficult choice between staying in a societally useful position and one that pays well enough to justify staying in law.

The governance structure of LSUC contributes to the issue of high licensing fees for articling students. In contrast to the wild increase in articling fees, lawyers’ licensing fees will increase by 0.8% ($15) from $1,851 to $1,866 in 2014 (paralegal fees will not increase at all). The lack of a student voice makes it almost inevitable that the bulk of fee increases will be borne by those least able to pay for it, since the benchers of the governing body – lawyers, paralegals, and laypeople—will never have to pay articling fees (again).

As members of the legal profession, we have deep-seated intuitions about fairness, and a mandate to increase access to justice. Every year, we release numerous reports and attend various meetings on furthering access to justice and reducing barriers to entering the legal profession. The increase in licensing fees is not consistent with this mandate. The strength of our commitment to fairness and access to justice must be measured by our actions which further —or frustrate—these goals, rather than by how much we discuss them.

An earlier version of this article appeared on www.slaw.ca

To Semesterize Why A Day or to Not Spent on Semesterize Professionalism and Ethics was T a Day Wasted SIMON GOODING-TOWNSEND (1L)

he significant changes to the 1L curriculum are designed to address problems with student workload, learning, and stress.

This year, I was the 1L student on the Curriculum Committee that made the recommendations. Overall, I am in support of the changes.

These changes include making admin an upper year course, adding a credited LRW course, a two-week ungraded Legal Methods course in August, an extra week of regular classes in each term in 1L, and semesterizing all classes except for small group. While there is some concern about elements of all proposed changes, I will focus this article on semesterization.

Early in the process, the Committee identified a number of concerns with semesterization.

These included a desire to avoid mid-semester exams (to reduce student stress and professor grading), concerns that students that have a more relevant background would be better prepared, and that fewer marks after first term would increase the randomness in 1L hiring.

These and other concerns have been largely addressed. The largest outstanding concern is that students will learn better when they have an entire year to engage with the material. Although some people argue that the semester model will improve student learning by giving students more time to focus on one subject, I still expect that semesterization will adversely affect students’ learning. I think the loss of real time for engaging with the material (including reviewing first semester material twice for exams) is greater than the added benefits from being able to concentrate on a single course.

Yet overall I support semesterization because

I believe that it is better for student stress levels and student wellbeing. If something happens that causes a student to get completely overwhelmed, only a single semester is at stake instead of a full year. There is also a hope that fewer exams will reduce student stress, as will only needing to recall material from the past four months instead of the past eight.

There are certainly counter arguments to both these claims. We don’t have information that can prove that semesterization will improve student health and wellbeing. Yet we know there is currently a serious (and increasing) problem.

I think we need to make an attempt to address these problems. And I think there is reason to believe that semesterization will help.

Despite the student learning and wellbeing concerns that motivated the change, I strongly agree with arguments that semesterization is not an adequate solution to either problem. At the faculty council meeting, Professor Phillips criticised the argument that semesterization would improve student wellbeing on the basis that debt and tuition are greater causes of stress. Professor L Katz highlighted how she was improving her student’s learning by providing review exercises after every unit in property. She argued that professors could significantly improve the quality of student learning by similarly providing more opportunities for feedback.

While I think that there is an overall benefit from the curricular reforms from improved student wellbeing, either Professor Phillips’ or Professor Katz’s suggestion would independently do more to improve the 1L experience.

ANONYMOUS (1L)

I

t is with great disbelief that upper years look at a 1L who complains about a mere two days (one day per term) of professionalism and ethics training. But will that stop this 1L? Most definitely not.

We get it, you had to suffer a full week of professionalism and ethics training in lieu of a Reading Week. That does suck a whole lot more than a measly two days of training. But why should those be the only two options? How about scrapping the so called ‘training’ altogether?

I use the word ‘training’ quite loosely because, well I dare you to find a single person who came out of those training sessions feeling professionally and ethically informed. Go ahead. I’ll wait…

I’m not sure how rigorous the training was last year, but let me attempt to explain how useless the training was this year. This training amounted to letting a few legal professionals talk to the 1L class, followed by a group break-out session where we discussed hypotheticals with more legal professionals, followed by an opportunity for Dean Moran to tell us about herself and her work with the residential schools. Needless to say, this took place on a Friday. Oooh the joy!

Kudos to the law school for trying to lure the

1Ls into attendance with the promise of free food. And who can really afford to pass on free food? Not the Class of 2016 with their $30k/tuition. Aside from the ‘brown bag lunches,’ I got nothing out of that training (and I again dare you to find a 1L who did). Most of what was mentioned in the lectures was either common sense or irrelevant. I did not learn anything new. It was basically a lecture. I was not ‘trained’ in any sense of the word. I never found any of it compelling or engaging, and I doubt it was trying to be either. Don’t get me started on the ‘assignments’ relating to this ‘training.’ You could do them without attending the event, as I’m sure most 1Ls realized or have realized in retrospect.

The readings we were supposed to have read for the training days? Yeah, I never did them.

Not because there were three different and lengthy documents to read, though that would be a valid reason, but because 1Ls don’t have the time. I barely have the time to read the course readings I have to! And after attending the training, I’m glad I never invested the time to read them. Even not having read them and zoning out for most of the time, I still got the gist of it. Be professional. Be ethical. Did that really need an entire two days to be instilled in me?

OPINIONS

14 | FEBRUARY 26, 2014

ultravires.ca

Why It's Hard to Find Jobs Off Bay Street And What the CDO is Doing About It KATHERINE GEORGIOUS (3L)

I

t’s an oft-cited complaint at the Faculty of Law: jobs outside of Bay Street are ignored.

Students say they’d like to work in the public interest, but they’re lost as to how to pursue this goal. Why is it so difficult to hear about jobs in smaller fields like criminal, family, and immigration law? The answer lies in a number of factors.

First and foremost, there are simply fewer jobs directly out of law school in these fields.

“For better or worse, the vast majority of summer and articling jobs are at mid-sized and larger firms,” CDO director Emily Orchard explained. “The market is just so small. Often smaller firms don’t have the means to hire summer and articling students.”

In addition to there being fewer jobs, there is minimal LSUC regulation of the articling process, which makes it difficult for a) smaller employers to advertise their positions to students and b) for students to find out who is hiring summer and articling students.

Having a 2L summer law job is not actually a requirement to become a licensed lawyer (which panicked 2Ls don’t seem to know). As a result, firms are not required to inform LSUC if they are hiring 2L summer students. So if a small family law firm opts to hire its articling

student by hiring a summer student, LSUC may never have been told about that articling position. How the firm advertises its summer student position is entirely at its discretion, so long as it does not do any recruitment prior to LSUC’s approved dates and times. While Bay Street firms post their job openings broadly and participate in the OCI process, a smaller firm hiring one 2L summer student may not have the time or resources to do such extensive advertising and will get no LSUC assistance in broadcasting its available positions.

Theoretically, it would be easy for LSUC to consolidate available articling positions by simply publishing the list of lawyers that apply to serve as an articling principal. However, the application to serve as an articling principal only has to be done once and takes only two weeks to process. Thus, a list of LSUC articling principals will likely not be reflective of the actual articling positions available for the upcoming year. Furthermore, a student can be hired as an articling student before her principal is even approved. As a result, LSUC would be notified that an articling position is available after it has already been filled.

Outside of an application to serve as an articling principal, the only other paperwork re-

quired for students to complete their articles is filed after articling begins, and thus would not assist LSUC in consolidating a list of available articling positions.

LSUC’s reason for not having a more regulated process is that there are “volatile factors” that can affect articling positions. An LSUC representative explained to Ultra Vires that a student could accept an articling position and then terminate it for a variety of reasons.

Likewise, firms may hire a student and then terminate the position before it begins with no consequence.

One solution is to turn articling into a highly regulated process, like the famous CARMs regime for medical residencies. But to require such a procedure would likely squeeze out the smallest employers who cannot plan their budgets such that they know how many students they need by the time the regulated process begins.

LSUC could also take on a more active role in advertising articling positions to students.

At the moment, LSUC’s job postings board is completely unregulated. Arguably, since LSUC knows which employers hired articling students in the prior year, it could follow up on these employers and post their projected hirings for the current year on its job board. This would allow students to see which firms have served as an articling principal in years prior and they could use these employers as a starting point when looking for jobs.

The CDO is seeking to bridge the gap in the advertising of articling positions through ex-

tensive networking. Emily explained that she often cold-calls employers that she knows personally, professionally, or through research to find positions for students. She recently did a “family law blitz” where she called 30-50 family law firms that have not hired students in the past, in the hopes that if they do hire students, they will consider U of T and will inform the CDO of their job openings.

The CDO also has a “Career Development Advisory Group,” which is working on a series of documents that highlight tougher-tonavigate practice areas. These guides explain lesser known areas of law, what students should do throughout each year of law school to make them attractive candidates for jobs in the field, and will have the contact information of relevant alumni and employers. The goal is to cover approximately 20 areas of law.

When asked about whether she thought students were successful in achieving their career goals, Emily noted that while there is less diversity of jobs at the summer and articling level, five years out of law school, U of T’s alumni are extremely dispersed in their practice areas. She also stated that the CDO will continue to work with alumni who are seeking to transition to a different field from what they did in their articling or in their first year as an associate. “Anything a student wants to do, to the extent I can support that, I will.”

Emily said. “There’s no benefit to me where a student goes, so long as they are gainfully and happily employed.”

So (Un)Inspired ANONYMOUS

L

et me preface this with a disclaimer: no offense to the organizers or the presenters.

UofT Law Inspires failed to …inspire.

Feeling down with the January blues and intrigued by the premise of the event and the offer of lunch I attended UofT Law Inspires looking for a much-needed dose of inspiration.

The social media promos stated it would have ‘6 professors delivering 10 minute presentations on a topic of their choice with an emphasis on sharing an inspiring idea.’ It invited students to attend a ‘fascinating hour of presentations’ (Emphasis is mine).

The promo lied.

I worry for the people who think my idea of fascinating is hearing about …well I don’t even recall what the topics were except for one about Canadian Idol. I think that speaks volumes about how inspiring the topics were.

Where’s the inspiration? I’m in need of some so if I’m going to spend my time listening to someone who promises to be inspiring, it better be inspiring. Is that really too much to ask for? Apparently. I mean, none of the

© 2012–2014 Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP. All rights reserved.

416 869 5300

Cassels Brock 2013/2014 season

Ultra Vires student ad “Yellow - School Kid” quarter page portrait, b&w

Contact: Heather Murray hmurray@casselsbrock.com 416 869 5782 - fax 416 642 7137

Please PRINT a hard copy of the file and either FAX it or SCAN and EMAIL it back to me, thanks!

professors talked about things that I’d ever classify as fascinating. Like ever. And some Profs didn’t even bother to engage with the audience, sticking to occasionally referring to notes and talking. I didn’t come to the event to feel like I was in class. I have the rest of the day to be in class. This was the moment to inspire, to BE inspired. Maybe it was the unimaginative delivery or the choice in topics but I’m sad to say there was a lack of inspiration leaving that event.

I suppose it is naïve to go to the event seeking inspiration but, hello, talk about false advertising.

A better name would have been “Come Listen to Profs Talk about What They Think You Think Is Fascinating + FREE FOOD” or even “Spend Your Lunch Hour in Class + FREE FOOD.’ Or even “FREE FOOD + some talking.”

To point out just how inspiring the event was, I need only mention the few people I noticed dozing off in the front row. So (un)inspired.

ultravires.ca

OPINIONS

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 | 15

Point|Counterpoint

Is Law Follies or Law Ball the Leading Event of the Law School Calendar?

LOUIS TSILIVIS (3L)

COUNTERPOINT

[Law Follies] was the Best of Times, [Law Ball] was the Worst of Times For those who do not appreciate life’s fleeting moments of joy, of cheerfulness, of lightheartedness, Law Follies is a menace that they seek to demean and destroy. Now, I am not saying that David Pardy is necessarily one of those people. Eryn Fanjoy, having forsaken Follies for the frigid wastelands of Sweden, is one of those people; her failure to attend Follies and her numerous attempts to quash the show—conducted emotionlessly and with Nordic efficiency—is truly deplorable. What I am saying is that David Pardy is probably one of those people.

I want to ask three questions:

Eryn Fanjoy (2L), pictured here “own[ing] the podium” at Sochi, is frenemies with both David and Louis.

DAVID PARDY (2L)

POINT

[Law] Ball so Hard, Mothafuckas Wanna Fine Me Like Hitler in his 1942 invasion of Stalingrad, I will make use of the two-pronged attack to advance my crusade. Except, my crusade is to establish once and for all that Law Ball is an objectively better event than Law Follies. And I am not a maniac.

First, I will politely but thoroughly slam Law Follies. I will then reveal the divine truth: Law Ball is the best event of all time.

Law Follies Law Follies is an oppressive and self-perpetuating regime that rewards the privileged and leaves the rest to rot. Privileged people can afford the training and resources to cultivate talents that, in turn, help them to gain respect from peers and entrench their social status as elites. The unprivileged among us can’t sing or dance or do anything impressive at all because they can’t afford to. See Eryn Fanjoy for proof. This criticism is familiar to us as law students, the future caretakers of the legal profession. Access to justice and vocal lessons cripples the integrity of the legal and entertainment systems entirely. Louis, “acting” in Law Follies as a lawyer exclusive to the elites, mocked this issue without even realizing that the very stage he stood on was a weapon of upper-class tyranny.

Also, what the fuck is up with professors attending Law Follies? They’re old and gross and boring and we see enough of them at school. I almost ralphed (Editor’s Note: What does “ralph[]” as a verb mean?—David Pardy’s Note: It means vomit. Read a book some time.) at the sight of Ben Alarie. Or was that David St. Bernard? Who can tell the difference? Anyways, if I’m going to yell inappropriate things, I don’t want professors to hear me.

Also, what’s with the off-colour jokes? What are we, Peruvians?

Law Ball Let me be upfront in saying that Law Ball could be dramatically improved by changing the name to “The Carbolic Smoke Ball.” Despite this flaw, it is still the world’s best event. Here’s why.

Firstly, it’s an open bar. The open bar is probably ranked as the number one best invention of all time by several leading authorities, including the United Nations and the post-2012

Obama Administration. Get this. You can drink a drink. Then, you can go drink another one for free. Repeat. You can even drink multiple drinks at the same time. Repeat. And if the bartender says, “I can’t give you seventeen shots of blue curacao at the same time,” all you have to do is drunkenly flap your arm in the direction of the mob behind you and say, “They’re for everyone!” You’ll be seventeen shots richer. Remember when you ordered a “mojito” (i.e. horse piss and a shot of rum, probably) from Andi Jin at the Follies bar? At the Law Ball, you’ll realize how ridiculous you looked.

Louis & Co. is probably fretting, like a baby deer abandoned by his mother to die, over getting a good table together at Law Ball. There’s so much drama, right? Right. Law Ball Table Drama (LBTD) is the best drama that the law school has to offer, even surpassing Study Team Drama (STD) in March. The problem with STD is that it’s nearly impossible to get rid of once you get it.

The members don’t trust each other and get embarrassed and it all devolves into a stinging ‘P’ for everyone. By contrast, LBTD is gone the moment your table collectively pounds the two bottles of wine that are waiting for you, as if placed there by Brendan Stevens Himself for this very purpose. Plus, LBTD is inherently excellent because drama. Why aren’t Mark and Brina sitting together? They’ve been in a secret fight. Drama.

Why did Ron switch to another table? Harry and Hermione had some hot BDSM sex, and Ron was jealous so he left. Drama. I heard that Kirsten and Edward aren’t coming to law ball because she’s four months pregnant with him and they’re painting the baby room. Drama.

Beyond the open bar and the LBTD, Law Ball is great because you get to see a lot of people make-out on the dance floor, or, better yet, partake in it yourself. DFM has obvious personal benefits (you can make love to someone’s face, and also it will help build a strong immune system and give you whiter teeth), but benefits also transfer to society at large. I will borrow the acidinspired words of John Lennon to illustrate my point: “Love is you, You and me, Love is knowing we can be. Love is free, free is love. Love is living, living love. Love is needed to be loved.” If that doesn’t convince you, I don’t know what will.

Finally, Law Ball is best because the latenight poutine bar. Such food, wow, very gravy. I rest my case.

First: Is Follies a Tool Used to Perpetuate Privilege and Oppression?

David claims that Follies is only for the privileged—that wealth accords people the opportunity for leisure time, that wealth and leisure can allow skills to be built up (e.g. singing, dancing, acting, being jacked), and that without those skills you cannot access Law Follies. I think there is something compelling about this argument.

For example, Tyler Henderson is a horrible dancer, but he’s really jacked and has shredded abs, which is the only reason why he was cast in Follies at all. Yet those abs were shredded because he has an expensive gym membership that could only be acquired by wealth. His abs, to put it bluntly, were shredded on the blood, tears, and sweat of the working classes, on the global poor, on the victims of disaster capitalism and George W Bush’s imperialist wars in the Middle East. His abs are washboards of oppression, his so-called “guns” acquired by the guns of American militarism and Blackwater mercenaries.

Yet by acknowledging that it is a product of privilege, Law Follies seeks to challenge that privilege.

“Downton Abbey Legal Services” is a vicious attack on access to justice. While the Faculty were chortling at the British accents and the bowler caps and Jules dressed up like a disgusting chimneysweep, they were being subliminally messaged to think that sort of privilege was really messed up.

“Promotional Materials”, while making the audience laugh at Ashvin Singh in a turban, caused us to pause and think about the school’s claims of diversity and for us to question the role of hegemonic Whiteness at the Faculty.

“Tuition Town Hall”—a sketch where the administration suggests that students facing tuition increases of 5% a year, a bleak legal market, and mental health stresses should sell their organs to pay for school—is really all about how amazing Marita and Megan are as actresses (it’s also a critique of the administration’s tuition policies, but that’s pretty obvious).

Unless we embrace Follies, we have no vehicle to challenge the institutional privilege and oppression that plagues our Faculty and the legal community.

Second: Is Law Ball a Gross Display of Privilege?

Yes, obviously. Law Ball is a disgusting showcase of privilege.

Students need to wear formal attire, which can set students back hundreds or thousands of dollars for dresses, bags, suits, shirts, ties, belts, and shoes. Thinking of wearing that $200 suit from H&M? Expect to be judged heavily from the trust-fund crowd who dines at Momofuku Shōtō and takes private jets to Amalfi and St Bart’s for Moët-fuelled long weekends. Law Ball just institutionalizes and legitimizes that sort of privilege.

But you can wear anything at Law Follies: hoodies, wooly sweaters, sequined blouses, onesies, Snuggies, V-necks—even nothing at all (see: Chad Pilkington, or Joe McGrade in 2013).

Law Follies is not only fashion-inclusive, but it is a space where people can push the very boundaries of what is acceptable fashion. Here, the St Bart’s crowd holds no more social clout than the St Hubert crowd (Editor’s Note: “St Hubert” refers to a chain of restaurants in Québec that sells chicken dinners at relatively low prices).

Whether you wear your mustard-stained Law Games 2012 T-shirt, your relish-covered OWeek 2013 T-shirt, or an Abercrombie & Fitch golf shirt, no one will judge you when the lights go down and the show begins (but really, the last one is pushing the boundaries a bit too far—like, please grow up).

Third: Which Event has More Icing and Raptor Heads?

Obviously, Law Follies does.

When I say “icing” (Google it, seriously), I am talking a full-blown civil war that pits 3Ls against 2Ls, that pits dancers against actors, that has negotiated terms of war, that has all the intrigue and sexy indoor smoking of House of Cards, and that features Game of Thronesstyle bloody betrayals (but with drinking Smirnoff Ice instead of murder). When asked if Law Ball will have Smirnoff Ice stocked as part of the open bar, the SLS official told me, “I’m not quite sure, maybe ask [name withheld]”.

But this answer is insufficient. Anything short of “Oh, obviously! ICE WAR!” followed by either (1) a fist pump, or (2) a high-five, is not good enough.

Law Follies also had two papier-mâché raptor heads, made lovingly by our former Director, Daniella, that made appearances both in the show and at the bar afterwards. When Brendan Stevens—worshipped student society president, acclaimed vocalist, and notable European-style bon vivant—was asked how many papier-mâché raptor heads Law Ball would feature, he answered “none”, and then said he needed to head to the library (probably where he stores his golden-plated helicopter that he uses to chopper off to St Bart’s).

In conclusion, Law Ball is the epitome of institutionalized privilege (to almost Kaf kaesque levels), while Law Follies has lots of bros (used in the gender-neutral sense) icing bros, raptor heads, and can be a vehicle to challenge privilege, Whiteness, and colonialism. The answer is clear.

16 | FEBRUARY 26, 2014

ultravires.ca

We’re not just looking for exceptional laWyers, We’re looking for exceptional people.

Within our firm you’ll find lawyers who’ve closed billion-dollar deals, represented Prime Ministers and argued precedent-setting cases before the Supreme Court. You’ll also discover adventurers, marathoners and humanitarians. Every year, through our summer and articling programs, we seek out students who, like us, have both a passion for legal success and a desire to push themselves to their limit.

To read our lawyers’ profiles and see if BLG is right for you, visit blg.com/student

Calgary | Montréal | Ottawa | Toronto | Vancouver | Waterloo Region Lawyers | Patent & Trade-mark Agents | Borden Ladner Gervais LLP is an Ontario Limited Liability Partnership.

blg.com BD3639

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 | 17

Contempt of Course Diversity or Diversion?

DAVID GRUBER (2L)

H

enry Ford—himself a certified bigot—famously quipped that his customers could order cars in any colour they liked as long as that colour was black. For all its failures, this misunderstanding of the concept of diversity at least has the benefit of self-awareness, and very nearly humour. Alas the same cannot be said for the movement that's dominating politically correct energies around here.

Evidence abounds that our society is still reeling from the reign of the white Protestant male syndicate. So it's not surprising that diversity tends to be construed as the simple absence of sexism and racism. But this is a reduction of the principle. Like its older sister equality, diversity demands quite a bit more than the mere absence of bigotry.

Now don't mistake my meaning. We live in a place where skins tones span a spectrum of hues, genitals come in more than one shape (to say nothing of size), and sexual preferences are the subject of seemingly limitless imagination. So it would be distinctly suspicious—and also creepy—if only the most pale, phallic, and sexually conventional among us were represented at the bar. But, while ridding the school of sexism, racism, homophobia, et cetera is an achievement (although belated), it represents only the most elementary step towards producing a diverse community.

Law school isn't a Benetton catalogue, or some multicultural stock photo accompanying Government of Ontario press releases. It's actually

rather easy to have diversity in a pictorial representation. But we don't trade in still images. Our currency is ideas, principles, modes of thinking.

So what kind of diversity is it where everyone is groomed to think, act, and talk the same way?

The term has been limited to a few pre-approved categories for so long that it's nearly been robbed of its broader meaning. Not that moving the goalposts around has really helped anyone. The Faculty of Law can't even consistently achieve success on this most superficial front.

The admissions department's own data reveals that its recent tinkering with the acceptance criteria has actually led to a reduction in diversity by as much as four percent, while at the same time lowering the average GPA of the entering class. (Affirmative action, meet negative action.)

In trying (and failing) to achieve diversity that's only skin-deep, there's another kind of diversity that manages to remain excluded even from this tender rainbow pallet that is the Faculty of Law in 2014. In many ways it's the only kind of diversity that matters: diversity of thought.

Consider the Supreme Court of Canada, whose commitment to diversity must always be balanced with its proclivity for unanimous opinions. Faced with a recent vacancy, the Chief Justice of Canada was uncharacteristically outspoken in advocating the appointment of more women to the bench. The retirement of Justice Fish did indeed leave a gap on the Court.

Fish himself has expressed such concern. But at no point did he ask to be replaced with one of his coreligionists. Rather, he drew attention to

the plain fact that in his absence the nation's highest court will be left wanting for a strong advocate for rights of the accused.

The Prime Minister's office positively scandalized the nation by appointing a conservative jurist who is strongly suspected to have opinions different from those of the mainstream. But one has come not to expect much from the Court that quotes the following gospel from the late Elmer Driedger with a confidence usually reserved for the bearers of divine prophecy: “Today there is only one principle or approach,” in the field of statutory interpretation. Or so it is written anyway. And it's not just that one approach is in vogue, mind you. It's that only one approach is permitted. Another diversity-free zone, it seems.

The perfunctory obsession with this kind of surface diversity—the sort that can be measured only in hormones and melanin—comes at a price. Fix your eyes on some sideshow and not only will you lose the ball, but you run the risk that it will be passed tauntingly between your legs.

Lyndon Johnson may have hit the high-water mark for diversity when he added Thurgood Marshall to the American Supreme Court. Marshall was not only black, but had a distinguished record as a Civil Rights activist and had helped end segregation through his role in Brown v.

Board of Education. When faced with the politically touchy task of naming Marshall's successor, George H.W. Bush split the difference, and the difference has been split ever since.

Justice Clarence Thomas not only had the

right skin tone, but was approximately as conservative as Stonehenge. And so a bargain was struck whereby diversity on the bench was to remain a purely superficial matter. Of course being more conservative doesn't make one any less black. But in what sense does appointing yet another paleoconservative member of the Federalist Society contribute to diversity?

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. And pudding, as you know, can only be be either chocolate or vanilla. So what kind of colourblind utopia has the diversity movement yielded? Well, one where women and men of any colour are drawn from an ever smaller cadre of the most elite and exclusive (and expensive) schools. All students, no matter their hue, are inseparable from and in equal part victims of a mind-numbingly conservative curriculum, where subjects as various as business contracts, corporations, and trusts is mandatory. (Really, how many people out there have a trust?) Folks of all creeds and confessions are welcome to study our Constitution, which is based explicitly on “the supremacy of God”—and don't pretend you don't know which god they mean. What could be more vanilla?

We are so damn progressive that people of all dispositions are welcome to dress up in flowing black (only black!) robes and—until remarkably recently—grey horsehair wigs, and imitate all the worst behaviour of premodern English aristocrats. If this is diversity, then maybe we could do with something different.

Be who you are.

Law is what we do, but it doesn’t define us. We’re looking for individuals who are passionate about everything in life, including being a lawyer.

If this sounds like you, please check us out at www.torys.com to learn more about us.

DIVERSIONS

18 | FEBRUARY 26, 2014

ultravires.ca

Classic Minestrone Soup YALE HERTZMAN (2L)

I

originally wanted to make Russian borscht in honour of the Olympics, but instead I made an Italian Minestrone Soup in honour of being too cold to walk to the grocery store. You can throw almost anything into a minestrone soup and call it minestrone soup. The only requirements are tomatoes, veggies, beans, pasta, and a lot of love. Actually, the love part is not required but if you happen to have some parmesan cheese you should definitely throw some in. Minestrone soup is extremely versatile. I’ve never made it the same way twice. Try adding some small pasta for a heartier soup, or spinach for a healthier one.

Don’t just #FeedtheDeed, but #FeedYourself with a pot of this minestrone soup tonight.

Ingredients: • 2 tablespoons of olive oil • 1 medium onion, diced • 2-3 cloves of garlic • 2 medium carrots, peeled and chopped • 2 celery stalks, chopped • 1 zucchini, quartered • ½ cup of dry red wine (optional) • 1 28 -ounce can of diced or crushed tomatoes • 6 cups of water or vegetable broth • 1 15-ounce can of chickpeas, drained and rinsed • ¼ teaspoon of dried rosemary (or 1 teaspoon of minced fresh rosemary) • ¼ teaspoon of red-pepper flakes • Salt and fresh ground pepper to taste

Optional add-ins: • ½ cup of dry pasta (cook on the side, spoon into serving bowl and pour soup on top to avoid mushiness) • Shredded baby spinach • Kidney beans, cannellini beans, etc.

• Diced potatoes • Parsley for sprinkling on top • Grated parmesan for serving

Directions: • Heat olive oil in a large pot over medium heat • Add the onion, carrot, celery, zucchini, and garlic. Season with some salt and pepper. Stir and cook until tender, about 8 minutes.

• I f you are using wine, add it to the pot and cook until it is almost entirely reduced.

• Stir in the rosemary, chili flakes, diced tomatoes, and stock or water.

• Bring to a boil and then reduce and simmer uncovered for 30-40 minutes. Add the chickpeas during the last 10 minutes. Taste and season with salt and pepper. Serve immediately.

International Presence. Local Essence.

Aside from being part of a truly international legal firm, you’ll benefit from practical, hands-on experience and exposure to various areas of practice.

Law around the world

thenortonrosefulbrightdifference.com

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 | 19

Intra Vires

Surprise Data Shows Ethics Days Are Boring —Ethics Hour Now in Development ALEX CARMONA (1L)

I

n a move that has sent shockwaves throughout the legal community, the University of Toronto Faculty of Law has made the bold decision to revamp its 1L ethics training program. Again.

“I thought we had a great thing going with Ethics Week, until UV published a pretty scathing editorial about it back in 2012. Apparently, it was boring!” Mayo Moran, Dean of the Faculty of Law, said in an emergency media scrum early this morning. “So naturally we decided to scrap the bastard and figure out a better way to instill a bare minimum of ethics into the teeming mass of selfishness and greed that is the U of T Law student body.”

Ethics Week was condensed into two full-day Friday programs for the 2013/2014 academic year, and presented bleary-eyed, hungover 1Ls

with seminars on a variety of topics such as civility, client relations and probably at least one more thing after the boxed lunch.

“Unfortunately, I’ve boiled down cold, hard statistics that prove the 1Ls found the Ethics Days boring as well, give or take a 65% margin of error,” Ben Alarie, Dean of the first year program, stated.

“No, you may not see the stats. They’re mine…my own,” Alarie continued, with a glint in his eye, after this reporter inquired about a copy of the data. “The administration has decided that we need a new strategy to compete with students’ ever-decreasing attention spans, and also Flappy Bird.”

To that end, U of T Law will be rolling out the creatively named “Ethics Hour” for the upcoming 2014/2015 academic year. While details

of the new program are still in the works, this reporter has confirmed it will at some point include a 45-second session entitled “Truthiness: How to Not Lie”, followed by a long 3-minute workshop where students will be paired up with a classmate and must attempt to truthfully answer the question “Why did you decide to come to law school?”

“To be perfectly honest, our expectations for that one are not high,” Moran conceded.

Other topics include “Confidentiality: Is It Even Worth It?” and “Civility: Up Yours!”.

To make sure the program is as well attended as possible, the administration has decided to schedule Ethics Hour from 6:30 to 7:30 pm on the first Sunday of February.

“My data showed that, for some reason, students are never doing work on that Sunday

night. So we figured we’d do them a favour and set it up so that they don’t have to take time out of studying to learn how not to be raging assholes,” Alarie said.

“I think the change is a great idea! I know I zoned out for most of my own ethics training when I was in 1L, so I don’t think I really got the most out of it,” Marissa Brock, a current 3L, said while breaking into one of her classmates’ lockers. “I’ve got a feeling I’ve been left with a few moral grey areas.”

The prospective crop of 0Ls has pledged on lawstudents.ca not to be taken in by the slick new program. Surprisingly, however, as of press time the thread has devolved entirely into inane stat boasting and circle jerking.

Dear Dr.V, I can't help but notice you have the tightest bod. How do you keep in such great shape?

—Drooling

Dear Drooling, Three words: kegels, kegels, kegels.

Dear Dr. V.,

What happened to Dr. Valencia?? You suck!

—M. Brown

Dear Dr. Valencourt Vicki Valencourt, gorgeous model/singer/dancer/sex expert, has been around the block and back. From late night infomercials to Vanna White’s stand in Episode 2: Season 3, (original air date November 9 1985), she boasts an impressive resume. She’s here to answer every burning question U of T law’s got with her trademark candour and infinite wisdom.

Dear Dr. V, I'm not looking forward to Law Ball because the guy I like has a girlfriend who he's bringing to the event. Should I try to break them up or can you help me find a way to get over it?

—To Homewreck or Not To Homewreck

Dear To Homewreck or Not, Why are these the only options you're considering?? This is the stuff dreams are made of! And by dreams I mean wet, delicious threesomes.

Don't feel like you're in a competition with this other broad. You already have one thing in common: you want the same dong. I've had beautiful, life-long friendships that have started just like this. And while some prefer a DP scenario, I personally have always been a fan of the

DV. It's like my old acting coach used to say you can never have too much of a good thing.

Of course, he was talking about qualudes. But I think it applies here too.

May I also add that Law Ball is the perfect place to capitalize on a menage a trois opportunity. All three of you are going to be looking your black tie best. And if not…it's an open bar.

Line up those tequila shots and get in there, honey. Without fail, enough tequila shots give you a dead feeling inside that you find yourself bumping uglies with even the most heinous of partners. You might want to put in some song requests to the SLS to set the mood - may I recommend Peaches and Cream by 112. It's a real panty-dropper.

Good luck, and be sure to send me pics! ;)

Dear Dr. V. I really enjoy mooting but every time I go to conclude my submissions, I have to fight the urge to orgasm. Is this a common problem?

—Courtroom Climaxer

Dear Courtroom Climaxer, Oh yes, I've heard of it - on the mean streets of Birge I believe they call it Mandel syndrome.

Why fight the urge? Ride that tide of feeling all the way to best oralist - in the bedroom. It's time to act on all that sexual tension you've been feeling with your moot partner :). Have fun 'submitting' together!

—Dr. V

Dear Mr. Brown, As you sit alone at home at your computer, tissues and moisturizer at the ready, I feel sadness at the thought of you stricken at the loss of old Dr. Valencia, gone from the pages of Ultra Vires, our beloved monthly. What pleasantlooking Indian man will I have to jerk off to now? You likely cry out, the sounds of which no doubt echo in your lonely basement apartment.

Fear not, sweet Matthew. I am 1/16 Indian.

Impossible, you say? Why, because my skin is milky-reddish-white, and my hair falls to my shoulders in these perfect blonde curls? Don't be so racist, my boy. In the late 1880s, my greatgreat-great-grandmother Ethel fell in love with a streetboy who had escaped the destitute streets of Kerala, and made pennies by singing love songs on the curb in London. My grandmother, completely tone-deaf, mistook him for a really tanned American singer who was popular at the time and banged him right then and there in the back of her brand new automobile. She was a bit of a slut, you see. This was, of course, a wellkept Valencourt family secret until a few years ago when my bipolar aunt Rita found Ethel's personal diaries in an attic. Ethel had drawn her encounter with the streetboy in such detail - I'm talking full colour here, little brown dick and everything - that no one doubted the veracity of the story. It also explained why my great grandfather Frank looked so much like Mahadma Ghandi. (In explaining the brown baby she bore 9 months later, Ethel told her husband she must have drank too much coffee while she was pregnant). So there you have it Matthew, I may not be a man (that's a story for another day), but at least I'm an Indian. Hopefully that will help you some in getting that solo-session started.

Kisses, Dr. Valencourt

20 | FEBRUARY 26, 2014

DIVERSIONS

Reading Week: Expectations vs. Reality Expectation: sleep in because there’s no class, take your sweet time getting ready for that date tonight, unwind…

Reality: wake up early to put the final touches on your small group assignment, spend the majority of the day frantically typing, citing, consulting the McGill guide, and constantly keeping a look out on the time. Feel the stress building. Partake in exercise (i.e. running to the Records Office before 4pm). Get on the subway that’s even more packed than usual, thanks to the ridiculously humongous bouquets and teddy bears in the hands of smitten people. Go home, have some wine and watch the Olympics by yourself. True patriot you are.

Saturday February 15th 2014

Expectation: sleep in, catch up on some zZzs. Wake up at 1 pm and have something to eat. Contemplate what to wear to go out with your friends tonight, it’s your first night out in forever. Chill out on the couch with some leisurely reading until then.

Reality: Sleep in. Do nothing all day. Justify going out because…how else will all those discounted chocolates find their way into your mouth? Someone has to go out to the store and get them. Return home and sit on the couch eating said chocolates with a Dance Moms marathon.

Monday February 16th 2014

Expectation: It’s Family Day! Time to spend it with loved ones.

Reality: Realize you have a week to get caught up on all your readings and spend today with your textbooks. Those cases aren’t going to read themselves.

Tuesday February 17th 2014

Expectation: sleep in, catch up with some friends over brunch.

Read your property readings. Go out for a movie.

Professor Celebrity Look-A-Like of the Month ANONYMOUS

LISANA NITHIANANTHAN (1L)

Friday February 14th 2014

ultravires.ca

Reality: sleep in ‘til noon. Wake up with the feeling of impending doom…that admin assignment is going to require you to actually do the admin readings...start by printing out the Admin Syllabus.

Wednesday February 18th 2014

Expectation: start working on your Admin assignment.

Reality: start your Admin readings.

Thursday February 19th 2014

Expectation: finish your Admin assignment.

Reality: continue Admin readings. Justify taking a break after the first 20 minutes...7 hours later... you’re still trolling Facebook friends and watching emotional baby videos on YouTube.

Friday February 20th 2014

Expectation: wake up early to finish your readings for other courses so you have the weekend free. Maybe catch some Olympics on TV. Reality: wake up at 9 am stressed out about the Admin assignment. Begin to work through all the readings with the goal of beginning the writing by tonight, finish the readings. Finish the admin readings and justify going to sleep by saying you’ll wake up early to begin the assignment.

Saturday February 21st 2014

Expectation: having finished all your readings and assignment, you can have a “Me Day,” call up your friends to meet you to get manicures and plan a night out.

Reality: wake up early and read the assignment outline. Spend about an hour overwhelmed by it. Begin writing like crazy. Forgo sustenance in the form of food to get this done. At about two in the morning you pass out at your desk from exhaustion, using your Criminal Code as a pillow.

vs.

Vincent Chiao

Masi Oka from Heroes

(image from uc.utoronto.ca)

(image from www.imdb.com)

Sunday February 22nd 2014

Expectation: check your emails, prepare for the school day tomorrow. Get to bed early, so you’re well rested.

Reality: Write, write, and cite that assignment, all the while suffering from neck pain due to sleeping on a heavy textbook. Spend 20 minutes weeping about what your life has become and contemplating your existential crisis. Return to desk, realize you have developed the back problems that will plague you forever, but minor victory in the form of actually finishing that paper. Remember you didn’t do any of the other readings. But it’s 1 am. You need sleep.

Lie in bed and cry for the Reading Week break that never was…