Ultra Vires Volume 23, Issue 6 - March 2022

ULTRAVIRES.CA

March 31, 2022

VOL. 23 ISS. 6

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

Another Conversation with @BoraLaskinsHead

Goodbye Legal Process, Hello New Indigenous Law Course

UV catches up with the esteemed Supreme Court Justice’s bust

New course proposed in response to Call to Action #28

HARRY MYLES (2L)

SABRINA MACKLAI (2L JD/MI) AND ALISHA KRISHNA (2L)

ANUSHAY SHEIKH. CREDIT: MEAZA DAMTE.

@BORALASKINSHEAD (LLB ‘36, LEFT) CHATS WITH INCOMING CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, HARRY MYLES (RIGHT). CREDIT: SHAE ROTHERY

For this year’s Promise Auction, Ultra Vires auctioned off an interview and headshot to be featured in our final issue. Coming in at a whopping $20, the winning bid was placed by none other than @BoraLaskinsHead, a Twitter account that speaks for the bronze bust of Justice Laskin outside the library that bears his name. We spoke with @BoraLaskinsHead in 2019 and a lot has changed since then. Keep reading to find out what Laskin’s been up to the past few years.

Ultra Vires (UV): What have you been doing since we last spoke with you in 2019?

Bora Laskin’s Head (BLH): During the pandemic, I read a lot. Lately I have been busy resisting the lure of Wordle.

UV: Who is your current favourite Supreme Court Justice?

BLH: I do not have a favourite current Supreme Court Justice, but I have a favourite previous justice. It is a secret, though.

UV: How has the pandemic impacted you?

BLH: During the pandemic, Caesar wanted to reminisce a lot. Almost every day, he would say “Bora, remember when I achieved [blah blah blah].” “Bora, remember when I did [this or that].” It was quite unbearable since there were no students to whom I could pawn off Caesar. I would just nod and say “quite right, Caesar, quite right”—and carry on reading my judgments.

UV: Did you get lonely when the school was closed during lockdowns?

BLH: Yes, sure. I have a couple friends on Twitter—Louis Brandeis and Warren Burger—but they did not offer much companion-

ship during lockdowns. Louie has become a bore lately. I told him recently that everything he says is obiter. His tweets just declare all the books he intends to read, like some verbal equivalent of a booklined Zoom background.

And the Burger King has been very quiet lately. I believe he has become addicted to afternoon naps. It is very unfortunate.

I don’t hesitate to recognize the need for other people, but I also try to remember those who walk in crowds and feel alone, or sadder yet, lose their individuality among them. And so, I stay at my post and wish more people would approach me to share concerns clouding in on them. I am always available to listen and silently encourage. I am not sure what about me intimidates people and seems to keep them at bay. I guess maybe my brilliance.

UV: You’ve sat outside the Bora Laskin Law Library for years. What is the wildest thing you’ve witnessed in our halls?

Continued on page 24

After returning to its pre-pandemic format this year, the 1L curriculum is set to change again. The Curriculum Committee, a Faculty Council committee composed of both Faculty and Students’ Law Society representatives, recently shared their proposal to implement a new mandatory 1L course on Indigenous law starting next year. These changes do not propose to affect any students currently enrolled in the Faculty.

Following a year of deliberations, the Committee recommends the following changes: 1) creating a new three-credit graded course, tentatively called “Indigenous Peoples and the Law,” that will meet in the 1L winter term; and 2) removing Legal Process from the first year program to make room for the new course. It has yet to be decided what will happen with Legal Process; the Committee plans to ask the Dean to task next year’s Curriculum Committee with answering this question.

On Monday, March 21, Associate Dean and Chair of the Curriculum Committee Christopher Essert led a town hall to discuss the proposal in further detail and solicit students’ feedback. Over 30 students attended the session.

Associate Dean Essert began by discussing the background of the proposal. This year, Dean Jutta Brunnée tasked the Curriculum Committee with a mandate to “develop recommendations concerning the introduction of a mandatory course on Indigenous Peoples and the law in Canada.” This is in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action #28, which calls upon Canadian law schools to require that all students take a course in Aboriginal people and the law. According to the TRC, this course should discuss a variety of topics, including the history and legacy of residential schools, and require skillsbased training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and antiracism. Other Canadian law schools, including McGill and Dalhousie, already have courses of this kind.

The proposed course has the following model course description: “This course aims to address the range of considerations arising out of past and present interactions between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian legal system.

Topics to be covered may include the following: the history of Crown-Indigenous relations, Indigenous legal orders, the nature of IndigeContinued on page 4

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE OH, THE PLACES YOU’LL GO

RIGHTS REVIEW

THE GHOSTS OF UV EICS PAST

PAGE 8

PAGE 20

PAGE 16

2 | March 31, 2022

84 Queen’s Park Crescent Toronto, ON M5S 2C5 Ultra Vires is the independent student newspaper of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. We provide a forum for diverse viewpoints on topics of interest to our readers. We aim to foster dialogue on academic and social issues between students, the faculty, and the broader legal community in Toronto, Ontario, and Canada. Our content does not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board. We print six issues per year. Ultra Vires is printed by Master Web Inc. EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Sabrina Macklai & Annecy Pang BUSINESS MANAGER Griff in Murphy NEWS EDITOR Tom Russell ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITORS Nicolas Williams & Aliya Hemani FEATURES EDITORS Natasha Burman & Rebecca Rosenberg ASSOCIATE FEATURES EDITORS Jeffrey Liu & Hye-seon Jung OPINIONS EDITOR Mithushan Kirubananthan ASSOCIATE OPINIONS EDITORS Vivienne Stern & Stephen Mapplebeck DIVERSIONS EDITOR Harry Myles ASSOCIATE DIVERSIONS EDITOR Fievel Lim RECRUIT EDITOR Angela Feng RECRUIT REPORTER Hussein E. E. Fawzy EDITOR AT LARGE Shae Rothery PRODUCTION COORDINATOR Jennifer Sun PHOTOGRAPHERS Jacqueline Huang, Shae Rothery, & Thomas Alexander COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR Jasveen Singh SOCIAL MEDIA COORDINATORS Kaitlyn Nelson & Elaine Cheng LAYOUT EDITOR Alexandra Fox

ADVERTISING If you are interested in advertising, please email us at business@ultravires.ca ERRORS If you notice any errors, please email us at editor@ultravires.ca.

SUBMISSIONS If you would like to submit a tip, letter, or an article, please email us at editor@ultravires.ca.

Ultra Vires reserves the right to edit submissions.

ultravires.ca

UV INDEX

Faculty Council Governance at a Tipping Point

18

Ransomware, Liability, and Regulation

18

NEWS

Dueling Drug Decriminalization Bills in Parliament

19

Goodbye Legal Process, Hello New Indigenous Law Course

1

Financial Aid Reform Led by the DLSA

3

Previously On: Tuition Roundtable Discussion Series

3

President’s End of Year Update

4

Runnymede Returns to U of T

5

LSO Postpones March 2022 Licensing Examinations

5

SLS Membership Fee Increase Referendum Passes

6

OPINIONS

Promise Auction 2022 Recap

6

MIT Sports Conference Illuminated by Industry Stars

22

2022-2023 SLS Election Results

6

Keep Your Coffee, Let Me Attend Class Online

23

U of T Responds to the Russian Invasion

7 7

Accomodations at the Faculty of Law: the Student Perspective

23

A Spring Faculty Council Full of Celebration

Reflections on Mooting the Jessup

24

FEATURES Oh, the Places You’ll Go

8

“I have eaten a lot of pizza.”

9

Ryan’s Movie Corner

9

Toronto Summer 2022 1L Recruitment Results

10

Reflections on the 2021-2022 Moots

11

Kristen Roggeveen on Venture Capital Law

RIGHTS REVIEW A Tool, Not a Constitution

20

Weapons Distribution and Human Rights

20

Professor Kent Roach's Vision for HR Remedies

21

Creative Dissent

22

DIVERSIONS Another Conversation with @BoraLaskinsHead

1

The Law Student Workout Routine

25

Senior Superlatives: Law School Edition

25

The Best Study Room Booking Names

25

12

Wordle Spin-Offs, Ranked by How Feasible They Are to Do in Class

26

The 2022 Bora Laskin Law Library’s Poetry Contest Winners

13

Totally Real Exam Questions

26

Brunch for Days!

14

Justice for Geese

27

Wines to Get You Past the Finish Line

15

Intra Vires

27

The Ghosts of UV EiCs Past

16

Ultra Vires Presents: Summertime

27

Law Follies 2022 Review

17

The Ultra Vires Crossword

28

EDITORS' NOTE This is it! We’re at our final issue for Volume 23. We’re not crying, you are.

In this issue, you’ll find discussion on the SLS and Faculty Council updates, including a proposal to once again change the 1L curriculum; Toronto 1L recruit numbers; mooting hot takes; reviews galore from Ryan Shah’s lastever movie corner to Associate Dean Essert’s updated views on pizza; reflections on the Faculty’s accommodations policy; our Promise Auction bid; senior superlatives; and more! This issue also features an interview with UV’s EiCs from ten years ago, who made a compelling case that we should revive the EiC Emeritus role (you can pry this newspaper from our cold, dead hands).

On that note, we want to introduce our incoming EiCs: Harry Myles (2L) and Shae Rothery (2L). Both have a variety of experience on UV, from conducting investigations into the budget, writing monthly review articles, and making sure our Diversions section is at least somewhat funny. We’re confident that they’ll keep UV poppin’ for the 2022-2023 year.

Thank you again for letting us be your EiCs. We hope you enjoyed reading the issues as much as we enjoyed putting them together for you. Working on UV has been one of the best experiences in our law school journeys and we will miss the frantic end-of-themonth 3:00am editing spree to get things ready for the printer on time.

Our deepest thanks to our entire team for their incredible work this past year; this would be nothing without you all.

And shout out to you, our readers, for your support. If you actually read all these Editors' Notes, know that you have a very special place in our hearts.

Best of luck finishing the term and have a great summer!

Sabrina Macklai & Annecy Pang Co-Editors-in-Chief, Ultra Vires Vol 23

ARE YOU READY FOR

THE BAR EXAMS?

DON’T PANIc. Prepare with Emond’s Bar Exam Preparation Manual.

Download it for free at

bit.ly/MR22-EmondBarPrep

save 10% on Preparation Courses.

Online and live-webinar classes this fall in Toronto. Register at

bit.ly/MR22-EmondBarPrep and use discount code 10UofT22 Online classes are available year-round. Promotion ends January 30, 2023 at 11:59 p.m.

TEST YOURSELF WITH ONLINE PRACTICE EXAMS Full-length practice exams with realistic questions & a timer

Detailed answer explanations & performance review

Continuous access from purchase until next exam date

bit.ly/MR22-EmondBarPrep Emond Exam Prep • 1 Eglinton Ave E, Suite 600, Toronto ON emond.ca • emondexamprep@emond.ca • 1-888-837-0815

NEWS

ultravires.ca

March 31, 2022 | 3

Financial Aid Reform Led by the Disabled Law Students’ Association Changes are coming to the financial aid policy

FIEVEL LIM (1L) The journey for change and accessibility at the University of Toronto is not always easy or linear.

However, some changes are finally on the horizon after the Disabled Law Students’ Association (DLSA) worked closely with the Financial Aid Committee and the Students’ Law Society (SLS) this year.

At the beginning of the fall term, Caitlin Salvino (1L), a DLSA member who is passionate about supporting students living with disabilities, sparked the initial conversation with Assistant Dean, JD Program Alexis Archbold. This conversation centered on the Faculty of Law’s Financial Aid Policy and its existing barriers for students with disabilities. Subsequently, a disability perspective on policy was added to the Financial Aid Committee agenda.

In response to this addition, the SLS ran a survey and consultation to collect data for the policy re-

form during the winter semester. On February 10, a general consultation with the Financial Aid Committee was held, where Salvino, speaking on behalf of DLSA, shared its main submission. Students also had the opportunity to share their general concerns.

On February 15, Salvino spoke to the whole Financial Aid Committee to present the DLSA recommendations and to answer questions.

Important highlights from the DLSA submission included recommendations addressing changes to the student health plan requirement, submission of receipts for allowable expenses, and how calculations for allowable expenses for continuous medications are made.

Most importantly, the DLSA pushed for a financial aid policy which respects the privacy rights of students with disabilities. In particular, they advocated for more clarity in the policies regarding who

is eligible to access sensitive information, where the information would be stored, and what information would be shared. Without clear guidance on how sensitive information is handled, the DLSA contends that many students would be deterred from disclosing their medical information and therefore not receive the appropriate financial aid.

In addition to the focus on clarity and prioritizing privacy, the DLSA suggested that special accounts such as Registered Disability Savings Plans be exempted from the financial aid calculations due to their use as safety nets rather than easily accessible assets. Finally, the DLSA suggested that the Financial Aid Policy adopt a more transparent outline of how medical expenses are incorporated into the calculation. While there is merit to evaluating high-cost medical expenses on a case-by-case basis, students with disabilities would benefit more from a

clearer framework in determining their overall expected financial aid before they decide to submit a financial aid application.

On March 25, a meeting was held between the DLSA and Financial Aid Committee regarding possible changes to the Financial Aid Policy. The Financial Aid Committee announced that, based on the feedback they received from students with disabilities, there will be amendments to the policy, additional clarifying information added into the financial aid booklet, and a separate FAQ page created for students with disabilities. The particulars of what is being changed will be announced later this year. For now, students can celebrate that a change for the better is being made at U of T Law, perhaps giving hope to others who also wish to enact change at the institution.

Previously On: Tuition Roundtable Discussion Series

SLS and Faculty conclude dialogue for the academic year GRIFFIN MURPHY (2L) In response to the Students’ Law Society's (SLS) 2021 Tuition Letter, the SLS and the Faculty have engaged in a series of three roundtable discussions over the winter term in efforts to foster meaningful dialogue between the two parties. The Tuition Roundtable was primarily composed of nine SLSappointed members and three Faculty professors; however, other Faculty members participated in certain roundtable discussions when appropriate.

SLS Vice-President, Academic Eloise Hirst (2L) generously offered Ultra Vires a glimpse into key takeaways from the Roundtable series and provided an SLS perspective on our student body’s enduring clash with rising tuition costs and capricious financial aid.

Roundtable Meeting #1 The first Roundtable Discussion was held on February 7 and was intended to provide necessary background information for student Roundtable members to understand the tuition landscape.

Vice-President, Operations and Real Estate Partnerships Scott Maybury and Chief of Government Relations Andrew Thomson presented an overview of the budget, expenses, and revenues of both the Faculty of Law and the central University of Toronto.

Hirst noted that this first meeting’s most significant takeaway is that the law school currently receives more funding back than it contributes to the University’s funds by way of tuition. This means that law students’ tuition is effectively subsidized by other students at the University. Two reasons were cited as the underlying causes of the current tuition price: a decline in government funding over time (through stagnant grants that do not adjust for inflation), and the desire to maintain the quality of the program. The Faculty of Law’s largest expense (55 percent) is compensation for faculty and staff.

Maybury also discussed how the last provincial Progressive Conservative government gave law schools the opportunity to increase tuition during the mid-1990s to 2003. U of T Law, under thenDean Ron Daniels’ leadership, was the only school

which elected to pursue increased tuition and faculty compensation. However, Maybury stated that other law schools now wish they had taken that opportunity.

Roundtable Meeting #2 The second Roundtable Discussion was held on March 4 and centred on the financial aid program at the Faculty.

“The goal of the financial aid program is to ensure that financial considerations do not prevent admitted students from attending U of T Law,” stated Hirst. “[The program] is exclusively needsbased, which the Faculty believes makes U of T a comparatively cheaper option than other law schools with less robust financial aid programs that also offer merit scholarships.”

Each year, the Financial Aid Office is given a fixed amount of money derived from donations and through tuition paid by students (30 cents on every tuition dollar paid goes into the financial aid budget). However, students have pointed out that the calculations for deemed unmet need do not reflect the cost of living in Toronto. The Financial Aid Committee has recently looked at changing the deemed amount to reflect these increased costs. For example, the financial aid calculations deem the cost of living for students who live away from home (including rent, food, transportation, cell phone bill and utilities) to be $1,661 per month.

The second session also featured Professor Benjamin Alarie, who covered admissions trends and post-graduate pathways. The Faculty stated that admissions trends have been constant over the past decade, as have post-graduate career pathways.

Presenters stressed that U of T Law should be compared to U.S. schools such as Harvard or Stanford in terms of post-graduation success in New York firms. Certain members of the Faculty also emphasised that their realistic preference to combat high tuition is by improving the Financial Aid Program rather than by decreasing tuition, noting that decreasing tuition for all students is a less progressive approach than ensuring that students in need re-

ceive adequate financial aid.

Finally, Dean Brunnée acknowledged that a principal reason for why tuition is in its current state is that the Faculty is locked in by its decisions to increase tuition in the early 2000s. The Faculty claims these decisions are not reversible, and are examining forward-looking solutions to address the tuition problem.

Roundtable Meeting #3 The third Roundtable Discussion was held on March 11 and provided an opportunity to discuss solutions and takeaways after all parties had the requisite background information. Prior to meeting, the SLS circulated a feedback form to elicit opinions from the broader student body. The form received 65 responses and indicated that 86 percent of students do not believe that the benefits they receive from attending U of T law are proportional to the cost of attending. Furthermore, 49 percent indicated that they have serious regrets about attending U of T law related to the financial burden. Major themes and concerns that were raised in the feedback form included: • The cost of tuition should be compared to other law schools in Canada, not U.S. law schools; • The deemed parental contribution as the measure for access to the Financial Aid Program is often a poor reflection of students’ socio-economic status; • The poor quality of instruction in relation to tuition cost; • The Bay Street pipeline and lack of true agency in job selection; and • Some students support pursuing greater financial aid as a solution, rather than lowering tuition for all.

The meeting covered the student survey’s responses, the long-term impacts of high tuition rates, and potential next steps. Due to budgetary constraints, especially related to cost of living increases

under collective agreements, the Faculty maintained that lowering tuition is not an option, and that it would likely need to be raised (once unfrozen) to cover these costs. Hirst said the central question raised by the student members of the roundtable was: when does it stop?

Student members also raised that students’ perception of the quality of education provided by the Faculty is grounded in their experience of law school during a pandemic when many of the benefits of attending U of T Law disappeared. Students have lost valuable time in the physical building, were deprived of opportunities to interact with faculty and alumni in both formal speaker sessions and in less formal environments. Students have also not seen the teaching abilities of faculty members at their best: teaching online in an effective and engaging manner requires different skills and techniques that have not always been fully developed.

Dean Brunnée acknowledged that tuition prices cannot rise indefinitely and agreed that long-term thinking is required to ensure that a decline in quality does not happen due to the price going too high.

She also acknowledged that an alumni satisfaction survey would be one possible way to better understand tuition’s impact on how alumni determine their career paths, manage their debt load, and feel in relation to general post-graduation satisfaction.

In opening their dialogue last year, the SLS’ 2021 Tuition Letter laid out a list of requests for the Faculty regarding tuition, financial aid, and data collection, and the spirit of these requests appears to remain unfettered.

“The SLS maintains its position that tuition remains a significant barrier to many students considering attending U of T Law […] and alters the life and career trajectories of students currently studying at the Faculty,” commented Hirst. “Our desired outcome remains that tuition be frozen, or that it rises only with the cost of inflation in the short term, and that a long-term plan is implemented to ensure that tuition does not increase indefinitely. The SLS also continues to support more data collection regarding the effects of tuition on post-graduate trajectories.”

4 | March 31, 2022

NEWS

ultravires.ca

Goodbye Legal Process, Hello New Indigenous Law Course Continued from page 1 nous sovereignty, Aboriginal Rights and law, Treaties, UNDRIP, the history and legacy of residential schools, and other contemporary topics.”

Associate Dean Essert emphasized that the Committee does not view its role as drafting a syllabus for the course. The model description is meant to provide a general outline but individual instructors may take the course in the direction they see fit, according to their own interests and expertise, while adhering to the Faculty’s “extremely high standards for content and quality.” At a minimum, the course would cover Indigenous history and Legal Orders.

In addition to the graded course, the Committee also proposed introducing a new, ungraded one-credit course in the 1L fall term.

This will act as a “basic introduction to the historical and contemporary situation of Indigenous peoples within Canada,” including some cultural competency elements. It will also integrate some of the pre-existing co-curricular elements currently associated with the Indigenous Initiatives Office. Given that students come with varying backgrounds and competency about Indigenous issues, the Committee feels this ungraded, mandatory course will “ensure everyone starts ‘on the same page’” and receives basic training, akin to Legal Methods.

The Committee noted that they met several times, soliciting perspectives from faculty mem-

bers, the administration, and students. They also consulted the TRC Implementation Committee and the Indigenous Law Students Association (ILSA) when creating their proposal.

Chair of the TRC Implementation Committee Professor Douglas Sanderson commented that responsibility for developing and implementing the new course lies with the Associate Dean Office. That being said, he personally feels their consultation document looks good.

In a comment for UV, ILSA Co-President Tomas Jirousek (2L) stated that, “Successive generations of ILSA students have advocated for the creation of a mandatory course for many years. This course really is a product of many years of ILSA advocacy and consultation with the Faculty, and we’re incredibly proud to see it go forward.”

While the course content has yet to be finalized, Jirousek commented that ILSA feels the course adequately responds to the TRC Call to Action and will provide a platform to students to learn about substantive legal issues in Indigenous and Aboriginal law. He went on to state that, “whether engaging in corporate law or public interest work, students will certainly benefit from many of the cultural and legal competencies which are being built into the program.”

At the town hall, students expressed their concerns over how the course will be delivered in a way that centres Indigenous perspectives, includ-

ing ensuring an Indigenous instructor teaches the class and that this course is not viewed as a comprehensive teaching of Indigenous law and issues.

To the former concern, Associate Dean Essert emphasized that they are very dedicated to “making sure someone qualified is teaching” and noted that it is a “huge priority for the Dean and administration to increase Indigenous hires.” To the latter concern, Associate Dean Essert agreed that the new course is not meant to cover all material in this area, and the Committee is eager to explore ways that upper years can continue their learning.

ILSA echoed many of these comments. They also suggest that the Faculty consult with community members in choosing a permanent name for the course which better reflects its nature. Further, they hope the Faculty will be open to choosing a title in an Indigenous language. However, Jirousek said they are “largely content at this point” and “look forward to seeing the course get underway.”

Students were also concerned about eliminating Legal Process from the first year program. The Committee selected Legal Process to be on the proverbial chopping board given the results of consultations that took place last year, which indicated it was most amenable to being removed. During the town hall, Associate Dean Essert confirmed these findings, explaining that there was a strong constituency amongst the Faculty to leave the five substan-

tive courses in the 1L curriculum (i.e., contracts, property, torts, criminal, and constitutional law) untouched, leaving Legal Process as the “natural” option. He further went on to state that Legal Process gains value once students are already taught the substantive law, even commenting on last year’s decision to have Legal Process in the first semester of the first year curriculum: “By all accounts, that was a disaster!”

On the topic, the Committee offered a few suggestions that next year’s Committee may explore further: including Legal Process as a mandatory upper year course, preferably in the fall of second year; making it an optional course; or substantively restructuring Legal Process altogether, seeing if elements can be integrated in other courses.

Associate Dean Essert concluded in his remarks to students by saying that this is an “exciting and important moment for the Faculty.”

Indeed, as has been noted by others, implementing a course of this kind could help improve Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples by ensuring law students graduate with a deeper understanding of the legal and cultural challenges Indigenous peoples face.

The plan for the mandatory course will be presented and voted upon by Faculty Council on March 30. It remains to be seen how the final course, and the 1L curriculum in general, will look during the upcoming 2022-2023 year.

President’s End of Year Update Outgoing SLS President shares thoughts on the SLS’ successes from the 2021–22 year WILLEM CRISPIN-FREI (3L) On behalf of the Students’ Law Society (SLS), I want to of fer my congratulations to everyone for making it to the end of the year! A lthough it has been a busy and challenging time, I also want to thank everyone who helped our community get through another pandemic year of law school.

In September, we hoped that the term would look more like 2019 than 2020. Despite the continuing challenges that the COV ID-19 pandemic presented, during both hybrid and online phases of this year, students managed to achieve many successes in a variety of areas; I want to share just a few of the SLS team’s achievements here.

In the fall, I shared several priorities for the Student Life and Academic Committee (SL AC) and the Social and Finance Committee (SFC). SL AC has worked tirelessly to spot and address pandemic-related issues.

Advocating for clearer and more timely communications regarding the pandemic, working microphones in classrooms, improving the Red Screen Accommodations process, and more, were signif icant parts of SL AC’s ef forts to help blunt the rough edges of pandemic-related measures.

SL AC members and appointed students have opened a dialogue with the Faculty about the future of tuition and address the unsustainable trends of drastic increases, as laid out in SLS’ letter to Dean Brunnée regarding tuition. Next year’s SLS will have the opportunity to build on the concerns shared and foundations laid at the Tuition Roundtable discussions.

After coordinating ef forts with the Indigenous Law Students’ Association ( ILSA) regarding implementing a mandatory course in response to Call to Action #28 , a plan for

a mandatory course went to Faculty Council on March 30. I hope next year’s student leaders on the SLS and ILSA will continue to collaborate to ensure the Faculty’s response to #28 is comprehensive and done in a good way.

In addition to these advocacy priorities, the SLS has worked to address other signif icant student concerns. After continuously hearing from students about the need for recorded lectures, SL AC’s advocacy resulted in recorded lectures becoming available as an accommodation where instructors are permitted to record and distribute lectures at their will. The SLS also secured a policy change that opens the door for digital access to notes during open-book examinations. Both of these policy changes are signif icant steps, and next year’s SLS will want to ensure that they are properly implemented. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, while the SLS’ advocacy has not managed to reopen the Goodmans LLP Café, the SLS secured free cof fee and treat days from the Faculty.

SFC also had many successes, despite the signif icant planning challenges posed by pandemic restrictions. Upper-year students returning to the Jackman Law Building in the fall were greeted with pizza, trivia, and various social events as part of the Upper Year Welcome Back week. SFC also held trivia throughout the year, even during the Omicron wave, of fering students a chance to show of f their knowledge in a way that brought glory rather than eye rolls. The SLS was also able to bring back two major evening events that are the highlights of the year for some students—the HalL AWeen party and the triumphant return of Law

Ball.

The pandemic has severely af fected another key student life component: clubs. For the remaining minority of us who experienced the law school before the pandemic, we fondly remember seeing free snacks and pizza on a regular, if not daily, basis at club events. While we were not able to revive that tradition this year, SFC has overhauled its club funding policy and processes to provide more information to students, and has set itself up to fund clubs at even greater levels than pre-pandemic.

Thanks to the successful SLS Membership Fee Increase Referendum, the SLS will have more money to help rebuild the vibrant network of clubs next year and renormalize free pizza being a f ixture of law school life.

With the f irst fee increase since at least 1995, SFC will be able to have the cash f low and revenue to sustainably fund clubs and host numerous diverse events.

SL AC and SFC worked together to support students through the recruits—SFC organized a panel and mentorship program for the 2L recruit last summer, and SL AC repeatedly brought recruit-related issues and stressors related to communications, supports, and experiences to various branches of the Faculty.

While the SLS has worked to increase transparency by building out our website; ref ining our governing documents, minutes, and budget and making them available for students; and providing updates on advocacy issues in the SLS Weekly, the school year’s quick pace sometimes obscures the scale of the SLS’ activities.

I want to deeply thank the 41 SLS representatives, of f icers, and execs I had the

pleasure of working with this past year.

These dedicated students have helped make our law school community a better place by attending 24 SL AC meetings, 25 SFC meetings, 20 Executive Committee meetings, and 20 Dean or Admin meetings while serving on 21 SLS sub-committees and 11 Dean’s/Faculty Council Committees.

The successes highlighted here represent a mere fraction of the more than 70 distinct projects, events, and advocacy initiatives championed by the SLS this year. I want to especially thank SLS Vice-Presidents Ellie Hirst (2L), Marco Ciccone (1L), Thryn Irwin (3L), and Vanshika Dhawan (3L) for their great ef forts in co-ordinating these projects.

Our community is full of passionate advocates, colleagues, and friends. I will end by encouraging students, faculty, staf f, and the Faculty itself to take up one of the recommendations from this year’s Mental Health and Wellness Committee Report: work together to embed compassion into the culture here at U of T Law—kindness and care for each other will help unlock our student body’s greatest potential.

It's been an honour to have your trust and to serve our community over the past three years, hopefully helping to make this place at least a little bit better along the way. I very much look forward to passing the torch to Meaza Damte (2L) and her incoming team to continue to f ight the good f ight in hopefully more precedented times next year.

Editor’s Note: Willem Crispin-Frei (3L) is the outgoing President of the Students’ Law Society.

ultravires.ca

NEWS

March 31, 2022 | 5

Runnymede Returns to U of T

The Runnymede Society hosts their annual Law and Freedom Conference GORDON LEE (2L)

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SUZANNE CÔTÉ DELIVERING THE EVENING KEYNOTE ADDRESS. CREDIT: RUNNYMEDE SOCIETY

On March 11-12, students, lawyers, and academics from across Canada gathered under the Gothic ceiling and stained glass windows of Hart House’s Great Hall for the Runnymede Society’s annual Law and Freedom Conference. After last year’s conference took the form of a virtual webinar, many were excited to once again meet in-person for the Society’s flagship event. This was also Hart

House’s first major in-person event since much of the province and country shut down in early 2020.

Fittingly, in a room ringed by a quotation from Milton’s Areopagitica, one of the greatest works in the English language on the subject of liberty, much of the conference centred on individual freedoms and the law.

The conference began on Friday evening with a

fireside chat with Marie Henein. In her remarks, Henein spoke on the importance of defence lawyers in the justice system, how defence lawyers uphold the rule of law, the importance of free speech, her experience as a woman in the defence bar, the value of engaging with individuals who hold different viewpoints, and public opinion of defence lawyers.

The second day of the conference began bright and early with a panel discussion on the notwithstanding clause. In recent years, the notwithstanding clause has been featured in the news; for example, the Government of Quebec invoked the clause to protect Bill-21 from being overturned, which bans many provincial civil servants from wearing visible religious symbols. Additionally, the Government of Ontario used the notwithstanding clause when its attempt to reduce the size of Toronto’s city council was blocked at trial.

The second panel of the day focused on emerging alternatives to legal interpretation. The panellists contrasted the living-tree approach with commongood constitutionalism, originalism, and textualism.

In the afternoon, attendees had the option of either joining a discussion on lessons from the pandemic with a focus on civil liberties, which was conducted in English, or a panel on intellectual diversity in Canadian law schools, which was conducted in French. This was the first time a French panel had been featured at the Law and Freedom Conference. On the English side, the Emergencies Act discussion featured a panel involving lawyers from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation who discussed their experience with civil rights litigation during the pandemic. This panel also featured Professor Ryan Alford of the Bora Laskin Faculty of Law,

who recently wrote an op-ed in Newsweek on the Trudeau government’s recent invocation of the Emergencies Act. The afternoon ended with a panel on the dilemmas of free expression as governments and courts have long grappled with the appropriateness and scope of limits to free speech. The panellists discussed Supreme Court cases involving offensive speech, the Trudeau government’s Bill C-36, and the potential chilling effect of the federal government’s broad definition of “hate speech”.

Finally, the conference concluded with dinner and an evening keynote address by Justice Suzanne Côté of the Supreme Court of Canada. This was the third year in a row in which a sitting or former Supreme Court justice addressed the Law and Freedom Conference, with Justice Malcolm Rowe speaking in 2021 and Justice Marshall Rothstein in 2020. Justice Côté, who has written opinions and dissents in many recent constitutional cases, emphasized the importance of the text in constitutional interpretation—a point which has animated recent debates among scholars and jurists, including the question of whether Charter values not outlined in the text have a role to play in constitutional interpretation.

As the conference drew to a close, the Runnymede Society celebrated another successful year.

National Director Kristopher Kinsinger noted that the Society’s lawyer and student chapters grew significantly over the past year, with the student chapters holding 20 events across Canada during the winter 2022 semester.

Editor’s Note: Gordon Lee is a student executive with the U of T chapter of the Runnymede Society who attended the Law and Freedom Conference.

LSO Postpones March 2022 Licensing Examinations Recent exam leak leaves some licensing candidates in limbo SHAE ROTHERY (2L) After graduating law school, only two things stand in the way of practicing law independently in Ontario: completing an experiential training program (most commonly, an eight-month articling placement), and successfully passing both the barrister and solicitor licensing examinations.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) regulates the licensing process in the province and is the sole provider of the barrister and solicitor licensing examinations, both of which are colloquially referred to as the bar exam. It consists of four-hour open-book, multiple choice exams which measure the minimum knowledge and competencies required of barristers and solicitors in the province. The bar is offered three times a year—in summer (typically in June), fall (typically in November), and winter (typically in March).

On March 5, 2022, the LSO announced that all March 2022 bar examinations, scheduled to take place from March 8-11 and March 22-25, were cancelled to uphold the integrity of the examination, after the LSO received information indicating the examination’s content had been improperly accessed by some candidates. The LSO stated that third party involvement is believed to be a factor in

the leak. They indicated the cancellation impacted approximately 1,100 candidates who were set to write the bar in March.

According to the LSO, an external party is tasked with conducting an investigation into the breach. In addition to the March 2022 examination, the investigation includes previously written examinations which may have been subject to improper access by licensing candidates. Candidates under investigation, who would have otherwise been eligible for licensure, have been notified by the LSO that their eligibility to be called to the bar is being held in abeyance, pending the investigation’s outcome. The LSO has not indicated how many candidates have been affected by the abeyance.

On March 12, 2022, the LSO announced that the March 2022 barrister and solicitor licensing exams have been rescheduled to April 5-8 and April 26-29, respectively. Candidates were not able to choose their preferred sitting date; rather, the LSO assigned exam dates to candidates. As of publication, the LSO has yet to determine whether the March 2022 examination deferral will have an impact on candidates who previously expected to be called to the bar in June 2022.

For licensing candidates, the rescheduled exams may pose extenuating challenges. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the bar exam has been held exclusively in an online format, and the originally scheduled March 2022 exams were no exception.

However, the rescheduled April exams are set to proceed in-person in Toronto, using a paper-based exam.

The LSO indicates that “heightened invigilation protocols and strengthened rules” will be in place, in addition to specific COVID-19 protocols. The LSO cites balancing “the need for confidence in the examination process with the needs of candidates to continue their licensure journey” as the reason for the switch. Candidates who are unable to travel to Toronto for either of the in-person exams were required to apply for a deferral to a future examination period by March 25. Further, candidates who are “unable to be with other people in a room” for COVID-19 reasons were asked to defer.

For candidates impacted by exam deferrals or abeyances, the LSO has not provided much in terms of bridging the gap to practice. Candidates are unable to practice law independently without a license, so those at the end of their articling term

will need to enter into a Supervision Agreement with an approved principal in order to provide legal services and continue their employment. However, these agreements are not effective until they receive approval from the LSO, who has indicated that they will endeavour to approve these applications on an expedited basis. Unfortunately, this doesn’t provide a solution for candidates who were expecting to receive a salary increase upon being granted a license to practice, or for employers who were expecting to have a full-fledged lawyer in their employ—those issues are left to be sorted out between the candidate and their employer.

Beyond the rescheduled April exams, the next barrister examination period is scheduled for May 31-June 3 and June 7-10, and the next solicitor examination period is scheduled for June 21-24 and June 28-30. As of publication, these examinations are set to take place online.

The LSO did not respond to UV’s request for comment. Anyone with information material to the investigation is asked to contact the LSO via email at LProcess@LSO.ca.

Editor's Note: As more information becomes available, updates will be made to this story online at ultravires.ca.

NEWS

6 | March 31, 2022

ultravires.ca

SLS Membership Fee Increase Referendum Passes Membership fee now $30 a semester ANNECY PANG (3L) On February 28, the Students’ Law Society (SLS) announced in SLS Weekly that it had directed the Chief Returning Officer to include a SLS membership fee increase referendum question on the ballot in the Spring General Elections. SLS sought to increase the SLS membership fee from $20 to $30 a semester for full-time students, and from $10 to $15 a semester for parttime students.

The membership fee funds club events and subsidizes larger social events such as Law Ball and Halloween. The SLS sought a fee increase

because the cost of food and hosting events has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic; having more financial resources would also allow the Social and Finance Committee (SFC) to put down deposits for venues.

“With increased budget flexibility, SFC will be able to pursue and fund a greater diversity of events,” commented VP Finance Marco Ciccone (1L). “Our aim was to enable next year’s SFC to have more funds at its disposal to increase the offerings and have a better ability to cater to different student interests through SLS events and

club funding.”

The SLS collects three fees from students: a membership fee, an orientation fee ($25/semester), and a public interest employment program fee ($15/semester). The orientation fee supports O-Week programming for incoming first-year students. The public interest employment program fee funds up to three summer fellowships, for a minimum amount of $8000 each. The last fee increase was in 1995.

Per SLS By-law 8 and Article XI of the SLS Constitution, any amendments to the fees must

be put to the student body via a referendum. A referendum passes if at least 100 students vote and a majority of them approve of the change.

185 students voted in the referendum: 123 students voted yes, 53 students voted no, and 9 students abstained.

“I am very pleased that the referendum has passed,” added Ciccone. “I think the result highlights that students are excited to [have more] in-person socialization [...] and empathize with the need to rectify the financial difficulties we face as a student organization.”

Promise Auction Featured Online Silent Auction and Virtual Trivia Night Over $4500 raised for local Indigenous organizations ANNECY PANG (3L)

VIRTUAL TRIVIA NIGHT HOSTED BY FORMER JEOPARDY CHAMPION, PROFESSOR ANTHONY NIBLETT. CREDIT: JEOPARDY

The 11th annual Promise Auction took place this year between February 28 and March 4. It featured a week-long silent auction of promises offered by U of T Law community members, and a virtual trivia night held on March 2. The Promise Auction was spearheaded by Jane FallisCooper (2L), Stephanie Rei (2L JD/MBA), and Hannah Bourgeois (3L).

“We were impressed by the success of last year’s trivia event [and] we heard that students

missed the original auction format, as it facilitated interesting connections and communitybuilding,” said Fallis-Cooper, Rei, and Bourgeois. “We decided to run both events so there would be something for everyone: students, staff, and alumni alike.”

The silent auction took place on 32auctions. com and featured 39 promises. All week long, students were encouraged to bid on promises in-

cluding an hour with Luna the puppy, a trip to the Royal Ontario Museum with Professor Yasmin Dawood, and a traditional Belgian dinner with Professor Trudo Lemmens. Fan-favourite promises such as Associate Dean Christopher Essert’s pizza crawl and Professor Jim Phillips’ Toronto bike tour made an appearance as well.

“I think it’s been at least eight years that I’ve been doing this,” commented Prof. Phillips. “It’s a good cause. And I can’t offer anything else.

Cooking lessons? You wouldn’t want that. [...] A lecture on legal history? I thought the purpose was to raise money. But I can cycle; I do it a lot and I know all the bike paths and how to get to them.”

The virtual trivia night was open to students, staff, faculty, and alumni. It was hosted by former Jeopardy champion Professor Anthony Niblett.

Elder-in-Residence Constance Simmonds shared opening and closing remarks.

Material Gurlz, comprising of Clare Murray (1L) and Ashley Chana (1L), came in first place.

Party Machine, consisting of Sarah Smith, Ryan MacIsaac ( JD 2012), Emily Sheppard (4L JD/ MSW), and Charles Hatt ( JD 2012), trailed in second. Non-trivial Bodily Harm, originally tied with Tortellinis for third place, eked ahead after winning the tie-breaker. Andrew Easto (3L), Jackson Spencer (3L), and Karlie Nordstrom (3L) competed as Non-trivial Bodily Harm while Ali-

sha Krishna (2L), Christopher Main (2L), Emily Rand (1L), and Harry Myles (2L) made up Tortellinis.

“The trivia was fun,” commented Myles on behalf of Tortellinis. “We really enjoy trivia and thought last year’s event was great, so we decided to participate again. It’s a great cause and Prof.

Niblett was looking as fine as ever.”

Promise Auction raised a total of $4655, with $1501 coming from the silent auction and $3164 from the trivia night. Proceeds went to Aboriginal Legal Services, the Native Women’s Resource Centre of Toronto, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, the Centre for Indigenous Theatre, and the Indigenous Residential School Survivors’ Society.

“We appreciate the support of everyone who attended the trivia night or donated and bid on the promises,” said Fallis-Cooper, Rei, and Bourgeois. “Extra special thanks to [Manager of Indigenous Initiatives] Julie Ann Shepard, Elder Constance, and Prof. Niblett for all of their help, as well as our terrific volunteers: Arifah Razack (1L), Claire Abbott (1L), Duncan Crabtree (1L), Emily Rand (1L), Rhea Murti (1L), and Sahibnoor Singh (LLM).”

Editor’s Note: Ultra Vires volunteered a “super-flattering article” for the silent auction.

2022-2023 SLS Election Results Many positions remain vacant amidst a quiet election season SABRINA MACKLAI (2L JD/MI) Many characterize student government roles as thankless jobs. You volunteer many hours, are met with countless obstacles and bureaucratic red tape, and will still face scrutiny from your peers and your favourite student newspaper.

Nonetheless, 19 students ran during the Students’ Law Society (SLS) 2022 Spring General Election from March 11 to 18. The students came from varying backgrounds with different experiences on or with the SLS. Most emphasized their interest in providing more support for law students, working to amend the Faculty’s policies, and fostering greater community.

Unlike in previous years, there was reduced competition for the 22 available positions. Six positions were acclaimed and four positions remain vacant.

27 percent of the law school (185 out of 688

students) voted in the election. The results are as follows: Executive Committee • President: Meaza Damte • Vice-President Finance: Marco Ciccone • Vice-President Student Life: Julia Campbell • Vice-President Social: Madison Frehlick Social and Finance Representatives • 2L (acclaimed): Samar Omidi, Genevieve Simmons, Donya Ashnaei, Diego Jiminez Juri • 3L: Alex Day, Saskia De Vries, Alex Rego, Apples Mastrogiacomo

Student Life and Academic Representatives

(two positions)

• 2L: Justin Kim, Milana Grahovac, Caeleb "Rae" Goff, Ben Kitching

• 1L Student Life and Academic (SLAC) Reps (four positions)

• 3L (acclaimed): Paul Mohan, John Metzger

• 1L Social and Finance (SFC) Reps (four positions)

A heartfelt congratulations to the candidates elected and all those who ran. Despite a quieter election season, the candidates put forth great campaigns and shared thoughtful ideas for the new year.

The Fall General Election will take place in September 2022. The positions available in that election will be: • Vice-President Academic (one position) • UTSU Law Director (one position) • 3L Student Life and Academic (SLAC) Reps

While being involved in student government can be tiring and frustrating at times, it is indisputable that the work is crucial for seeing change in the institution. This year’s Students’ Law Society made strides in amending the law school’s accommodations policy, working towards implementing a mandatory Indigenous law course, and reviving in-person activities after over two years of “unprecedented times”. Next year’s SLS will face new, exciting challenges under a passionate and experienced Executive Committee.

ultravires.ca

NEWS

March 31, 2022 | 7

The University of Toronto Responds to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Actions taken this month by U of T in response to the violence in Ukraine TOM RUSSELL (2L)

On March 1, U of T President Meric Gertler released a statement strongly condemning the February 24 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Gertler lamented the extreme violence and human suffering this war has caused and expressed U of T’s commitment to members of the University community affected by these events. Harkening back to 2019, Gertler spoke fondly of his meeting with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zel-

ensky when the University of Toronto hosted a portion of the Ukraine Reform Conference.

Gertler concluded his statement with a touching comment on the responsibility of universities, in the face of dark world events, to be a source of understanding, dialogue, and advancement of the human condition.

Since this statement, U of T became a signatory of the recent U7+ Alliance of World Univer-

sity’s condemnation of the war on Ukraine. The University also announced an increase to its investment in the Scholars-at-Risk fund. Towards that objective, the University stated that it will match all donations made to the fund, up to $1 million, to support qualified students displaced from Ukraine who are coming to U of T. The University announced that it is offering tuition and mental health support to students af-

fected by the invasion of Ukraine. Current students whose financial situations have been affected by the war can apply for assistance from their registrar for tuition deferrals, or apply to the Emergency Grants Program. Campus chaplains are currently holding weekly drop-in grief support circles, and Health and Wellness are holding monthly support group meetings.

A Spring Faculty Council Full of Celebration Progress on mental health concerns, mooting updates, and employment statistics NICOLAS WILLIAMS (1L) The March 23 Faculty Council was packed with positive developments. Dean Jutta Brunnée began her remarks by noting the Faculty’s progress on student priorities like lecture recordings and coffee at the law school. She also took a moment to recognize two key appointments: Jean-Christophe Bédard-Rubin, who will be teaching constitutional law next year, and Abdi Aidid, who will be teaching a torts small group and an arbitration and dispute resolution course next year. Further appointments are expected to be announced at the March 30 meeting.

Students’ Law Society (SLS) President Willem Crispin-Frei (3L) gave his remarks next. He congratulated all successful SLS executive and representative candidates following the conclusion of the SLS Spring General Election on March 20. Crispin-Frei also noted that the SLS announced its 2022 graduation and community awards. Lastly, CrispinFrei highlighted two events the SLS had planned, including a pub night on March 24 and the return of Law Ball on April 1.

Director of the U of T Law Career Development Off ice (CDO) Neil Dennis updated the Council on the CDO’s priorities this year and employment statistics across all years.

Dennis stated that the CDO focused on maintaining the same level of service this year, despite being short-staffed, and f inding new ways for connecting students with employers. One example of this was the Employer Showcase Series, where over 40 em-

ployers spoke throughout the year about their practice and what they look for in new hires.

Employment rates among U of T Law students remained high. For 2021, 97 percent of graduating students who participated in the articling recruit received employment offers, while 99 percent of 2L students secured employment. While 2022 statistics are still being compiled, 2L students secured 21 percent of total jobs on Bay Street, and 1L students secured between 32 and 35 percent. Dennis noted that one trend to watch is the increasing number of students going to New York.

In 2022, 15 percent of articling students and 17 percent of 2L students are heading to New York, with some 2Ls splitting their summers with Toronto-based f irms.

Professor Hamish Stewart, Co-Chair of the Mooting and Advocacy Committee, presented next. He highlighted two key recommendations from the Committee’s f inal report. The Committee f irst recommended that the Faculty join the Child Protection Moot and allow students on exchange at the Centre for Transnational Legal Studies to take part in the program’s Vis Moot team to meet their oral advocacy graduation requirement. The Committee also suggested that the Faculty consider giving students who go on exchange more f lexibility in allocating their credits for competitive moots to one semester or the other.

The Mental Health and Wellness Committee was the second committee to submit

their f inal report, with acting co-chair Assistant Dean, Graduate Programs, Emily Orchard presenting. The Committee’s mandate this year was to monitor the implementation of U of T Law’s Mental Health Action Plan, seek feedback from students, staff, and faculty, and respond to student mental health issues that arise. Assistant Dean Orchard highlighted the importance of its listening session with JD and graduate students on November 11; students’ feedback played an important role in informing discussions throughout the year.

Based on these discussions, the Committee made six key recommendations. Among these was a concern about reading volumes: the Assistant Dean noted that volumes in some classes continue to be too high. She recommended that the Assistant Dean, JD Program remind Faculty members of reading guidelines and that casebook research assistants f lag when readings are too long. Another recommended step is a Faculty of Law Master Calendar that could be used to avoid clashes between mandatory training and other key moments in the law school experience. Lastly, Assistant Dean Orchard emphasized the committee’s interest in creating a culture of compassion at the law school.

She pointed to the role that faculty and staff play in normalizing the negative connotation around “Ps” as an example of how this culture could promote a healthier student experience.

SLS President Crispin-Frei thanked the

Committee for recognizing and validating the comments that students shared about mental health at the law school. He noted that action on reading volumes, in-house counselling, and a culture of compassion would be “quick f ixes.” Incoming SLS President Meaza Damte echoed this sentiment but added that reading volume guidelines “lack suff icient teeth” and that when students raise their concerns about particular professors, action is rarely taken.

The f inal report was the Graduate Program Admissions report, delivered by Associate Dean, Graduate Programs, Malcolm Thorburn. While the COVID-19 pandemic has had signif icant impacts on graduate programs, which typically rely on international students, Associate Dean Thorburn was happy to report that this had not been the case at U of T Law. Admissions have been steady across the LLM and SJD programs, while admissions to the Global Professional LLM have increased.

The last order of business was a motion to delegate authority regarding graduate programs to Associate Dean Thorburn. Normally, Faculty Council approves minor changes to courses, but this is not possible during the summer when Faculty Council is not meeting. The motion to delegate authority to make these changes passed with full support.

The next Faculty Council meeting is on March 30. As Dean Brunnée indicated, it will be an extremely busy one.

8 | March 31, 2022

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

Oh, the Places You’ll Go: Personal Statements from the Class of 2022 From a desire to help others to working in litigation ANNECY PANG (3L) I barely remember 2019, but two years of a pandemic will do that to you. It sits squarely in the “Before Times”: when we could stand shoulder-to-shoulder at a concert and we were inundated with free pizza at in-person school events. We weren’t brushing up on our Greek alphabet to keep track of the various variants or f iguring out whether we needed to bring proof of a negative COV ID-19 test to board a plane. Apparently, it was the year we, the Class of 2022, started law school.

Every year, Ultra Vires asks the graduating class to ref lect on their law school journey and where it all started: their applications.

Students submit excerpts from their personal statements and compare it with their post-graduation plans.

The following have been edited for brevity and clarity.

“Nothing brings me greater joy than helping others. [H]elping people in small, everyday ways has always been a part of my life. However, I also want to play a part in tackling wider issues in society, and I believe law can help me do so.

My role as a volunteer at my school’s drop-in centre for LGBTQ+ students [...] has further strengthened my desire to help marginalized groups and individuals through the legal system, whether through legal activism and mobilization on a wider scale or representing affected individuals who have been treated unfairly. As an individual, I know my inf luence on the legal system and society is limited, but I want to do the most I can to ensure that people get the justice they deserve.”

While they were able to help individuals seeking equity and justice during their time at the Faculty, this student has not been very involved in legal activism and pushing for wide-scale change. After articling at the Ministry of Attorney General, they hope to work in wills and estates, ideally helping low-income, LGBTQ+, and Indigenous clients.

“As an engineer, I have a special appreciation for novel ideas and inventions. [I]nformation travels around the world almost instantly which can lead to theft or misuse, [and] as a result it is important to protect people’s ideas and ensure their rights are upheld. I plan to help do that by specializing in intellectual property and patent law. I see myself using my law degree to help stop infringement of ideas and theft of intellectual property.”

Reading what they wrote back then makes this student laugh: one of the main things that drew them to law school initially was making money. They’ve since realized that the legal profession has terrible work-life balance and they don't know if they’ll be practicing law for very long; they’re considering doing freelance work, moving into a solo practice, or shifting into a dif ferent f ield entirely. This student will be articling

in a litigation boutique that specializes in construction law.

“I think that the big gest social issue facing Canada at this moment is the government’s neglect of the Indigenous community. I spent [a] summer fundraising for Amnesty International Canada [where] I learned about the awful conditions facing Indigenous women and children, especially in Northern communities such as Attawapiskat. T hough I was able to enact minimal change as a fundraiser, I was deeply inspired by the lawyers and advocates that work with Amnesty International. I realized that my dream was not just to study law, but to use law to enact real change and help people in need.”

This student thinks their personal statement was full of shit. They don’t think they ever really wanted to go into public interest law, but knew the buzzwords the school wanted to hear. They also believe that there are people better placed than themselves to work in advocacy for Northern communities. They will be articling in a management-side labour and employment boutique.

“I relished these opportunities to help others, both by advocating on their behalf and helping them advocate for themselves. Now, I want to be in the center of the country's most bustling legal environment to gain practical experience in various legal specialties and in policy work. Interacting with Toronto's diverse communities will give me countless opportunities to better understand the intricacies of human behaviour. A legal education at Uof T would be the f irst step to gain the versatile skills needed to become the lawyer best-suited to help people seek justice.”

While several of this student’s extracurriculars screamed social justice, they will be articling at a full-service law f irm because they like money. Their feelings toward their future legal career are ambivalent at best; they’re quite eager to quit, travel the world, and chill. They think the Faculty, the LSO’s recruit guidelines, and the pandemic killed 90 percent of their intellectual curiosity.

They call for the LSO and the Faculty to rethink how they’re contributing to burnout before graduates even enter the profession.

“Law is appealing to me because it balances logic and rigour with the ability to make tangible change. I am currently in an environmental policy course and, although I am not sure whether I want to practice environmental law, seeing f irsthand some [of ] the severe effects of environmental policies, or lack thereof, is truly eyeopening. [...] I aspire to be able to help people and their communities feel empowered and assist with accessible solutions for all.”

While they still hope their career can lessen the disproportionate environmental impact that policies can have on marginalized groups, this student will almost def initely not be practicing environmental law.

They’re excited to be working at the Ministry of the Attorney General in a division where they will be able to tackle sociallyrelevant and potentially change-making cases.

“Our visits to these [towns in Pakistan] were evidence that mere access to medicines was insuff icient for achieving a general improvement in community-level healthcare. News of [a pharmaceutical company’s] withdrawal of vaccines from the local market, due to an en masse cultural aversion to vaccination and correspondingly inadequate returns, also revealed the limitations of well-resourced private companies in improving public health. T he ability to combat the witnessed national and global disparity in the provision of healthcare and any subsequent infrastructural development clearly rested in complete overhaul. [...] Earning a Juris Doctor will empower me to work with greater expertise on such international and national initiatives at the desired scope. Besides providing me with an internationally renowned legal education, a JD from the University of Toronto will [provide] an opportunity to integrate the skills I learn with an up-close understanding of the workings of Canadian universal healthcare, and the equitable society being constructed on its foundation.”

The COV ID-19 pandemic and the IHRP scandal threw many things of f for this student. Much of their exposure to development and human rights at law school was largely academic. They think the focus on healthcare in their personal statement reads weirdly now, but it was meant to be a proxy for international development. They will be working in litigation in New York after graduation and wonder if the golden handcuf fs will have an ef fect on them.

“I believe that law is a vessel for positive change, inf luencing our ideas from how we approach sexual assault cases to corporate data collection policies. It can provide the infrastructure on which societal shifts are based but can also serve as a reinforcement mechanism for harmful modes of thought. I hope to use my law degree to help people navigate the intricate world of laws, precedents, and court attendances.

W hat draws me to the University of Toronto is its world-renowned teaching team, the numerous opportunities for legal research, and the experiential courses that focus on problem-based learning. In law school and beyond, I hope to continue thinking critically about the world around me while continuously trying to make a difference, one case at a time.”

After realizing how costly the litigation process is, this student no longer believes law is a “vessel for positive change". Too many of their classes were taught by adjunct professors so they can’t speak to the “worldrenowned” teaching team. They look forward to working at a litigation boutique and helping companies resolve disputes, one case at a time.

“I've learned as a legal assistant [...] that commercial contracts typically include "representations and warranties": def initive statements by each party regarding matters it is essential to conf irm, such as the party's bona f ide corporate existence and legal authorization to consummate the transaction. Similarly, jury verdicts provide clear f indings of fact with respect to a controversy, establ​ishing a def initive account of how things stand between the parties. In other words, such documents provide assurance regarding facts of vital signif ​icance to those concerned.

And thus they lend these facts potency: by certifying that certain propos​itions constitute facts worthy of conf idence [...] legal documents make it possible for us to treat those facts as author​ itative guides to deliberation and action.”

This student is struck by how little direction their personal statement showed which ironically encapsulates their law school experience—muddling through without a clear sense of what their path would be.

They have more direction now and they hope their goals become clearer as they get a better sense of what law yering is like at a litigation boutique.

“My idea of the law is form and function inextricably tangled together. T his tangle is so interesting that it would be easy to forget about ‘why’. But the truth is that ‘why’ does matter, more than anything else. I want to study the law and understand why it exists, and how to reconcile competing interests. I would be interested in policy, international law, or education.”

This student thinks they are better at recognizing how little they know about the law.

They also think their writing was too f lowery and vague. During law school, they pursued what interested them and their career goals have changed; they will be articling at a litigation boutique.

“I hope to become a plaintiff-side class action lawyer. After seeing the injustices of how large corporations prof it off the weakness of the majority of the population, I am determined to join a profession that can rein in and punish these large corporations from exploiting the powerless majority. T he legal profession is probably the only one such profession that allows me to make such an impact beyond becoming a politician; however, being a politician beholdens you to your donors while being a lawyer does not.”

Reading back their personal statement late at night, this student feels ashamed and questions where their moral compass went.

They wonder if law school desensitized them to social justice issues and if they turned into the very thing they decried that caused them to pursue law. They will be articling at a full-service f irm that only does defenceside class actions. They now aspire to be a partner at this f irm.

Editor’s Note: Annecy Pang is part of the graduating class of 2022.

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

March 31, 2022 | 9

“I have eaten a lot of pizza.”

On the record with the Faculty’s resident pizza enthusiast SHAE ROTHERY (2L) You may know him for his emails about free coffee in the law school, or perhaps for his conversational approach to teaching, but what you might not know about Associate Dean Christopher Essert is that he loves pizza—like, really loves it. Sure, he’s qualified to teach 1Ls funky words like in rem and in personam, but what exactly makes Associate Dean Essert qualified to share his thoughts about pizza?

Ultra Vires sought to uncover the truth.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Ultra Vires (UV): You previously stated that you have “a lot of views about pizza.” Do you consider yourself to be a pizza connoisseur?

Associate Dean Christopher Essert (CE): I mean, honestly, yes.

UV: Do you have any credentials to back up your expertise?

CE: I have eaten a lot of pizza.

UV: How has your life changed since becoming Ultra Vires famous with your 2018 feature article?

CE: It is easily the funniest thing that comes up when you Google me, so that’s a nice advantage.

UV: Looking back, where did your pizza obsession start?

CE: Definitely when I lived in New Haven in grad school, because—as mentioned in the earlier UV article—the pizza in New Haven is really good and really distinctive because of the kind of coal ovens

they used to cook pizza there. And so that got me into noticing and learning about the different kinds of pizza cooked in different places and different styles more generally.

UV: Bon Appétit claims there are 32 different methods of making pizza— how many can you name?

CE: I have a hard time understanding how they decided what counts as a method of making pizza. I knew many of the methods in that video, but I don’t know if I would have identified them as separate methods, so I don’t really know how to count.

UV: You previously gave us tips for making pizza at home. Do you really make homemade pizza all the time, or do you also go for frozen pizza?

CE: It is all homemade. I usually make my own dough, using Serious Eats’ “Basic New YorkStyle Pizza Dough Recipe,” although during the early days of COVID I was (obviously?) using sourdough, with the Roberta’s sourdough recipe. Sometimes, if I am in a rush, I buy that fresh dough that some grocery stores make. The dough goes onto an oiled half sheet pan. I usually make my own sauce by quickly sautéing garlic and oregano and chili flakes in olive oil with crushed tomatoes or tomato passata and salt. And then I top it with a mixture of pizza mozzarella (that stuff that comes in balls) and fresh mozzarella, and, when it comes out of the oven (where it spent about 15 or 20 minutes at about 500 degrees), grated parmesan and basil.

UV: How has the pizza scene in Toronto evolved since your Pizza Hut days?

CE: There was no pizza scene in Toronto in the early 1990s.

UV: What are your top picks for dine-in and take-out pizza in Toronto nowadays?

CE: I haven’t been doing much dining in lately, so I am not really up to date on it. Before COVID, I liked eating at Conzo’s, and I also ate on their sidewalk patio this summer, which was awesome, so that’s my pick. My top two take-out places at the moment are Conzo’s and Badiali, but my kids also really like Blondies, which is good and also very reliable, so we order from there a lot.

UV: Have you ever traveled abroad for pizza?

CE: Not specifically. I ate pizza in Naples, which I suppose would be the trip to take, a long time ago, before I was as obsessed with pizza as I am now. It was really good! But I don’t think it would be worth the trip.

UV: What is the weirdest pizza trend you’ve seen lately?

CE: I think everything about pizza made genuinely in the hopes of it being good to eat is awesome, so I would not want to use the word “weird” about any of it. One really cool and different thing that is happening in Toronto these days is incorporating some of the flavours and ingredients from all the different cultures here into pizza (this is part of a broader phenomenon that is one of the funnest things about food in Toronto). For instance, there is a place called Saints Island Pies that makes Detroit-style pizza

with Filipino inspiration that I will try soon, and I know that there are a lot of other places doing equally great stuff along those lines.

UV: If you could only eat one type of pizza for the rest of your life, what kind would it be?

CE: A classic American-style pepperoni pizza, made with a lot of love and attention to detail. This is what Conzo’s and Badiali really nail. I understand that this might seem like a basic kind of option, but I maintain that it is the ideal form of pizza.

UV: Do you eat the crust?

CE: I’m sorry, but this is an absurd question.

UV: Is pizza an open-faced sandwich?

CE: What?

UV: What are your deepest, darkest secrets?

Associate Dean Essert declined to comment.

This or that: • Thin crust or thick crust? Thin • Detroit or Chicago-style? Detroit • White sauce or red sauce? Red • Pizza Hut or Pizza Pizza? Pizza Pizza • Chili oil or chili flakes? Hot honey • Stuffed crust: yes or no? Seriously?

Ryan’s Movie Corner

The finale RYAN SHAH (3L) I am writing this edition of Ryan’s Movie Corner with a heav y heart. This is my f inal semester of law school—meaning that I will of f icially be giving up my dreams of being a f ilm columnist and resigning myself to a life of citations and limitations periods.

With the 2022 Academy Awards around the corner (at the time of writing), I thought I would give readers my take on the best f ilm to be featured at this year’s Oscars.

Without a doubt, my absolute favorite f ilm to receive an Oscar nomination this year is Flee—a harrowing, animated depiction of life as a refugee.

Before discussing this phenomenal f ilm, I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has read these columns and wish everyone success in the coming exam season and beyond.

Flee ( Jonas Poher Rasmussen) Flee is an incredibly memorable and creative f ilm that delivers serious emotional impact through the medium of animation.

The f ilm centers on the real experience of Amin, a refugee who f led conf lict in Afghanistan and attained asylum in Denmark.

The f ilm is an animated account of his experience as a refugee and the many challenges, traumas, and dif f iculties that Amin and his family face on their way to safety.

Though the f ilm’s storytelling is excellent, that is not what makes Flee special. The f ilm is narrated in an extremely engaging manner, but it is the f ilm’s expressive animation style that truly makes it stand out.

The f ilm has a semi-realistic, “base” anima-

tion style that it uses to recount the bulk of the story but will often turn to other, more abstract forms of animation to convey heightened moments of emotionality. As a story about the plight of vulnerable refugees, Flee deals with very disturbing subject matter. The f ilm’s animation and art style serve to both mediate, and heighten, the depiction of this subject matter. When Amin recounts moments of intense trauma, for example, the f ilm reverts to brushstrokes of black and white which convey as much, if not more, emotion than Amin’s verbal account.

The f ilm’s most ef fective commentary comes in its depiction of the bittersweet nature of Amin’s relatively safe and comfortable life in Denmark. Amin has a successful

career and a stable relationship, but his experience as a refugee has left an indelible imprint on himself and his relationships. By depicting both the immediate and long term ef fects of Amin’s experience as a refugee, Flee provides viewers with an urgent reminder of conf lict’s human toll and the many obstacles that continue to prevent those f leeing conf licts from reaching safety and security. To convey such pressing and important messages through animation is a truly impressive feat—one that deserves everyone’s attention.

10/10

FEATURES

10 | March 31, 2022

ultravires.ca

Toronto Summer 2022 1L Recruitment Results Highest record of hires to-date with U of T Law retaining top spot HUSSEIN E. E. FAWZY (2L)

1 0 0 4 1 2 11

7

15

13

11

9 55

63

50

42

44

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

10

57 2018

13

21

19

25 66 2019

13

50 2020

15

45 2021

17

82 2022

11

Total

25

6

0 2 3 1 1 3 2

2 0 1 2 0 1 5

5 1 2 2 2 1 18

11 12 10

15 8

13 4

7 3

2

2

6 1 1 2 4 2 3

1 2 0 4 0 3 8 4

1 1 0 2 3 8 7 6

0 2 0 1 2 5 5 1

0 4 0 1 4 4 6 3 2

0 4 4 1 3 2 8 9 6

Dalhousie McGill Windsor Ottawa Western Queen's Osgoode

Editor’s Note: We will update our spreadsheet online at ultravires.ca to ref lect any further information provided from employers after the time of publication.

Summary by year

16 Count of participating employers

LLP hired the most, followed by Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, and Aird & Berlis LLP.

U of T

75% % employers responding

8% 13% % with positions secured from Toronto Summer Student Recruit

82 2022 Total

Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan LLP

18

Other Ryerson

3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% 4%

152 170 181 245 320 185 215 Approximate class size

27 25

-

1

3

5

2

1

2

1 Chagpar & Associates

4 Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

7 18 Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

290

24 18 2

2 -

1 -

1 -

4 -

-

1

2 -

2 -

-

1 -

3 2

3 Bereskin & Parr LLP

208

0 4 4 1 3 2 8

4 1 3 2 8 9 6

Did not respond by date of publication

9

0 4

-

-

-

2 Thornton Grout Finnigan LLP

-

-

-

-

2 Smart & Biggar LLP

-

1 1 -

3

6 Sherrard Kuzz LLP

-

1 14 Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

-

-

6 McMillan LLP

1

Did not respond by date of publication McCarthy Tetrault LLP (Black & Indigenous Recruit)

1

Did not respond by date of publication MAG, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

-

1

2

8 Dentons Canada LLP

3

2

1 -

10 Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP

-

Did not respond by date of publication Collett Read LLP

1

(24), representing eight percent of its class size.

Queen’s Law (9) and Western Law (8) followed, at four percent. Students from Lincoln Alexander secured four positions, which amounted to three percent of its class.

16 law f irms participated in this year’s recruit, marking an increase from 2021 and 2020, which only saw 12 f irms. Across all participating f irms, Blake, Cassels & Graydon

rate—a promising indicator for a booming Toronto legal market.

Similar to previous years, U of T Law ranked f irst in both the total number of students hired (27) as well as the proportion of students hired relative to its class size (13 percent). This represented an almost two-fold increase from last year’s seven percent. Osgoode Hall secured the second-most number of hires

1

2

-

1 -

1 1 1

2 2 1 1

1 2 -

3 1

JD/MBA JD JD/MBA

4 8 Aird & Berlis LLP

Firm

Total

JD

U of T

Osgoode

Queen's

-

Western

-

Ottawa

-

Windsor

-

McGill

-

Dalhousie

-

Ryerson

-

Other

The 2022 Toronto 1L recruit was special.

According to Ultra Vires recruit data spanning the last decade, the hiring rates on Bay Street for f irst-year law students has ranged between 40-60 students per year, averaging at about 52 students. This year, a whopping 82 1L students were hired. This represented a 57 percent increase from the decade-long average and an 82 percent increase from last year’s

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

March 31, 2022 | 11

Reflections on the 2021-2022 Moots “Rough but yolo …”

REBECCA ROSENBERG (2L) AND ANGELA FENG (2L) As this year’s moots come to a close, Ultra Vires asked students to provide their feedback and comments on the mooting process. Around 30 students responded to our survey.

Before we show the results, it’s important to understand how the moots work. The Moot Court Committee (MCC) explained: “The organization and administration of moots at the law school is split between the MCC and the Faculty. The Faculty sets all of the requirements and prerequisites for moots, registers competitors, and finds faculty advisors.

The MCC, [a student-run body], is in charge of organizing and running mooting tryouts within the Faculty’s parameters, finding student coaches for those moots, coordinating the 1L moots and trial advocacy, and helping to organize the annual Grand Moot.”

Without further ado, here’s what students had to say about their mooting experience: What are your thoughts on the timing of moot tryouts?

For many, the timing wasn’t ideal: •

“They're always at an inconvenient time and there's not enough time given between when we get the materials and when the try-outs are.”

•

“It happened right after my OCIs (non-Toronto) so not ideal at all. I asked MCC about this and they said "every year there will be something overlapping with tryouts." I don't see why the tryouts can't occur earlier (i.e. May, or even in the summer) given that pre-req requirements are strictly enforced this year and people got bumped out of their preferred moots.”

•

“The Baby Gale moots were the week of 1L job applications. Speaking for myself and for other students, the timing meant that that week was extremely stressful, and that I had less time than I would have liked to prepare for the tryouts themselves.”

•

•

•

“Having the tryouts a few weeks later in the term would be helpful (or allowing us earlier access to the materials so we can spread out our prep).”

“I think spring tryouts are better than having them in early September, because people will have job commitments during the summer and scheduling tryouts may be extremely difficult as a result.”

“Picking another week [that doesn’t coincide with 1L job applications], either well before or at least the week after the application date, would have been very helpful.”

•

•

“My moot coach is incredible (and quite frankly brilliant), however, I could have benefitted from a more structured schedule (e.g., planning out run-throughs in advance for each week).”

•

“Wonderful and very helpful re: style, coaching, etc. However, not having coaches versed in the subject matter was a barrier.”

“Rough but yolo there’s never a good time to torture yourself.”

Any comments on the moot tryouts process? What would you like changed?

Many suggested guidance for first time mooters: •

•

“Honestly, better instructions. I didn't know any upper years with mooting experience and it was difficult to figure out how to prepare. I've talked to some people after the fact who did know upper years and they found the process much easier.”

“Perhaps more guidance for first time mooters!

Honestly, I think the school would benefit from a "moot club" that introduces newbies to mooting so that when tryouts come around, they're ready!”

While some students responded positively, others took issue with certain aspects of the process: •

•

•

“They give a ridiculous amount of preparatory materials for the tryouts and such little time to review them all that it doesn't even seem worth it to try. Also, all the tryout materials are on constitutional/criminal law problems, so that already biases who does well at them and gets their preferred moot. I would've loved to try out for one of the more niche moots.”

“The time between the reveal of the moot problem and the day of the first round of tryouts should be longer, so mooters have more time to prepare for their arguments. There should ideally be more training sessions for new mooters in order to level their playing field against experienced mooters and increase their odds of securing a moot.”

“In my experience, the calling process is unnecessarily stressful and makes the tryout process seem like a bigger deal than it is. I think an email should be sent to all participants simultaneously with a quick response time and subsequent emails to fill any spots that are declined.”

“Tryouts were great, however uncertainty re: course prerequisites and switching made the selection process/ post-tryout process confusing.”

•

“My only feedback would be to give more feedback after tryouts.”

There were many complaints:

•

“The whole evaluation process is a bit mysterious to me. How could they tell if a student would be a good mooter given that everyone has different styles?”

“It was abysmal, truly and utterly horrid. Totally unreasonable. I had no partner and was expected to submit a factum outline December 14, a draft on Dec 21, and spend the entire break working. This is unacceptable. I had two papers (5k and 6k words each) and two 90-100 percent exams. Why would you wait until literally December to start and then expect students to be slaves to their moot.”

•

“It fell on the Friday immediately after Reading Week, making the timing and workload following reading week difficult.”

•

“Not a lot of information on timing, or length of time of the moot were provided during tryouts.

We didn't know exactly when the moot was until two weeks before.”

However, some people appreciated that their moots happened after or during break periods: •

“It was during Reading Week which was helpful to do final preparations and not have to worry about lectures.”

The moots generally kept mooters quite busy: •

“The workload was extremely high, considering it only leads to a speculative benefit; but I was always willing to put in the work and I am relieved to be free from it now.”

•

“Heavy workload. Lots of research, lots of writing, and lots of run-throughs. But I think it is reasonable, given the fact that mooting is roughly equivalent to a course.”

•

“Almost the entire workload was crammed into January and February—I was so busy with moot prep that I didn’t catch up on my readings until the end of the Reading Week. We received 1 credit in fall term and 2 credits in winter term for the moot, but I did the full 3 credits of work in the winter term.”

•

“I thought it was the perfect balance. It wasn't too much or too little. Some weeks were definitely harder than what I would've preferred, but other weeks were lighter which made up for it.”

Coaches reflected similar time commitments as the mooters: •

•

•

“I think the time commitment was considerable but very rewarding and ultimately up to my discretion (the faculty mentors allowed me to be as involved or uninvolved as I needed to be).

Coaching took up between 5-10 hours every week starting in January and ending mid-February.”

“Fairly intense, given the time needed to organize external run throughs, prepare for runthroughs with the mooters, answer mooters' questions, attend both internal and external run throughs, etc. I was surprised that coaches typically receive just one credit.”

If you were a participant, would you recommend mooting to others?

•

Final thoughts…

•

“Extremely helpful. I knew very little about criminal procedure and my coaches covered my blind spots and were very helpful in guiding my research and telling me what works and what doesn't.”

•

“If there are co-requisite courses for the moot, the administration should require students to take them in the fall semester, not the winter semester, so that mooters would be familiar with the background knowledge required for the moot as they write their facta and start with their run throughs.”

•

“As someone who did not moot before coming to law school, I appreciated student-driven mooting programs for 1Ls, like 1L trial advocacy. I'd love to see more faculty support for mooting options in 1L, especially non-competitive learning experiences. I entered law school with an interest in litigation and wanted to improve my public speaking skills, but I found that 1L mooting opportunities are unfortunately fairly limited.”

There were a few more bad experiences: •

“For 1L, make sure judges are constructive and supportive—I had one round with a really supportive judge and it was great for my first time.

My second round had a judge that was too harsh/seemed mean and not constructive so I left feeling bad about myself.”

•

“[Assistant Dean Sara Faherty] changed all the deadlines when I dropped. Extremely unhelpful and basically told me that she understands why I was dropping out (that it would be challenging for an inexperienced advocate like myself). We are all inexperienced advocates?? Aren't we here to gain experience?”

•

“[Assistant Dean] Sara Faherty needs to make more internal moots or accept more prestigious moots so more people get an opportunity to do it.”

•

“I believe the moot competitions themselves are inadequate, arbitrary, and poorly judged. This is because of the lack of standardization across the competition and the randomness of judging across rounds.”

“Bruh”

Almost all the feedback was positive: “VERY HELPFUL— both students and practitioners. My student coaches spent tons of their free time playing the arbitrator role and answering our questions. Practitioner coaches sat with us for three hours in the evening every week (sometimes twice a week), gave very helpful advice in terms of style and law, and got some arbitrators to roast us (okay, not really roasting because they're all nice, but it was intense).”

“I noticed that the mooting program depends heavily on volunteers (not only the coaches, but also the MCC members, timekeepers and clerks for some moots, etc.). I'd love to see more support from the faculty, e.g., one or more employees or non-student volunteers whose work is solely dedicated to supervising and supporting the mooting program (as is the case in many other law schools, from what I understand), greater involvement on the part of external, non-student coaches, and more consistency across the various moots in terms of the support we receive.”

If you were a coach, how did you feel about the time commitment that it involved?

78 percent of respondents would recommend their moot, 13 percent would recommend mooting but not their particular moot, and nine percent would not recommend mooting at all.

If you were a participant, how helpful were your mooting coaches?

•

If you were a participant, how did you find the workload for your moot?

Some called for greater transparency: •

because they are passionate about that subject matter, not because they merely want to moot and would be willing to accept anything. I don't know if coaches get to participate in the mooter selection process, but if they aren't, they should be allowed to give their input on who to choose.”

“My coach has been very helpful so far, and has done a great job pushing all participants to practice more both together and individually than I think we would have done otherwise, which is good.”

A few offered some constructive feedback:

How did you find the timing of the moot competition?

•

•

One student sums it up the best:

Some people gave their feedback on how it could be better: •

“I appreciated having the moot not take place over the winter break and solely during the first 2 months of the second semester, as I was able to balance things out well and not be too overwhelmed at any given time.”

Mooters offered many pieces of concrete feedback to improve the mooting experience: •

•

[Referring to the try-out process]: “It might be better to give mooters a simple non-legal question (eg. Should the law school make Evidence a mandatory upper year course?) instead of a factum and expect them to prepare cohesive arguments in a short amount of time. Not everyone may be the best at an area like constitutional law. This levels the playing field even further.”

“Mooters should be required to provide a brief statement on why they want to sign up for a particular moot. Mooters should be doing a moot

Some closing statements: •

“It was very hectic and stressful, but worth it for the experience! It was definitely a tradeoff in the sense that I had less time for studying, socializing, and participating in other extra-curriculars.”

•

“Moot club!!! We need one!!! Make mooting more accessible to newbies!!!”

•

“Glad we got to do it in person.”

Overall, there were mixed reviews on this year’s moots. We figured we would give the last word to the people who plan it, the MCC: “It has been a great year for mooting at U of T Law. Especially in a difficult hybrid year, we would like to thank all of the fantastic mooters and all of the dedicated coaches who have volunteered their time to make the mooting program here what it is. Your time and efforts are extremely appreciated!”

Editor’s Note: This is an abridged version of the article. Find the full article at ultravires.ca.

12 | March 31, 2022

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

Law Students Doing Cool Things: Kirsten Roggeveen on Venture Capital Law

On finding a passion for advising emerging high-growth companies NATASHA BURMAN (2L) a machine. In line with this, it also means that you often stay with the same clients for the entirety of their life cycle. You get to know these companies and their founders well and help them through a variety of stages and issues, as opposed to doing ad hoc assignments for always-varying companies at typical corporate law firms.

Second, the culture at law firms in this area mimics that of the start-ups we work with; the worklife balance is generally better than a traditional corporate practice group and people are a lot more laid back. Even partners wear sneakers and jeans to the office most days (at least at my firm, but it’s pretty much the standard at big tech and venture capital law firms in the States).

Lastly, the lateral opportunities are top-notch.

You get exposed to so many start-ups in so many industries, as well as venture capital funds through your work, that it makes it super easy to move to a client in the future. And, no, you don’t need a business background or MBA to do this.

UV: How is advising emerging high growth companies and their founders unique?

CREDIT: KIRSTEN ROGGEVEEN

Kirsten Roggeveen is a 4L ( JD/MBA) student at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. In an interview with Ultra Vires, Roggeveen shared her journey to pursuing a career in advising start-up companies and venture capital funds, from interning at O’Leary Ventures to working with the emerging companies practice group at Cooley LLP in New York.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

ing New York firms during my 1L summer. It quickly became clear that there were greater opportunities in the United States because of the sheer number of law firms, which allows them to offer a greater variety of focus areas. I discovered a branch of corporate law firms down there that specialize in “ECVC” (emerging companies and venture capital work). [This area] presented the perfect opportunity to intertwine my interest in business with my practice of law.

Ultra Vires (UV): How did you first get acquainted with this area of law?

UV: What attracts you the most to this area of law?

Kirsten Roggeveen (KR): My undergraduate degree was in business, and I had an early exposure to innovation and entrepreneurship through it. The start-up realm is such a fascinating and exciting space that’s always evolving. I always thought in the back of my head [that] it was an area I would like to be involved in at some point in my life, but I didn’t think that would end up coming to fruition during law school.

I was introduced to venture capital and emerging companies’ law when I started research-

KR: Honestly, so many things, but I would say there are three main reasons.

First, I knew I would be much more excited about and genuinely invested in my work if I was working with a bunch of super cool, innovative companies, and getting to learn about their unique businesses along the way. Also, because start-ups are typically smaller [companies] in their earlier stages of growth, the teams you work with are often very lean, staffed with 2-4 lawyers; you truly get to be hands-on very early on and deal directly with clients and partners, instead of feeling like a cog in

KR: It’s unique in part because of the relationships you’re able to build, even as a very junior lawyer.

Because you’re working so closely and directly with the client from the start, you get to know them very well. Additionally, as start-ups typically don’t have their own in-house legal team or a large roster of employees, they truly treat their lawyers as trusted confidants and advisors and will even ask you for business and strategy-related advice.

Another big reason is how dynamic the work is.

Start-ups are always facing new legal challenges and hurdles as they incorporate, grow, hire employees, raise rounds of funding, go public, and more.

As a result, you get exposure to a bunch of different areas of law and really get to see the ins-and-outs of starting and growing a business. For example, one day you might help them create their shareholders agreement or file their incorporation papers, and the next you might attend their Board meetings or prepare materials for [their] investors. A frequent task is drafting and preparing all the relevant venture financing documents that are required every time a start-up raises a new series of money (such as the term sheet and stock purchase agreements).

This would also involve ancillary tasks like managing Cap Tables or coordinating with the investors and funds to get everyone’s sign off on their purchase of shares.

UV: Tell me about your experience interning with O’Leary Ventures KR: O’Leary Ventures was a great experience, especially for people who might want to work for a venture capital fund down the road and want to get some experience and exposure in the space. I now have a deeper understanding of what investors look for in companies and what types of factors can be “deal-breakers” for start-ups.

The internship was an 80 percent business work and 20 percent legal work split; having a business background and education would likely be required for this [position]. On the legal side, it mainly involved drafting certain documents, such as term sheets and letter agreements. There was some intel-

lectual property-related work (reading through patents and conducting patent searches). On the business side, I was entirely responsible for conducting the due diligence process, which involved everything from building financial models, to doing market research, to sometimes even testing [the startups’] products. At the end, it was my job to put together a comprehensive deal report summarizing all key aspects of the investment, and ultimately recommend (with approval from my boss of course), whether we should proceed with the investment, pull out, or adjust the financing terms to better reflect the value of the company or any unique risks we came across.

UV: Tell me about your experiences with the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Externship KR: This year, I have been working with a start-up from the University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Sciences and Engineering Hatchery for my externship. [The externship] gives you the opportunity to kind of blur the line between business and law—you can help the start-ups with certain business-related tasks, as well as legal tasks, if you’re comfortable with it. For example, some of the more legal tasks I have helped my company with have included researching labelling restrictions and regulations for their packaging, helping draft patent claims, and conducting trademark searches. I have also helped them on the business side by conducting market research to aid in narrowing down their target market, and even coming up with strategic business initiatives and partnerships for them to explore.

UV: What advice do you have for law students interested in advising emerging high growth companies in the future?

KR: My biggest piece of advice would be to use your time in law school or [during] your summers to try and get some sort of related experience in this space. I would recommend the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Externship for this.

Even if it’s not through an actual job or externship at a start-up or venture capital firm, you can still participate in extracurriculars, such as joining the Venture Capital Law Society at the law school.

From my experience, talking to lawyers in the space and after having gone through the interview process with multiple emerging companies/venture capital law firms in the States, they really look for people who are genuinely interested in the area, so anything you can do to show that will help. And for those who might not have any relevant experience or knowledge, I would suggest reading the book “Venture Deals” by Brad Feld; it’s a good introduction to venture capital work, and even though it’s more from the business perspective, it will give anyone starting off a good basis and understanding of the relevant concepts and terms so that you can show you understand what [this work] entails. My law firm actually sends it to all of their associates to read, so it is still very beneficial even from a legal standpoint.

Editor’s Note: Kirsten Roggeveen will be working at Cooley LLP in New York City after graduation this June.

ultravires.ca

FEATURES

March 31, 2022 | 13

Announcing the Bora Laskin Law Library’s 5th Annual Poetry Contest Winners Excellent submissions made selecting winners difficult ALEXIA LOUMANKIS, REFERENCE & RESEARCH LIBRARIAN (BORA LASKIN LAW LIBRARY) We are always impressed by the creativity and quality of submissions for the Bora Laskin Law Library’s annual Poetry Contest and this year’s submissions were no exception.

A ll of the poems, which ranged from haikus to limericks and everything in between, were excellent. We had such dif f iculty selecting the top three poems that only f ive points separated f irst from third place.

The f irst prize winner is Evan Linn (3L) for Reasoning by analog y. Second prize goes to Haya Sardar (2L) for Mooting and the third prize winner is Kyle MacDonald (1L) for T hree Fabrications.

Congratulations to Evan, Haya, and Kyle, and a hearty thank you to all those that entered a poem in the contest.

We appreciate your time, ef fort, and creativity.

Until next year.

Mooting Good Morning Justices It’s time for me to put on a show, an act I’ve been told I must have tact when it comes to handling The judges, my colleagues, my friends, the client Stay calm, cold Never show emotion Speak slower, faster, use dif ferent words Stroke their ego Learn to serve, take it on your chin Let’s begin with the storytelling…

Wear your little robe & little armour Sit on your arms to prevent gestures Don’t make face, don’t have tics Stay calm, old Make it seem like you’ve done this before Know every question And I mean every question But Lord help you if you seem planned Don’t make a joke But take jokes; Take sips; Take pause; Take take take But don’t break character Judges don’t want the show to end Be so f lexible that you bend over backwards to accommodate Go backwards— Forwards— Inside out— Show you can break the bright lines But stay calm, fold Fold into character Give parts of yourself till they’ve gone in dust Don’t be afraid to combust!

Don’t take too long Concede where it hurts The story must resist twists and turns Learn what hill you’re willing to die on

Reasoning by analogy

Three Fabrications

A statute is an act: a thing and a doing.

The legislator is always speaking.

We take to the law to write our story Because how else could we love ourselves Absent this corrupted world, and all its’ glory Compelling a younger self That was our story

An act is a stone, heav y and cold, but vulnerable.

Solid, if seen for a moment; over an eon, it is water.

Fragments slough of f, yield softness and soil.

Are reformed, interpreted, encoded.

Uttering inaudibly, spoken by system: dirt has authority.

A law is an order: a command and a structure.

The sovereign is always grounded.

By Evan Linn (3L)

Spending long days beneath f luorescent light We turn pages to learn their plight.

Hopeful their sacrif ice was not in vain, We f ind a way to ignore their pain To our craft, it matters not how they felt, So long as they’ve earned their place upon our shelf.

But now it is our story At last, we don a cloak to hide our shame Scour for ways to assign some blame In front of one, to whose will we bend We sling words and play pretend Knowing our rival was never a friend That will be our story

By Kyle MacDonald (1L)

Then die for them.

By Haya Sardar (2L)

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE POETRY CONTEST WINNERS: EVAN LINN (SEATED), KYLE MACDONALD (LEFT), HAYA SARDAR (RIGHT).

CREDIT: THOMAS ALEXANDER

FEATURES

14 | March 31, 2022

ultravires.ca

Brunch For Days!

Your guide to brunch in the city KAITLYN NELSON (2L), LAUREN PAPAROUSIS (2L), SHAE ROTHERY (2L), SABRINA MACKLAI (2L JD/MI), AND ANNECY PANG (3L) Brunch. A quintessential and yet seemingly controversial weekend activity. On the one hand, brunch is a delicious excuse to get together with your BFFs and spill the tea you’ve been accumulating all week (over mimosas, of course). On the other hand, brunch usually means long waits, big bills, and inf luencers galore. Whether you love it, hate it, or just think it's overrated, everyone seems to have an opinion about brunch. In this issue, we explore the diverse world of brunch and provide our candid thoughts on some of Toronto’s most popular spots.

For our f inal review of the year, we are very excited to feature our incredible outgoing EiCs and fellow brunch babes, Sabrina Macklai (2L JD/MI) and Annecy Pang (3L), as special guest reviewers.

decisive people like myself who don’t want to choose between the two. As a bonus, Emma’s pays all their employees a living wage.

Top pick: Cinnamon bun pancakes Old School | 800 Dundas St W

BLACK N’ BLUE FLAPJACKS. CREDIT: KAITLYN NELSON

The George Street Diner | 129 George St Kaitlyn: If you prefer a classic eggs, sausage, and home fries diner brunch, then the George Street Diner is the place for you! George Street is one of the cheaper alternatives for brunch in Toronto. This place offers nothing too fancy—just a classic greasy, comforting diner breakfast with some Irish-themed options. I went with the breakfast burrito, which was f illing, but could have used some extra f lavour. The place itself was low-key and a bit on the small side (booths could only f it four people). There was a long line when we left, but the service was quick and friendly.

Pro tip: get there early to avoid a wait!

IRISH BREAKFAST AT THE GEORGE STREET DINER. CREDIT: SHAE ROTHERY

Sabrina: I’m sorry, but of the two schoolthemed breakfast joints, SCHOOL def initely has an edge. While SCHOOL made me feel like I was living out a classic American coming-of-age f ilm, Old School sent me right back to my underfunded public school in the burbs. Everything felt a little too tryhard, from the mini cast-iron skillets they use to serve their pancakes to the uncomfy chairs that remind me of my undergrad’s examination hall. I tried their blueberry pancakes, which were alright, and their chicken and waff les, which unfortunately were drier than the admin’s response to UV’s article on their accommodations policy. Overall, I give it a P.

Mildred’s Temple Kitchen | 85 Hanna Ave Annecy: Mildred’s Temple Kitchen has been on my list for years but since it is located all the way in Liberty Village, I never went.

This review was the perfect excuse. They’re known for their blueberry pancakes—f luffy and sweet. But I’m more of a savoury brunch gal and think the “Manhandler” stole the show. It’s their take on steak and eggs, served atop a slice of sourdough that soaks up the meat juices and paired with lightly dressed mixed greens. The bright, airy space practically begs you to drink mimosas and live your best inf luencer life. I went on a Thursday (because 3LOL) so it wasn’t too crowded but I heard the lines get long on weekends.

Bring your appetite because the portions are hearty—we also ordered a biscuit and scone, and were in a food coma after.

Pro tip: you can get a single blueberry pancake on the side

Pro tip: Don’t bring too many things (and watch what you say) as the tables are very close together Maha’s Egyptian Brunch | 226 Greenwood Ave

BUTTERMILK FRIED CHICKEN AND WAFFLES. CREDIT: KAITLYN NELSON

White Lily Diner | 678 Queen St E Shae: White Lily Diner takes a straightforward, laid-back approach to brekkie. At this quaint Riverside spot, a small menu makes the process of narrowing down your order easy. I kept it simple and ordered the White Lily Standard breakfast, which comes with 2 eggs, your choice of meat or mushrooms, hashbrowns, and toast. The eggs had bright orange yolks (which I think taste better than your average yellow yolks) and the sausage was f lavourful and perfectly cooked. The portion size was just right, and left me with enough room to indulge in half a doughnut, which White Lily makes in-house. I’ll be back, even if just for the doughnuts.

Kaitlyn: Maha’s is def initely my top pick for brunch in Toronto. Yes, it always has a line, but trust me—it’s worth it! While it’s a little out of the way, we encourage everyone to get out of the downtown core once in a while.

The service is quick and friendly, with a warm and welcoming vibe, but the real star of the show is the food. Their signature honey cardamom latte was the perfect balance of sweetness. The Egyptian falafel plate was delicious, with a soft boiled egg covered by a crispy falafel (still not sure how they made this work), and the Cairo Classic was f lavourful and f illing. I will def initely be back again soon to try more!

MRS B’S WILD BLUEBERRY BUTTERMILK PANCAKES AND THE MANHANDLER. CREDIT: ANNECY PANG

Top picks: Egyptian falafel and honey cardamom latte

Pro tip: I’d recommend a maximum party size of 4 people

CURRANT SCONE AND BUTTERMILK BISCUIT WITH APPLE BUTTER JAM. CREDIT: ANNECY PANG

OEB Breakfast Co | 125 E Liberty St

BREAKFAST BURRITO. CREDIT: SHAE ROTHERY MAHA’S EGYPTIAN FALAFEL. CREDIT: KAITLYN NELSON

SCHOOL Restaurant | 70 Fraser Ave Sabrina: Unfortunately, most law students’ breakfasts consist of the Faculty’s free coffee and a granola bar (if you’re lucky). On days you want to cosplay as a student Instagram inf luencer, I suggest heading to SCHOOL. The decor is perfect for the gram, the coffee is served hot, and the pancakes are the f luff iest in Toronto. I tried their apple crumble and blueberry pancakes, the latter of which they’re known for. Both were delicious and the perfect, sweet start to my morning. It’s a bit pricey but hey, at least SCHOOL’s tuition doesn’t require you to take out a loan (or two).

Top pick: Apple crumble cakes

LOOK AT THOSE YOLKS! CREDIT: SHAE ROTHERY

Emma’s Country Kitchen | 810 St Clair Ave W Lauren: When I heard that Emma’s Country Kitchen serves cinnamon bun pancakes, I immediately had to make the journey to St. Clair West to taste them for myself. However, when I arrived I was faced with the classic brunch dilemma—do I get something sweet, or something savoury? Thankfully, the folks at Emma’s have this f igured out and offer a side order of cinnamon bun pancakes for in-

Shae: While it might be strange to pre-emptively review a brunch spot that hadn’t yet opened at the time of writing, OEB holds a special place in my heart. Originally from Calgary, OEB has gone from being a tiny single outpost to an international phenomenon. Thankfully, throughout their expansion, OEB has held on to their signature charm and high quality I came to know and love back in high school, where I’d spend my spares eating breakfast poutine in their OG location. When I heard OEB would be coming to Toronto, I was so excited to have a little piece of home here in the 6ix. Nostalgia aside, I can conf idently say that OEB will be a welcome addition to the Toronto brunch scene, and I hope you try it—even if that means venturing into Liberty Village.

Top picks: Florentine benny or Meat-less to Say

CAIRO CLASSIC. CREDIT: KAITLYN NELSON

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

March 31, 2022 | 15

Wines to Get you Past the Finish Line In Vino Veritas provides some recommendations for those looking to splurge TOM RUSSELL (2L) In one final hurrah before the exam season is upon us, IVV splurged on the bougiest bottles to celebrate the end of the term. Whether you’re just finishing up your first year of law school, or finishing up for good, we have you covered with the best wines to toast the occasion.

Shae Rothery (2L) Calvez-Bobinet, ‘Greta Carbo’ $86, Grape Witches

wine-tasting event at Grape Witches, and I immediately knew that I’d be bringing a bottle home with me for a special occasion. I whipped out my Apple Pay without hesitation, tapped, and pretended not to see the total.

Let me walk you through this gem. Carbonic maceration? Check. Eighth-generation winemaker?

You bet. Loire Valley? My favourite region! The star of the show here is Cabernet Franc, which is a singlevarietal that takes the best of both worlds from Bordeaux blends (the structure of a cabernet sauvignon and the flavour profile of a merlot, for the wine newbies).

Growing Cab Franc in Loire, one of France’s cooler regions, makes for a more acidic wine (on par with a pinot noir). The result is a silky, sophisticated, red fruit-forward wine, with old-vine complexity and a hint of candy-like sweetness on the nose from the carbo. Acidic food pairings (think pasta with tomato sauce) would play well off of the wine’s acidity.

I seriously cannot recommend this wine enough.

The next time I want to ignore my mounting student debt, I’ll pick up another bottle. If you, understandably, can’t justify dropping almost $100 on a bottle of wine and you’re okay settling for mid-tier fancy, Calvez-Bobinet has some other great, more “affordable” options.

The special occasion I saved this bottle for? Not getting an LP on my admin law midterm. You have to celebrate the little victories.

land, Austria into a powerhouse of biodynamic wine, a fortunate by-product of vines that had gone two decades without a hint of pesticide or fertilizer. The wines produced were so whimsical and unique that the producers decided to craft a fictional family to portray the personalities of each variety.

I ultimately went with Theodora, the youngest member of the Gut Oggau family and a product of their newest vines. She is simultaneously playful and reliable, dry enough to match your humour and sufficiently complex to distract from dull guests. A blend of Gruner Veltliner and Welschriesling, Theodora has strong notes of green apple and a hint of minerality, pairing well with white fish and striking conversation. Be sure to “accidentally” leave your receipt on the counter so your friends are aware of the splurge— perhaps your generosity will finally inspire them to choose something other than a $10 bottle at the LCBO next time they’re hosting.

Jared Barkman (1L) Gut Oggau, ‘Theodora’ CREDIT: SHAE ROTHERY

Is there a point of diminishing returns when it comes to wine? In all honesty—and as much as it pains me to say this as a self-proclaimed wine snob— probably. But, that being said, sometimes a girl just wants to splurge and feel bougie (RIP to my LOC).

I was first introduced to Greta Carbo during a

$72, Grape Witches When I heard that my favourite Toronto wine shop had finally imported the cult-classic Gut Oggau family of wines, it wasn’t a matter of if I would splurge, but when. Heralded saints of the natural wine world, Eduard and Stephanie Tscheppe, transformed a decrepit 17th century vineyard in Burgen-

CREDIT: JARED BARKMAN

Explore | Engage | Learn Developing Future Leaders in Law

Jared Barkman (1L) Rosewood Winery, ‘There Be Dragons’ $38, Paris Club When a member of IVV prudently (or negligently?) recommended that we review “fancy” wine this month, Shae and I rightfully took the assignment to heart and overindulged at Grape Witches, the holy grail of overpriced wine—“for the people,” of course. But if we’re honest, we know that you’re too cheap to take our recommendations, and we’re too broke to keep up these bad habits. So, for those of you who consider it a “splurge” to set aside the 2L bottle of Growers and reach for a bottom-of-the-shelf merlot (why is it always merlot?), this recommendation is for you: a populist appeal to make wine accessible to the masses, to the benefit of your palate and your wallet (believe me, you’re better than merlot).

If you’re into niche war flicks from the mid2000s, ‘There Be Dragons’ may call to mind a phenomenally bad Spanish Civil War film (rated a respectable 12 percent on Rotten Tomatoes). In an apparent attempt to redeem the ignoble title, Rosewood Winery crafted a truly stunning Sauvignon Blanc by the same name. ‘There Be Dragons’ is one of the crown jewels of the Niagara region, oozing with luxurious notes of honey and grilled pineapple. And given that it drinks like a dessert wine, it will also keep in your fridge for several days without noticeably depreciating in quality (if you’re currently subsisting on microwaved ramen as the LOC begins to dip precipitously low, this may be a key selling point).

Finally, if you’ve intentionally skimmed this article for the cheapest bottle on the list, my hunch is that you’re also the type who buys your wine based on how pretty the label is—no judgment. Rosewood is appealing to your basic instincts and the bottle not only serves as a vessel for your fancy wine, but will also make a fantastic vase for your equally budget-friendly Loblaws bouquet.

FEATURES

16 | March 31, 2022

ultravires.ca

The Ghosts of UV EiCs Past The kings are dead, long live the queens!

SABRINA MACKLAI (2L JD/MI) AND ANNECY PANG (3L) For our final article as Editors-in-Chief of Ultra Vires, Volume 23, we sat down with Matt Brown and Patrick Hartford, UV EiCs of Volume 13 and 14, respectively. Under their tenure as EiCs, UV saw many changes including a new look, logo, and the website that we still use today. While their hair might be a bit different (Matt: It’s just me. Patrick still has those luscious locks), the two remained passionate about their time leading the law school’s student newspaper, doughnuts and all. As we say goodbye to our reign as EiCs, it was a pleasure to learn more from the greats that preceded us.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Ultra Vires (UV): What are you most proud of during your tenure as EiCs? Matt Brown (MB): Hearing from you guys made me swell with pride because it means that the institution still exists. Like anything else in student life, there is such a quick turnover of students that the institutional memory can be pretty short. Here’s the thing: I’m not worried about the fucking journal continuing because absolute keener, kiss-ass, resume-stuffers are always going to want to volunteer for that pointless job. But UV is an institution that is really just there to augment the joy of student life.

It’s not good for the resume; it has no ancillary benefit other than making U of T Law a great place to go and a fun place to be a student. Looking back, ten years later, those are the things that I cherish: all those really rich parts of student life. So I am so proud and happy that I was able to pass the torch to people like you, who are, for no reason other than it’s fun and rewarding, continuing to do this!

Patrick Hartford (PH): What were we most proud of? It was always building on the years before. Matt built on the work that Aaron [Christoff ] and Abrar [Huq] did before him, and I built on the work Matt did. It was nice to be able to go back to writing a mix of stuff that was fun to read, fun to put together, and also being able to say what we wanted to say. To criticize things we wanted to criticize.

I was very proud of how much we put in place that is still there: the graphics, the format, and doing more investigative journalism which was really at the heart of founding Ultra Vires ten years before us. When I was in your shoes, one of the things I did was reach out to the EiC from ten years before, Melissa Kuger, and she came and spoke to the group.

So we kinda came full circle.

Like Matt said, nobody was there to put UV on their resume. Ironically, I think that’s what makes it something deserving to be put on the resume, because the work we did there was sometimes some of the best, interesting work that people did. Everybody who was there really wanted to be there, and was volunteering their time because they cared. I’m proud that it is still going and it is still true to that.

And also that you still have the office and the giant table.

UV: Who made the hole in the office’s wall?

PH: The hole in the wall was made before we got there. As a tribute to Shawshank Redemption, I wanted to make sure there was a poster of Rita Hayworth covering it. The one day the air conditioning repairman came by and said, “Oh, I bet there is a hole behind that poster of Rita Hayworth” was the proudest day of my life. Finally, I’ve been seen.

MB: Do you guys still do the rankings of faculty members based on student reviews?

UV: We don’t. We tried to, but the Faculty doesn’t like us accessing the reviews.

MB: Oh, I know. I remember it was a months-long thing. This is what I like about UV. It often leads you into conflict with Faculty and administration.

Which, in some ways, is not what you would be doing if you were solely focusing on building your resume. But anyways, I think what we agreed to do is only put it in the print issue and not online. The Faculty’s point was that, “yes, this is accessible to

UV EDITORS-IN-CHIEF, PAST AND PRESENT. PICTURED (CLOCKWISE): ANNECY PANG (VOL 23), SABRINA MACKLAI (VOL 23), PATRICK HARTFORD (VOL 14), AND MATT BROWN (VOL 13). BEAUTY MODE WAS MOST DEFINITELY NOT TURNED ON. CREDIT: SABRINA MACKLAI

students. Any student, if they want, can individually go and look this up in the library.” The whole point was to dissuade students from doing that. We thought this was a great service that UV can offer…

I mean, it was a bit troll-ish to do it as a ranking, but people fucking love rankings.

PH: It was part of UV too. Even when you ran into conflict with some of the admin, learning how to do that in a way that was constructive, and respectful, and maintained relationships was important. Law is a contentious profession and you butt heads with people in a lot of ways. Despite all the things we did, there was still a pretty good relationship between the students and Faculty overall.

MB: I think the key is doing good work. If you bring a seriousness and purpose to it, you do earn some respect.

PH: And the Faculty has different perspectives on some of these issues too. You would have some profs that agreed on some points, and some that agreed on others. And they were part of that conversation as well, sometimes writing guest pieces. It was really a vehicle for some of the big conversations to have about the law school. I’m so happy that it is still going strong.

Why did you choose McMillan?

I chose McMillan because of its deeply engrained team culture and commitment to mentorship. My experience at the firm has far exceeded my expectations and has provided me with diverse learning and growth opportunities.

Guneev Bhinder

Associate, Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group

UV: How has UV helped in your careers, if at all? We’re very sure that UV comes up often in your work at the Superior Court or when you’re clerking for Justice Abella.

PH: I found UV came up a lot. When I interviewed at the [Supreme Court] or to summer downtown, they didn’t want to hear about editing citations for Law Review any more than I wanted to talk about it. They wanted to talk about the sketch we put on for Law Follies and what they did in law school. And even with Justice Abella, she knew about what UV was publishing and the conversations that were had there. In terms of my career more directly, I took a very strange route by starting a business. The experience of UV and taking risks and working with a group of really cool people to put out a product that I was really proud of definitely stuck with me. The fact that you can do something fun and maybe weren’t necessarily sure where it was going to end up is something that I really, really loved about UV.

2017 - 2022 Take the lead in your career.

McMillan LLP | Vancouver | Calgary | Toronto | Ottawa | Montréal | Hong Kong | mcmillan.ca

ultravires.ca MB: I can confidently say that it has had zero impact, positive or negative, on my career. But man, there are other reasons to do things in life.

UV: We talked a bit about the new look for the paper, the new logo. You two mentioned how you hired an external layout editor.

Would you mind chatting about that?

PH: I think it was my year that we did that. We needed someone to do layout and there is such a tendency in law school to think we can do everything ourselves, and yet OCAD is a walk away, and there are some really talented and amazing people.

It was really a treat to work with them and the pride they took in setting up the paper. I now have opinions on kerning… I didn’t even know that was a word. Working with people who were really passionate about layout was good for the paper and good to build bridges so it's not completely insular.

UV: Shifting into something a bit more serious, we noticed that there was a 2013 Tuition Special as well as a tuition petition around that time, when tuition was approaching the 30K mark. For reference, tuition at U of T Law is still increasing, we’re sitting around 33K now MB: BAG ALERT… sorry, I should not be allowed on TikTok, I’m far too old.

PH: Oh god no.

UV: It’s MAJOR bag alert.

PH: I have no idea what you’re talking about.

UV: Wait—why are you on TikTok? PH: Why isn’t UV on TikTok? I think that’s the real question.

MB: I’m so sorry for interrupting.

UV: It’s okay! We also noticed that you mention mental health is an ongoing concern. Every time we read the archives, we’re struck by how recurring the themes are (mental health, tuition, accessibility), year after year. And it seems like not much has changed at all. Is there a way for UV to add more fuel to the fire for student advocacy?

PH: UV has an important role to play, representing the voice of the students. It's a bigger conversation than just one law school—these are things happening across the province and the profession at large.

FEATURES Institutional memory being short is a problem, so I think that having a newspaper and those archives is important not just for the issue you release on any given day but for being part of that record.

I hope there have been some improvements. I wrote a lot about tuition and I think that it is unfortunate that people graduate with so much debt that they have more limited opportunities since they have to focus on paying that back as opposed to other, valuable types of work that don’t necessarily pay particularly well. I think that there is a societal benefit to people being able to learn about the law, even if they’re not necessarily going to practice it.

I’m not up to date on what [financial aid] programs are offered, but just as a sort of policy-level, I definitely think that tuition should be kept affordable for people who want to go in another direction than working in a big downtown firm.

MB: This is going to sound self-aggrandizing, but you know the saying, journalism is the first draft of history. I feel like UV is an important historical record for all types of student advocates. Because of that short institutional memory, it’s really the only place you can go to realize that many of these fights have been had before.

PH: I remember how much work the team put in.

Leo Elias did a lot of digging to put together a lot of work in the tuition special. We went through all the Faculty Council notes, because there is a lot of stuff that is on record, and documented what people said at the time and checked if it still holds true. I agree with Matt; it is important to have a record of those things, no matter how the situation plays out.

UV: To wrap up, we have some fun questions. Matt, Sabrina was wondering, as she still has a year left of law school to go, what was it like ruling UV from the grave and should we revive the Editor-inChief Emeritus role?

MB: I insist that you do. UV is incredibly fun to be a part of, but being Editor-in-Chief means you actually have to do things. Imagine all of the joy of hanging out with people and putting your words and opinions out into the world, without any of the drawbacks of having to send people emails following up on a deadline that's passed. So, you gotta do it. It was one of the things that made my year awesome.

UV: Annecy will unfortunately be graduating, but she plans to come back whenever there are doughnuts on distribution day.

PH: I’m glad you guys still do the doughnuts. I have a fun story about ordering that. One night I had some friends in town, we went out, and next thing

you know, it’s last call and 2:30 in the morning. And I remembered I still had to place that order for the next day to pick up the doughnuts because the paper was coming out. So I went to the Tim Hortons on Bloor, the 24-hour one, and I placed this order after having been drinking for essentially seven hours, saying excuse me, yes, I would like 12 dozen doughnuts. And they were like, yeah, sure you do…

UV: Did the doughnuts come on time?

PH: They did! It’s impressive that I came to the law school on time.

UV: We haven’t done the doughnuts in a while because of the pandemic. We’re really excited to get back to what UV should be about: eating junk food and reading some law school tea. So Matt, do you still believe that Patrick was a “perennial fucking disappintment” of an EiC, now having seen what’s he done?

MB: Patrick is one of the most impactful and successful EiCs that UV has ever had, but, frankly, I haven’t been reading enough UV, so he might have been eclipsed this year. Who knows?

PH: Well, thank you. I can only take credit for taking the torch from Matt and following his lead. I think that having him as Emeritus was a good way to have the same energy in the office and build off the work he did.

UV: Do you have any parting advice you’d like to give to the next EiCs? We haven’t hired them yet but hopefully will get some applications soon.

PH: Ooh, applications, things have gotten formal.

UV: There weren’t applications back then?

PH: I think it was more like the way the Sith picks the next one in the line.

The advice I would have is: ten years from now, when the UV EiCs reach out to you, definitely think in advance about what you put on the record in a recorded interview. Aside from that, enjoy it, because UV was some of the most fun I had in law school.

MB: Far be it from me to give you advice on what you should do, but I think what makes UV successful is a pretty dogmatic focus on whatever might be interesting to law students reading it. Which means, no friggin Canadian politics op-eds, or anything that doesn’t have a very direct relationship to law students. That is what makes people pick up the paper and read it. And that’s the most important thing

March 31, 2022 | 17 at the end of the day.

PH: Do you guys still do the feature where you take people’s personal statements and match them against where they’re going?

UV: Yeah!

MB: Yes, oh my god, that’s my favourite. I’m so happy to hear that.

UV: Was that your guys’ idea?

MB: No, it was Will Morrison’s. He did it the year before me. I’m so glad it remains a tradition; it’s the fucking best. It just encapsulates so many amazing things about U of T Law that is always very funny.

Anyways, so proud of you guys—this is amazing!

PH: Yeah, this is fantastic!

MB: Very well done! And I can’t believe Sabrina works at the Toronto Star [for her media law externship]… I was saying how UV is completely pointless from a career perspective, and you’re living proof that maybe this is not the case. And Annecy, where will you be articling?

UV: Annecy will be articling at a litigation firm, Polley Faith.

MB: My locker at the gym used to be beside Andrew Faith’s.

UV: What a claim to fame! That’s what you’re going to post on your TikTok? PH: Even I don’t go on TikTok, that’s where I draw the line.

MB: I guess you’re just happy to be completely irrelevant, Patrick, that’s fine.

PH: Thanks, Matt. My only request is that if any of my quotes are going to get me fired, just let me know in advance…

Editor’s Note: On March 27, 2013, Hartford wrote in his Letter from the Editor that he hopes ten years from then, the Editor in Chief of UV finds his Tuition Special in the archives and sees it as a turning point in student and administration relations. It hasn’t been the full ten years, but we leave our roles as EiCs with a similar message. We tried our best to cover the stories students wanted, and needed, to hear the most. From a student’s human rights’ claim against the Faculty to an almost year-long investigation into the budget, we covered a lot of ground that we’re immensely proud of. We too hope that ten years from now, UV will be even better than how we left it.

Whether that’s increased investigative journalism or turning the paper into 90 percent Diversions, we’re excited to see it grow and grateful to have been part of its journey.

Law Follies 2022 Review

Follies on the big(ger) screen JACQUELINE HUANG (2L) Law Follies is the law school’s annual comedy show written by a group of generally exhausted law students about the miseries we knowingly inflict upon ourselves. Last year, when my law school life mainly consisted of jumping from one Zoom room to another, and brewing tea behind a black box bearing my name, Follies on the glorious big screen of YouTube (meaning front-row seats for everyone!) brought some much-needed togetherness to my solitary law school experience in the middle of yet another lockdown.

This year, the hybrid school experience has become the new normal, and the screening format of Follies reflected exactly that. Follies remained a prerecorded show filmed in accordance with masking mandates; however, a sizable crowd attended the screening in person at the Scotiabank Theatre on March 10. I’ve never been to a stage-show Follies, but I think this year’s screening format contributed to a better audience experience thanks to the generous screen space, theatre-quality sound, and the addition of subtitles. Better yet, admission was still free with a donate-if-you-can option, with two-thirds of viewers opting to donate to charities.

Not surprisingly, classic themes of grade anxiety, hypercompetitiveness, recruit stress, and selling out to Big Law were once again featured heavily in the

form of parodies of popular songs and shows. Although I could not pinpoint every source material with my limited knowledge of pop culture, the dialogue certainly struck a chord with the audience and brought out a burst of laughter, such as this tribute to the modified grading system that had clearly failed its purpose—“average is a tragedy, honours is just fine.”

Some recurring faculty stars were back on the screen too: Professor Jim Phillips impressed the crowd with his singing talents (does he do this every year?); Professor Martha Shaffer provided her expert opinion that 3Ls have a disposition to not care; and Professor Anthony Niblett, known for filling PowerPoints with meme GIFs and ending sentences with “mate,” made a highly-sought appearance.

The latest addition to the Follies faculty lineup included Professor Benjamin Alarie, starring as a 99 percent accurate predictive legal robot, Professor Angela Fernandez as the fox whisperer, and Professor Ariel Katz (a.k.a. the “IP man”) helping Follies fight copyright infringement claims. More faculty involvement in Follies was a welcome addition, as evidenced by the applauds and whistles on screening night.

Every law student has a distinct law school experience, but, in my opinion, the best sketches ap-

pealed to the experiences familiar to everyone. For instance, I greatly enjoyed the opening track about hot tips from 3Ls and the "I’m too tenured to care” track because they had great musical elements and were very relatable.

My favourite sketches put a spin on the mildly infuriating details of law school life. I was glad to see that Follies took on the Faculty’s aggressive approach to electronic communication this year—the daily bombardment of emails is exhausting at best, and terrifying at worst. The email sketch skillfully re-enacted how it is like to be spooked by Outlook’s *ding* coming out of nowhere multiple times a day—an uneasy sensation we all know too well.

As for the top annoyance of law school life this year (i.e., the utterly useless UCheck), “JuttaCheck” and the “Green” screen awaits in a dystopian near future (kudos to Dean Jutta Brunnée and Professor Andrew Green who put up with the ridiculousness of this sketch). And there was the capricious “Zoom Authoritarian”, the arch-enemy of students not yet ready to give up the freedom of flexible schooling.

The fun of Follies typically comes with some degree of awkwardness, such as mean jokes about the law school’s administration and the unapologetic use of low-budget studio effects (those virtual backgrounds, those floating figures at the corners of the

screen). This kind of crude humour was awkward in a good way, but I felt that certain sketches fell in the cringey territory like where Osgoode and U of T got into a fight for a prospective student, only to make her decide to go to Lincoln Alexander School of Law instead. It was not about the rap—I thought last year’s final rap track, featuring former Dean Iacobucci’s comeback, was absolutely brilliant, and it was a pleasant surprise to see a brief rewind of that scene in the Squid Games sketch this year (“Guess who’s back? Back again?”). It was a great idea to get the Osgoode folks involved, but I felt uncomfortable watching trash-talking for no apparent purpose other than the trash talk itself. Maybe meanness for its own sake is just not my tea.

Still, Law Follies 2022 was a fantastic show that showcased the lesser-known humour and acting talents at the law school. According to my totally unscientific random sampling results (i.e., asking around in the atrium over coffees and muffins), the audience reception has been very positive. I have great respect for all the people involved in the making of Follies, for they had the heart to devote the time, energy, and creativity to this huge project out of the bottomless pit of things to do at the law school. And their effort was certainly worth it— they made a show for everyone, and everyone had a great time.

FEATURES

18 | March 31, 2022

ultravires.ca

Faculty Council Governance at a Tipping Point A key opportunity for student and faculty participation in good governance BRANDEN CAVE (3L) AND WILLEM CRISPIN-FREI (3L) Recorded Lectures. Hard drive access during open-book exams. Improved mental health supports and considerations. Implementing a mandatory course in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. These are just a few of the myriad issues students have spent incalculable time and effort tackling at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law this year alone.

We want to put another advocacy issue on the radar: the state of Faculty Council governance.

Although Faculty Council’s governance is not the first issue that comes to most students’ minds, it has increasingly been a cause for concern for student leaders. The role, conduct, and processes of Faculty Council directly impacts students’ abilities to have a voice and a vote at our law school.

Where one would expect to find a clean, effective constitution for the governing body of the premier law school in the country, readers are instead confronted by a series of mimeographed, typewritten, and sometimes conflicting documents dating back as far as 1941 (the “Governing Documents”). Unsurprisingly, 80 years of patchwork reforms have left us with inconsistencies and contradictions in the Faculty’s most important documents.

Observers of Faculty Council will have seen both junior and senior members regularly ask questions about what Faculty Council can actually do. These questions arise from a lack of clarity about Faculty Council’s operations, processes, and decision-making. This confusion reduces the opportunity for productive discussion and collegial governance, and removes an important accountability check on our Faculty’s administration. The Governing Documents have raised eyebrows before, including by students at Faculty

Council and in Ultra Vires in 2017.

As student members of Faculty Council, we have attempted to revise and clarify Faculty Council’s governance and Governing Documents over the past two years. Working with Associate Dean Christopher Essert and others, we struck a committee in 2020–21 that successfully created a clear constitutional amending process (the latest addition to the patchwork Governing Documents). This year, we proposed undertaking a comprehensive revision of the Governing Documents to create a clear and accessible set of governing documents that facilitate participation from both junior and senior, faculty and student Faculty Council members. This is not a wholesale reform—Faculty Council’s role is largely set by Governing Council—but rather a thorough revision of the Governing Documents into a cohesive, purposive set.

After negotiations with Faculty administration, Faculty Council approved a two-year revision process in October 2021. The first year (2021–22) has focused on gathering information and understanding the nature of Faculty Council’s authority and role in the broader University governance ecosystem. The second year (2022– 23) is scheduled to see new governing documents drafted for Faculty Council’s consideration.

While the Governing Documents Revision Committee has made important progress, students and faculty must hold the Committee to draft clear and accessible revisions on a proactive and consultative timeline in 2022–23. In researching and synthesizing the various constraints on Faculty Council, we have identified key areas of Faculty Council governance that desperately need clarification and revision.

These areas are discussed in much more detail in the committee’s annual final report to Faculty Council on March 30.

One area requiring clarification is what the powers and responsibilities of Faculty Council actually are. Substantial disagreements have arisen among committee members over how best to answer that question. Ensuring sufficient time is allocated to negotiating these and future disagreements will be key to the committee’s success next year. Our research has found that although Governing Council has assigned the Dean responsibility for matters such as the budget, appointments, and promotions, Governing Council retains a policy-making role for divisional councils, such as Faculty Council, in creating academic policy relating to admissions, exams and grading, awards, and regulation. We hope that revised Governing Documents can facilitate a common understanding of Faculty Council’s role and usher in a more productive era for Faculty Council.

While the Students’ Law Society (SLS) and Dean Jutta Brunnée have co-operatively advanced important policy and advocacy initiatives since she took office last year, ensuring that Faculty Council remains a democratically-controlled policy and decision-making body is in the interests of students and faculty members alike for the short-, medium-, and long-term stewardship of the Faculty. Faculty councils have real and important roles in decision-making both within U of T and at universities across the country to provide counter-balances to faculty administrations.

The Faculty Council and the Governing Documents Revision Committee will be at a crossroads next year regarding Faculty Council governance. One path leads to revised governing

documents that facilitate collegial decision-making among faculty and students through common understandings of what Faculty Council is and can do. The other leads to more years of limited participation and confusion at Faculty Council.

It is neither radical nor revolutionary for students and faculty to want to be able to make use of their voice in the governing of their Faculty.

Students contribute a small fortune to the Faculty, binding our names and reputations to the calibre of this law school’s education. Faculty build their careers, homes, reputations, and academic corpora in service of assisting the Canadian legal system. Both constituencies, and indeed the entire law school, are better served when Faculty Council operates openly and transparently, and each and every member understands the scope of their power, responsibilities, and duties. While it is regrettable that the Governing Documents are in this current state of confusion, there is real momentum from both students and faculty towards making Faculty Council more transparent and accessible.

We have been honoured to undertake this project on behalf of students, but our three-year JD programs must come to an end. Having attended our final Faculty Council meeting, we ask you, students and faculty members, to take the torch and carry this project forward. The SLS is wellpositioned to be one torch-bearer among many, but they will need your support in ensuring the Governing Documents are not the subject of another feature in a 2027 issue of Ultra Vires.

Editor’s Note: Branden Cave is a 3L Student Life and Academic Representative and Willem Crispin-Frei is President of the Students’ Law Society. Both have served on Faculty Council since 2019.

Ransomware, Liability, and Regulation: A Rapidly Evolving Legal Problem What is a lawyer’s role in the wake of a cyberattack?

NATASHA BURMAN (2L) On March 2, the University of Toronto Faculty of Law’s Privacy and Cybersecurity Law Group (PCLG) held its fourth event in its Digital Discussion Series: a panel discussion on the unique business and legal risks that a company faces when threatened by a ransomware attack. This follows the colossal increase in ransomware attacks globally, where approximately 37 percent of global organisations reported they were the victim of some form of ransomware attack in 2021.

A ransomware attack is a cyberattack that holds a victim’s data hostage. For instance, attackers can encrypt critical data and demand a ransom to restore access to it.

Ransomware can spread across a network and quickly paralyze an entire organisation. With the growing importance of data, it has become a major “industry” for cybercriminals, generating billions of dollars in payments (usually in cryptocurrency) and

creating signif icant risks for businesses and governmental organizations. For example, the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack on May 7, 2021 left the United States’ largest pipeline system for ref ined oils completely of f line, causing President Joe Biden to declare emergency orders on May 13.

The panel was moderated by Professor Lisa Austin (Chair in Law and Technolog y), and featured four distinguished industry professionals: Imran Ahmad (Partner, Head of Technolog y, Co-Head of Information Governance, Privacy and Cybersecurity, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP), Juan Castaneda (Security Consulting Senior Manager, Accenture), Ruth E. Promislow (Partner, Cybersecurity, Privacy & Data Protection, Bennett Jones LLP), and Daanish Samadmoten (Partner, Privacy & Cybersecurity, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP).

The Role of the Lawyers After discussing how ransomware is a growing industry, the panellists turned to how law yers aid in mitigating the legal and technical risks of a cyber breach.

Prior to a cyber incident, cybersecurity and data privacy law yers advise organisations on data breach preparedness and response. One way of doing so is by running “tabletop exercises”, which are sessions where an organization’s key members run through a hypothetical cyber breach scenario and discuss each role in the emergency situation. These exercises aim to ensure that a company’s key players understand their roles and responsibilities, where they are lacking in preparedness, and how communication lines will operate when all internal systems are compromised.

In the wake of a cyberattack, a law yer

takes on the critical role of “breach counsel” for the attacked company or organisation, adopting three main responsibilities.

The f irst is one of legal privilege; law yers called immediately after a cyberattack have the most visibility, and thus have the capabilities to act similar to a project manager.

Samadmoten described a law yer’s role as a quarterback: the leader of the of fence, calling plays in the huddle. In this capacity, law yers coordinate across the organization to ensure business continuity and minimize exposure to further risks. As part of this responsibility, the law yer aids in deciding whether to pay a ransom or not, with the organization’s particular circumstances in mind. In some cases, the company may be able to move back online without paying the ransom. In other cases, business may be more severely impacted and require technical control much sooner.

FEATURES

ultravires.ca Second, law yers give the company legal advice, following federal and provincial privacy laws or other requirements in regulated industries. For example, the Of f ice of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI ) has created notif ication requirements; once a f inancial institution is breached with a cyberattack, it must notify the regulator within a certain timeframe.

Furthermore, in this capacity, law yers assist with coordinating information with law enforcement. Third, law yers manage any and all communications made about the cyberattack to the public. This is particularly diff icult in the early stages of the attack, where the facts are still unknown; breach counsel needs to determine how much information can be disclosed without potentially compromising internal or external investigations.

In the aftermath of a cyberattack, law yers can also represent clients in regulatory complaints and investigations, administrative proceedings, and civil litigation. Cyberattacks can give rise to class action lawsuits; for example, where an organisation has failed to meet its data retention obligations.

Federal and Provincial Regulation The panellists also discussed how legislation in Canada has been slow to create legal repercussions for organisations that have been hacked and negligently lost individuals’ personal information. There are provincial and federal privacy laws that may require an organisation to act in the wake of a cybersecurity incident.

Federally, Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) requires that an organization report any breach of security safeguards involving personal information under the organisation’s control if it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the breach created a real risk of signif icant harm to an individual. Provincially, A lberta’s Personal Information Protection Act creates a similar obligation in section 34.1(1). However, these provisions alone create narrow opportunities for an individual right of action. The November 2020 revision to PIPEDA, Bill C-11, proposed an individual cause of action against an organization for damages for loss or injury where the individual was af fected by an act or omission by the organization that constituted a contravention of PIPEDA. However, Bill C-11 died on the

order paper as it was not passed before the dissolution of Parliament.

On September 21, 2021, Quebec’s National Assembly adopted Bill- 64, An Act to modernise legislative provisions as regards to protection of personal information (Act). The provincial private-sector privacy legislation is set to come into force starting this year through 2024. The Act creates obligations for organisations to act in the wake of a cyberattack, including designating a person in charge of the protection of personal information and of mandatory breach reporting. Bill- 64 provides three dif ferent types of mechanisms to enforce compliance: (1) administrative monetary penalties administered by Quebec’s privacy regulator of up to $10,000,000 or two percent of worldwide turnover; (2) penal of fences, sanctioned by a f ine of up to $25,000,000 or 4 percent of worldwide turnover, imposed by the Court of Quebec; and (3) a private right of action, with the possibility of punitive damages when there is an unlawful infringement of a right conferred by the Act. Quebec’s Act is the f irst of its kind in Canada, moving closest to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.

March 31, 2022 | 19 The Future of Law? The role of a law yer before, during, and after a cyberattack is multifaceted and rapidly evolving, especially as cyberattacks increase in number. Law yers are charged with taking on the role of a psychologist, strategist, policy analyst, and public relations specialist, to name a few, in addition to providing legal advice in the face of developing federal and provincial legislation.

During the panel, Professor Austin highlighted the gap in U of T Law’s program when it comes to a course centred around cybersecurity law; the current legal-tech courses, which are taught by Prof. Austin herself, do not address this growing practice area. Prof. Austin intends to advocate internally for a cybersecurity law course.

Getting Involved with Law and Technology The PCLG plans to host more events in the future, as part of its Digital Discussion Series. You can get involved by joining the PCLG Facebook Group for current events, articles, panels, conferences, and job postings relating to law and technolog y.

Editor’s Note: Natasha Burman is Co-President of the PCLG.

Dueling Drug Decriminalization Bills in Parliament The edges of Canada’s harsh drug policy are softening TAYLOR RODRIGUES (1L) There are currently four drug decriminalization bills in Parliament: the Liberal Government’s Bill C-5, Independent Senator Gwen Boniface’s Bill S -232, the Green Party’s Bill C-209, and the NDP’s Bill C-216. Below, I outline each of their proposed changes to Canada’s drug policy.

Bill C-5 Bill C-5 (formerly Bill C-22 in the previous Parliamentary session) is intended to make three main changes: eliminate mandatory minimum penalties, increase the use of conditional sentences, and increase alternatives to criminal charges for personal drug possession.

Mandatory minimum penalties ( MMPs) require judges to give a minimum jail sentence to everyone convicted of some of fences, regardless of mitigating factors or other circumstances. Currently, 73 criminal offences have MMPs and there have been over 160 constitutional challenges to MMPs— over half of the challenges have been successful. Bill C-5 would eliminate MMPs from all drug of fences and some f irearm offences.

Judges are prohibited from giving conditional sentences where of fenders are convicted of an of fence with a MMP. Eliminating MMPs would allow judges to give conditional sentences where the of fender’s punishment is to follow a series of rules, such as attending a drug treatment program or curfew instead of immediately being sentenced to jail. If an of fender violates the rules of their conditional sentence, they may have to serve the remainder of their sentence in jail.

Bill C-5 also proposes to repeal s. 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code which prohibits a judge from issuing a conditional sentence to a person convicted of an of fence, prosecuted by way of indictment, that has a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years or life.

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s.

742.1(c) of the Criminal Code was an unjustif ied violation of s. 15 Charter rights of Indigenous of fenders and s. 7 liberty rights in R v Sharma, 2020 ONCA 478 .

Lastly, Bill C-5 would require police of f icers and prosecutors to consider alternatives such as warnings and diverting the accused into social services before laying or prosecuting charges for personal drug possession, respectively. This change is in response to the August 2020 guidance the Public Prosecution Service of Canada issued, suggesting that alternatives to prosecution should be considered for personal drug possession (s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)) except where there are serious aggravating circumstances. The guidance has not been consistently followed by prosecutors across Canada.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, more than 50 human rights, drug and legal policy groups, the Government of British Columbia, and some municipalities including Vancouver and Toronto, have been asking the federal government to go further and fully decriminalize the possession of small amounts of illegal drugs for personal consumption.

Bill S-232 Bill S -232 proposes two key policy changes. First, Bill S -232 would repeal s. 4 of CDSA eliminating the of fence of personal drug possession and the of fence of trying to obtain controlled drugs.

This would allow individuals to legally possess any amount of a controlled drug for personal use. It avoids the “knife-edge” problem with the Government of British Columbia and the City of Vancouver’s decriminalization requests, where it would only be legal for individuals to possess up to a certain quantity of a controlled drug for personal use.

For example, if Vancouver’s request is approved, it would be legal for individuals to possess up to 2 grams of MDM A for personal use in Vancouver, but it would still be an of fence punishable by up to seven years of imprisonment for an individual to possess 2.1 grams of MDM A for personal use.

Bill S -232 itself would not change other drug of fences. Other drug of fences such as possession for the purpose of traf f icking,

traf f icking, manufacturing, and importing and exporting of controlled drugs would remain of fences.

However, Bill S -232 would require the Minister of Health (“Minister”) to develop a national strateg y for decriminalizing illegal substances in consultations with other affected federal ministries, provincial and territorial governments, Indigenous organizations, the justice sector, and other af fected organizations.

In developing the strateg y, the Minister would be required to consider increasing investments for treating substance use disorders, criminalizing the personal possession of controlled drugs over a minimum threshold, and creating an administrative sanctions regime for regulating drug of fences which could include warnings, f ines, or mandatory treatment.

Bill C-209 Bill C-209, like Bill C-5, would eliminate MMPs for all drug of fences and eliminate MMPs for many other criminal of fences.

Bill C-216 Bill C-216 proposes three key policy changes. First, like Bill S -232, it would eliminate the of fence of personal drug possession and the of fence of trying to obtain controlled drugs.

Second, it would create a Board with the power to expunge convictions of personal drug possession or trying to obtain controlled drugs. If a conviction is expunged, the person convicted of the of fence is deemed to never have been charged and convicted of that of fence. Bill C-216 would require the RCMP and all federal departments and agencies to destroy all records of convictions that are expunged. Individuals would have to apply to the Board to have their conviction of personal drug possession or trying to obtain controlled drugs expunged. The Board would be required to approve all complete requests at no charge to the requestee.

Third, similar to Bill S -232, Bill C-216

would require the Minister to develop a national strateg y to address the harm caused by problematic substance use by promoting a comprehensive public health approach.

In developing the strateg y, the Minister would be required to consult with provincial governments, health care providers, advocacy organizations, people with lived experience of substance use, and relevant experts. The strateg y would be required to include measures to provide universal access to recovery, treatment, and harm reduction services for substance use disorders, and to reduce the stigma associated with substance use, including through outreach and public awareness programs.

What’s next for Canadian drug policy?

Currently, the federal Liberals have a minority government, meaning they require the support of at least one other party to pass any legislation. There is support among the Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens to decriminalize drugs to varying degrees.

Of the four decriminalization bills in Parliament, one (Bill C-5) is a government bill and the rest are private member’s bills.

Private member’s bills rarely pass because they usually have dif f iculty getting time in the busy Parliamentary agenda or support of a majority of Parliamentarians.

So, Bill C-5 has the greatest chance of becoming law. However, the Liberal Government was still unable to pass it during the last parliamentary session (when it was called Bill C-22) due to lack of time. The Liberal government is unlikely to support any of the competing bills to avoid giving other parties a “win.” If they go further on decriminalization, for example by eliminating the of fence of personal drug possession, they will likely just amend Bill C-5 instead of supporting Bill S -232 or Bill C-216.

Editor’s Note: Taylor Rodrigues is the National Policy and Advocacy Lead for the Multidisciplinary Association of Psychedelic Studies Canada where he advocates for the decriminalization of drugs.

20 | March 31, 2022

R IGHTS R EVIEW

ultravires.ca

The International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law An independent student-led publication 2021-2022 Rights Review Editorial Board Co-Editors-in-Chief: Taskeen Nawab (3L) and Sabrina Sukhdeo (3L) Senior Editors: Martha Côté (2L) and Sterling Mancuso (2L) Junior Editors: Duncan Crabtree (1L), Ally Mastantuono (1L), and Julianne Schmidt (1L) Social Media Editor: Ellen An (3L)

A TOOL, NOT A CONSTITUTION THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IN CONFLICT

WEAPONS DISTRIBUTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS THE ABSENCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS DUE DILIGENCE IN THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY

By Maggie Xing (3L)

By Taskeen Ather Nawab (3L) and Sabrina Sukhdeo (3L) Welcome to the final issue of our term. This edition comes at a particularly prickly moment for the international human rights machinery. With the almost anachronistic tone of the recent outbreak of war across the Atlantic, we are reminded somberly of the inefficacy of a system that claims to originate out of commonly held humanitarian values. Accustomed, instead, to distant proxy wars that deftly keep up the pretense of compliance, we find ourselves more incensed than our usual desensitization allows.

Against this backdrop sits the harsh reminder that diplomacy guarantees neither the preservation nor the swift restoration of peace. Enter international human rights law (IHRL), the professed arbiter of justice living in the interstices of failed politics.

On March 16, the International Court of Justice delivered a ruling hailed as a “complete victory”, ordering Russia to suspend military operations in Ukraine. It was recognized immediately by onlookers for its impotence. What is the worth of binding law when the intended cannot be backed into a cell?

The answer is to see IHRL for what it is. In its moments of puffery, it can attempt to convey our collective rage. However, its practical strength lies in its remedial potential. It is naïve to expect what we falsely assume to be a universally accepted moral compass to elide harsher exertions of sovereignty and prevent resulting atrocities from ensuing in the first place. The more effective approach calls for us to focus on the role of international courts in the aftermath of war and destruction. The key perhaps is to first recognize the still-fledgling character of the system, so we can concentrate on honing its tools to maximize the delivery of restorative justice, and minimize the extent to which its language and mechanics can be co-opted to serve the hegemon’s rhetoric.

With that in mind, let us turn to our pieces. The first piece delves directly into the role of wartime weapons provision in facilitating human rights abuses, and how the introduction of appropriate human rights due diligence standards could mitigate the harm.

The second piece is a follow up to our interview with Professor Kent Roach on his book on remedies for human rights violations. The write-up captures a roundtable discussion which expanded the conversation on remedies in human rights law beyond the Faculty to the bench and two preeminent scholars on international law. The final article highlights the regularly snuffed role of art in immortalizing conflict, and illuminates the role of human rights law in its emancipation. We hope each take edifies your view on the remedial utility of IHRL in quelling the harm of inevitable conflict.

Keep an eye out for some isolated coverage of rights this summer, otherwise that’s all from this year’s editorial board. We wish you an enjoyable read and a smooth-sailing exam season!

Sincerely, Taskeen Nawab and Sabrina Sukhdeo Co-Editors-in-Chief, Rights Review 2021-2022

ihrprightsreview

CREDIT: EDGAR SERRANO (UNSPLASH)

Sales and exports of defense articles have created egregious human rights abuses over the years. To urge the defense industry to strengthen its human rights protections, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP)—unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2011—recognizes that it is the responsibility of both states and defense companies to respect and protect human rights. Several international and governmental entities have called for the implementation of additional robust human rights due diligence (HRDD) standards to prevent arms sales where potential human rights abuses may arise.

Focusing primarily on the United States, this article argues that defense companies, governments, and courts have all failed to uphold the aspirations of the UNGP, and have not effectively protected human rights in the sales of defense articles. First, defense companies have not implemented any concrete and extensive HRDD processes. Second, the U.S. government has failed to effectively carry out its own laws and policies on foreign weapons sales. Thirdly, American courts have allowed both companies and the government to escape scrutiny of their sales decisions.

In 2019, Amnesty International conducted a study of the 22 largest defense companies in the world. The study comprehensively reviewed corporate publications of these companies and invited them to comment on their HRDD policies. The results showed that “no companies demonstrated how they addressed the significant human rights risk in situations of conflict and internal unrest … or showed that they had ways of mitigating these risks,” (page 30).

Two companies, BAE Systems and Leonardo, referenced HRDD policies in their corporate publications. However, Amnesty International observed, “these policies appear to be designed in practice to meet government licensing laws and regulations rather than to prevent human rights abuses,” (page 32).

A review of the corporate publications of Lockheed Martin, Airbus, and BAE shows that these companies have reasonably extensive policies for safeguarding human rights in their supply chains and internal operations. However, HRDD should not stop at the sourcing and manufacturing stage, but should also extend to sales and after-sale monitoring. In conducting arms exports, defense companies have a quasi-public role and must act conscientiously to avoid contributing to human rights abuses.

Defense Companies Fail to Conduct Proper HRDD

The U.S. Government Fails to Enforce Proper HRDD

Corporate HRDD is a way for enterprises to proactively manage the potential and actual adverse human rights impacts of their activities. Prior to the transactions, HRDD asks corporations to assess the human rights impact of their arms sales. This involves assessing the human rights track record of the potential buyer and the geopolitical situation, as well as laydown covenants to restrict uses. After the sale, corporations must monitor the use of their articles and audit whether the actual usage complies with their restrictions.

On the policy front, attention to human rights is surprisingly absent in U.S. government policies on arms sales to foreign states. In the U.S., the export of domestically-manufactured weapons to foreign countries is governed by the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The AECA requires the U.S. government to conduct End-Use Monitoring (EUM), under which the government aims to ensure that such articles are used only for the purposes intended. EUM can include scheduled inspections, physical inventories, and reviews of accountability records. However, human rights audits are completely absent in government

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/rights-review-homepage

uoftrightsreview

ultravires.ca

policies on EUM. On the legislative front, the U.S. has not adopted legislation or proposals requiring defense companies to conduct HRDD. This situation is shared by other countries: • In Switzerland, the Responsible Business Initiative was filed in late 2016 but rejected in a late 2019 referendum. The initiative sought to allow victims of alleged human rights violations to sue Swiss companies in Swiss courts. It was rejected based on the fear that these claims would flood the Swiss court system.

• France adopted the Duty of Vigilance Law in 2017. This legislation imposes HRDD obligations and extends to French defense multinationals. However, reports by these defense companies lack details such as specific risk factors, concrete plans to address risks, and implementation deadlines.

RIGHTS REVIEW

• In Canada, the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability (CNCA) released a draft model legislation to address human rights abuses by Canadian multinationals. There has been no formal legislative proposal to date.

The CNCA published a table summarizing the nature and stage of corporate due diligence laws and legislative proposals in Europe. Aside from France, no other European government has implemented corporate due diligence laws. Governments in North America fall even further behind.

The Judiciary Fails to Supervise Companies and Governments in Upholding HRDD Victims of human rights abuses have repeatedly tried to sue defense companies and the U.S. government in federal courts to no avail. Disappointingly, courts refrained in all cases to subject the company or the government to scrutiny. In declin-

ing review, courts argued that political questions are not justiciable and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

As an example, in Doe v Israel (DDC October 3, 2003), scores of unnamed plaintiffs living in Israel and the West Bank sought compensatory and punitive damages against American and Israeli governmental entities and corporations for alleged human rights abuses and tortious injuries related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The plaintiffs also sought to enjoin the federal defendants from providing any further military or economic aid to Israel and to halt military sales and weapons contracts between Israel and the defense contractors. The District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that arms sales to Israel were intertwined with U.S. foreign policy decisions and were thus nonjusticiable political questions. As a result, the executive branch’s arms export decisions completely escape the scrutiny of the courts. By extension, private de-

March 31, 2022 | 21

fense companies also escape any scrutiny on human rights grounds.

Conclusion The present situation begs the question, whose responsibility is it to ensure that weapons sales conform to high human rights standards? If companies fail to voluntarily adopt robust HRDD processes, if legislative bodies fail to impose stringent HRDD standards, and if the judicial branch refuses to scrutinize arms export decisions, every entity involved in the arms export process is avoiding taking responsibility for the human rights impacts of these exported weapons. Considering the rising number and severity of geopolitical conflicts in the world and the increasing deadliness of modern weaponry, the need for effective HRDD is ever more pressing. Defense companies, legislative bodies, and the judiciary must act in concert to design, implement and enforce high HRDD standards in arms exports.

ROUNDTABLE: PROFESSOR KENT ROACH’S VISION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS REMEDIES TOP LEGAL MINDS REFLECT ON HIS MOST RECENT BOOK ON HUMAN RIGHTS

By Duncan Crabtree (1L)

“We live in a world rich in rights and poor in remedies,” states Professor Kent Roach in his book, Remedies for Human Rights Violations: A Two Track Approach to Supra-national and Domestic Law. In a roundtable discussion held on March 4, Justice Robert J. Sharpe appeared to share the sentiment. In his view, due to this plethora of rights and the legal community’s emphasis on proving violations, remedies are often left as secondary considerations. Also in attendance were Professor Brenda Gunn (Métis, Treaty 1 territories – Manitoba), Associate Professor at the University of Manitoba Faculty of Law, and University of Toronto’s own Professor Payam Akhavan, Senior Fellow at Massey College, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, and Special Advisor on Genocide to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

Prof. Roach’s latest book takes a step toward correcting this imbalance. Remedies for Human Rights Violations refines existing remedies and defends a compromise between the two traditional tracks of human rights (HR) remedies in Canadian and international law. Prof. Roach highlights remedies that not only declare injustices but facilitate their rectification. He envisions these remedies—“declarations plus”—as mitigating the risk of courts overstepping their competencies as compared to the application of traditional remedies alone.

The following presents a summary of the feedback offered by the three legal scholars who discussed Remedies for Human Rights Violations during the roundtable event, followed by Prof.

Roach’s response.

Critiques of Existing Human Rights Remedies A short summary of the problem that Prof.

Roach is addressing is warranted. At the roundtable, Justice Sharpe presented the two traditional tracks of HR remedies, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.

Track one involves a judge simply declaring a

ihrprightsreview

rights violation. An advantage of stopping there is that the court knows it is still well within its bounds and can place pressure on the impugned institution to change. However, declaratory relief has its disadvantages. Institutions may pay no regard to the court’s declaration, which might place the HR legal process into disrepute. Moreover, institutions are only accountable to themselves to implement reform following the declaration.

Track two involves a court ordering remedies for HR violations. For instance, after declaring a violation, courts will often order specific reforms of the institution(s) at fault to remedy the violation and prevent further occurrences. These orders can vary from compensation to ordering complete systemic overhaul. The latter, according to Justice Sharpe, is a trap of track two: systemic change is complex and multidimensional, and courts are often ill-equipped to order appropriate remedies in that space. However, if a court stops at compensation or simply strikes down a law, the remedy could be inadequate or compromise a legitimate law.

The risks of an inadequate, inappropriate or overambitious remedy are what, in Justice Sharpe’s opinion, would have made him hesitate to use the second track of HR remedies. However, in his view, Prof. Roach’s synthesis of both tracks could empower judges to order remedies beyond declaratory relief with greater confidence.

Professor Roach’s Ideal Remedy According to Justice Sharpe, Prof. Roach’s view of the two-track approach presents a logical compromise. Instead of viewing declarations and remedy orders as distinct, they could be combined. For Prof. Roach, this can look like a “declaration plus,” the term he uses for his proposed two-track approach. Resorting to such a remedy, the court would declare a HR violation while also ruling that it will supervise, rather than determine, the institutional reform used to remedy the violation. In this way, the court avoids ordering remedies with which it has little expertise or ordering inadequate remedies. At the same time, a “declaration plus” does not leave survivors of violations without hope for remedies. Under Prof. Roach’s

approach, reform would be guided by those familiar with the institution rather than the court.

Supervision, Justice Sharpe agrees, puts more pressure on an institution to reform than a simple declaration.

Suggestions from the Roundtable While Prof. Roach’s approach was praised as nuanced and valuable by the roundtable participants, the discussion of his book brought some thought-provoking suggestions.

Prof. Gunn shared her concern that Prof. Roach’s two-track approach might facilitate compromises that are not the most conducive to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples whose rights have been violated. Her belief is that Prof. Roach’s inclusion of a proportionality element in the supervision of remedies could be used to subvert the interests of Indigenous peoples. For instance, when majority interests favour decision-making that benefits non-Indigenous peoples, proportionality could slow reconciliation in Canada.

Prof. Akhavan argued that declarations (track one only) are important remedies in themselves. According to him, they can be especially useful in non-liberal societies where the line between declaratory relief and remedy is blurred, and where the persecution of some minorities has become entrenched. In these contexts, ordering anything more than a declaration would likely gain little traction within an impugned institution. Prof.

Akhavan argued that while institutional change may not yet be possible in these societies, declarations could help initiate truth commissions.

Such commissions could be foundational to greater societal buy-in to contesting human rights abuses.

Professor Roach’s Response Prof. Roach acknowledged Justice Sharpe’s preference for using track one (declaratory) remedies throughout his career. Prof. Roach validated this approach and affirmed that a judge can bring about change by declaring a violation and saying that an institution has insufficiently reformed to avoid recurrence. However, Prof. Roach thought it was most important for judges to keep in mind

ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/rights-review-homepage

that declarations themselves do not lead to respect for human rights.

Prof. Roach also agreed with Prof. Akhavan on the utility of declaratory relief in non-liberal-democratic contexts. He expressed that he might have improved his book by including greater discussion on the use of truth itself as a remedy. Prof.

Roach seemed fully on board with Prof. Akhavan’s point: declarations can be powerful on their own, especially when discrimination is imbued in a society.

Finally, Prof. Roach addressed Prof. Gunn’s concern surrounding his inclusion of proportionality among the principles judges can use when supervising institutional reforms. He recognized the importance of this question while sharing a different take on the operation of proportionality in his twotrack approach. He explained that the proportionality tool was included to prioritise, rather than downplay, minority interests and the interests of Indigenous peoples. While Prof. Roach did not elaborate on how this would be achieved, he did note a historic situation where Cree rights were trampled over during a Quebec energy project.

This was justified at the time for being what was best for Quebec as a whole. This is exactly the kind of situation that Prof. Roach feels his approach could address, in part through its emphasis on proportionality.

In sum, by putting forward this ideal synthesis of the two tracks of HR remedies, declarations and institutional reforms—the “declaration plus”— Prof. Roach advocates for remedies that are more ambitious than a declaration and that empower those with institutional knowledge to prevent further violations. In this way, it is a more fine-tuned, adaptable and appropriate remedy for a judge to enforce. Though it may not be employable in all contexts, the emphasis on proportionality may be an effective way to ensure that minority groups, including Indigenous peoples, get remedies that acknowledge historic oppression. Finally, while Prof. Roach believes that remedies may continue to fail, he feels that as they are continually adapted, they will engender higher compliance and more effective outcomes for survivors of violations.

uoftrightsreview

22 22| | March March 31, 31, 2022 2022

RIGHTS RIGHTS REVIEW REVIEW

ultravires.ca

CREATIVE DISSENT FREE EXPRESSION RIGHTS, THE WINTER OLYMPICS, AND FAILURES TO PROTECT THE ARTS

By Julianne Schmidt (1L)

Last month, George Washington University (GWU) became the latest arena for the censorship of the arts, drawing to the forefront once again the vulnerability of artists’ freedom of expression.

The controversy surrounded the display of Chinese artist Badiucao’s poster series commenting on the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. In a sequence of five works, the artist draws imagery from the biathlon, curling, hockey, snowboarding, and figure skating events. He then alters each image to visually critique the Chinese government’s persecution of Tibetans and Uyghurs, the dismantling of Hong Kong’s democracy, and the lack of transparency surrounding the pandemic. Badiucao later added to his core series with additional works, one of which places the famous 1989 image of “Tank Man” in front of a bobsledding team.

Since his release of the posters online in the fall of 2021, Badiucao has actively encouraged the public to download, print, and disseminate these images. The response has evolved into a global movement. This campaign ran parallel to states’ diplomatic boycotts of the Olympics led by the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK. Badiucao hoped to bridge the “gap between the general public’s understanding [of human rights violations committed by the Chinese government] and policymakers’ decisions” to boycott the event. His art quickly made its way from a first display at the October 2021 Oslo Freedom Forum conference in Miami to major cities across the world.

In early February, anonymous students pasted printed sheets of Badiucao’s artworks on bulletin boards and poles around the GWU campus. The posters were quickly met with complaints from other students, sent via email to University President Mark Wrighton. Wrighton replied that he too

was “personally offended” by the posters and would work to have them removed “as soon as possible.” In a Twitter thread on February 4, Badiucao criticized Wrighton’s support for the removal of his posters and the University's decision to investigate those responsible for displaying his art. Badiucao’s work is not new to controversy– this incident comes on the heels of the Chinese Embassy in Rome’s attempts to shut down the artist’s first solo-exhibition in Brescia, Italy this past fall. Despite intimidation, Museo di Santa Giulia trail-blazed ahead.

Under Articles 19 and 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community and to enjoy the arts. Yet Wrighton’s knee-jerk reaction speaks to the unique vulnerability of artistic expression to censorship. Perhaps even more so than free speech controversies and the exchange of words, there are no bright-line rules in the arts. Visual communication cuts across language barriers while leaving ambiguities in interpretation. Wrighton’s response is in many ways analogous to that of the Customs officers in Little Sisters Book & Art Emporium v Canada, 2000 SCC 69, who testified that they made no attempt to “judge the political, artistic, or literary merit of a particular work” prior to seizure.

These default, knee-jerk reactions to the arts are widespread. Just a year ago, Nick Cave successfully defended his work, Truth Be Told, as art, not a sign, in front of the Kinderhook, New York zoning board, and blocked attempts to remove the installation for violating building codes. One board member commented that Cave’s work reminded him of Picasso’s Guernica –“[it] made a powerful political statement, and it was art.”

These cases and Wrighton’s inadvertent censor-

ing highlight the level of discretion involved here: what qualifies as “artistic merit” to be protected?

Groups from all ends of the political spectrum have latched onto the GWU incident. But at its core, it is clear that Wrighton curtailed the free expression rights of both Badiucao and the students who displayed his posters in protest of the Winter Olympics.

The GWU incident is only the most recent flashpoint in the global targeting of artistic expression. Last summer, police raided a Hong Kong art gallery hosting an exhibition dedicated to the 2019 pro-democracy protests. Activist Elżbieta Podleśna recently marked the anniversary of her acquittal on charges of “desecration” and “offending religious sentiment” for depicting the Madonna and Child image with rainbow halos in support of LGBTQ+ rights in Poland. Hundreds of artists have been detained and censored in efforts to quash anti-government protests in Havana, Cuba. As the world turns its focus to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, installation artist Luba Drozd reminds us of the critical role artists play in documenting conflict. On President Vladimir Putin’s aggression, she notes, “we [artists] have been screaming into the void for years.”

Wrighton ultimately backtracked from his initial position, acknowledging in a February 7th statement to the GWU community, that his “hasty” reactions to the posters were mistakes: “creative art is a valued way to communicate on important societal issues.” In response to the incident, Badiucao offered to meet with students who found his work offensive and has remained willing to hold an open dialogue on his criticism of China’s policies. He also suggested the works be given a permanent display space on GWU’s campus.

The Winter Olympics are now long over, but the posters were never re-hung.

BEIJING 2022 OLYMPIC POSTER. CREDIT: BADIUCAO

OPINIONS

MIT Sports Conference Illuminated by Industry Stars Students aspiring for a career in sports law can find no better networking platform GERRIT YAU (3L) What’s the common thread joining: WNBA legend, Sue Bird; UFC Hall of Famer, Forrest Griffin; bestselling author, Malcolm Gladwell; father of baseball sabermetrics, Bill James; President of the Buffalo Bills and the Buffalo Sabres, Kim Pegula; WWE trailblazer and Chief Brand Officer, Stephanie McMahon; and the University of Toronto Faculty of Law? Answer: they were all in Boston attending the two-day MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference (SSAC) in early March, along with nearly 1,000 of the sports industry’s thought leaders and aspiring students.

I spent my entire law school career pursuing opportunities in sports law, while introducing the industry as a potential career path to countless students with whom I’ve had the privilege of conversing. I was humbled to have the opportunity to represent U of T Law at this year’s MIT SSAC as the metaphorical denouement to my journey as a law student. Thank you to Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP and the law school’s Advancement Office for their support.

MIT SSAC is the world’s largest student-run conference. Founded by Daryl Morey, President of Basketball Operations for the Philadelphia

76ers, and Jessica Gelman, CEO of the Kraft Analytics Group, the conference is the premier forum for industry-leading discussions about the future of sports. Legislators also routinely participate in these conversations at MIT SSAC—just four years ago, President Barack Obama spoke at the conference, sharing his thoughts on “the importance of team sports, his support for diversity in sports, and the need for reform in college sports.”

I started Day 1 attending a fireside chat with Michael Rubin, CEO of Fanatics, and Gary Vaynerchuk, CEO of VaynerMedia. Rubin and “Gary V” (as he is known in the industry) are “two of the most prolific disruptors in sports and entertainment,” and they extensively discussed one of the biggest innovations in the sports industry in decades: non-fungible tokens, or NFTs. For newcomers to the burgeoning NFT industry, you can learn more about the utility and potential of NFTs here (full disclosure: I wrote the referenced article).

This panel set the tone for the rest of the conference, as NFTs became the main buzzword of MIT SSAC. The conference organizers even minted souvenir NFTs for all attendees, which has to be one of the best conference gifts I’ve ever received.

Beyond NFTs, there was a panel consisting of

Miguel Cardona, the U.S. Secretary of Education; Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts; Laurie Hernandez, Olympic gold medalist in artistic gymnastics; and Sue Bird, future WNBA first-ballot Hall of Famer, discussing the impact of the Title IX legislation on equality in sports. Another panel, moderated by Malcolm Gladwell, examined policy and legislative considerations for the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports.

On Day 2, I met representatives from Canadian-based NFT leader, Dapper Labs, and learned about their blockchain, Flow, and their experiences in the currently unregulated NFT space.

Yet another fireside chat featured NFL Hall of Famer, Calvin “Megatron” Johnson, as he commented on his post-playing venture into the cannabis business and his views on the future of the industry. To end the conference, I attended a panel about the legislative challenges of sports gambling companies, where famed member of the MIT Blackjack Team and current VP of Microsoft for Startups, Jeff Ma, critiqued the company lines presented by executives of Caesars Entertainment and FanDuel. The conversation was tense at times, but the discourse was refreshing in

the sense that Ma vocalized the thoughts of many who do not have an opportunity to challenge corporate decision-makers to consider oft-neglected stakeholders.

In total, there were 30 panels, 25 presentations, a hackathon, a research paper competition, a case competition, a start-up competition, a student mentorship program, and career development meetings for recruitment, among many other events. Even as a passionate student of sports law, I was astonished by the law’s high relevance in many of the panels, such as diversity and inclusion, cannabis, e-sports, gambling, asset investment, and crypto.

The legal industry is one of professional networks; the more ingrained in the fabric of your field of law, the more successful you’re likely to be.

Thus, students aspiring for a career in sports law, or any of the aforementioned tangential areas of law, can find no better networking platform than the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference.

Make yourself known to the industry leaders, and you never know what it might lead to in the future.

Perhaps I’ll see some of you at the conference in the years to come—reach out and we’ll get some Boston chowda together!

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

March 31, 2022 | 23

Keep Your Coffee, Let Me Attend Class Online The Faculty’s revised accommodations policies are not good enough SABRINA MACKLAI (2L JD/MI) In our first issue of the year, I wrote on how getting a Zoom link for class shouldn’t be this hard.

Now, six months later, I’m writing in our final issue to say that not much has changed.

Yes, the Faculty has made strides to increase accessibility in the law school, from permitting lecture recordings to allowing digital note access during examinations. And yes, they do give us free coffee and snacks two days of the week that I am very grateful for. But they have failed to meaningfully adjust their accommodations policies to allow students to attend classes virtually.

Twice in one week, the current procedures prevented me from attending class. The first occurred on a day where I felt sick midday and sent an accommodation request after 2:00 pm, requiring Zoom access for my night class at 6:00 pm. Guess what? No approval was granted in time! Cool,

that’s my bad. Next time, I’ll tell my immune system it’s only allowed to start acting up during reduced business hours. A few days later, due to miscommunication with the professor, at least ten students in a different class, including myself, thought our guest lecture was available online. We only figured out the problem when we clicked on the Zoom link to our class and were told we needed to register. At that point, it was too late for most of us to make it to campus, and, as expected, our requests for the Zoom link were left unapproved. Our professor was later able to provide us with a recording of the guest lecture (and noted he was, ironically, also locked out of the Zoom room) but the situation created unnecessary stress and anxiety during an already stressful time.

I’m not suggesting that the Red Screen Accommodations Team should work past their hours. But

students can and do have classes after 2:00 pm. The need for accommodations doesn’t magically disappear after lunch.

I’m sorry if I sound frustrated. The simple truth is, I am. There is no worse feeling than actually trying to attend class and being blocked by a bureaucratic approval process. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the Zoom links already exist. The infrastructure is already in place to facilitate online access to class. Would it kill the Faculty to provide us all with Zoom links, like they did a year ago during the height of the pandemic?

The other changes to the accommodations policy, while positive, are also insufficient. Both recordings and notes are not guaranteed; lecture recordings are permitted, not mandated, and, as I’ve written in the past, the note-taking service is wholly unreliable. But even if they were sufficiently imple-

mented, I should not have to rely on these measures. If I am able to attend class synchronously but not able to come in person, for whatever legitimate reason, why should I be prevented from participating? Especially if such infrastructure is already in place? Whatever the Faculty’s reasons are for preventing otherwise capable students from accessing their legal education, it’s not clear to me that they’ve been adequately communicated.

This is the last issue of the year. I’m not sure what September will be like; whether we will be fully inperson again or if another wave of the pandemic will hit. But regardless of whether we are in person or not, there is no good reason why remote learning cannot be an option. If we’re going into debt for this degree, the least we can ask for are Zoom links.

Accommodations at the Faculty of Law: the Student Perspective A collection of student experiences with Accessibility Services and the Faculty’s accommodations process HARRY MYLES (2L) Access to sufficient accommodations has been a major issue at the Faculty and the greater University of Toronto for years. Ultra Vires previously published on the controversial University Mandated Leave of Absence Policy (UMLAP), the University’s mental health crisis management policies, the need for recorded lectures in the Faculty, and the widening of Zoom link access at the law school.

Here, focus will be given specifically to student experiences, both good and bad, with the Faculty of Law accommodations process and University Accessibility Services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ongoing public health crisis exacerbated the ever-present problems with the Faculty’s (and the University’s) approach to accommodations and likewise raised a host of new issues given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic.

The purpose of this article is not to harangue the administration once more to improve accommodations (well, at least not the sole purpose). Rather, this piece is meant to provide a voice to those students who have felt ignored and left behind by their school. All stories described below are from real people who have experienced real harm. As the term winds down, the Faculty has the opportunity to recognize this harm and improve the law school experience for everyone in the new school year.

Currently, law students with disabilities must request ongoing accommodations through central Accessibility Services at the University of Toronto.

For students experiencing extraordinary personal circumstances or a temporary illness or disability and are not registered with Accessibility Services, the Faculty likewise has an internal Academic Accommodations process. All accommodation requests, whether sent directly to the Faculty or through Accessibility Services, are determined by the Student Accommodations Committee.

Unique to COVID-19, the Faculty has an ongoing Red-Screen accommodations process based on the UCheck COVID-19 self-assessment form students fill out before coming to campus. To enter a Faculty building, a student must have a “greenscreen”. If a student “red-screens” (i.e. tested positive for COVID-19, had a recent exposure to COVID-19, or alternatively fits into a high-risk category of carrying COVID-19), students are told to not come to school and instead email a completed “Red-Screen Accomodation Form” to the Faculty. The student will then receive temporary access to Zoom links for their classes.

The Good I collected personal experiences from students with accommodations at the Faculty. For some, the Faculty and the University has been incredibly accommodating and demonstrated a strong commitment to assisting the student. Julia Gauze (3L) experienced extreme blurriness and a strong sensitivity to light last semester, making reading and leaving the house when it was bright outside quite difficult. In response to her accommodations request, the school provided Zoom links for an extended period of time (nearly three months) and Accessibility Services quickly provided large-print versions of Gauze’s course materials and PDFs that could be read aloud using Adobe software. Gauze had a great experience with the accommodations process and was grateful for the school’s assistance.

For a particular group of students, the pandemic has had a unique impact. At the Faculty of Law, there is a small cohort of people that balance the rigorous demands of law school with caretaking responsibilities, such as looking after children.

Adrianna Mills (2L) is a mother of two and expressed both frustration and gratitude at the Faculty’s improved response to the caretaking obligations of students. During the summer of 2021 and through to the beginning of the new school year in September 2021, Mills was “incredibly disappointed” in the administration’s treatment of students with parental and other caretaking responsibilities.

Mills and other parents were told that issues related to parenting, like a child’s school closure or illness, would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and remote class links could not be guaranteed because the problems students raised did not fall within the red-screen accommodation form. Eventually, the Faculty shifted gears and provided greater accommodations to parents, allowing them to use the redscreen accommodation form if their child was sick, for example. Mills explained that last summer she felt ignored by the administration, but now Mills and others in her situation are grateful for the provided accommodations.

The Bad Many other students have not been so fortunate, and faced staunch opposition from the Faculty and the University over their accommodations requests. A 1L student with a chronic illness that worsened this semester reached out to the Faculty to request Zoom access so they could remain at home when unwell. The Faculty took a week to re-

spond to the student’s request and eventually directed the student to Accessibility Services. The student contacted Accessibility Services on March 4 and as of March 12, the student still had not received a response. The student even phoned the office, but no one picked up.

Some students have experienced difficulty due to an inability to fall within the rigid categories set by the Faculty Accommodations system. The Faculty denied a 2L student a Zoom link last semester after their grandmother passed away and they could not attend class in-person. The student was informed that Zoom links are only available for COVID19-related reasons and that the student should retrieve notes from a classmate. Similarly, another student suffered a physical injury last term and had their Zoom link request denied because they did not fall into the COVID-19 category. The student experienced fevers and chills from the pain and eventually, their request was approved by the school.

Other students described the process of seeking and having their accommodations implemented as an unpaid part time job. One 2L student has spent nearly two years trying to implement their approved accommodations from Accessibility Services. They have yet to experience a semester or exam period where they were properly accommodated. A particular point of frustration and concern for this student is the Faculty’s lack of effort to accommodate absences caused by illness, disability, caregiving, religious observances, etc. Previously, the Faculty accommodated these circumstances through note taking services. However, notetakers are unpaid volunteers and many classes do not have anyone available to implement the accommodation.

Moreover, the Faculty’s new lecture recording policy announced in February by Associate Christopher Dean Essert is only available to students who have attended class, not students who need to occasionally miss class and therefore access the recording to catch up. To this 2L student, this is one example of the Faculty prioritizing a rigid and incomprehensible policy over a commitment to accessibility.

Another student in 2L reported their experiences with both Accessibility Services and the Accommodations Committee. They noted Accessibility Services takes weeks to reply to messages. When speaking with the Faculty Accommodations Committee, the student felt the need to plead for greater accommodations, leaving them feeling humiliated. The student feels as if the law school program, from the reading quantities to the examination and lecture

styles, are pedagogically archaic and inflexible to the students’ needs.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The issue of accommodations goes beyond the Faculty of Law and implicates the greater University of Toronto. For those requiring ongoing accommodations, as heard above, Accessibility Services can be both an incredible support and a barrier to education when inquiries go unanswered. In a similar vein, the Faculty of Law’s accommodations process responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with the red-screen accommodation form, but resisted a widening of their system to consider more non-traditional requests.

Universal access to Zoom links is a particular touchstone issue and one that has the potential to resolve many accommodation conflicts, as personally described by Sabrina Macklai (2L JD/MI) in this issue. At the very least, universal access to Zoom links during the pandemic would enable people who may, for instance, have heightened anxiety attending class in-person or a lower risk-tolerance due to personal circumstances, to learn in the environment they are most comfortable. Beyond the context of the pandemic, maintaining hybrid learning and the availability of Zoom attendance would broaden the accessibility of the education and allow individuals to make the choice as to whether they are able to participate in-person on any given day.

The question still remains: why is there such a strong aversion to assisting students? Yes, for some students, the accommodations process has been an incredible aid in their studies. However, for so many others, they find themselves trapped between circumstances that make learning challenging and not fitting within the rigid policies of the Faculty or the University.

The pandemic granted post-secondary institutions a rare opportunity to improve the accessibility of their classes through hybrid learning. Rather than begrudgingly provide this new approach to education, schools should be embracing it. Hybrid learning allows students to choose how best to learn and enhances individuals’ agency. When we spend $30,000 a year to attend the Faculty of Law, have we not earned the right to make decisions about our own education? If we want to attend school online, for whatever reason, then should we not be given that option? The Faculty of Law has the opportunity right now to greatly enhance the accessibility of their education. The question is, will they seize it?

OPINIONS

24 | March 31, 2022

ultravires.ca

Reflections on Mooting the Jessup In the end, all the sacrifices were worth it JONATHAN HOU (3L)

U OF T LAW’S JESSUP TEAM. PICTURED (LEFT-RIGHT) MISHAIL ADEEL (2L), SEEMA SIDHU (3L), AND JONATHAN HOU (3L). CREDIT: MAUREEN WHELTON

How should I describe my experience in the Philip C. Jessup International Moot Court Competition? I think Justice Mahmud Jamal’s speech at the Canadian National Rounds’ opening ceremony describes it perfectly. He said that people would certainly regret signing up for the Jessup while they struggled to complete their memorials (equivalent to a factum for other moots). I fully agree with that, as I remember those late nights where I was looking into numerous sources and rephrasing my messy arguments, thinking about why I decided to do the Jessup. But Justice Jamal also talked about how joyful and rewarding his experience was at the competition. I agree; my mooting experience was indeed the biggest

highlight of my time in law school.

The Jessup simulates a dispute between two f ictional countries before the International Court of Justice. This year, the problem concerned an independence referendum taking place in the Sutha province of Antara.

A pro-independence group, allegedly supported by Ravaria, operated a botnet that facilitated the spread of misinformation. Being able to explore the application of international law in cyberspace was very exciting, as there were many novel questions that did not have concrete answers. I was responsible for the issues concerning Antara’s order to ban a prominent pro-independence professor from a popular social media platform, as well as Antara’s intrusion into Ravarian computer

devices to take down the botnet.

While I anticipated challenges in the moot, I had no idea how tough it was until I f inally began drafting my memorial. Upon seeing the work done by previous contestants and the voluminous number of citations they had, I wondered why I decided to sign up for the Jessup. But I’m not a person who backs down from my commitments; I took the challenge head on. My f irst draft read like an awkward essay, and the feedback was brutal. But each time my team and I rewrote our memorials, we became more conf ident in our arguments.

In the end, we delivered a product that we were happy with.

We began preparing our oral submissions immediately afterwards since we had less than a month to prepare. We did up to four practice moots each week, to the point where we all became extremely familiar with each and every detail in the case.

The preliminary rounds in the Canadian Nationals went smoothly. We qualif ied for the f inals and went up against Western University. The panel in the f inals consisted of Justice Jamal, Lieutenant Commander Kat Aubrey-Horvath (Canadian Armed Forces), and Professor Mulry Mondélice (Royal Military College Saint-Jean). It was an absolute honour to moot in front of Justice Jamal in particular. At f irst, the prospect of it was a bit intimidating, but I remembered the 2021 Grand Moot and was conf ident that I could perform like the four mooters who remained unfazed in front of Justices Jamal, Abella, and Karakatsanis.

In the f inals, Seema Sidhu (3L) and I appeared on behalf of Antara, the applicant, while Western’s mooters represented Ravaria, the respondent. Seema and I delivered oral submissions that discussed the current status of international law and what the response to cyberspace development should be.

Western’s mooters gave brilliant submissions, and it was a great experience watching and learning from them.

The highlight of the f inals was Seema’s rebuttal, which earned strong praise from our practitioner coach, Maureen Whelton (Stevenson Whelton LLP). When the time came for the results to be announced, we anxiously waited as Leah West, the Jessup’s Canadian National Administrator, announced the winners of the memorial and oralist awards. The moment she announced U of T’s f irst place f inish, I was overwhelmed with joy. We did it!

I believe that our knowledge of the law, our conf idence in how we responded to the pan-

el’s questions, and Seema’s brilliant rebuttal, made the difference in an extremely close match. A few months ago, I would not have thought that I would be a member of a team that would take home a mooting championship. This experience taught me that no dream is impossible to achieve, so long as one is willing to put in the effort. Looking back, I am amazed by how much my oral advocacy skills have improved in the weeks leading up to the competition. Every single run-through our team went through made a difference.

There are a few things I want to say to anyone interested in doing the Jessup (or other competitive moots) next year: • Memorial or factum writing is not the fun part—presenting your arguments in front of the judges is! They will come up with ways to catch you off guard, or ask questions that they are genuinely curious about. As long as you are prepared, you should treat the questions not as an obstacle, but rather as an opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge.

• Whether you are the underdog that did not make it to the elimination stage, or the favourite team that took home the championship, you should always be proud of your achievements! Going up to moot before tough judges alone is an impressive feat. You put in so much work to prepare your memorial/factum, and so many hours to rehearse your arguments. That in itself deserves a large round of applause.

• For those who are unsure about whether you want to moot, I strongly recommend that you participate in the tryouts in September 2022. You may not think that you are a strong litigator or that you would enjoy mooting, but you never know unless you try it! Even if you don’t get a competitive moot placement, don’t let that discourage you. It’s the fact that you tried that counts.

Our team is currently competing in the Jessup’s International Rounds. I am sure they are very exciting and distinct from the experience in the Canadian National Rounds. Go U of T! Thank you to Mishail Adeel (2L) and Seema Sidhu (3L), my fellow teammates, and Abrahim Ahmed (3L), Molly Campbell (3L), Natasha Williams (3L), and Maureen Whelton for their support along the way. They are incredibly hardworking people who always have a positive attitude and are driven by a strong desire to succeed.

DIVERSIONS

Another Conversation with @BoraLaskinsHead Continued from page 1 BLH: It is hard to say. I have seen a lot—too much. And if it is wrong to forget what must be remembered, it must be a sin to repeat what is wished to be forgotten.

I greatly enjoy eavesdropping and I am excellent at it, if I may say so. And of course, there is daily excitement at my library. Just recently, I saw The Ripster and Ernie quarreling outside my library doors for the last available copy of a first edition of Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals.

They were citing strange and grandiose-sounding principles that I am certain were invented during their argument. Anyways, as they were nearing blows, they asked me to decide the matter. Of course, I know better than to ruffle any of those two on anything relating to Kant.

I pretended to be asleep and eventually they went away.

UV: If you could redesign the Supreme

Court robes, what would you choose?

BLH: I would have the last names of the Justices written on their backs, like sports players.

The playful spirit wends its way into all mortal matters.

UV: The constitutionality of mandatory vaccines has been a controversial issue over the course of the pandemic. Where do you stand on the debate?

BLH: I cannot express an opinion on this issue since it may come before me on appeal from the SCC, if I grant leave, though I never do.

UV: Can we expect Bora Laskins Head to debut on TikTok anytime soon?

BLH: No. UV: You gave some great advice to our students back in 2019. Is there anything

new you’d like to say to students who are navigating these challenging times?

BLH: Rereading my judgments reminded me of some unlikeable judges who thought their thoughts were divine and decided their decisions were eternal—you know, the type of person who thinks the echo of one’s voice is confirmation that the statement is true. Their minds were like sponges, but tightly clenched. And not much came of their case law, after all. Of those cases I haven’t reversed, most languish off CanLII and only interest wannabe-pedants.

These are cases you hope opposing counsel will cite in their factum.

For my part, I like to believe that the great clarifications of life are less sturdy things and not as easily transmissible. They form part of who you are and your personal mode of experiencing the world. To me, the fullest illuminations rest in the flux of your life—like a juggler

commanding more through constant motion and necessary absences than what can otherwise be possessed. You can have it all, but touch and go through a perpetual process.

Pause to inspect too much, too long, or too carefully in desire of full control, and things may crash to the floor.

So I think something must always remain a bit mysterious—not entirely hidden, but just like the gap that lies between a glimpse and a gaze.

UV: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

BLH: Don’t forget to take your own counsel, counsel. Thank you.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Follow @BoraLaskinsHead on Twitter.

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

March 31, 2022 | 25

The Law Student Workout Routine A exercise plan you can actually stick to JEFFREY LIU (1L) Wit h t he spr ing exam per iod quick ly approach ing, you’d be forg iven for st raying from t he exercise rout ine you comm itted to as a New Year’s Resolut ion. A fter a l l, an hour spent in t he g y m is an hour t hat cou ld’ve been spent work ing on your summar ies or catch ing up on read ings.

Never t heless, in hon ing t he m ind, one shou ld not neglect t he body. Here are some exercises ideas t hat can be easi ly integ rated into t he schedu le of a law st udent: Weight l i f t i ng: Dust of f t he 1,036 page, hardcover cr im ina l law textbook t hat’s been sitt ing in a d rawer since t he end of 1L —it’s wor t h its weight in bicep curls.

M i x in some lunges and t r iceps extensions and you’l l quick ly work up a sweat. For added d if f icu lt y, stack a copy of t he Income Tax Act on top. Per for m weighted pushups, pu l l-ups, and d ips by wear ing a backpack st uf fed w it h a l l t he t h ings you need for a fu l l slate of classes. Per for m t hree sets of t welve repet it ions for each exercise.

Spr i nts: Since cof fee is on ly ava i lable in Jack man Ha l l on Tuesdays and Wed nesdays, on any ot her day of t he week, gett ing your ca f feine f i x w i l l require a t r ip outside t he conf ines of t he law school.

Ma ke a mad dash for t he closest Starbuck s in t he ten-m inute w indow bet ween classes.

You’l l appreciate t he benef its of t h is exercise when you’re frant ica l ly scrambl ing

t hrough t he PAT H to f ind t he of f ice where your inter v iew is schedu led.

Basketba l l: T hough t he Facu lt y has f ina l ly relented to st udent demands regarding changes to t he elect ron ic exam notes pol icy, you can st i l l ma ke use of t he notes you’ve a lready pr inted by employ ing t hem as ammun it ion in a game of t rash can basketba l l.

St retch i ng: Sit in t he front row of t he classroom. Each t ime your professor ask s a quest ion, ra ise your hand as h igh as you can. Hold t he pose unt i l your professor relents. View t h is exercise as an oppor t un it y to test your understand ing of t he course content wh i le improv ing your f lex ibi l it y.

I f you rea l ly want to ma ke your answer a st retch, respond using mater ia l you lear ned in anot her course t hat’s on ly loosely related to t he topic at hand.

St udy i ng: Research suggests t hat intense menta l act iv it y sl ight ly increases (10 -20 ca l) your da i ly ca lor ic ex pend it ure. Here’s an oppor t un it y to k i l l t wo birds w it h one stone w it hout hav ing to leave your desk.

Editor’s Note: U lt ra Vires i s not responsible for any physical injur ies or acade mic penalties you may incur a s a result of following the advice in thi s column .

Senior Superlatives: Law School Edition

The Best Study Room Booking Names

The who’s who of the class of 2022

Study room booking names: a mosaic of the law school experience

GRIFFIN MURPHY (2L) I n a Facu lt y f i l led w it h its fa ir share of va led ictor ians, class presidents, and star st udents, it comes as l itt le sur pr ise t hat our newest batch of g raduates were keen to recap t ure t he h igh-school t hr i l ls of a t r ied-and-t r ue Sen ior Superlat ives l ist. Resu lts were ta l l ied v ia an anony mous sur vey r un by U ltra V ires, in wh ich 315 nom inat ions were cast across a l l categor ies.

Wit hout fur t her ado, here are our w inners…

LAUREN DI FELICE (1L) AND HARRY MYLES (2L) Fina ls season is approach ing and you k now what t hat means: st udy room book ings!

W h i le law school is quite a d rag somet imes, creat ive book ing names can add a splash of joy to your day. Below you’l l f ind some of t he best names we’ve come across.

Most school spirit? Willem Crispin-Frei

1.

Deat h by stat ute

Best hair? Christopher Cook, Natalie Miller, and Temitope Ajibode

2.

Someone g rant me an injunct ion aga inst f ina ls

Best gossip? Ifrah Farah

3.

Fina ls v iolate my s. 7 r ights

Cutest couple? Jemma Lewis and Jake Bershadsky

4.

Con you bel ieve we have a m idter m?

5.

Fa ke it t i l’ you ma ke it

6.

Bur n ing t hat 9:30 am oi l

7.

Group st r uggle

8.

Reeva luat ing my choices in l ife

Most likely to sit on the SCC? Manula Adhihetty

9.

*sigh*

Scariest to go against as opposing counsel? Ema Ibraković and Militza Boljevic

10. * pa in*

Most likely to fall asleep on Zoom? Anna Zhang

11. * frant ic cr y ing *

Most likely to have a bust erected of themselves in the law library? Jackson Spencer

12. Young n’ reck less

Life of the party? Ifrah Farah Best podcast voice? Hannah Lank Best LinkedIn game? Ema Ibraković and Flint Patterson

13. Ly ing on t he f loor 14. :( 15. Scream ing into t he abyss 16. A H H H H H H 17. T h is exam is a tor t 18. A rson is just cr ime br û lée 19. 1L of a room we booked 20. I nSecur it ies 21. Bob L oblaw’s L aw Blog 22. A l l aboard t he P t ra in 23. Meet ing re: New York cream cheese shor tage 24. Sunday scar ies 25. Wish ing I was any where but here OUTGOING SLS PRESIDENT AND WINNER OF MOST SCHOOL SPIRIT! CREDIT: WILLEM CRISPIN-FREI

Editor’s Note: W ith contr ibutions f rom Angela G u (3L JD/M B A).

DIVERSIONS

26 | March 31, 2022

ultravires.ca

Wordle Spin-Offs, Ranked by How Feasible They Are to Do in Class You’ve already done the daily Wordle during your morning commute, so what now?

AMY KWONG (1L) 1. Dordle, Quordle, Octordle Classic, comforting, simple. These spin-offs are simply multiple Wordle boards in one, with more guesses allowed: Dordle (two boards and seven guesses), Quordle (four boards and nine guesses), and Octordle (eight boards and 13 guesses). Pull these up whenever, wherever. Be secure in the comfort that you won’t miss more than a minute or two of whatever the prof is talking about.

2. Worldle If world geography is more your thing, try this one. Guess the country or territory based on its silhouette, and the game will give you how far off your guess was (literally, in kilometres), the direction your guess is relative to the target country, and proximity (in percentage). The slides will be posted on Quercus after class, right?

3. Squardle A Sudoku-esque twist, where six five-letter words are arranged in a grid, with three words placed horizontally and three placed vertically. Every guess is entered both horizontally and vertically at the same time, and the colours reveal if that specific letter is in the row, column, or board. It’s a bit hard to explain, and the instructions page is very intimidating, but once you get the hang of it, it’s definitely doable with a little bit of brainpower. Save this for when your classmates propose a far-fetched hy-

pothetical that the prof will somehow still happily entertain for at least 10 minutes, even though everyone knows it’s only tangentially related to today’s class content.

4. Squabble Competitive multiplayer Wordle! Grab your friends and create a private room or join a global room with strangers on the internet, and complete Wordles faster than everyone else. Pull this one out when the prof realizes, 30 minutes into lecture, that no one on the Zoom has heard a single word this entire time, and an emergency call to IT is warranted. You’ll need more than a couple minutes on this one.

5. Heardle This one plays you the first second of a pop song, and you have to guess the title/artist. With every incorrect guess, the clip is extended. You’d be a brave soul to try this one during lecture, but hey, maybe you could play it off as the sound of an incoming Outlook notification.

Bonus: Letterdle 26 chances to guess the right letter of the alphabet, but with the exact same rules as classic Wordle—meaning there are no indicators of how close you are to getting the right letter until you hit it. Just click until you get the green tile and that sweet, sweet endorphin release. Anything to distract you from the stress of these last couple weeks of lectures…

YEAR IN SUMMARY. CREDIT: JENNIFER SUN (2L)

Totally Real Exam Questions

HH not guaranteed FIEVEL LIM (1L) Well everyone, it’s that season again. No, not spring—it’s exam season! I know I will be drowning in my own summaries and maps this term; but when you’re done, try these totally certif ied and real practice questions and see how much you think you’ve learned. Best of luck!

Contract Law Brandon Langille is a world-renowned baseball player. To celebrate his hundredth grand slam of his career, he decided to sell the jersey he was wearing that day in an online auction. He put a post online: “Selling: Brandon Langille jersey, worn on the day of his hundredth grand slam! Opening bid at $300! Will sell to the highest bid in my inbox by 3pm today.”

Marvin Eisenberg is a huge fan of Langille and attended every game prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, he never missed a single game online.

Eisenberg followed Langille on every social media platform to maximize his intake of Langille news, and when he saw his auction post, he knew he had to win that jersey.

Unfortunately, Eisenberg had to break out all his savings because he was still a poor

PhD student working on his dissertation on the bargaining theorem. In the end, he decided on the risky bid of $3000, hoping that he could perhaps sell it for even more if he had to. Eisenberg sent in his bid and waited patiently.

At 3:30 pm that day, Eisenberg received a response—he won! Langille messaged him personally: “You were the highest bidder, congratulations! I accept your offer of $3000 in return for the jersey.” Eisenberg replied: “Thank you, I’m your biggest fan!” To this, Langille said: “Oh really? In that case, I’ll even sign the jersey for you.” Eisenberg, feeling lucky at this news, completed the e-transfer and patiently awaited the package.

The jersey arrived the next day, and Eisenberg opened it eagerly. To his dismay, there was no signature in sight. It seemed as if Langille had forgotten—how disappointing!

Eisenberg was crushed, expecting the jersey would be signed by his hero. He tried to contact Langille but he received no reply after many repeated attempts. Eisenberg is truly disappointed now, feeling as if his idol fooled him into thinking that the jersey would be signed for him, his biggest fan.

What remedies are available for poor, poor Eisenberg?

Tort Law Jerry Phillips is a famous Broadway performer. The last musical he starred in, Phantom of the Obiter, was a huge success and received critical acclaim. People came from all around the world to watch him perform in Falconer Hall.

Last week, Phillips was doing a song and dance routine in the feature song, “One H More,” from his latest musical, Les Étudiants Misérables. It kicked off a week of fully sold-out shows, and it was, unsurprisingly, the talk of the town. Unfortunately, the students recruited by the theatre company to be the stagehands were 1Ls and 2Ls who were just coming to help after a full day of classes, a recruit deadline, and a mandatory wellness session.

In their fatigue, the stagehands were careless in how they cleaned the stage. In the last number before intermission, Phillips was distracted by a discarded sweater on the ground and tripped, twisting his ankle. During intermission, the stagehands and other actors asked Phillips if he was okay, and whether he needed the understudy to take over. Not one to give in easily, Phillips declined and said he was f ine to continue the show.

Unfortunately, the further dancing exacerbated his injury. As a result, Phillips was in a lot of pain and was out of commission for the rest of the shows that week. At the hospital, he found out he had a very rare condition, Achilles ankles, affecting 1 in 10 million people, which gave him particularly weak ankles. The treatment was expensive and not covered by regular health insurance.

The doctor said he should have immediately iced his ankle and not continued dancing, and that doing so would have prevented the need for a hospital visit.

Upon inspection, the sweater left behind was dark blue and had the word LAW embossed on the front. It was unclear exactly who owned the law sweater and who was responsible for removing it. All the students denied ever owning such a sweater and responsibility for being on clean-up duty. The student who had been assigned clean-up duty had skipped the performance to do their readings, and it was unclear who had taken over. Phillips is now suing the theatre company for the negligent stagehands causing his injury. He wants the lost prof its for the week and damages for his medical procedures.

The theatre company denies liability.

Advise all parties.

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

March 31, 2022 | 27

Justice for Geese

Law school admin on their policy not to feed the geese KYLE MACDONALD (1L) This article is no different than the many articles in Ultra Vires meant to bring to light the short-sighted and unjust policies of the administration.

Given the warming weather recently, I noticed that geese have arrived on campus. I hate eating the crust of my sandwiches so I thought, “Hey, I can feed the geese my sandwich crusts.” Apparently not, since a member of the law school administration told me that feeding the geese was not allowed. I will not name the source of this decision to protect them from the inevitable backlash of this controversial policy. In this article, I outline the administration’s justif ication for their dumb policy and my rebuttal to those arguments.

The administration f irst attempted to justify their policy by arguing that my efforts to enhance geese nutrition would produce a “chilling effect” whereby other students would feel inclined to feed coyotes and deer at other U of T campuses. Little do they know that exact concern was put to rest in a unanimous decision in R v IDoNotCare.

The administration also raised potential liability and safety concerns if the geese felt threatened by my snacks and attacked, injuring me. Putting aside the offensive suggestion that I would be beaten up by a couple of water turkeys, would that really be a prob-

lem for the University? I asked their own tort law expert, Professor Anthony Niblett, who agreed the school would be liability-free based on the ex turpi doctrine: “No person can bring an action based on their own “Fowl Play.” … Ok. Thank you, Prof. Niblett, but I recommend that you do not quit your day job.

I also discussed this issue with Professor Angela Fernandez who is well known at our school for her work on animal-related issues.

Unfortunately, she was on the administration’s side and cited concerns like the geese losing their natural fear of humans, attracting other animals, and the increasing likelihood of disease and parasites. However, she did mention that there is an exemption in these dumb policies allowing one to feed songbirds. Gotcha! Geese are obviously birds so all I need to do is teach them to sing and then the administration will be soundly defeated. Now, that is putting my legal education to good use. Sure, I need to f igure out which notes a goose can hit, but those are minor details. I bet they would also look great in little choir uniforms.

To be honest, I really do not see how the administration can recover from this critique. Not only is their policy impossible to justify but it also has gaping loopholes. Honk honk!

Intra Vires

HOW CAN YOU RESIST FEEDING SUCH A PRETTY FACE? CREDIT: KYLE MACDONALD

Totally real news one last time for this school year HARRY MYLES (2L) AND ANNECY PANG (3L)

St udents “disappointed” a f ter Febr ua r y issues of U ltra Vires were 15 m inutes late

lect ure for Prof. K nop’s Foreig n A f fa irs and t he Canad ian Const it ut ion class. She rema ins t he sole just ice to host a mor n ing cof fee event.

Due to t he road closures on Queen’s Park Ave, t he cour ier d r iver del iver ing t he much-ant icipated copies of U V cou ld not access t he law bui ld ing. St udents wa it ing to get t heir hands on t he newspaper had to wa it unt i l 12:45 pm.

“I was rea l ly d isappointed,” commented L ora Bask in (1L). “I went st ra ight to t he at r ium after class ended but t here weren't any copies on t he table and so I d id n’t have any read ing mater ia l to accompany my free cook ie and cof fee.”

St udents dema nd dinner be provided for night classes

A lex Rego (2L) joins the U ltra Vires tea m A fter car r y ing one box of Febr uar y issues from Charles St W to 78 Queen’s Park on Febr uar y 28 , A lex Rego joins U V in t he role of Cargo Relocat ion Super v isor. He br ings years of ex per ience of l ift ing weights at t he g y m and look s for ward to helping out w it h t he March issue d ist r ibut ion. Welcome to t he team, A lex!

Justice Ma hmud Ja ma l cha l lenges Justice Rosa lie Abel la for “most f requent SCC judge to visit the Facu lt y” title Just ice Mahmud Jama l was spotted t w ice in t he last mont h at t he Facu lt y. He was f irst seen on Febr uar y 28 in t he at r ium, in search of F L 219 to g uest lect ure for Professor K aren K nop’s I nter nat iona l Human R ights L aw class. He was a lso seen on March 17 spea k ing to Dean Jutta Br unnée in t he at r ium. Not to be outdone, Just ice Rosa l ie Abel la v isited t he Facu lt y on March 10 to g uest

W h i le many st udents m issed t he socia l benef its of inperson lear n ing, few m issed t he d rag of a n ight lect ure and t he g naw ing hunger t hat went a long w it h it. To remedy t h is problem, st udents demand t he Facu lt y prov ide d inner for classes t hat go later t han 5:0 0 pm. Preferably, t hey wou ld l i ke a t hree- course mea l w it h an accompanying beverage menu.

Lost A i r pods cu rse continues to plag ue the Facu lt y It seems l i ke not a week goes by w it hout a “ lost A irpods” post being made on t he law school’s commun it y Facebook page. Nowhere is safe from t he curse; so, as long days at t he l ibrar y beg in t h is exam season, keep an eye on t hose pesk y pods.

Most likely to need a m ind f u lness session U V ran Sen ior Superlat ives t h is issue, as a ser v ice to t he g raduat ing class. Not a l l our superlat ives made t he cut, however. T he fol low ing were unfor t unately scrapped: most l i kely to dance when your arch nemesis doesn’t get ONC A , most l i kely to ca l l h is daddy when a bouncer is mean to h im, and most l i kely to t r y to defund U V [Editor’s Note: it ’s a shame we’re independently f unded ].

Ultra Vires Presents: Summertime It’s time to manifest those oh so sweet summer days UV PLAYLIST COMMITTEE: HARRY MYLES (2L), ERICA BERRY (2L), MISHAIL ADEEL (2L), AND EMILY RAND (1L) There may still be a strong chance of snow and the temperature is just barely going above 0°C, but April means exam season which means summer vacation is almost here! It is time to manifest those summertime feels and think of all the beach days to come once we pass April 28. Featuring tracks by Lorde, Vince Staples, Kali Uchis, ROSALÍA, and many more!

DIVERSIONS

28 | March 31, 2022

The Ultra Vires Crossword RONAN MALLOVY (1L)

ACROSS 1. Nonsense ar t movement 5. A n ima l often used as a d iplomat ic g ift 10. Tenn is g reat A r t hur 14. Plow team 15. Heron 16. One m ight be to t he deat h 17. Require 18 . See 39 -Across 20. Cons' counter par ts 22. E lementa l suf f i x 23. “No Scr ubs” g roup 24. Fr ust rat ing answer from a law professor 28 . Persona l attendant 30. K itten noises 31. A n ima ls named for t heir d iet 33. Hem's par t ner 34. Rot man deg ree letters 35. Per iod of Japanese h istor y 36. See 39 -Across 39. Wit h 36 -Across, t ranspor tat ion for t he 18 -Across man 43. I n med ia _ _ _ 4 4. i Phone soft ware 45. Act ress de A r mas 4 6. Tendency t hat m ight lead one to st udy law?

50. Wa l l ar t 52. T he Rogers Cent re, for one 53. Carlill v Carbolic _ _ _ _ Co 55. A mer ican sur vei l lance org.

56. “Paper Planes” rapper 58 . Shor t ly, to Sha kespeare 59. Home for a decomposing sna i l, maybe 63. Water, in Oa xaca 66. Mov ie w it h t he Oscar w inn ing song

"Fa l l ing Slowly" 67. Bir t hplace of Barack Obama's fat her 68 . Move, in a board game 69. L abel on an opened text message 70. M i x of ra in and snow 71. Ema i l folder

DOW N 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Mob boss Fire W here law yers keep t heir emot ions Actor Gar f ield I nt r insica l ly Act your t h is, not your shoe size, per an ex pression 7. Gun r ights advocacy g r p.

8 . Cease's par t ner 9. L ots 10. Comput ing pioneer L ovelace 11. Nuanced 12. Catch-22 aut hor 13. Votes into of f ice 19. Gambl ing mecca 21. Content creators, in inter net-spea k 24. Preface to a hot ta ke, in textspea k 25. Seatt le K ra ken or Chelsea 26. A r rests, slang i ly 27. Biolog ica l bui ld ing block 29. Perched upon 32. Sna kel i ke f ish 34. Command to a sled dog 37. A ge a fter Bronze 38 . Evolved 39. L argest la ke in Ita ly 4 0. L ect ure annoy ingly 41. Deta i l- or iented

ultravires.ca Answers will be updated online at ultravires.ca

1

2

3

5

4

14

15

17

18 20

24

6

28

39

43

40

44 50

53

55

56

64

65

51

54 58

57

60

42

45

49

52

41

29

35

38

48

13

32

34

47

12

23

27

31

37

11

19

26

36

10

9

22

25

33

59

8

16

21

30

46

7

61

62

63

66

67

68

69

70

71

42. Ed monton is home to t he biggest one in Canada 4 4. Bel ief system 4 6. Smoot h ie fr uits 47. Poisonous gas 48 . Ghost ly conversat ion 49. Name often shor tened to Bel la 50. Of Mice and _ _ _ _

51. Ger man subs 54. Gold pur it y un it 57. A nnoys 6 0. Word preced ing X or Z 61. WSW 's opposite 62. Stor m cent re 64. A sh conta iner 65. Morsel for 31-Across