Ultra Vires Volume 23, Issue 1 - September 2021 by Ultra Vires

ULTRAVIRES.CA

September 29, 2021

VOL. 23 ISS. 1

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

CAUT Censure on Pause while U of T Releases Revised Guidelines on Donor Interference Updates on the IHRP Scandal for the Month of September, 2021 THOMAS RUSSELL (2L)

prov ince of Falconer, located in the common law countr y of F lavelle, where the jurisprudence and Constitution is identical to Canada. The facts leading up to the appeal involve a police ev idence-gathering operation against Mr. Matthew Zhask i in an attempted murder. The police obtained this ev idence w ithout a warrant, yet w ith the consent of the Chair of the propert y management company of the condominium in which Mr. Zhask i lived. They did this by remotely accessing and controlling three cameras in a so-called common area. At the Supreme Court of F lavelle, Mr. Zhazk i arg ued that the manner in which the camera ev idence was obtained v iolated his section 8 Charter rights, and warranted exclusion pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter. Representing the Crown, the appel-

Since the beg inning of the school year, there have been some major developments in the Canadian A ssociation of Universit y Teachers (CAU T ) censure of the Universit y of Toronto. The Censure has been ongoing since Apr il 22, 2021 as a result of the involvement of an outside donor in the hir ing process of Dr. Valentina A zarova for the Director position of the International Human R ights Program ( IHR P). A s of September 17, 2021, the CAU T Censure has been put on pause as a result of Dr. A zarova being re-of fered the position for Program Director of the IHR P, which she ultimately rejected. In a statement shared by Censure Uof T, Dr. A zarova supposedly declared that “ W hile the Universit y negotiated in good faith and extended academic freedom protections to the position, there were important uncertainties that could not be resolved in the course of our negotiations.” Despite this development meaning that the pr incipal demand of the CAU T has now been satisf ied, the Censure w ill not off icially end until a vote has taken place dur ing the CAU T’s Council meeting, current ly scheduled for November 25 and November 26. According to the CAU T announcement, the CAU T has expressed interest to Universit y of Toronto President Mer ic Gert ler about hav ing more discussions on how the Universit y can satisfy the conditions required for the censure to of f icially end in November. At the forefront of the CAU T’s conditions for ending the censure are that the Universit y must extend academic freedom protections to academic manager ial positions and develop policies to ensure that donors do not inter fere in internal academic af fairs. Perhaps towards that end, on September 8, the Universit y of Toronto released its rev ised Guidelines on donations which included the new A rticle 7: 7. The Universit y w ill not allow any external input, including from donors or alumni, to inf luence any Universit y hir ing decisions, unless this input is part of the established hir ing process. A ny staf f member or representative of the Universit y who receives an inquir y related to any active Universit y hir ing process from sources external to the Universit y’s estab-

Continued on Page 7

Continued on Page 4

2021 GRAND MOOT TEAM. FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, EMA IBRAKOVIC (3L), MILITZA BOLJEVIC (3L), MADELEINE ANDREW-GEE (3L), AND MACKENZIE FAULKNER (2L). CREDIT: SAMANTHA KOKONIS

Supreme Court Justices Abella, Karakatsanis, and Jamal Judge 2021 Grand Moot Exceptional advocacy at U of T Law’s annual ceremonial moot NIK KHAKHAR (2L) Ever y fall, the Facult y of Law hosts its annual Grand Moot, sponsored by McCarthy Tétrault. This annual moot commemorates the school’s generations of commitment towards strong legal advocacy. The participants are amongst the Facult y’s top mooters, the legal issues ref lect emerg ing trends in our jurisprudence, and the presiding judges are—pun intended—supreme. This year’s appeal concerned the constitutionalit y of certain police sur veillance methods, exploring the extent to which condominium residents possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in socalled common areas. The crucial task of balancing indiv idual liberties w ith public safet y was undertaken by some of the brightest minds at the Facult y: appellants Mackenzie Faulkner (2L) and Madeleine

A ndrew- Gee (3L), and respondents Militza Boljev ic (3L) and Ema Ibrakov ic (3L). The 2021 Grand Moot was also exceptional in its panel of judges: recently retired Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, Justice A ndromache Karakatsanis, and recently appointed Justice Mahmud Jamal. Not only was this the f irst time that these three justices collectively heard a case; it was the last time that Justice Karakatsanis and Justice Abella presided together after a decade-long collaboration on the Supreme Court, and the f irst case which Justice Jamal would adjudicate since his appointment. We are extremely honoured that they chose the 2021 Grand Moot as the place to commemorate these milestones. The appeal returns us to the f ictional

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE TORONTO SUMMER RECRUITMENT 2021 1L RESULTS PAGE 8

RIGHTS REVIEW PAGE 14

WHY STUDENTS SHOULD CARE ABOUT THE UMLAP PAGE 18

2 | September 29, 2021

ultravires.ca

EDITORS' NOTE Dear Readers,

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.

Welcome back to another year of law school and another volume of Ultra Vires! We are thr illed to be your editors-in-chief for Volume 23. Through our monthly issues, we hope to keep you engaged in the goings-on at the Facult y, educated on pressing issues for the student body, and entertained w ith our shenanigans. In this issue, you w ill f ind a glimpse of Justice Abella’s personal librar y, statistics from the 2021 Toronto 1L Recruit, recommendations for cof fee, musings on the challenges of receiv ing Zoom links for classes, and rev iews of parks in Toronto.

Look for ward to our dose of news and sarcasm (sometimes in the same article) on the last Wednesday of the month. We are always look ing for wr iters and contr ibutors. If you have a stor y you’d like to pitch, an event you want covered, or a food recommendation to share, feel free to get in touch at editor@ultrav ires.ca. Thank you for reading. Excited to be back in person and in pr int! Sabr ina Mack lai & A nnecy Pang Co-Editors-in- Chief, Ultra Vires

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Sabrina Macklai & Annecy Pang BUSINESS MANAGER Griff in Murphy NEWS EDITOR Thomas Russell NEWS REPORTER Naya Samara 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 Fawzy 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.

WELCOME BACK U OF T LAW! CREDIT: JACQUELINE HUANG

RIGHTS REVIEW

UV INDEX NEWS

A Call for the University to Mend Its Relationships

Supreme Court Justices Judge 2021 Grand Moot

Access to Safe Abortion Services as a Matter of Right

CAUT Censure on Pause and Revised Guidelines on Donor Interference

Vaccine Inequity and International Human Rights Law

Justice Abella Donates Library to U of T Law

Delayed Flight to Justice

U of T Law Introduces New Course on CRT

Start of Semester Update from the SLS

Meet the Mooters 2021

Course Requirements Force Mooters Out

SLS Fall General Election Results

Changes to the 1L Curriculum, Again

OPINIONS Why Students Should Care About the

UMLAP Last Minute Class Changes Leave Students Blindsided

Getting a Zoom Link for Class Shouldn’t Be This Hard

FEATURES

The Costs of Maximizing Happiness

Toronto Summer 2021 1L Recruitment Results 8

In-Person Event Planning: Expect the Unexpected

An Exit Interview with Waleska Vernon

Summer Winderlust

DIVERSIONS

The Journey to Articling in Criminal Law

Intra Vires

Film Review: Taking on TIFF

A Deep Dive Into Five Coffee Shops Near Campus

Toronto 101: An Introduction to Urban Living in the 6ix

Orientation Events for All

Parks: Choose Your Destination

What Not to Say at Your First Post-Vaccine Party

NEWS

ultravires.ca

September 29, 2021 | 3

Retired Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella Donates Library to U of T Law A glimpse into the reading habits of a former Supreme Court Justice SABRINA MACKLAI (2L JD/MI)

JUSTICE ABELLA’S PERSONAL BOOK COLLECTION IN JACKMAN HALL. CREDIT: JACQUELINE HUANG.

A fter 17 years at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella retired on July 1, 2021. A Universit y of Toronto alumna, she g ifted the Facult y of Law her personal book collection. Law students at U of T now have the opportunit y to browse and borrow from nearly 10 0 0 books selected by the former Supreme Court justice. “The gift of her personal book collection, from literature to legal texts, is very special and will feed the intellectual curiosity of our students,” remarked Dean Jutta Brunnée. Justice Abella’s collection is w ide-ranging; from myster y novels to philosophical texts, to a copy of Broadway’s Hamilton, the tit les showcase Justice Abella’s var ied interests and appreciation for all forms of wr iting. A n administrative law textbook, a slight ly older version of the one used in today’s class, sits beside a copy of Graham Greene’s Ref lections. Kaf ka’s T he Trial stands out against a shelf of Law Rev iew journals. A nd my personal favour ite, M ichael Geist’s In the Public Interest: T he Future of Canadian Copyright L aw, closely eyes Abella’s extensive Margaret Atwood collection, an irony consider ing Geist and At-

wood hold radically dif ferent v iews on copyr ight law. Her collection is div ided into the follow ing categor ies: A rts; Biographies; Complete Collection by Author; Human, Women, and Abor ig inal R ights; Jew ish L iterature; Judiciar y; Law; and Novels. Perhaps more exciting, her book inventor y reveals where each text sat in her off ice at the Supreme Court, w ith the apt lynamed “Duck” and “Tea Pot” librar ies in contrast w ith the “pile of books under your wr iting table.” It is clear from her collection that Justice Abella is extremely well read, not only in legal scholarship but in all k inds of literature. She noted that by reading broadly, students may inform their understanding of law and justice and learn life lessons alongside legal pr inciples. The Rosalie Silberman Abella collection can be found on the third f loor of the Jackman Hall Law Building, across from student ser v ices. A s of Januar y 2022, Justice Abella w ill also be a Disting uished Visiting Jur ist, participating in seminars, workshops, and informal events at the Facult y of Law.

U of T Law Introduces New Course on Critical Race Theory A new course on critical race theory in the Canadian legal context now available REBECCA ROSENBERG (2L) On September 9, the Law Records of f ice notif ied upper year students that a new course was added in the Winter term on the topic of cr itical race theor y (CRT ). The three-credit course w ill be taught by Nancy Simms, Director for Human R ights, Equit y & Inclusion at Humber College. The seminar is descr ibed as apply ing CRT to issues of racism and inequit y w ithin the context of the Canadian legal system. CRT was one of the topics presented in last year’s joint professionalism training ( J P T ) seminars for 1L s. The session was tit led “Cr itical Race Theor y: Racism in Societ y and the Justice Sector” and was delivered by U of T’s A nti-Racism and Cultural Diversit y Of f ice director, Jodie Glean.

A fter the seminar, there was discussion about adding a class on CRT to the school’s course list. The positive feedback received for Glean’s J P T session presumably inf luenced the Facult y’s decision to of fer a fullleng th lecture ser ies for this academic year. Commenting on the course, Professor Simms says it is her goal to work alongside each student to build a learning communit y that w ill advance CRT and its role in Canada’s legal system. “The possibilities of using CRT as a tool to advance social justice in law is timely. K imberlé Crenshaw says it best: ‘We are a societ y that has been structured from top to bottom by race. You don't get beyond that by deciding not to talk about it any-

more. It w ill always come back; it w ill always reassert itself over and over again,’’’ says Simms. The process of establishing the course has not been w ithout its challenges. Follow ing the censure against U of T, L incoln A lexander School of Law professor Joshua Sealy-Harr ing ton passed up an of fer in Aug ust 2021 to g uest lecture on the topic at the Facult y. In an earlier tweet, he contended that the law school was suppressing speech about “one of the most oppressed racialized communities in the world.” Some applauded Sealy-Harr ing ton’s decision while others expressed their dismay at the course. One Tw itter user said that they were “sorr y for the students,” cr iticizing the choice of instructor. They stated

that Simms’ background was in equit y, diversit y, and inclusion ( EDI ), and that CRT is not the same as EDI. However, law students at U of T have expressed support for the Facult y’s decision to introduce CRT to this year’s curr iculum. Faisal Bhaba (2L J D/PhD), who sat on the wait list for the class, welcomed the new addition. “I want to expand my understanding of perspectives on the law, and I hope to understand CRT on its own terms—the questions and concerns that animate it, and how it situates itself w ithin legal scholarship,” says Bhaba. The course is worth three credits and w ill satisfy students’ Cr itical Perspectives requirement.

NEWS

4 | September 29, 2021

ultravires.ca

Start of Semester Update from the SLS Welcome to another exciting chapter at U of T Law WILLEM CRISPIN-FREI (3L), PRESIDENT OF THE STUDENTS’ LAW SOCIETY, 2021-22 Welcome back to the beg inning of another school year! With a return to the Jackman Law Building, whether in-person or over Zoom, the Students’ Law Societ y (SLS) w ill be of fer ing events and advocacy to all students as we continue to adapt to the evolv ing circumstances of the pandemic. The SLS is your student government and represents all J D and joint-program students at the Facult y of Law. Under our newly-implemented Constitution, the SLS has three committees: the Social and Finance Committee (“SFC”, formerly Social A f fairs), the Student L ife and Academic Committee (“SL AC”, formerly Student A ffairs and Governance) and the Executive Committee made up of myself, the V P Social, V P Finance, V P Student L ife, and V P Academic. Joining our 24 year representatives (four per year on each of SFC and SL AC) is the Universit y of Toronto Students’ Union Law Director and our ten appointed of f icers: the SLS Equit y Of f icers, Treasurers, Communications Of f icers, Administrative Off icer, Secretar ies, and Chief Returning Off icer. You can learn more about the SLS on our website. Welcome to the 1Ls! Welcome 1L s! It’s quite the journey you’ve embarked upon and the SLS is here to help make it easier. W hether it is an event to get to know your classmates, or you have an issue you need assistance addressing, the SLS is here to help! The past year and a half has required ever yone to adapt and be f lex ible—these are sk ills which w ill ser ve you well in law school. From what I and other upper years have al-

Welcome to all the students joining us permanent ly or on exchange. We continue to live in interesting times, but I hope that your time at U of T Law g ives you an opportunit y to connect w ith your new classmates and take some fascinating classes. Enjoy your new home; we look for ward to getting to know you.

many students that accessibilit y, both in light of the pandemic and structural issues, remains a top pr ior it y. The SLS continues to convey that recorded lectures and f lex ibilit y from facult y and administration, especially under chang ing pandemic conditions, are a pr ior it y for students. We have called on the Universit y to take steps to end the censure against the Universit y of Toronto and are pleased to see that the censure has been paused. We also have urged the Facult y to proactively communicate changes to pandemic-related policies and information related to upper-year course selection. The SLS has worked to prov ide additional recruit-related mentorship opportunities. Building on the success of the 2L recruit buddies in Februar y of this year, the SLS teamed up w ith the Career Development Of f ice (CDO) to pair 2L s and 3L s in preparation for the recruit cycle that is current ly under way. We have also hosted an upper-year panel where students could share their exper iences across years. Good luck to all the students who are current ly participating in the 2L recruit! Finally, the SLS put on a successful Upper Year Welcome Back program dur ing the f irst week of classes. The Upper Year Welcome Back was a ser ies of in-person and v irtual events to allow 2L s and 3L s to meet and re-meet one another after a challeng ing, most ly v irtual year. A lthough CO V I D -19 restr ictions made the events more structured, the SLS thanks ever yone who came out for their cooperation and participation.

Summer Updates

Fall Priorities

ready seen, you are a class of passionate, communit y-minded students, and we are excited to see what’s in store for you. Upper years are here to be resources; one of the best parts of our law school is the help available w ithin and across years from students who continue to pay it for ward. The SLS also has a number of student resources to help you out on our website, from study mater ials to a 1L g uide! I want to g ive a shout out to the upperyear students who welcomed you to the law school as your 2021 Or ientation leaders. Congratulations to A nisha Sivathas (2L), Hannah Lank (3L), and Jennifer Sun (2L) for nav igating a chang ing set of COVI D -19 rules and sending the 1L s on exciting missions, from an A mazing Race to a v irtual escape room heist. I also want to thank the other tireless leaders w ithin our student communit y who help facilitate the transition to law school through the Peer Mentorship and Peer Mental Health programs, as well as the leaders of the equit yfacing groups who take on mentorship, g uidance, and advocacy roles. 1L s, you are in good hands. From all the upper-year students—welcome! Welcome to the transfer students!

Over the past year, we have heard from

Now that we have our new slate of 1L

reps (congratulations to Diego Jiminez Jur i, Genev ieve Simmons, M ilana Grahovac, and Donya A shnaei on SFC and A my Kwong, Julia Campbell, Ben K itching, and Justin K im on SL AC), the SLS is looking for ward to building on our summer pr ior ities. On the SL AC side, our pr ior ities remain on nav igating issues related to the pandemic and resulting restr ictions. A s many of us sett le back into the Jackman Law Building, we w ill continue to identify any future issues that result from chang ing circumstances. Additionally, follow ing up on the SLS’ letter to Dean Jutta Brunnée on the issue of r ising tuition, circulated in March 2021, SL AC w ill follow up on its action items. Alongside student groups like the Indigenous Law Students’ Association, SLAC will be working to implement a mandatory course on Aboriginal law, Indigenous law, and cultural competency, as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Call to Action #28, by September 2022. On the SFC side, our pr ior ities are work ing w ithin the prov incial COV I D -19 restr ictions to prov ide in-person events as well as engag ing v irtual events. This fall, we see the much-anticipated return of Call to the Bar, SLS Virtual Tr iv ia, and Hallawe’en. Stay tuned for more details! If you have any event ideas or feedback, we are all ears. You can drop us a note on our website anytime. A lthough we continue to live in unprecedented times, this communit y has shown how adaptable and resilient it can be. I encourage ever yone to admire your perseverance and be k ind to yourselves and one another. Welcome (or welcome back) to another exciting chapter at U of T Law!

CAUT Censure on Pause while U of T Releases Revised Guidelines on Donor Interference in Hiring Decisions Continued lished hir ing processes, including alumni, donors and external organizations, w ill respond that recruiting processes are conf idential, and that no information about the search can be shared. In his cr itique of A rticle 7, U of T Law professor A r iel Katz noted that the new section managed to avoid the issue of the appropr iateness of donors’ attempts to prov ide input into Universit y hir ing processes by, instead focusing on the issue of

breaches of conf identialit y. Katz raised a concern that this change did not recognize the fact that “donors’ attempts to inf luence such decision[s] are inimical to academic freedom”. In addition to this concern, Katz proposed measures that could more ef fectively mitigate donor inf luence in the hir ing process: “ in the face of well-document[ed] donor inter ference and the presence of strong incentives against resisting it, an administration seek ing to prevent its reoccurrence

would do more than say that such [inter ference] is unacceptable. They could, for example, require documenting all communication w ith donors, reporting any attempt to inter fere, set out the consequences for non-compliance, etc.” Yet another issue may be raised w ith A rticle 7 on account of the exception to the rule prov ided for established procedures involv ing donor or alumni input. It is current ly unclear how this exception w ill inf luence the ef f icacy of this new policy to

protect academic freedom. Ultra Vires has reached out to the Div ision of the Vice-President and Provost for comment on A rticle 7 and are current ly awaiting an of f icial statement. This article w ill be updated online as these comments become available. W hether the actions of the Universit y w ill be suf f icient to f inally end the CAU T censure remains to be seen.

NEWS

ultravires.ca

September 29, 2021 | 5

Meet the Mooters 2021 Teams for 15 competitive moots selected ADRIENNE RALPH (3L) The 2021–2022 upper year competitive mooting tr youts took place between September 14 and 16. 84 people tr ied out for the 65 available positions in var ious moots. This year, there were two new moots offered to students: the Immigration, Refugee, and Citizenship Moot and the Willms & Shier Env ironmental Moot. The Dav ies Secur ities Moot is also returning this year, after being cancelled in the 2020 –2021 season. Candidates were required to arg ue the 2017 Grand Moot problem, which centred on the constitutionalit y of section 6(1) of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. This prov ision is a cr iminal prohibition that restr icts surrogate mothers’ compensation. Potential mooters represented the f ictional appellants, Mr. Lew iston and Mr. Soleil, a gay couple seek ing to have a child through compensated surrogacy after their options for uncompensated surrogacy become unavailable. They arg ued that section 6(1) infr inges on the equalit y r ights of same-sex couples and potentially compensated surrogate mothers. This year, the Moot Court Committee ( MCC) ran three initiatives in an ef fort to reduce some barr iers to entr y. One was continuing to coordinate alumni practice sessions w ith mooting alumni from U of T Law on the Sunday before tr youts. The MCC also piloted two new projects this year. First, the “Tr yout Buddies” program, where potential mooters were matched

ARE YOU READY FOR

THE BAR EXAMS?

w ith one another so that they could prepare for tr youts together. Second, a feedback program, where judges were asked to note any feedback for mooters. Feedback was then anonymously for warded to tr yout participants who requested it by emailing the MCC. Below are the f inalized tr yout results. Note: Combined degree students are labelled by their year at the law school , e.g. students who were in their non-law year last year are 2L s. Adam F. Fanaki Competition Moot Grace L i (2L) Peter Tross (2L) Kyra McA lister (2L) Monica Layarda (3L) Bowman Tax Moot Zoey Chau (2L) Chuxi Wang (2L) Zachar y Wallace (3L) Dylan Juschko (3L) Callaghan Moot Bill Xu (2L) Cameron Somer v ille (2L) William Hall (2L) Sterling Mancuso (2L) Emma Tomas (2L) A lison Schwenk (2L) Gordon Lee (2L) Zach Rosen (2L) Adam Iggers (2L) Myles Goodman-Vincent (2L)

DON’T PANIc. Prepare with Emond’s Bar Exam Preparation Manual. Download it for free at

bit.ly/CBP-UT21

save 10% on the CanBarPrep Course. Online and live-webinar classes this fall in Toronto. Register at bit.ly/CBP-UT21 and use discount code 10uoftcbp2021 Online classes are available year-round. Promotion ends January 30, 2022 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

bit.ly/CBP-UT21 Emond Exam Prep • 1 Eglinton Ave E, Suite 600, Toronto ON emondexamprep.ca • emondexamprep@emond.ca • 1-888-837-0815

Continuous access from purchase until next exam date

Stefan Rus (2L) Kait lyn Nelson (2L) Hussein Fawzy (2L) Max Lev y (2L) A nisha Sivathas (2L) Tiasha Bhuiyan (2L)

Seema Sidhu (3L) M ishail Adeel (2L) Labour Arbitration Competition Victor ia Purdy (2L) Jacqueline Huang (2L)

Fox IP Moot A nnie Chan (2L) A my Yun (2L) Chr istopher Cook (3L) Megan Chan (2L)

Laskin Moot Faisal Bhabha (2L) Mag uid Nicholas (2L) Dhr iti Chakravart y (3L) Evan L inn (3L)

Gale Cup Moot Laura Goldfarb (2L) Benjamin Zolf (2L) Charles Ma (2L) Jean-Pierre D’A ngelo (3L)

Walsh Family Moot Thomas R itthaller (2L) Joseph Mercado (3L) Jamie A hn (3L) Sarah Shin (3L)

Immigration, Refugee, and Citizenship Moot A lexa Cheung (3L) Ir is L iu (3L) A my Chen (3L) Sue Ying xue L i (3L)

Willms & Shier Environmental Law Moot

Julius Alexander Isaac Moot Meaza Damte (2L) A nna Hulchansk i (3L) A nna Zhang (3L) Julia Pimentel (3L) Jessup Moot Jonathan Hou (3L) M ichelle K im (2L)

Lauren Yan L in Cao (2L) Jane Fallis Cooper (2L) Gina Kwon (2L) Wilson Moot Iv y Xu (2L) Haya Sardar (2L) Elspeth Gibson (3L) Katar ina Kusic (2L) Winkler Class Actions Moot Gr if f in Mur phy (2L) Elgar Gong (3L) Sean Grouhi (3L) Karan Sharma (3L)

Ultra Vires Presents: Back to School (COVID permitting) A playlist to start your school year off right HARRY MYLES (2L) WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ERICA BERRY (2L), SHAE ROTHERY (2L), MISHAIL ADEEL (2L), AND LAUREN PAPAROUSIS (2L) It's back-to-school time and Ultra Vires is here with a playlist to capture both the highs and lows of yet another COVID school year. Featuring Ariana Grande, Kendrick Lamar, Fiona Apple, LCD Soundsystem, Mitski, and Blood Orange. https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0SRZTPKAPsI6iiL9MRVlaD?si=3984356530344908

6 | September 29, 2021

NEWS

ultravires.ca

Course Requirements Force Mooters Out Shuffling of competitive mooters leads to frustration and confusion SABRINA MACKLAI (2L JD/MI) As in the past, the upper year competitive mooting tryouts attracted widespread participation, with 84 individuals trying out for 65 available positions. After three days of tryouts, individuals received their results on Friday, September 17, the same day that the Faculty’s accept/decline period for Toronto OCIs opened. But following a potentially stressful week, some students were moved in and out of competitive moots due to an administrative requirement. Students participating in an upper-year competitive moot take the associated Moot course for credit. The course is based on a conditional enrol where students are manually added to the class follow ing a successful moot tr yout. Due to the subject matter of some moots, a student must have taken or be current ly enrolled in a co- or prerequisite class to participate. For example, administrative law is a co- or prerequisite class for the Lask in moot. On September 17, the Moot Court Committee ( MCC) informed students of their selected moot, based on the indiv iduals’ per formances dur ing the tr youts and how they ranked their moot preferences. Often,

this is the conclusion of the tr yout per iod and the results are f inalized. However, some students were shuf f led between moots because they lacked the necessar y co- or prerequisite course to participate, even if they were on the wait list for that class. A s a result of the changes, at least one of the moots lacked enough indiv iduals to compete. Students who were already enrolled in the prerequisite class were subsequent ly inv ited to tr yout for the moot, despite moot tr youts being of f icially over. Given the passing of the add/drop deadline for f irst term and full year courses on September 22, the moot results are now f inalized w ith all spots f illed. W hile the major it y of students who were initially of fered a competitive mooting position still secured a spot, the exper ience left many confused. In a comment for Ultra Vires, A ssistant Dean Sara Fahert y responded: “The law school str ict ly adheres to pre- and co-requisites in all courses (not just the moots.)” A student af fected by the changes remarked that, “ it was ver y confusing to re-

ceive multiple phone calls being of fered dif ferent moots and sw itched back and forth … Each change also created a chain reaction to ever yone else that got bumped out of the moot that they were prev iously of fered.” The student noted that the str ict co- and prerequisite requirements were not made clear when course selection began in the summer, a time when students could have ranked the required classes more highly. “ We were told [dur ing the administration’s summer Cognomos information session] not to worr y about the lotter y nature of Cognomos because problems can be f ixed manually at the back end. In other words, there was no notice that the responsibilit y to fulf ill the competitive moots’ pre-requisites/co-requisites entirely lies w ith us until the MCC’s information session, which was two months after course allocation started.” It appears many students “thought that the Records Of f ice would manually put you in the courses after tr youts — similar to the externships that require application.” It is unclear if these requirements

Explore | Engage | Learn Developing Future Leaders in Law

were str ict ly enforced in prev ious years. A nother student, also af fected by the changes, prov ided some constructive cr iticism for the moot tr yout process, stating that, “the uncertaint y of mooting makes it really unfortunate that it's embedded w ithin the course selection process. Students have to drop courses to take a moot prerequisite that they other w ise may not have taken, or they may have to rank a moot prerequisite higher than they otherw ise would like to have.” They of fered that a better alternative might be to “ keep X number of slots open in each moot’s prerequisite course, w ith X being the number of people in the g iven moot. If mooters need to get into the course they can, if there isn’t any need, then the wait list can just be advanced by that many spaces.” Multiple students af fected by the changes commented that they commend the MCC for doing their best under the circumstances and tr y ing to keep ever yone informed as they resolved the situation. At this time, the MCC declines to comment on the matter.

ultravires.ca

NEWS

September 29, 2021 | 7

SLS Fall General Election Results Eight 1Ls join the SLS following a hotly contested election SABRINA MACKLAI (2L JD/MI) Ever y September, the Students’ Law Societ y (SLS) runs their Fall General Election to recruit pr imar ily 1L students. This year, there were eight positions available: four 1L Social and Finance Year Representatives (1L SFC Reps) and four 1L Student L ife and Academic Year Representatives (1L SL AC Reps). There were no upper-year positions left vacant from the Spr ing General Election.

A s in prev ious years, more indiv iduals ran than there were positions available. This led to a hot ly contested election. The results were announced v ia email on Fr iday, September 17 by SLS Chief Returning Of f icer Jonathan Hou (3L). T he Socia l and Finance Comm ittee pr imar i ly coord inates SL S fees and f inances, plans large and sma l l events for st udents, and organ izes club fund ing and club fa ir

events. Four 1L s are join ing t he SFC: Diego Jim inez Jur i, Genev ieve Simmons, M i lana Gra hovac, and Donya A shnaei. T heir plat for ms largely focus on increasing t ransparency w it h in t he SL S, hold ing net work ing funct ions, and organ izing more mean ing fu l and inclusive socia l events. The Student L ife and Academic Year Committee speaks on behalf of students to

the Facult y, w ith elected members sitting on Facult y Council and assisting w ith policy development. Four 1L s are joining the SL AC: A my Kwong, Julia Campbell, Ben K itching, and Justin K im. The major it y of those elected had pr ior exper ience in student government and advocacy. Congratulations to the candidates elected and all those who ran. The next SLS election w ill take place in Spr ing 2022.

Changes to the 1L Curriculum, Again Small groups return to a full-year format SABRINA MACKLAI (2L JD/MI) The 1L curr iculum has changed yet again, this time returning to its pre-pandemic format. Since the decision to semester ize the 1L curr iculum in 2014, along w ith remov ing Administrative Law from the 1L program and expanding the Legal Research and Wr iting ( L RW ) credit, 1L s have generally enjoyed the same curr iculum year-to-year. In their f irst semester, students take two core courses and L RW. In their second semester, students take another two core courses and Legal Process. Small group classes run the full year. Dur ing the 2020 -2021 school year, 1L students at the Universit y of Toronto Facult y of Law wrapped up their small group classes at the end of the fall semester. A f irst for the Facult y, the decision to shorten

small groups to one semester garnered signif icant debate and back lash. In addition, 1L s last year took both L RW and Legal Process dur ing their f irst semester and took three core classes in second semester. According to a statement by A ssociate Dean Chr istopher Essert last year, the restructur ing was made due to constraints imposed by the COV I D -19 pandemic. He noted that the changes were “not meant to ref lect any decision about the ideal structure of small groups.” A ssistant Dean Sara Fahert y added at the time that any decisions were made to pr ior itize of fer ing inperson small group classes—although all classes transitioned exclusively online by October 13 of last year. With the return to (most ly) in-person in-

struction, it appears that the Facult y has returned to their pre-pandemic models. However, it remains a strong possibilit y that the Facult y may rev isit curr iculum changes. At the March 2020 Facult y Council meeting, held r ight before the pandemic forced the Universit y to shut down, the Curr iculum Committee proposed changing the structure of the 1L program to shorten small groups into one semester and extend the L RW course into the second semester by adding a 1L moot to the class. The draft proposal created a strong response among both students and facult y. A petition urg ing the Facult y Council to reject any curr iculum changes until concerns could be addressed was created and signed

by over 80 indiv iduals. A 1L Curr iculum Change Student Consultation Townhall was also held where students and facult y were vocal about their reser vations. A s Professor Jim Philips discussed in his defense of f irst-year small groups, the f inal decision to signif icant ly change the 1L curr iculum in 2014 was a result of a large amount of research, debate, and consultation that took place over a number of years and culminated in an approv ing vote at the Facult y Council. It is clear that any future changes to the 1L curr iculum would require a similar r igorous process. For now, at least, 1L students at the Facult y can say they have an exper ience much more ak in to their prepandemic counter parts.

Supreme Court Justices Abella, Karakatsanis, and Jamal Judge 2021 Grand Moot Continued lants brought for ward submissions that emphasized a hard distinction between condominium areas that can be accessed by the public, and the areas which are exclusive to an indiv idual resident. Faulkner advocated for a principled approach that def ines a public place as inclusive of areas where access is limited to a certain portion of the public, such as areas restricted by condo fob access. The fact that other residents besides the indiv idual in question may access the common areas of a condo building bolstered the appellant’s position that Mr. Zhask i’s reasonable expectation of privacy was signif icantly diminished, especially when compared to his expectation of privacy in his own unit. A ndrew- Gee brought this position home, submitting that the ‘common’ nature of such areas diminishes the impact of the state, which factored into her section 24(2) analysis. The respondents arg ued for a subjective

measure to evaluate an indiv idual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Boljev ic’s submissions highlighted the relevance of a subjective knowledge of privacy, mov ing to a distinction between common and private areas that is oriented on human nature. Submitting that Mr. Zhask i was neither aware nor informed in his lease agreement that sur veillance cameras would record audio in addition to v ideo (a fairly uncommon occurrence), Boljev ic maintained that Mr. Zhask i’s reasonable expectation of privacy was founded on an incorrect perception of condo sur veillance. This would further negate the constitutionalit y of a warrantless search. Ibrakov ic spearheaded a public policy submission; if police of f icers are able to engage in searches they know to be intrusive, w ithout a warrant, the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute as state sur veillance would be unrestrained.

I have been told that mooting is, essentially, hav ing a conversation. Appellants and respondents prepare facta which summarize their submissions, but are ultimately required to be f lexible to questions that judges may pose. The most powerful advocates in moot court, as well as the SCC, are the ones who are comfortable going of f script and engag ing in a little banter w ith the judges. The appellants and respondents of this year’s Grand Moot did exactly this, and their unparalleled comfort levels would, as Justice Jamal commented, “make them feel at home in any court in the countr y.” The banter between mooters and judges this year was particularly amusing. The entire Moot Court Room shared a laugh when Justice Abella referenced her dissents against cases cited by both the appellants and respondents. Or when Justice Karakatsanis, after a long period of back and forth w ith Faulkner, fondly remarked,

“I love a good arg ument.” It was truly inspiring to see these amazing jurists— whom we read about ever y day in our casebooks—engaged so w illingly, and w ith so much enjoyment as they challenged our students to think critically and develop their already top-notch advocacy sk ills. Indeed, the Facult y’s unparalleled legacy of mentorship is manifested through ever yone who comes through our doors, be it professors, upper years—oh, and by the way, also Supreme Court justices. A ll mooters of this year’s Grand Moot had a rigorous command of case law, and their conf idence and dedication will spearhead their excellent advocacy in the many years to come. Congratulations to Mackenzie, Madeleine, Militza, and Ema—you made us extremely proud as a Faculty, as friends, and as a legal community. You can watch a recording of the 2021 Grand Moot on the Facult y’s website.

FEATURES

8 | September 29, 2021

ultravires.ca

Toronto Summer 2021 1L Recruitment Results 14 U of T first-years obtain employment through the 1L recruit ANGELA FENG (2L) AND HUSSEIN FAWZY (2L) and the remaining three were from the dual JD/ MBA program. Notably, 1L students from the Lincoln Alexander obtained positions during the school’s first year participating in the recruit, acquiring two percent (four students) of the total available positions. Twelve employers participated in the 1L Re-

In this year’s formal Toronto 1L Recruit, 45 1L students obtained summer positions. While U of T students continue to secure the largest number of positions in the recruit, there was a ten percent decrease in hires compared to 2020. U of T students secured 14 of the 45 total positions (31 percent, down from 42 percent in 2020). Of the successful U of T contenders, 11 were from the JD program

Firm

Total

U of T JD JD/MBA 1 -

Osgoode JD JD/MBA -

cruit this year—this number remains unchanged from last year. Of those participating, Aird & Berlis LLP and Sherrard Kuzz LLP hired the same amount of 1L students as last year. Dentons Canada LLP hired two less while Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP took on three fewer students. Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP was alone in increasing the amount of 1L students they hired,

taking on two additional students this year. Out of the 12 employers who participated in the 2021 Recruit, nine responded to our inquiry. Of the three firms that did not provide their data, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP hired five students last year, while Deeth Williams Wall LLP and McCarthy Tétrault LLP did not participate in the 2020 Toronto 1L Recruit.

Queen's

Western

Ottawa

Windsor

McGill

Dalhousie

Ryerson

Other

Aird & Berlis LLP

Bereskin & Parr LLP

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP

Did not respond by the time of publication 5

Deeth Williams Wall LLP Dentons Canada LLP MAG, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Did not respond by the time of publication 8

McCarthy Tetrault LLP

Did not respond by the time of publication

Sherrard Kuzz LLP

Smart & Biggar

1 0

Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan LLP

Did not respond by the time of publication

11 14

3 3

6 6

4 4

1 1

0 0

4 4

1457

210

290

207

185

320

245

183

170

% with positions secured from Toronto Summer Student Recruit*

Count of participating employers

2020 Total 2021 Total Approximate class size

% employers responding

Summary by year

Total

U of T

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

*Total percentage only for Ontario law schools

Queen's

Western

Ottawa

Windsor

McGill

Dalhousie

Ryerson

Other

Osgoode

67%

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

September 29, 2021 | 9

An Exit Interview with Waleska Vernon, Former Career Development Counsellor Waleska Vernon reflects on her time at the CDO and provides her advice on forming and achieving sustainable career goals THOMAS RUSSELL (2L) On September 13, Waleska Vernon left the Faculty of Law’s Career Development Office (CDO) to take on the role of Director of Professional Recruitment and Development at Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP. Waleska graciously sat down with Ultra Vires to talk about her time with the CDO and give some final advice to students. Ultra Vires (UV): You worked at full-service firms in New York and Toronto from 2002–2011 and then changed gears to pursue mentorship. What led you to make this choice? Waleska Vernon (WV): I was at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP (Blakes) in Toronto in the corporate department. Around 2006, I switched from litigation and did the rest of my practice in mergers and acquisitions. In that position I was acting as a mentor to the students and associates. That’s where I got my first taste of mentoring others. I was also mentored by a senior associate at the firm. Those experiences really resonated with me and that’s where I started thinking much more about a career where mentorship would be my central role. UV: In your position at the CDO, what did you find to be the most rewarding and most difficult aspects of the job? WV: Hands down, the most rewarding aspect of my position was building relationships with students. My first role after finishing my masters in counselling psychology was at an undergraduate university career center. In that situation, students normally didn’t seek out career services until their fourth year. Obviously, at that point, there’s limited ability to form a relationship. At the law school, I got the opportunity to meet students right out of the gate in 1L and walk with them through the various recruitment processes and career reflections they had during their time in law school. It's such an interesting and talented group of students. I was always amazed by the accomplishments that these students had. Yet, students aren’t confident because they look around and see the accomplishments that their peers have. Building that confidence with students and seeing them grow was such a privilege for me. In terms of what was challenging, I don’t think it’s any secret that the CDO was and is understaffed to some extent. The needs are high, and our hours are limited. I would have loved to expand our programing throughout the year for various kinds of student interests and questions and so on, but we just didn’t have the capacity for that. UV: How did the pandemic affect the role and activities of the CDO? WV: Last summer, the bulk of our role was negotiating and advocating with the law society and employers to come up with a new recruitment cycle that would reflect the fact that the grades became pass/fail at that point in time. We had to decide which programs were critical and what other supports students needed given the extreme circumstances. We had to figure out how to best support students in a virtual setting and help them during an online recruit. Students were very understanding though. I think they realized that these are extreme circumstances and we are all

just doing our best. UV: During your time as a career counsellor with the CDO, you were also acting as a career counsellor and psychotherapist in private practice where you worked with individuals experiencing major work-life stress. What advice would you have for students about to embark on their own careers, with the associated stressors of legal practice? WV: What I would say is, for anyone who is thinking of a career transition, it is usually because there was not enough information available when they embarked on their career. When people are going through recruits, they only have limited information available to them about what’s out there and also about themselves. Sometimes people need to get out into a job or career to see if it’s the best fit for them. If students are going through the recruit and are not 100% confident in their choices, that is okay. There are people I know who are certain about where they want to end up and then quickly realize it is not the best fit for them. For lawyers specifically, a unique culture exists in law school, where a very clear hierarchy is communicated to students about what are the best jobs, which jobs are prestigious, and which aren’t. Once you get out of that environment, you can be more honest with yourself about what you value. I know a lot of people who experience this, but obviously there is a sampling bias because they wouldn’t come to me if everything was great! But people can realize very quickly that the demands of certain practice areas are unsustainable for them. I think students need to realize going into it that if you do full-service, it is very demanding. In the remote environment, the impression I have gotten is that clients are even more demanding. There is such fierce competition for clients and that’s what makes it so stressful. If students can go into their careers with their eyes open, that’s great. I think students should go into these kinds of experiences knowing what they want to get out of it. There is nothing wrong with going into these really stressful environments as long as they know what their goals are. If you wanted to pay down your student debt, then you could do that until you felt like you were in a good position then go find a job that is more aligned with what you wanted from your life. Also, when you’re five years out in your practice, no one cares which firms you were at — it doesn’t affect your day-to-day. I think students should be on the lookout for firms where they know they will get along with the people there. Students should allow their wellness to be factored into the equation and they should also be aware of what their top needs are. There is certainly value to keeping your options open by doing a more general experience. A fullservice firm gives you the chance to dabble in a bunch of areas. However, if students don’t think that’s what they want, then I would say they should really consider what it is they do want. UV: Do you have any parting advice for students going through one of the various recruits, or getting ready to take them on? Whether it’s 1L, 2L, or the articling recruit?

CREDIT: SHAE ROTHERY

WV: First, U of T law students are fantastic. It was a very rare occurrence for me to meet a student who didn’t have unique experiences or something special to offer. You are all eminently marketable. To the extent that students are concerned they are not going to get employed, I want them to banish that thought. However, students should consider that their career might not start in the way that they expect. What I have noticed with students that go through the articling recruit is that there is sometimes serious disappointment that they didn’t land a 2L position at one of the top firms. However, while you might not get the full-service experience right out of the gate, you will get great work experience and if you decide that you want that full-service experience, then you can circle back to it at a later date. There are lots of opportunities once you’re called to the bar, so don’t worry. Second, make use of the CDO. I have seen a marked difference in the quality of the application materials and knowledge of self that comes from having meetings with the CDO. When I meet students who didn’t land a 2L position or an articling position, it’s usually because they didn’t meet with the CDO to go over their experiences

and what they want to convey. I’ve been working with Paliare for a week now, and it shows when someone hasn’t made use of CDO services. It just creates a disadvantage that doesn’t have to exist. If you aren’t going to go to the CDO, just make sure that you are reflecting carefully on what you want and getting advice from someone you trust on how to best present yourself. You are all great and I believe in you all. I genuinely believe in the students from the Faculty. Sometimes you just need to get out of your own way and let your qualities shine through. You will land on your feet. UV: Is there anything else that you wanted to say as parting words? WV: The other advice I would offer is to present the best version of yourself to your employers. Part of what makes students nervous is they see what other students have to offer and compare themselves to other students on those metrics without considering what their own strengths are. Showcase what you bring. Students often say, “I don’t have business experience and I don’t have legal experience.” Well, most people don’t. You have to show what you have, and employers will respond to that. This Interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

FEATURES

10 | September 29, 2021

ultravires.ca

Summer Winederlust In Vino Veritas SAWYER PELOSO (2L) While all Canadians of legal drinking age have been given the opportunity to be vaccinated, many of us here at In Vino Veritas refrained from travelling this summer. We instead enjoyed a wine-f illed summer in Ontario. Since the desire to travel abroad remains as high as ever, we thought it would be a great time to discuss our summer winederlust and review some wines from places that we wished we could have travelled to. We chose wines this month from around the world. Angela talks about a wine from Austria which she discovered through Not your Parent’s Wine’s case club. Reya, who wished she could have hiked through Patagonia this summer, reviews a popular red wine from Chile. Tom discusses a great Portuguese wine from the illustrious Iberian peninsula. In lieu of a trip to Italy, Sawyer reviews an excellent wine from Tuscany.

Angela Gu Claus Preisinger Puszta Libre! $45 delivered from Not Your Parent’s Wine case club

Had I been able to travel this summer, I would’ve taken a solo Europe trip, adding tally marks to my country count. Instead, I spent the summer accumulating bottles from Not Your Parent’s Wine’s ( N YPW ) case club. N YPW delivers a bottle from each month’s surprise case to your doorstep and you also get access to exclusive web content about the wine of the month. The content includes tasting notes, details about the grapes and the regions, the winemaker’s story, and of course, a recipe to enjoy with your bottle. This was N YPW’s August bottle. It’s from Burgenland, Austria, made of Saint Laurent and Zweigelt grapes (comparable to pinot noir and gamay, respectively). I followed N YPW’s instructions to give it a “hard chill,” which seems like an odd treatment for a red, but then again, this is not your typical red. You might even like “Puzta Libre!” if you categorically dislike red wines. If you need any more convincing, the cork is stamped with a winky face emoji. It’s a beautiful purple colour in the glass, and it’s lightly f loral and a little salty on the nose. A sip reveals a zippy acidity. It

induces a pucker, and reminds me of the dried salted plums my grandparents always had around. There’s the tiniest tinge of funk, because after all, it’s biodynamic and low intervention. If you want to hunt down a bottle, it’s currently available for $42 at The Federal at 1438 Dundas St. West. Pair with charcuterie and summer weather.

Reya Manerikar Santa Carolina Reserva Cabernet Sauvignon $13.95 from the LCBO

Being stuck inside my Toronto apartment for the last year has made me crave adventure, so I chose the Carolina Reserva Cabernet Sauvignon. Chile is known for producing full-bodied reds, but don’t expect a traditional cab sauv here! Shying away from stereotypes, Carolina boasts a medium body and medium tannin levels. This wine is peppery on the nose and the palate is composed of surprisingly subtle raspberry notes. After a summer of drinking light wines in the Toronto heat, I welcomed a gentle transition into the heavier wines of fall. I paired my glass with a simple cacio e pepe.

Tom Russell Quinta do Cume W hite Reserva 2018 $29.95 from the LCBO

If you’re interested in indulging in the illustrious Iberia without interfering with your injurious impulsion to remain indoors, then look no further than this delicious Malvasia blend by Quinta do Cume. Malvasia Fina is a Portuguese variety of the Malvasia wine grape family historically grown around the Mediterranean. Quinta do Cume operates in the Douro Valley, a major wine-producing region in Northern Portugal best known for its port wines. That being said, this Malvasia Fina blend did not disappoint. This is a dry, full-bodied, and acidic wine with a beautiful pale color. I noted f lavors of oak, citrus, and vanilla. Pair this wine with shell-

A BOTTLE OF CLAUS PREISINGER PUSZTA LIBRE. CREDIT: ANGELA GU

f ish, cured meat, or a cheese platter.

Sawyer Peloso Frescobaldi Castiglioni Chianti 2018 $15.95 from the LCBO

After having done many wine-crawls in the Niagara and Prince Edward County regions in Ontario, I had a strong desire to do a multi-week wine-tasting adventure in Tuscany, Italy. The Chianti region in Tuscany is known for their Sangiovese grapes

so I chose the 2018 Frescobaldi Castiglioni. It is one of many excellent value Chiantis you can f ind at the LCBO. On the nose it has strong hints of cherry and other berries. On the palate I found it to be very fresh and expressive with notes of cherry and strawberry. It boasts a medium body with a dry but smooth f inish, making it a great option for a summer dinner. This wine pairs very well with most foods; however, in the spirit of winederlust, I chose to have the wine with a pasta dish. It did not disappoint. Overall, I highly recommend!

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

September 29, 2021 | 11

The Journey to Articling in Criminal Law Want to article in criminal law? Here’s how two U of T students did it ANNA ZHANG (3L) For students wanting to work in criminal law, the path may seem ambiguous. Opportunities for 1L and 2L criminal law jobs are limited within the formal LSO process and students must often take summer positions that are not directly related to defence or Crown work. The Criminal Law Students’ Association (CLSA) recently spoke to two 3L students who landed top-tier articling gigs in criminal law: Michael Shaffer (3L), who will be articling at the prominent defence firm Addario Law Group (Addario) and Abrahim Ahmed (3L), who will be articling at the prestigious Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC). In learning about their journeys, one thing becomes clear. The path to practicing criminal law may not always be clear-cut, but for those who want it, there is always a route to be found. Interest in Criminal Law Prior to Law School

Neither Shaffer nor Ahmed had their eyes set on criminal law going into law school. “It wasn’t even on my radar,” says Shaffer, recounting how he gave away his criminal law textbook and copy of the Criminal Code after 1L. Both enjoyed their first-year criminal law class with Professor Kent Roach, but their decisions to pursue criminal law were not cemented until later. For Ahmed , his interest was solidified through his experience as a part-time caseworker in the Criminal Law Division at U of T’s Downtown Legal Services (DLS) during his second year 2L. At this time, he also developed a keen interest in international law. One of his supervising lawyers at DLS recommended the PPSC, a federal agency that prosecutes cases drug offences, terrorism, criminal organizations, and money laundering. “After looking into the type of work [the PPSC] did, I realized that federal prosecution allowed for both areas of practice, so it was a perfect fit for me,” says Ahmed. Shaffer’s interest piqued during the summer of

2020, at the height of the pandemic with the uprising following the George Floyd tragedy, the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests, and the Defund the Police movement throughout the U.S. and Canada. Passionate about issues of racial profiling and injustice, Shaffer began to question the proper role of police and developed a keen interest in the criminal justice system. “I have pretty strong views about inequality in the justice system and the role of prisons as a form of punishment,” Shaffer says. After learning that his values were echoed by many lawyers from the criminal defence bar, his interest in criminal defence work was solidified. 1L and 2L Summers

Neither student worked in criminal law during their 1L summer. Ahmed completed his summer as a research assistant for Professor Arnold Weinrib focusing on issues of property law, while Shaffer was placed with the Six Nations of the Grand River Justice Department through the Debwewin Program. Despite not being directly related to criminal law, Ahmed still found his 1L experience and the relationships he developed to be highly beneficial in seeking criminal law jobs. “What really helped me land an interview at PPSC were my reference letters. Professor Weinrib, along with the lawyers at DLS, wrote me very kind reference letters,” says Ahmed. Shaffer echoed similar sentiments, recounting that his work doing policy research with a Justice Department that aimed to build an independent Six Nations legal system gave him a lot of insight into criminal law. Shaffer, who is passionate about issues facing Indigenous individuals in the justice system such as over-incarceration, described his summer experience as the “perfect job” because it aligned with his interests and allowed him to do meaningful work. Both students worked in criminal law during their 2L summers. Ahmed landed a 2L summer

student position with PPSC through the formal recruit while Shaffer landed a position as a caseworker with the Criminal Division at DLS. However, DLS was not always Shaffer’s top choice. “I did the 2L recruit and didn’t get a job out of it,” says Shaffer. “But looking back, I couldn’t have asked for a better experience. DLS should have been my top choice.” Shaffer, who primarily applied for Bay Street firms during the 2L recruit, then participated in the articling recruit with a focus on criminal law, and landed a position with Addario, a distinguished defence firm in Toronto led by the legendary defence counsel, Frank Addario. Shaffer’s experience demonstrates that the 2L recruit is not the be-all-end-all. “It’s important for students to know that things will work out in the end, even when they don’t seem like they will at the time,” says Shaffer. Landing a Criminal Law Position

Although Crown interviews and defence firm interviews tend to be slightly different, both students said employers on both sides were primarily concerned with discerning a genuine interest in criminal law. Shaffer found the articling recruit experience less intimidating, as he could freely speak about the issues he cared about instead of “faking” an interest. Likewise, Ahmed’s interest in public-facing work was apparent through his volunteer experience with an immigration and refugee clinic and competing in the Jessup International Law Moot Competition of 2021. There are a variety of ways to demonstrate a genuine interest in criminal law. Both students suggested taking upper-year criminal law courses (Evidence, Criminal Procedure, Crime and Punishment etc.), being familiar with recent developments and issues in criminal law, and drawing on past experiences that demonstrate an avid interest in the field. For Shaffer and Ahmed, their clinic experience at DLS was invaluable as it exposed

each of them to criminal defence work and allowed them to make connections with their supervising lawyers. According to Ahmed, this type of clinic experience was very helpful for his Crown interviews as well. “DLS exposes you to criminal law as a whole. It’s not just defence work, but public-service minded defence work, and that public service experience is highly valued in Crown offices too” says Ahmed. Crown interviews are largely substantive and designed to test students’ knowledge and application of criminal law principles. Since these interviews vary from office to office, Ahmed found it helpful to speak to upper-year students who had gone through the process. In addition, he says that students should be familiar with the Crown Policy Manual and the role and obligations of a prosecutor. To prepare for his PPSC interview which consisted of a hypothetical fact pattern given to students beforehand, Ahmed also read a practitioner's handbook on relevant Charter issues from the fact pattern. Future Plans

The CLSA asked both students if they had any future plans in the field of criminal law. Ahmed said he aspires to stay at the Federal Crown and despite his interest in international law, his focus is on criminal law for now. “I would love to develop a practice in international law but it’s a limited field. My priority is to focus on criminal law and hopefully, it will bring some international opportunities in the future.” Similarly, Shaffer is also taking an open-minded approach to his future as a defence lawyer. “I have no expectations, I want to do whatever feels right. But whatever I do, I’d like to focus on the issues that I’m passionate about. I think a practice area focused on these issues will make my job more meaningful.”

FEATURES

12 | September 29, 2021

ultravires.ca

Film Review: Taking on TIFF

A few reviews from this year’s Toronto International Film Festival HARRY MYLES (2L) AND DOMINIQUE WIGHTMAN (2L)

THE TORONTO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL. CREDIT: SHAE ROTHERY

The red carpet has been rolled up and the celebrities have left town for another year. On September 18, the Toronto International Film Festival ( TIFF ) wrapped its 2021 edition, having screened over 100 f ilms. In light of vaccinations, the festival employed a hybrid model of digital and in-person screenings. In-person events required masks, physical distancing, and proof of full vaccination or a negative COV ID-19 test for entry. The venues were at 50% capacity and several alternative options were of fered for some f ilms, including drive-ins and open-air screenings. As of right now, these protocols appear to be successful at mitigating the public health impact of the festival. On Thursday, September 16, TIFF informed impacted attendees of a reported COV ID-19 case in an audience member of four press and industry screenings; however, the case was deemed “low risk” and “isolated.” There have been no other reported cases. Overall, the festival seems to have successfully balanced bringing TIFF back to the city while abiding by public health measures. Below are a few f ilm reviews by members of the Ultra Vires community who attended this year’s festival.

Harry Myles (2L) The Eyes of Tammy Faye at the Princess of Wales Theatre Director: Michael Showalter I had the pleasure of seeing the world premiere of Tammy Faye at the magnif icent Princess of Wales Theatre. The director, Michael Showalter, and the star, Jessica Chastain (also doubling as a producer), along with one other producer and the screenwriter, were all in attendance and conducted a Q and A afterwards. The f ilm tells the story of Tammy Faye Bakker (Chastain), an American televangelist, who gained popularity in the 1970s and 1980s alongside her husband Jim Bakker ( played by Andrew Garf ield). The story follows Faye’s life from her childhood to her rise to fame and the eventual conviction of her husband for fraud and conspiracy. Tammy Faye

emphasizes the televangelist’s involvement with the LGBTQ+ community during the A IDS epidemic while also illustrating the downsides of meteoric fame. The f ilm itself was enjoyable without taking any major risks in terms of its storytelling or production. Chastain was without a doubt the highlight of the f ilm and looked nearly unrecognizable by the end due to the extensive makeup and hair design (keep an eye out for Oscar nominations in these categories). As well, the comedic roots of Showalter, one of the writers of Wet Hot American Summer, shone through at various points in the f ilm, providing a pleasant break from some of the more serious points of the story.

Harry Myles (2L) Costa Brava, Lebanon at Scotiabank Theatre Director: Mounia A kl Costa Brava, Lebanon tells the near-future story of the three-generation Badri family living in an idyllic home amongst forested hills in Lebanon. While in the throes of a crushing garbage crisis, the government expropriates some of the Badri lands for a cutting-edge recycling plant. The plant ultimately becomes a massive landf ill, the impact of which strains the fragile family dynamic of the Badris. Costa Brava is the debut for A kl and alludes to the ongoing garbage crisis in present-day Beirut as well as the deadly explosion that decimated parts of the city in August 2020. In a post-screening Q and A, A kl noted that each member of the family ref lected a dif ferent part of her personality, from the energetic child to the jaded father sick of political corruption, to the hopeful mother that wishes to return to a career as a protest singer. Incredible performances from the cast perfectly captures each of these character traits, including a particularly impressive delivery from twins that jointly played the youngest Badri family member. Costa Brava uses allegory to highlight a very real crisis impacting Beirut as well as the world as a whole, while delicately exploring the complexity of a burdened family.

Dominique Wightman (2L) Official Competition at the Princess of Wales Theatre Directors: Mariano Cohn and Gastón Duprat Off icial Competition tells the satiric story of an auteur ( played by Penélope Cruz) attempting to create a legacy-making f ilm for the wealthy producer while juggling two rivalrous lead actors (Oscar Martínez and Antonio Banderas). The auteur is an easy comedic target, and the genre has cashed-in to diminishing returns. The slam-poetry sequence in 22 Jump Street and the Ongo Gablogian bit in It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia worked. Velvet Buzzsaw, on the other hand, illustrates the comedic limits of punching down on the art world behind the veneer of “satire.” For those who f ind dunking on bohemian liberal arts students and white collar gallery dilettantes witty, you would enjoy Robert Florczak’s piece, “Why Modern Art is So Bad”. Off icial Competition, the latest feature f ilm from Mariano Cohn and Gastón Duprat, maneuvers the pitfalls of “satire” with style. Fantastic interior cinematography, creative set design, and spontaneous pacing provide the loose narrative with a solid technical background, against which the expertly selected cast can shine. Cruz, Martínez, and Banderas provide an emotional core to characters which, under the direction of less talented f ilmmakers, could easily descend into grade-school caricatures. It’s also worth noting that Cruz and Banderas are at the beginning of a late-career renaissance, following up 2019’s phenomenal Pain and Glory in opposite leading roles with palpable chemistry. Martínez gets props too for managing to not only distinguish himself from, but assert himself against Banderas and Cruz as a powerful co-lead. While Off icial Competition involves a healthy dose of “meta”-humour, it thankfully doesn’t bombard the audience with fourth-wall breaks. Cohn and Duprat take a more subtle approach — their use of Chekhov’s gun throughout the story culminates in a gleefully deranged twist and eases the audiences’ transition into an unexpected

last-minute tonal shift. It’s in these sequences that Cohn and Duprat’s attention to detail — in set design, character development, and narrative — ties Off icial Competition’s kinetic and of f-kilter vignettes into a satisfying, cohesive whole. Off icial Competition is a sleeper hit from TIFF, and one of the boldest and most refreshing comedies to be released in 2021. I predict Off icial Competition will be in the running for Best International Film at the Academy Awards.

Dominique Wightman (2L) Belfast (People’s Choice Award Winner) at the Princess of Wales Theatre Director: Kenneth Branagh Belfast won the TIFF People’s Choice Award, meaning it was the most popular f ilm amongst TIFF’s cinephile attendees and, based on history, a serious Oscar hopeful. This is unsurprising given that the f ilm hits nearly every trademark of an awardseason f lick: black and white visuals, a nostalgia-based setting in 1960s Belfast, a star performance from Jamie Dornan as well as a veteran appearance from Judi Dench, and a heartfelt coming-of-age story sure to shed some tears. The f ilm was quite good overall, but to put it simply, Belfast felt like typical Oscar-bait. The f ilm lacked real emotional stakes and failed to diverge from the typical coming-of-age plotline. Each beat was quite expected and the f ilm did not dare to push the dramatic envelope by truly driving home the harrowing time of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Instead, it provided crowd-pleasing points of despair and levity without challenging the emotional range of the audience. It is a shame that the People’s Choice award did not go to runner-up Scarborough, to draw some attention to the more topical Canadian f ilm. Editor’s Note: Harry Myles and Dominique Wightman are the 2L Representatives for the Law Film Society.

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

September 29, 2021 | 13

A Deep Dive Into Five Coffee Shops Near Campus Where to go for your next coffee chat KAITLYN NELSON (2L), LAUREN PAPAROUSIS (2L), AND SHAE ROTHERY (2L) So you’re back to the daily commute and no longer have the convenience of your own coffee machine at your fingertips at all hours of the day. On top of that, the Goodmans LLP Café is set to be closed for yet another year, and Starbucks locations across the city are disappearing faster than Cognomos processes conditional drops. Where should you get your coffee fix near campus? We did the hard work and sampled five cafés around the law school so that you don’t have to. Now, you’re probably wondering, what credentials do we have to be giving unsolicited advice on where to buy coffee? Great question. As three roommates who started a semi-satirical review page on Instagram as a pandemic project, we think we have the combined expertise to write a review column for the school newspaper. Let's dive into the reviews.

Goldstruck Coffee (130 Cumberland St) To set the scene: you exit Flavelle, and set your eye on Yorkville. You pass an endless number of people walking in and out of Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Hermès, etc. You think to yourself, “I also deserve a treat.” But you just paid tuition, and looking at your line of credit causes you physical pain. So you continue on your journey, and find yourself at Goldstruck. The coffee is fine. I asked for a brewed coffee. The barista asked me, “Pour over or drip?” As a regular drinker of whatever Keurig pods I can find on sale, I was clearly not Goldstruck’s target clientele. I pick the cheaper one — a drip coffee for $3.14, tax included. Again, it was fine. $3 is probably robbery for a cup of drip coffee, but hey, it’s Toronto, and Yorkville no less! Highlight: solid availability of various dairy alternatives.

Sorry Coffee Co (102 Bloor St W) If you think, “I want another Yorkville coffee, but with more dogs this time,” then Sorry is the place for you! It offers dog bowls filled with water for your four-legged friends as well. Sorry might be home to our favourite takeaway coffee cup in Toronto — the aesthetic and the ~vibes~ make for a great Insta story. The coffee itself was good and cost about $3.60 for a standard Americano, so not your cheapest option. The only downside is a lack of seating area, so you can’t waste the afternoon sitting in a coffee shop pretending to read case law. Highlight: 10/10 branding.

Pilot Coffee Roasters (55 Bloor St W, Suite 128) Another aesthetic choice! Located in the Manulife Centre, Pilot Coffee Roasters is a great spot if you want your coffee served with a side of corporate. Jokes aside — Pilot really does make great coffee. It’s also the perfect distance from the law school for when you feel the need to escape for a little while, but have to be back on campus for a mandatory lunch time training session. Highlight: the sea salt chocolate chip cookie is divine.

Coffee Island (925 Bay St) Do you know that feeling when the week is dragging on and you think to yourself “there’s no way I can get through this day without a treat yo’ self coffee”? Situated precisely halfway between our house and campus (shoutout to Yonge and College), Coffee Island is the perfect layover. When I went to pay for my mid-day treat, the barista’s eyes lit up as she glanced at my name on my credit card. She ex-

plained that the store owners are also Greek — you can probably guess based on our last names who wrote this review. She even gave me a small discount based on our lovely conversation! Overall, good vibes at Coffee Island. Highlight: they give out free dog treats, so it’s another great spot for dog owners and dog observers alike.

Almond Butterfly Bakeshop & Cafe (100 Harbord St) When taking a trip over to the West side of campus and in need of a pick-me-up, look no further than Almond Butterfly. $3.14 for an iced Americano, cardboard straw included (#SaveTheTurtles). You’ll get a standard 12oz pour, no ornate branding on the cup, but hey, sometimes simplicity is key. And that’s exactly what this coffee is. Nothing fancy, but it does the trick.

OUR FAVOURITE TAKEAWAY COFFEE CUP FROM SORRY COFFEE CO. CREDIT: KAITLYN NELSON

Highlight: an affordable (by Toronto standards) option for getting your caffeine fix.

Bonus Review: Dark Horse Coffee Automat (1235 Bay St) Can a vending machine make a cup of coffee that’s worth drinking? This is the kind of investigative journalism we’re interested in. We tried the contactless, autonomous espresso bar, which purports to serve the same quality of drinks served by real humans at Dark Horse locations around the city. I’m not sure if I’m quite sold on that. For $5, I’d rather pay a real person to make a coffee than fund the robot takeover of our society. But hey, we can’t tell you how to vote with your wallet. Pro tip: sign up for the email list and you might be able to snag yourself a free coffee. It doesn’t feel nearly as bad when it's free.

DRIP COFFEE FROM GOLDSTRUCK COFFEE. CREDIT: LAUREN PAPAROUSIS

Orientation Events for All Both in-person and online events filled law students’ schedules for their first week back to school REBECCA ROSENBERG (2L) Or ientation is a staple for incoming f irst-year students. This year, or ientation coordinators Hannah Lank (3L), A nisha Sivathas (2L), and Jennifer Sun (2L) put together a heist-themed week of both in-person and online events. The motif aimed to get 1L s to express their indiv idual streng ths and unique backgrounds while they prepared to enter law school, i.e., the “Ultimate Heist.” Ocean’s 1L , the tit le of this year’s or ientation (O -Week), k icked of f w ith an outdoor v iew ing of Ocean’s 8 on the back lawn of the law school. There was also an “A mazing Race”, a tr iv ia night w ith Professor A nthony Niblett, an evening mixer at The Slip, and a day at Canada’s Wonderland. Upper year volunteers helped facilitate the events and answered 1L s’ ques-

tions to ease their transition into law school. Hannah, Anisha, and Jennifer wanted OWeek to promote community-building and teamwork, especially since this was the f irst time that most students were able to gather in-person since the pandemic began. W hile planning was challeng ing due to the ever-chang ing state of COV I D -19 restr ictions, Hannah, A nisha, and Jennifer were happy to see this year’s 1L s eagerly participating in the events and mingling w ith their peers. They thank A nn Vuletin and Terr y Gardiner for their support to put on a successful O -Week. The 1L s were not the only ones celebrating their f irst week back to school as upper-year students got their own or ientation-esque week too. Many students last

year lost the opportunit y to meet their peers in an in-person social setting due to a str icter COV I D -19 lockdown. So, SLS’ upper-year welcome back ( U Y W B) week was particularly special for those who were unable to meet their fr iends and classmates outside of Zoom. “It was lovely seeing ever yone outside of an academic setting, not drowning in readings and actually hav ing fun,” remarked Meaza Damte (2L). Many students expressed similar sentiments at being able to see their peers outside of the librar y env ironment. Starting w ith a snack and mingle outside of the law school, U Y W B featured v irtual tr iv ia, a pizza part y, and a night out at RendezViews’ patio. The f inal event was at the Docks Dr iv ing Range where attendees

played volleyball, golfed, and perused the food truck snack options. Social and Finance Committee (SFC) Representative Apples Mastrog iacomo (2L) said the SFC spent most of the summer prepar ing for the U Y W B. It was tough f ig uring out plans in the midst of quick ly changing circumstances but luck ily, the team was able to f ind venues large enough to host the upper-year students. Overall, it was a successful or ientation week at U of T Law. The SLS, O -Week coordinators, and volunteers did a great job of of fer ing entertainment while mak ing sure students were being safe and adher ing to prov incial g uidelines. The student body eagerly awaits what social events are in store for this upcoming year. Up next, Call to the Bar ...

14 | September 29, 2021

ultravires.ca

R IGHTS R EVIEW

The International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law An independent student-led publication Co-Editors-in-Chief: Taskeen Nawab (3L) and Sabrina Sukhdeo (3L) Senior Editors: Martha Côté (2L) and Sterling Mancuso (2L) Social Media Editor: Ellen An (3L)

A STATEMENT FROM THE EDITORIAL BOARD A CALL FOR THE UNIVERSITY TO MEND ITS RELATIONSHIPS By Rights Review Editorial Board Dear Readers, Just over a year ago, the Faculty of Law put an end to the hiring of Dr. Valentina Azarova as the new Director of the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) because a donor and sitting judge objected to her scholarship criticizing Israel’s occupation of Palestine. At the time, the Editorial Board expressed alarm over what these events revealed: improper donor influence, judicial impropriety, and the Palestinian exception to academic freedom. In the following months, we then saw the University administration continually shirk accountability for its misconduct and brush aside the historic academic censure of the University imposed by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). On September 17, 2021, it was announced that Dr. Azarova had been re-offered the Director position, though she ultimately declined. This development is a direct result of the organized labour and collective action of academics around the world. However, while the CAUT has temporarily suspended the censure in re-

sponse, it has yet to be lifted entirely. This muted win reflects the fact that many of our initial concerns remain unanswered. As students at the IHRP, we continue to be concerned about the corrosive effects of this scandal on the IHRP’s reputation and capacity as a clinical program dedicated to human rights advocacy. First and foremost, the IHRP is pushing into its third year without a permanent director. The ability of the clinic to pursue ambitious and impactful projects and provide experiential education suffers tremendously without stable and supported leadership. This loss is most glaring in the absence of the IHRP’s part-time clinic, which has not graced the Faculty’s course offerings for a second consecutive year. As a result, students have lost out on important opportunities to develop practical skills in international human rights advocacy as well as engage in critical reflections on the law and lawyering. Equally worrisome is the shadow that has been cast upon the independence of clinical direc-

tors at the Faculty. Over the past year, the administration has repeatedly insisted that the IHRP director is a “managerial” rather than “faculty” position, thereby justifying its exclusion from the protective scope of academic freedom. As Professor Kent Roach intimated in his resignation as Faculty Chair of the Advisory Group for the Asper Centre, clinical directors should be empowered to engage in bold and imaginative advocacy without fear of retaliation. Legal clinics can be a dynamic site of systemic advocacy and community building, but only if clinic lawyers are free to speak truth to power. Lastly, the IHRP scandal has undoubtedly injured the program’s relationship with many of its longstanding community partners. In solidarity with the CAUT, several prominent human rights organizations suspended ties with the IHRP. Students can count among their losses the Digital Verification Corps working group at Amnesty International, externship positions at the Citizen Lab, and academic opportunities at Human Rights Watch, just to name a few. It is unclear how, if at all, the IHRP

will rebuild trust with these organizations such that students at the Faculty will have future opportunities to engage in meaningful human rights work. The IHRP is one of the few places at the Faculty where students who are committed to international justice can learn about both the potential and the perils of the law in advancing social movements. To ensure the long-term vitality of the IHRP’s unique offerings, we join the CAUT in calling for the University to mend its partnerships with stakeholders by fully participating in a reconciliatory process. The University must hold accountable those who have violated academic freedom. The University must explicitly extend academic freedom protections to academic managerial staff, including clinic directors. Finally, the University must urgently adopt robust policies prohibiting donor interference in decision-making at the University with a view toward preserving the institution’s integrity and autonomy. Sincerely, Rights Review Editorial Board 2021-2022

ACCESS TO SAFE ABORTION SERVICES AS A MATTER OF RIGHT TAKING A HUMAN RIGHTS BASED APPROACH TO ABORTION LAWS

By Martha Côté (2L)

On September 1, the United States Supreme Court delivered a 5-4, unsigned opinion in which the majority declined to step in and prevent what would soon become the country’s most restrictive abortion laws from coming into force. The decision rests on procedural grounds and is silent in its assessment of the substance of Texas Senate Bill 8. In doing so, the five Justices avoided addressing how this law appears to blatantly violate precedent established by Roe v Wade, the landmark decision that affirmed the constitutional right to access safe and legal abortion in the U.S. At least one Canadian court will soon be called to wrestle with its own restrictive abortion law. In 1988, R v Morgentaler (Canada’s Roe), saw the Supreme Court strike down the criminal prohibition on abortion on the grounds that it unjustifiably infringed upon the constitutionally

ihrprightsreview

protected right to life, liberty, and security of the person in a manner that failed to comply with the principles of fundamental justice. Since verdict was rendered, access to abortion has not always been available to all those who seek it. By excluding abortion procedures performed outside “approved” hospital facilities from services covered by the province’s Medicare coverage, New Brunswick Regulation 84-20 Schedule 2(a.1), enacted under the provincial Medical Services Payment Act, has effectively made abortion inaccessible to the greater part of the population. Due to a lack of provincial funding, the closure of the province’s sole clinic providing surgical abortion services is imminent. In January of 2020, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) filed a lawsuit against the Government of New Brunswick to, inter

alia, have Schedule 2(a.1) declared to be of no force and effect as violating sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. On June 1, 2021, Madam Chief Justice DeWare of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick granted the CCLA’s request for public interest standing in this action (CCLA v PNB, 2021 NBQB 119). The constitutionality of Regulation 84-20, however, has yet to be squarely addressed. In their statement of claim, the CCLA cites New Brunswick’s political and principled opposition to the provision of barrier-free abortion services. In the U.S., the issue of access to abortion is often similarly described as highly politicized, with Democrats and Republicans standing in broad (and often overgeneralized) opposition in what can feel like an inexhaustible debate. And pervading the general discourse — whether on social media, in the leg-

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

islature, or in the parking lot of women’s health clinics — are a lot of strong emotions. This is perhaps as good a place as any in this piece to disclose my own position: I believe in providing barrier-free abortion services (including post-procedure care) to all who seek them and that these services should be provided at no cost to the patient. In my experience, statements such as this are often followed by a justification hinging on personal experience or stated moral beliefs, sometimes both. I could supply my own as well, but, like many, my reflexive reasoning is so specific and full of pathos that engaging in a productive conversation with someone of the opposing view has not always been useful. I would instead take this opportunity to consider a human rights-based approach (HRBA) for a productive framework to examine the is-

uoftrightsreview

ultravires.ca

RIGHTS REVIEW

September 29, 2021 | 15

CREDIT: UNITED STATES MISSION GENEVA

sue of access to abortion. Such an approach is characteristically anchored in a system of rights and corresponding State obligations established by international law. As described by the World Health Organization (WHO), “an HRBA empowers rights-holders to claim their rights, and supports duty-bearers to meet their obligations ... an HRBA also analyzes a policy cycle through a framework of human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination, participation, indivisibility, and the rule of law, as well as the ‘AAAQ’ framework, which identifies availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of health care facilities, goods, and services as essential components of the right to health.” Regarding health policies, the United Nations’ (UN) common understanding on a Human Rights-based Approach would dictate (i) that these policies further the realization of human rights as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (ii) that a process whereby human rights standards and principles are promoted guide their implementation, and (iii) that these policies support duty-bearers in meeting their obligations and/ or right-holders in claiming their rights. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the leading UN entity on human rights, characterizes abortion as a reproductive health service. Under international law, “States parties may adopt measures designed to regulate [such services],” but doing so “must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or girl, or her other rights

ihrprightsreview

under the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]” (emphasis mine). These other rights include the right to health and to be free from cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, which can be jeopardized when a person is either forced to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term or to resort to unsafe abortion practices. Correspondingly, adopting a HRBA, the need for safe, legal abortion services to preserve the rights of roughly half of their population imposes on States an obligation to provide them. Per the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, States “have a core obligation to ensure, at the very least, minimum essential levels of satisfaction of the right to sexual and reproductive health which includes measures to prevent unsafe abortion.” This last quote raises a semantic point worth briefly addressing. Adopting a HRBA on the issue at hand has so far led the WHO to issue technical and policy guidance recommending the implementation of laws and policies providing for “safe abortion care” rather than mandating states provide accessible, legal abortion services, subject to above-qualified regulation. Data shows that, in practice, this may be a distinction without a difference. According to the Guttmacher Institute, across the world, around one in four pregnancies are terminated by abortion, whether legal or not. In fact, their research shows that the difference in abortion rates between countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only to save a woman’s life and those that broadly allow it is “not statistically significant.”

Where legal abortions are inaccessible, people resort to seeking out unsafe abortions, which the WHO defines as “carried out either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards or both.” This means that restricting access to abortion does not deter those seeking to terminate their pregnancy — instead, it puts their life at increased risk. Providing safe abortion care therefore amounts to providing accessible, legal abortion services. Texas’ Senate Bill 8 prohibits abortions past six weeks from conception. Whereas few are even aware of their pregnancy this early on, the stated justification for this hyper-restrictive cutoff is that this is when “fetal heartbeat” can first be detected. In other words, the state legislature sees the right to life of the fetus engaged at the six-week mark. Medically, this is at least misleading, as embryos do not have a heart at that stage of their development. When life begins, from a scientific perspective, remains disputed. Yet, under international law, the right to life of the pregnant person is undisputed. Plus, insofar as only specific groups of people can physically become pregnant, laws and policies that risk violating their rights raise major concerns of discrimination. In the Canadian context, this raises the question of the constitutionality of legislation restricting access to abortion services, as the CCLA claims Regulation 84-20 does. Human rights bodies, including the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, describe the “forced continu-

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

ation of pregnancy” via restricted access to safe abortion services as a form of genderbased violence. It is worth noting, as does the CCLA, that vasectomies are covered by Medicare in New Brunswick whether performed in a hospital or clinic. Furthermore, restricted access to abortion services disproportionately affects the poor, the young, and those living in rural areas. The last pointis hyper-relevant to New Brunswick, where around half the population lives outside urban areas, and where the only hospital facilities “approved” to provide abortion services covered by Medicare are in the cities of Moncton and Bathurst. Unsurprisingly, the disproportionate effect of Regulation 84-20 on the “underprivileged, marginalized, and vulnerable” also features in the CCLA’s argument. Taking a HRBA does not preclude regulating abortion services, nor does it provide a definitive blueprint for ideal legislation. Rather, within this framework, discriminatory policies that trample the free exercise of human rights are unacceptable. It follows that laws that ban abortion or limit access to abortion services (particularly for members of marginalized groups) to the point of discriminatorily jeopardizing the right to life, health, and dignity of those who seek these health services are unacceptable. It remains an open question whether domestic legal institutions in Canada, the U.S., or any of the many countries where similar restrictions endure, will come to the same conclusion, and act on them in a meaningful way.

uoftrightsreview

16 | September 29, 2021

RIGHTS REVIEW

ultravires.ca

VACCINE INEQUITY AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REALIZING THE RIGHT TO HEALTH THROUGH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

By Ainslie Pierrynowski (3L)

equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines tend to emphasize urgency, Article 12 of the ICESCR entails a “progressive realization” of the right to health over time. However, this means that states party to the ICESCR must nonetheless take concrete, deliberate, and targeted steps toward fully realizing the right to health, and act “as expeditiously and effectively as possible” in advancing this right. For these reasons, the right to health as recognized in international law might entail interstate cooperation with respect to vaccine distribution. There are, however, several challenges associated with realizing the right to health in the context of vaccine inequity. When it comes to international collaboration and the right to health, legal instruments and interpretive documents offer broad principles and general examples about how to proceed, but specific guidance regarding disease control and immunization is limited. Despite this challenge, the emergence of new structures in the international landscape amid the COVID-19 pandemic — such as the Multilateral Leaders Task Force on Scaling COVID-19 Tools, a joint initiative on the part of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank Group, World Health Organization, and World Trade Organization aiming to accelerate access to COVID-19 vaccines — may offer direction in the form of policy guidance and international norms.

CREDIT: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS / U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine inequity has become a pertinent international human rights issue. At their May 27, 2021 meeting, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization, which advises the World Health Organization on global policies and strategies on the delivery of immunization, noted that high-income countries have administered sixty-nine times more doses of COVID-19 vaccines per inhabitant than low-income countries. A recent joint statement from several United Nations (UN) agencies highlighted the concerning implications of this development, emphasizing, “[t]his crisis of vaccine inequity is driving a dangerous divergence in COVID-19 survival rates and in the global economy.” Moreover, incomplete vaccination coverage promotes the emergence of COVID-19 variants, which could potentially reduce vaccine efficacy. Tellingly, UN Secretary-General António Guterres referred to vaccine inequity as “the biggest moral test before the global community.” The causes behind the global vaccination gap are multivalent and complex. However, commentators have pointed to legal barriers, including intellectual property rights and export restrictions, as drivers of vaccine inequity. In turn, numerous voices have advocated for implementing transborder legal initiatives, such as multilateral legal agreements regarding vaccine purchasing, to allay vaccine inequity. Indeed, the global vaccine gap has a range of

ihrprightsreview

implications from a legal perspective—particularly in terms of international human rights law. Significantly, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, has articulated a human rights argument for multilateral cooperation regarding vaccine distribution. This article aims to briefly explore the key intersections between vaccine inequity and international human rights law. To begin, health is recognized as a fundamental human right in international law. Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) provides that everyone has the right to a “standard of living adequate for the health and well-being” for themselves and their families. This right encompasses food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services, as well as the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond one’s control. Further, Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (1966) recognizes “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” Article 12, however, does not guarantee a right to be healthy. Rather, it outlines a series of freedoms and entitlements necessary to promote equal opportunity to enjoy the “highest attainable level of health” [emphasis added]. The concept of the “highest attainable” standard of health is qualified by the individual’s biological and socio-economic preconditions and available

state resources. What are the normative implications of these rights in the context of vaccine inequity? An understanding of the nexus between vaccine inequity and human rights can be gleaned from international legal instruments and interpretive documents. In particular, Article 12 of the ICESCR provides that the states party to that Convention must take certain steps to realize the right to health, including the prevention, treatment, and control of epidemic and other diseases. The control of diseases refers to individual and joint state efforts to pursue strategies of infectious disease control, such as immunization. This responsibility has a cooperative, international dimension. States party to the ICESCR must respect the enjoyment of the right to health in other states and prevent third parties from violating this right in other states where they are able to influence the third parties through legal or political means, in accordance with international law. The fact that the right to health encompasses disease control, coupled with this international dimension, implies that the right to health arguably precludes states party to the ICESCR from impeding other countries’ access to COVID-19 vaccines. For instance, states party to the ICESCR might be precluded from upholding intellectual property agreements that inhibit international vaccine distribution. Yet, one could argue that whereas calls for an

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

Another challenge is that legal instruments which enshrine a right to health, such as the ICESCR, have not been ratified in every country. This can make enforcement of health rights through domestic legal institutions challenging. Additionally, there is a dearth of jurisprudence related to vaccination in the context of the right to health in international law. As a result, those who might wish to advance claims relating to vaccination and the right to health before international bodies have little to rely on in the way of precedent. Other barriers, including financial costs, time, and access to legal advice, may limit access to both international fora and domestic courts. Despite these enforcement-related concerns, a human rights approach to vaccine distribution holds normative and discursive power. In fact, the International AIDS Society-Lancet Commission on Health and Human Rights advocates for a human rights approach to redressing vaccine inequity. In a 2021 article, the organization wrote: Inequitable access to COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics mirrors wider health and health-care inequities and is grounded in broader structural inequalities, putting some populations at greater risk than others… A human rights approach offers an alternative… As science achieves such remarkable advances as the COVID-19 vaccines, it is compellingly clear that we cannot exclude our fellow human beings from benefiting from this advance. Allowing that kind of injustice is not only legally, politically, and morally unacceptable, but it also undermines all of our humanity. These words speak to both the promise of a human rights-based approach and the pressing need to address vaccine inequity. Amid the upheaval created by the COVID-19 pandemic, one thing is certain: we must find the will to act now.

uoftrightsreview

ultravires.ca

RIGHTS REVIEW

September 29, 2021 | 17

DELAYED FLIGHT TO JUSTICE WILL CANADA HOLD IRAN TO ACCOUNT OVER THE DOWNING OF FLIGHT PS752?

By Amirali Alavi (3L JD/MBA)

In the early hours of January 8, 2020, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752. Two surface-to-air missiles were fired at the jetliner from the vicinity of Tehran’s international airport only three minutes after take-off. All 176 on board the flight, after three minutes of suffering on the plummeting airplane, tragically perished upon impact with the ground. Canada has felt the loss heavily. 138 of the 167 passengers were travelling to Canada via Ukraine, including 55 Canadian citizens, 30 permanent residents, and many international students coming home from winter holidays with their families. Given Canada’s deep connection to this tragedy, the Government of Canada is leading the group of the affected countries — Ukraine, Sweden, Afghanistan, and the United Kingdom — in pursuit of accountability, truth, and justice. At the forefront of these efforts is our law school’s own Visiting Professor Payam Akhavan. Global Affairs Canada appointed Professor Akhavan as Senior Advisor on the downing of Flight PS752. This file, however, bears unique complexities that have rendered the road to justice painfully slow. In light of Iran’s disregard for international law, and with Iran itself in charge of the technical and criminal investigations, the international community has had little leverage to enforce the demands for accountability or transparency. Meanwhile, the families of victims have not remained quiet. The Association of Families of Flight PS752 Victims was established by a group of families in Canada in the months following the incident. The Association now represents the families of over 140 of the victims and is actively advocating for truth and justice for Flight PS752. The Association has organized a number of rallies in Canada and across the world calling on international bodies to hold Iran accountable. The international community, however, has so far responded with a deafening silence — even at the most relevant forums such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Demands for Truth: The Unanswered Questions Iran has not answered questions regarding why its airspace was allowed to remain open despite the tensions, why it ultimately attacked Flight PS752, and who gave those orders. Instead, the Iranian government has claimed that “human error” was to blame. However, this claim has since been widely rejected by the global community and is seen as a cover-up for a larger transgression. A few hours before the IRGC fired at Flight PS752, Iran had launched a ballistic missile attack against U.S. bases in Iraq in retaliation for the killing of the IRGC Major General Qasem Soleimani by a U.S. drone on January 3, 2020. Iran anticipated a heavy response by the U.S. — namely, strikes on 52 locations throughout the country according to previous warnings. Despite being in a heightened state of war, Iranian officials refused to close their airspace. Canada’s forensic report has revealed that Iran’s top-level authorities were involved in the decision to keep the airspace open after the ballistic missile attack. Some have speculated that, in doing so, Iran was hoping to create a human shield against an American attack.

ihrprightsreview

THE RALLY, TITLED “JUSTICE IS NOT NEGOTIABLE”, ORGANIZED BY THE ASSOCIATION IN TORONTO ON AUGUST 5, 2021. CREDIT: MEHDI TORABI KIA

There are various gaps and inconsistencies in Iran’s accounting of the events. According to Iran’s final report, the operator of the mobile air defense unit mistook the aircraft for a cruise missile. However, this is not consistent with the technical realities of the situation. There are, for instance, unmistakable differences between a Boeing 737-800 jetliner and a six-metre-long cruise missile — including size, radar crosssection, speed, direction, and flight trajectory. This air defence unit was equipped with various radar, camera, and radio systems to be able to correctly identify the passenger aircraft with ease, from the moment it took off until the second missile was fired. Multiple other reports have detailed further inconsistencies in Iran’s narrative. The Ukrainian and Canadian foreign ministries have also rejected Iran’s claims, as has the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, Dr Agnès Callamard. In the words of Dr. Callamard, Iran’s assertions appear “to be contrived to mislead in one or more ways.” She also adds that on the basis of the information released by Iran, “it is not possible to answer many basic questions and clarify conjectures”, which have “led many to question whether the downing of Flight PS752 was not intentional.” Demands for Justice: The Many Layers of Crimes Iran’s conduct — including the reporting, investigations, criminal proceedings, and encounters with families of victims — has been designed to obstruct justice. Iranian officials initially attempted to deny the downing, calling it a “mechanical failure.” In the face of growing evidence and international pressure, Iran admitted to the attack after three days, but called it “a mistake.” Meanwhile, Iran actively took steps to destroy the evidence. Bulldozers started clearing the crash site just hours after the attack. Remarkably, the flight recorders were withheld for seven months, delaying the investigation in a complete disregard to ICAO regulations that call for immediate read-out of the recorders.

violations in dealing with the families of victims and other protesters. In May 2021, the Human Rights Watch published an extensive report of harassment and intimidation of the families of victims. The report highlights numerous incidents of arbitrary detentions, abusive interrogations, torture, and interferences with burial and memorial gatherings “in an apparent attempt to curtail efforts for accountability.” Iran’s intimidation tactics extend into Canada in the form of phone calls and messages to Canadian families of victims. Inside Iran, peaceful public protests have been heavily suppressed, and protesters have in some cases been sentenced to years in prison.

On the legal front, the group of the affected countries have delivered their notice of claim against Iran to initiate negotiations over reparations. Iran has so far refused to respond to this notice, apparently continuing its delay tactics. If negotiations fail, the dispute can be submitted to the ICAO under the provisions of the Chicago Convention, and ultimately can be appealed to the International Court of Justice. These negotiations, however, cannot be conducted in a vacuum. They must be supplemented with adequate political action acting as levers of pressure. Strikingly, the ICAO has failed to condemn Iran for the shoot-down itself or for the numerous breaches of ICAO conventions.

While the innocent protesters were swiftly convicted, criminal proceedings for culprits of the downing of Flight PS752 have not been pursued nearly as seriously. The top commanders of the IRGC have already been extricated of any consequences, often making appearances on the state TV as national heroes. Under a judicial system that lacks independence from the other arms of the regime, there appears to be little hope for any meaningful achievement of justice in the domestic courts of Iran.

Given the current conditions, the Association of Families of Flight PS752 Victims has raised the following demands:

In contrast, on May 20, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled on the balance of probabilities that the downing of Flight PS752 was an intentional act of terrorism. Iran did not appear in court to defend itself, resulting in a default judgement for the plaintiffs, a group of families of victims. The Path to Justice Canada’s path to justice is as much political as it is legal. After being a target of what was likely a terrorist act, it is important that Canada, as a global power and advocate for human rights, stand up to Iran firmly on this matter. Remarkably, Iranian airport staff screened out any possible Americans from boarding Flight 752. This raises questions as to the differences between the attitudes of Canada and the U.S. in facing international threats and aggressions, which is critical when dealing with states that behave recklessly in the realm of asymmetric warfare.

Iran has also committed several human rights

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

1. That the Government of Canada demonstrate international leadership on this file and swiftly appeal failed negotiations to the ICAO and the International Court of Justice; 2. That the RCMP immediately launch a domestic criminal investigation under the provisions of sections 7(2)(c) and 77(d) of the Criminal Code; 3. That the ICAO Council, including Canada, condemn the Iranian regime in the strongest terms for the crimes committed and breaches of ICAO conventions; 4. That the Government of Canada impose Magnitsky sanctions on key members of the regime involved in the downing of Flight PS752; and, 5. That the Government of Canada list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization. The second anniversary of the downing of Flight PS752 will soon arrive. January 8 is now recognized federally as the National Day of Remembrance for Victims of Air Disasters. As we honour the victims of Flight PS752 on their second anniversary, all eyes are on Canada to heed the calls for justice.

uoftrightsreview

OPINIONS

18 | September 29, 2021

ultravires.ca

Why Students Should Care About the University Mandated Leave of Absence Policy UMLAP is up for review next year and consultations are now open to hear feedback from students HARRY MYLES (2L) AND ALISHA KRISHNA (2L) Content Warning: discussion of suicide and mental illness UMLAP Up For Review This Academic Year The University Mandated Leave of Absence Policy (UMLAP) is up for review in “Cycle 3” of this academic year (Winter 2022). Under UMLAP, the University can mandate leaves where the student “poses a risk of harm to self or others” and where mental health issues are involved. The University can also mandate a leave for a student who is “unable to engage in the essential activities required to pursue an education” after receiving accommodations. UMLAP applies to full and part-time students who have either declined accommodations or where accommodations have not been successful. The University has begun conducting campus consultations, and all members of the University community, with UTORids, can submit feedback through the website or virtually through two Town Halls. The first Town Hall was on September 23, but the second is taking place Tuesday, October 5 (4:00pm–5:30pm). Registration for the October Town Hall closes at 9:00am on October 5. After this year, reviews of the policy will be at the discretion of the Governing Council, meaning this could be the final chance for students to contest the policy. It is integral that students, particularly students at the Faculty of Law, get involved at this stage. History of UMLAP UMLAP was a response to the University Ombudsperson’s report from 2014-2015, which identified the widespread lack of accommodations for students with disabilities. It called for a non-coercive and cooperative policy to address cases on campus where mental illness may have been an issue. UMLAP was originally due for approval at the Governing Council in January 2018. In response, the Ontario Human Rights Commission drafted a letter citing concerns that UMLAP may violate its policies on discrimination and stigmatized students with mental illness. UMLAP was approved in June 2018. Between 2017 and 2019, contemporaneous events created a context where UMLAP became understood as a way for the University to shirk its obligations towards students in crisis. During this time, student advocacy for better health care was intensified, especially after each of at least three confirmed campus suicides: one during 2018 and two during 2019. Before its approval in June 2018, student groups, including the Mississauga Students’ Union (UTMSU), Scarborough Campus Students’ Union (SCSU), Association of Part-Time Undergraduate Students (APUS) and the Graduate Students’ Union (UTGSU) voiced strong objections to UMLAP, arguing that it “continues to undermine the autonomy and agency of students.” The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3902 (CUPE3902), representing contract aca-

demic workers at the University, also wrote to the administration in opposition of the policy. In February 2019, members of student groups vocalized disapproval of UMLAP at the October Governing Council meeting. The administration responded in March 2019, citing budgetary concerns as barriers to providing mental health care services. Only after the handcuffing incident at UTM in October 2019, and two faculty members’ objections to the treatment of students with mental illness, did the University create a “Presidential & Provostial Task Force on Student Mental Health.” The Task Force released their report in December 2019. It was in this context that the University enacted UMLAP and, between 2018 and 2021, placed 9 students on a combination of both mandated and voluntary leaves. Concerns About UMLAP While these numbers may seem low, students’ concerns are two-fold. First, the UMLAP process is coercive and places a greater burden on students to comply with the administration than it does on the University to accommodate students with disabilities. Second, the punitive consequences of a leave creates a chilling effect, which prevents students from seeking mental health care for fear that a mandated leave will be imposed. A student is already in crisis when engaged in the UMLAP process. Even before the administration notifies the student, they will have already compiled a “Student Support Team” (SST), which does not include the students’ own care providers. Through the process, the student can provide information to the SST which can then be considered. Students are likely unfamiliar with legal processes and human rights law, and are unrepresented by legal counsel — aside from private legal representation, students may only retain Downtown Legal Services at the final stage of appeal. In this context, they must appeal a mandated leave to the Provost in 10 business days, and to the Chair of the Discipline Appeals Board in 20 business days. UMLAP also does not specify re-entry conditions, which can include limits on the duration of a leave and medical documentation requirements. A leave of undefined duration can have devastating consequences for an international student, since study permits only allow for 150 days of authorized leave. The administration has told us that UMLAP is a “compassionate response” to mental health crises because it allows the University to sanction a student outside of the Code of Conduct. This assumes that a student’s crisis results from individualized need and not larger systemic factors, including the pressures of student life. During a 2019 action to draw attention to the deaths on campus, students described the university as a “pressure-cooker of intense demands, without the resources to meet the student needs to back it up.” In a December 2020 investigation into the youth mental health crisis, the Toronto Star found that one-third of surveyed students reported wait-

OUTSIDE THE GOVERNING COUNCIL CHAMBERS IN SIMCOE HALL. CREDIT: SHAE ROTHERY

ing “weeks or months” to get a mental health assessment at their school. Of all 5173 students registered with Accessibility Services only at the St. George campus (UTSG) during the 2021-2022 academic year, 56 percent of students registered for mental health accommodations. In the 2013-2014 academic year, this number was 31 percent. The UTSG Accessibility Services website lists 22 accessibility advisors, meaning that each advisor is responsible for approximately 235 students. UMLAP is a tri-campus policy. The bottom line is this: in a crisis worsened by inaccessible health care and accommodations systems, the perceived outcome is removal from campus. For students, a leave could mean a loss of access to education, health care, financial support, housing, and community. This makes students unwilling to seek care in the first place, creating a vicious, punitive cycle. Law students are among the best equipped to articulate human rights concerns to University policy-makers, especially given the increased awareness of mental health in our profession. By speaking out against UMLAP, members of the Faculty can demonstrate their unwillingness to accept a harmful policy and demand better from their University. As mentioned earlier, UMLAP is now under review and accepting student feedback through the consultation website and virtual Town Halls. There is no guaranteed review after this process finishes. As students of the University, this means that now is the time to act and emphasize the negative impact mandated leaves have on the school community.

Mental Health Resources: Supporting a student in distress: https://studentlife.utoronto.ca/service/faculty-support-forresponding-to-distressed-students/ • U of T MySSP is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via telephone, video, or chat in multiple languages Students can contact: • The Health and Wellness Centre (weekdays 9 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.) at 416-978-8030, or visit the Student Mental Health Portal • The CAMH 24hr center at 250 College St. 416535-8501 • Suicide prevention helpline: 1-833-456-4566 • Related websites: https://ontario.cmha.ca/documents/are-you-in-crisis/, http://www.camh. ca/en/suicide-prevention/get-help Editor’s Note: Harry Myles (2L) is a member of the University of Toronto Law Union (UTLU) Steering Committee and a caseworker in the Housing Division of Downtown Legal Services. Alisha Krishna (2L) is the outgoing Chair and Treasurer of Students for Barrier-Free Access, a caseworker in the Academic Appeals Division of Downtown Legal Services, the Student Life and Academic Committee Equity Officer for the Students’ Law Society, and a member of the UTLU Steering Committee.

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

September 29, 2021 | 19

Last Minute Class Changes Leave Students Blindsided When in doubt, Zoom out! MITHUSHAN KIRUBANANTHAN (2L) L ike many others, I was eager to return to in-person classes follow ing a largelyv irtual year. I imag ine many of my peers were dissatisf ied w ith the pandemic’s pernicious ef fects, particularly w ith respect to inter personal connections, network ing opportunities, and the Facult y’s fabled caliber of education. W hile professors deser ve credit for doing their ver y best to engage students, the v irtual model did not lend itself to highly ef fective instruction ( I personally found it to be slight ly better than L inkedin Learning, but not quite as good as Coursera. I have not yet had the pleasure of using Udemy, but rev iews are certainly appreciated). W hether the Zoom-ofT Law exper ience was worth over $33,0 0 0 in tuition fees is far beyond the scope of this piece. I think it goes w ithout say ing that we were all ver y much look ing for ward to exper iencing a school year w ith some semblance of “normalit y”. I had my reser vations regarding a potential fourth wave in the fall and, g iven the abrupt mid-semester changes that took place the prev ious year, made the decision to commute. This turned out to be a tremendously fortuitous call. A few days before the beg inning of the semester, the Fac-

ult y notif ied me of a change in my schedule – one of my four courses would be of fered entirely online. This small administrative change had tremendous personal repercussions, as I now only needed to be on campus two days a week. The commuter in me was ecstatic. The v ultur ine cynic in me found some bones to pick. This announcement arr ived in my inbox on Thursday, September 2, the day before the Labour Day long weekend. With classes set to beg in immediately after the holiday, the Facult y ef fectively prov ided two business days’ worth of notice (some might arg ue that this is technically just one full business day, but I encourage generosit y in inter pretation). To my understanding, my course was not the sole casualt y of last minute changes. W hat g ives? The rumours may tell you other w ise, but law students at U of T are indeed capable of compassion and understanding. The pandemic is ongoing, and no one can reasonably fault the Facult y for hav ing to move a few of its of fer ings online. The vast major it y of courses have continued to be delivered in-person as advertised. A lthough I have no problem w ith some courses being conducted through Zoom, the fundamental question remains: why were these

format changes not communicated sooner? Earlier communication of this information may have been signif icant in informing cr itical decisions. A schedule change that eliminates a day or two from a student's in-person requirements could, for example, be the dif ference in a decision between commuting and renting. It could force students to rev isit extracurr icular commitments made earlier in the summer. Sudden adjustments may also exacerbate pre-existing feelings of uncertaint y and anxiet y. It’s entirely possible that a great deal r ides on these small, seemingly insignif icant changes. So, why did the Facult y wait until the eleventh-hour? One can only speculate, and I surely did. I conjured up my own reasons 一 some certainly more nefar ious than others. That the Facult y refused to lower its tuition fees as it of fered exclusively online courses was certainly a point of discussion last year. Perhaps the Facult y, cognizant of these existing tensions, sought to limit opportunities for complaint. A f fected students would be upset w ith the changes, but what could they feasibly do about it so close to the beg inning of the semester? Collective action and calls for reform go on

the backburner once your professor assigns 10 0 pages of readings for the f irst week of school. Perhaps the Facult y didn’t pay close enough attention to log istics. Perhaps the Facult y overlooked the downstream impacts of its decisions, w ith litt le consideration paid to the realities of student life. Of course, it is also entirely possible that I completely missed the mark. Maybe several professors exper ienced sudden changes in circumstance that week. It’s possible. Perhaps some instructors only realized the immense threat this pandemic posed to their health a few days pr ior to the beg inning of the semester. You and I could probably sit and speculate for days. I w ill add this. This may have been a non-issue if the Facult y had not spent the better part of recent months parroting its unrelenting stance on attendance requirements. The lack of transparency becomes especially egreg ious when contrasted w ith the Facult y’s adamant insistence that all students attend classes in-person. W hile I am grateful to have in-person classes, a luxur y unavailable to many law students across Canada at this time, the Facult y has much room to improve its communication and attitude towards students.

OPINIONS

20 | September 29, 2021

ultravires.ca

Getting a Zoom Link for Class Shouldn’t Be This Hard The Faculty’s refusal to freely distribute Zoom links puts students at risk SABRINA MACKLAI (2L JD/MI) Despite the ongoing global pandemic, the Faculty has made clear in their communications to students that in-person attendance is required. However, to conform to the University’s COVID-19 policies, the Faculty is required to provide students with accommodations if they are advised not to come to campus upon receiving a “red risk status” using the UCheck health screening tool. Unfortunately, the administration is inadequately equipped to respond to accommodation requests in a timely manner. The result is missed classes, increased health risks, and unnecessary stress during an already stressful time. To give an example, a friend woke up feeling a bit sick and decided, for the sake of precaution, to stay home. When she emailed the law school’s Accommodations Committee, she did not receive a Zoom link until her class had already ended. This is not an isolated experience. Many other students reported that following their request for accommodations, they did not receive a link to their synchronous lecture until at least several minutes into the

class. According to Associate Dean Christoper Essert’s communication to law students on July 30, the law school recognizes that some students “might need to participate remotely for short periods of time for various reasons, including, but not limited to, their own health or the health of family members.” He noted that documentation “may or may not” be required in these cases but due to the “importance of ensuring that nobody come to campus while exhibiting any COVID symptoms, [the law school] anticipate[s] documentation will not be required when such symptoms are the reason for the request.” In practice, to receive controlled Zoom link access to their classes, a student must email the Accommodations Committee (accommodations.law@utoronto.ca) with a completed RedScreen Accommodations Form. This form requires students to affirm that they have provided accurate information to the UCheck self-assessment tool and received a red screen. They must list classes for which “controlled-

access to zoom links is requested” and also the requested length of time for the accommodation. It is odd to predict how long one needs to recover from COVID-19 symptoms, especially given that a “red risk status” is not the same as a positive COVID-19 result that would require individuals to self-isolate for 14 days. In addition, the “controlled-access” granted means that only students who received approval by the Accommodations Committee may be sent and use the provided Zoom link. In other words, classmates cannot share Zoom links with one another nor can a student use a link past the time they received approval for. Furthermore, the UCheck screening tool, which is the basis for receiving remote accommodations, only tests if individuals (or those in their household) are reporting symptoms of COVID-19. The tool does not take into account other reasons that students may feel uncomfortable attending classes in-person for the day, like the rise in positive COVID-19 case counts and hospitalizations.

McMillan has fostered a culture that has allowed me to forge a career path that aligns with my goals and interests and makes the best use of my experiences and skills. I also get to work with professionals I respect and who are always eager and willing to assist. It is a ﬁrm full of lawyers who are passionate about their work. Paul Davis

National Chair, Capital Markets and M&A

2017 - 2021

Take the lead in your career.

Other law schools across the country have little problems giving their students the accommodations they need, especially during a public health crisis. Schools like Osgoode Hall not only provide students with Zoom links from the get-go but record all lectures—an accommodation that our Students’ Law Society has repeatedly advocated for to no avail. Clearly, the Zoom links for each class are already generated and available. There is no good reason why the Faculty cannot distribute these links to students like they did last year, where some classes were also delivered-in person, at least at the beginning of the term. Making accommodations needlessly difficult to obtain places students in an unnecessarily stressful situation and increases the risk to everyone’s health. If students know that getting a Zoom link to class is going to be a headache, and is not even guaranteed, they may opt to come to school even if they are feeling ill. If the Faculty truly cared about making the law school a safe place to visit, they would make accommodations more easily accessible.

ultravires.ca

OPINIONS

September 29, 2021 | 21

The Costs of Maximizing Happiness A 2L’s verdict on Cognomos JACQUELINE HUANG (2L) I had been warned about Cognomos before entering 2L. After a year working with UV, I already knew we have a tradition of critically analyzing Cognomos every fall since its introduction to the Faculty (examples are here, and here). In my review of Law Follies 2021, I noted how harshly it commented on the Faculty administration and Cognomos. I thought it was merely a comical representation. It wasn’t until I attended the virtual Cognomos information session in mid-May did I realize the sketch was not so far off. The session was overloaded with information, which was quite diff icult to grasp without access to the system itself — not many people have the pleasure of using an almighty course selection algorithm powered by Nobel Prize-winning economics in their undergrad, after all. The atmosphere was tense from the beginning, and students were constantly warned to adhere to a series of deadlines and closely monitor their waitlists because otherwise “there is nothing we [admin] can do.” The information session also fell on a major religious holiday, and I’ve been told by one of my fellow students that her request to have the session recorded was refused. Instead, she received powerpoints from the session and was asked if she would like to attend an additional Q&A. The Faculty administration apologized afterwards, but the reason why such request was refused remains unknown. Cognomos promises to maximize some 400 students’ happiness in the course selection process with lower costs. That is a very lofty goal, but let me say this: a course selection system serving hundreds of students should not get their hopes up too high. “Maximizing

happiness” seems to imply getting your preferred list of courses, but that simply cannot be true for everyone, given that the spots are very limited in the most popular courses, and many students have overlapping interests. I don't know if Cognomos brings about more happiness than course selection methods available in other law schools or universities. However, I contend that the way Cognomos works creates a signif icant amount of anxiety, making the course selection process yet another stress-fraught experience in law school. This artif icially imposed frustration is one of the hidden costs of maximizing happiness, but things do not have to be this way. A major source of stress is the lack of transparency. The algorithm is a big black box, and there is not enough information to rank your courses with a reasonable anticipation of how your schedule will look like. For example, Cognomos does not reveal the real-time popularity of courses to students when they rank the courses. If a student wants multiple courses that look reasonably popular (a very likely scenario), they will need to guess how popular these courses are among their peers to allocate their rankings. While the “previous waitlisted courses” page provides a point of reference, historical waitlist numbers seem random for many courses. The reality is that student preferences change every year, and old information is not necessarily helpful. As far as I know, providing some new information in a course selection system is feasible. My undergraduate institution uses a bidding system: each student has 99 “wish points” to bid for their favourite courses, and the spots are given to the highest-bidding students until the

course capacity is reached. The number of students who have added the course is updated in real time and available for all to see, so students can allocate their points across multiple popular courses to increase their chances of getting in. In that system, the reason for failing to secure a spot in popular courses is clear: the student was outbid by others, meaning that the student was not as eager for the course to invest in certain amounts of points as the ones who got in. In comparison, getting a place in a popular course seems like a matter of luck under Cognomos. It feels a bit like gambling, and such randomness arguably makes students feel worse-off due to a lack of proper explanation (“My friend and I both ranked this popular course at the 1st, and they got in but I didn’t — WHY?”). The user experience of Cognomos is not pleasant either. The system asks students to select at least 66 credits and rank them all, which is a time-consuming process, but there is also no “save the progress” function other than (the unintuitive option) “submitting a ranking,” which generates another email to clog your inbox. When I added enough credits to proceed, they all ended up in the “Acceptable” pile, and dragging courses around was not a smooth manoeuvre at all. The sample schedules Cognomos generated were useless as it lumped fall term and winter term classes together. There was a lack of timely feedback when joining waitlists, particularly in the early stages of the add/drop period; the processing time varied from hours to days, and the courses that showed up as having spaces available in the system during the f irst add/drop week turned out to have long waitlists. Also,

the whole system was unresponsive for the f irst hour of the direct add/drop (f irst come, f irst serve) period. Waitlists cannot be ranked, and if students do have a preference between them, they would need to “monitor their waitlists closely.” I felt like I spent way too much time on Cognomos than any other course selection system I’ve used, and it decreased the satisfaction I had from getting the courses that I wanted. So did the omnipotent Cognomos give everyone what they wanted? Previous years’ reporting indicated that it was an absolute mess, but this time around, things seemed to have improved a bit. Most students I surveyed said they were not getting their ideal selection of courses, but nonetheless a satisfactory one. Still, a friend of mine reported a not so happy experience with Cognomos: the system overloaded one term and underloaded the other for him in the lottery, creating a series of headaches. He was told to add the courses that had spaces available or to apply for a Supervised Upper Year Research Paper (SUYRP), but he had no interest in these options. . The waitlists had quite a lot of movement during the f irst two weeks of school, but the diff iculty is that course materials are not available on Quercus to waitlisted students. When he did get off a waitlist of a desirable course on a Saturday, he found himself with 70 pages of readings to catch up on before the Monday morning class. Getting an acceptable schedule seems to be a common theme for this year’s course selection, but I am still doubtful on whether months of stress and frustration are justif ied for the algorithmic perfection of “maximized happiness.”

In-Person Event Planning: Expect the Unexpected Can nothing go according to plan? JENNIFER SUN (2L) I had high hopes for 2021, after a year that fundamentally changed our way of life. I thought vaccines would bring life back to normalcy by now. That obviously didn’t happen. As with any situation, there are two sides to the story. A pessimistic view would suggest that this continues to be the worst timeline. But I want to be optimistic for once. The situation is a lot better than last year — we certainly have more opportunities to meet our peers. I personally find it funny how often I come across 2Ls I have never met before. Things could have been a lot worse. This current situation, however, does present some distinct challenges for in-person event planning as compared to last year. Turns out, a total

restriction is easier to plan for than a partial one. As one of the O-Week student coordinators this year, I, along with my phenomenal teammates Hannah Lank (3L) and Anisha Sivathas (2L), have worked closely with Ann Vuletin, the Student Programs Coordinator, since June to figure out how to walk this fine line. We wanted to offer as many in-person opportunities as possible for incoming 1Ls, but were also cognizant of the ongoing pandemic. A few major roadblocks we faced in these ever-changing circumstances included finding venues with sufficient outdoor space to accommodate the entire cohort, designing a system that minimized contact beyond Legal Methods sections, and regrettably for-

going some food and beverage choices (I will forever miss you, cotton candy). There was also an arbitrary line that distinguished academic and social activities, where a stricter capacity limit was imposed on the latter, even if the exact same group of students planned to attend both on the same day. Furthermore, guidance from U of T’s central administration frequently required us to do some last minute pivoting before the events. So if any of you 1Ls noticed that the actual events differed either slightly or drastically from what we originally promised, this is the likely culprit. Notwithstanding these challenges, we apparently had more flexibility during O-Week than we have now. This brings me to the Appendix D SEAT Form,

the bane of any club’s existence. I’m sure all clubs are working toward hosting in-person events to not only welcome 1Ls, but also to recoup the lost opportunities of last year. However, the university does not make it easy for us. Kudos to the Students’ Law Society (SLS) for pulling off a few wonderful events already. I have no clue how you managed this feat under the current regime, but your success is incredibly encouraging. I’m still learning how to navigate this madness, but just like the lawyers who work within the confines of our legal system, we will continue to adapt to make the best of this new academic year. In a way, maybe this collective struggle will bring us together as a community. At a minimum, my law school experience will surely be unforgettable.

DIVERSIONS

22 | September 29, 2021

ultravires.ca

Intra Vires Totally real news from another pandemic semester at the Faculty of Law HARRY MYLES (2L) Jackman Lecture Halls Immune to COVID-19 It’s a scientific miracle! It appears as if COVID-19 is scared of law lectures! Interestingly, the Faculty of Law has permitted full capacity classrooms for all academic activities, seeming to suggest that COVID-19 will respectfully stay out of classrooms and allow us to learn the intricacies of tort law in peace. But wait! You must be socially distanced for all other in-person non-academic activities, because COVID hates fun and will invade all of these non-school spaces. Damn, COVID, give us a break already! Faculty Willing to Send Zoom Links to Students if They Give Up Their First Born Child As we enter another COVID-19 school year, many students are confused by the Faculty’s updated accommodations policy. Unlike last year,

when Zoom links were available for students wishing to attend class remotely, this year the policy is slightly more complicated. The Faculty has decided that students wishing to receive a lecture Zoom link outside of the impenetrable bureaucratic accommodations system must give up their first born child. Yes, it seems like members of the administration have stolen a page from Rumpelstiltskin for this policy. Perhaps we’ll also learn how to spin straw into gold to pay off some of our colossal debt! Faculty of Law Tuition The Highest in the Country for Another Year The Faculty of Law has once again been named the most expensive law school in the country! The administration is truly humbled by this honour and hopes to continue this winning streak for many years to come.

UofT Freed from the Grips of Censure (for now?) On September 17, the students at the Faculty of Law received a shocking email. The University did a complete 180° and re-offered the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) Directorship to Dr. Valentina Azarova following a scandal that has rocked the Faculty for a year (check out UV’s online Resource page to catch up). Dr. Azarova declined the position (unsurprisingly), but the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) censure has now been paused! This complete reversal from the University must go down in history as a momentous occasion, but the school has also refused to assume full responsibility for the whole debacle (you win some, you lose some, am I right?). See you soon for the next scandal!

Another Year, Another Battle with Cognomos I know, I know, “another UV article about Cognomos.” What a snore. But I was in 1L last year and so I never had the pleasure of experiencing the wonders of Cognomos. This year’s round of course selection saw some people given 17 credits for the entire year, a complete disregard for the “Great” category, and a general sense of disarray and befuddlement amongst the upper year student body. It’s a Nobel Prize-winning algorithm, for sure! A Shoutout to Diversions Star, Shae Rothery A special shoutout is owed to Diversions writer, Shae Rothery, who came through this issue to assist with several articles. Shae was an occasional contributor last year, and we are quite excited to have her lend her comedic chops to this issue (and hopefully many more in the future!). Couldn’t have done this issue without you, Shae!

Toronto 101: An Introduction to Urban Living in the 6ix Your guide to the city we call home HARRY MYLES (2L) AND SHAE ROTHERY (2L) Welcome back to the centre of the universe for all those returning to our wonderful city! For those of you who are in T.O. for the first time, have no fear! Ultra Vires is here with a comprehensive guide to Toronto, so you can make the most out of your new home.

some other hometown (or Toronto-based) names such as Charlotte Day Wilson, Daniel Caesar, Desiire, Zoon, or Moscow Apartment. Toronto is definitely not a one-trick pony and it’s time some of our other very talented residents got some love from the city.

Raccoons

Parkettes

Don’t touch them, they have rabies. While that may be true, I (Harry) think we also need to respect the fact that raccoons have managed to become an integral part of our city and its identity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it’s the raccoons’ world and we’re just living in it.

Yes, that’s a thing. Not to be confused with actual parks, the City of Toronto defines a “parkette” as a park less than 0.5 hectares in area. It’s basically just a strip of grass. Maybe a bench, if you’re lucky.

The Drake Obsession Full disclosure: I (Harry) am not a fan of Drake and I have written critiques in the past (a subtle plug, check out page 14 of Demo 13). As a result, I am *slightly* biased. Ok, now that you know where I stand, let me just say I am over Drake. Yes, I recognize that Drake brought attention to the city in many ways from the Raptors to local artists. And yes, Drake has done what many Canadian-born stars rarely do, he’s actually stuck around. Drake has a permanent residence in Toronto (I won’t get started with how I feel about the design choices) and routinely visits the city, something that cannot be said for many Canadian celebrities who have since relocated south of the border. Drake has dominated headlines in Toronto for years and has even collaborated with the University of Toronto on a recent clothing line. I think Toronto needs to move on from their chosen one and rep

The CN Tower It’s tall. It’s shiny. It’s your new North Star (or rather, South Star). As long as you can spot this bad boy on the horizon, you should be able to orient yourself and find your way home. And speaking of stars, don’t expect to see many with the light pollution here. Harry’s take: Don’t pay $40 to go up a tall building. Just climb a 553m tall tree instead. (For legal purposes, Ultra Vires does not recommend anyone climb a 553m tall tree and accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising from doing so.) Bagged Milk and the LCBO While not specific to Toronto, both bagged milk and the LCBO are a whole new world for many out-of-province students. Most Ontarians seem to have fond feelings about one or both of bagged milk and the LCBO, and won’t hesitate to tell you about it. Pro tips: don’t cut too big of a hole in the corner of the bag, and don’t expect to go to the LCBO past 9 p.m.

Weekly Anti-Mask/Vax Protests You’ve made it to the end of a long week. It’s Saturday, and you decide to reward yourself with a nice stroll. But wait … what’s that sound? Is that chanting? A megaphone? Oh no … that’s right. Our lovely city is home to a number of weekly recurring anti-mask and anti-vax protests. Our recommendation: avoid Queen’s Park, Yonge Street, and Bloor Street on Saturdays if at all possible.

OH, TORONTO! CREDIT: SHAE ROTHERY.

Editor’s Note: Harry Myles was born in Toronto and has lived in the city for 21 years. Harry loves bagged milk and did not write that portion of the article. Shae Rothery is an expat Calgarian who is learning to appreciate Toronto more each day. Shae has been listening to Certified Lover Boy on repeat since it dropped, and doesn’t stand for the Drake slander.

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

September 29, 2021 | 23

Parks: Choose Your Destination

An in-depth guide to the parks of Toronto, written by seasoned park-sitters HARRY MYLES (2L) AND SHAE ROTHERY (2L)

GRANGE PARK. CREDIT: SHAE ROTHERY.

Get your picnic blankets ready! As an accompaniment to our article in this issue, Toronto 101, we have made a list of the best parks in the city. Since the start of the pandemic, many of us have taken to parks to see friends and get in that oh-sosweet socializing time. But, your favourite park defines who you are as a person, even more than being a law student defines who you are as a person. As a result, here is a roundup of (some of) Toronto’s best (and worst, looking at you Trinity Bellwoods) parks. Side note: don’t fight us on the neighbourhood categories, we’re just making rough estimations here, people.

becoming the large-park alternative to Trinity Bellwoods, Christie Pits is still a great option with amenities like a basketball court and a baseball diamond that hosts local teams. You may be disappointed to find out that your favourite spot in the grass has since become a skatepark though. Washrooms: yes.

The West End

The Backlawn of Jackman Law Building: for those of you who haven’t hung around the Faculty in the late afternoon/evening, the back lawn turns into a giant dog park after about 5:00pm. If you’re staying late at Laskin, we recommend taking a glimpse out the window or a walk outside to take in some of these wholesome pups. Perhaps it will spark a small sense of joy for you during these troubling times. Washrooms: yes, but make sure you have your key fob and a green UCheck.

High Park: kind of like Toronto’s version of Central Park, but not-so-central. Honestly, High Park is so far away that we have not spent much time in it. But there are endless paths and during the summer in pre-COVID times, a local theatre company performed Shakespeare in the Park! Just make sure you bring a fully-charged phone in case you get lost. Washrooms: yes. Trinity Bellwoods: also known as the outdoor version of the Eaton Centre. Avoid if possible due to excessive crowds. Washrooms: yes (but not always open), and there are portable toilets. Lisgar Park: neither of us have been, but it looks pretty sweet. Washrooms: no.

The Annex/ Yorkville/Bloor West Christie Pits: even though it’s quickly

Bickford Park: an up-and-coming west-side alternative to Christie Pits, Bickford Park has plenty of greenspace and a charming dog park! Washrooms: yes.

Dovercourt Park: a charming park nestled away north of the Annex with tennis courts. Washrooms: yes.

Downtown

located in Roundhouse Park. I spent many days of summer 2019 in this park and I must say, it’s mighty fascinating (if you’re a fan of trains, like I am). Roundhouse Park is directly across from the CN Tower and takes its name from the Canadian Pacific John Street Roundhouse located on the grounds. There are various locomotives (including a steam-powered Canadian National!) in the park and a mini train ride operated by the Railway Museum that takes you through the park (only operating during the summer). In the Roundhouse itself, you’ll find Steam Whistle Brewing and the Museum in Stall 17 which features a marvelous collection of model trains and a train simulator! What’s better than beer and trains?! (Apologies for the excessive use of exclamation marks, but trains get me excited). Washrooms: yes, in Steam Whistle. Moss Park: I (Shae) am all for an underdog story, and I’m honestly rooting for Moss Park— it’s the closest park to my house on this list. That being said, if you’re looking for somewhere to play tennis and you don’t like waiting for a court, Moss Park might not be a bad option. Washrooms: no.

The East End

Grange Park: a recently redesigned park behind the Art Gallery of Ontario. You can spend an afternoon looking at art (free for under 25!) and then relax under the trees. Washrooms: no (but there are washrooms in the AGO).

Riverdale Park: a Toronto classic, you have probably seen many Instagram pics of a sunset from the Riverdale East hill. Looking to impress that cutie from Con Law? This is the spot. While Riverdale Park can get quite busy, there is a farm nearby with many lovely animals! Washrooms: yes (in Riverdale Farm).

Roundhouse Park: full disclosure: I (Harry) used to work at the Toronto Railway Museum

The Brickworks: a classic outdoor space, the Brickworks is famous for its manageable hiking

trails and a Saturday farmer’s market (get there early to avoid the crowds). Downside: Inaccessible by transit, it’s kind of in the middle of nowhere. Upside: there is a Bike Share dock if you’re looking to really get your outdoors on. Washrooms: yes.

Uptown Sherwood Park: a staple for uptown folks. Sherwood Park has many bike trails and a ravine that features several forested paths. Washrooms: yes. Mt. Pleasant Cemetery: ok, you SHOULD NOT arrange an afternoon hang at a cemetery (let’s be respectful, people), but Mt. Pleasant Cemetery is a wonderful spot for a bike ride. One might even call it… pleasant. Washrooms: technically yes, but you probably shouldn’t make a cemetery your regular hang out spot. Ramsden Park: across the street from Rosedale station, Ramsden Park is convenient for those on the Yonge subway line. As well, Ramsden features several basketball courts, a skating rink, a small skatepark, and a dog park, so a whole afternoon of fun no matter the season! Washrooms: yes. Honourable Mentions: Tommy Thompson Park, Downsview Park, Scarborough Bluffs Park Editor’s Note: Harry Myles was born in Toronto and has lived in the city for 21 years. Shae Rothery is an expat Calgarian who is learning to appreciate Toronto more each day. Having lived a stone’s throw away from some of Canada’s best national parks for 24 years, Shae knows a thing or two about parks.

DIVERSIONS

24 | September 29, 2021

ultravires.ca

What Not to Say at Your First PostVaccine Party

Some helpful advice as we all relearn how to socialize HARRY MYLES (2L) AND SHAE ROTHERY (2L) Ok, you’ve made it. You’re at your f irst post-vaccine par t y (wh i le st i l l abid ing by a l l publ ic hea lt h measures!) and it’s t ime to socia l ize in a large sett ing once more. But wa it, you haven’t spoken to anyone except for your cat in t he past year and a ha l f. Don’t wor r y, U V is here to help! Here are some t h ings you shouldn’t say at your f irst postva x hangout.

Don’t ask wh ich vaccine someone has.

Don’t ta l k about how easy it is to photoshop a vaccinat ion cer t if icate.

Don’t word-vom it about your pandem ic hobby. People can on ly ta ke so much d iscussion about sourdough star ters.

Don’t say P f izer is t he best vaccine. Nobody cares.

Don’t hug or touch someone w it hout E X PR E SS per m ission.

Don’t brag about how you’ve gone t h is long w it hout catch ing COV I D.

Don’t ta l k about t he pandem ic l i ke it’s over. We may be in a sl ight ly better spot now t han last year, but t he pandem ic is st i l l ver y rea l.

Don’t show a m i ld acqua intance your a lbum of cro cheted sweaters you made for your cat last w inter. Save t hat for t he second post-va x hang.

I f you avoid t hese pit fa l ls, t hen you shou ld be wel l on your way to socia l izing once aga in!

Merit is everything. If you’re talented and do great work, we have a place for you.

CREDIT: JENNIFER SUN

dwpv.com/students

@daviesstudents