Three University of Toronto faculty members, each an expert in family law, have written commentaries in three different newspapers, on three consecutive days, about the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision Leskun v. Leskun. Each faculty member takes a different perspective on the decision.Brenda Cossman, National Post: "Cheaters beware"Carol Rogerson,The Globe and Mail: "Divorce ruling is far from faulty"Martha Shaffer, Toronto Star: "Top court muddies divorce law"
↧
Three Views on Leskun v. Leskun
↧
The TTC Shutdown
The services provided by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) were interrupted for almost the entire day yesterday, May 29th. This was a major headache for the hundreds of thousands of people who travel on the TTC each day, mostly to work and to school. The city's residents awoke on Monday morning to news that the TTC was not running. Most scrambled to find alternate means to get to work or school, relying on car pooling, bicycles, or walking. Let's examine what the collective cost to the city's residents was, versus the stakes that precipitated the interruption.It's been reported that about 700,000 people ride the TTC each day (others, such as CTV.ca, report 800,000). For the purposes of this analysis, I'll assume that the lower number is correct and that the average productive time lost by a typical rider was about one hour. This may be conservative, however, since many people will have lost an entire day of work, while others--the brave--who ventured to where they were going by car were faced with snarled traffic as many others did the same. By car it took me an extra two hours of travel time yesterday. But let's assume that the average loss of productive time is one hour. That means that the total time lost was 700,000 hours. Again, to be conservative, let's assume that the average work year is about 2,000 hours. Given these conservative assumptions, that the TTC interruption cost the city of Toronto a total of 350 years of productive time. Statistics Canada reports that the average annual earnings in Toronto in 2001 was $38,598. Obviously, earnings have increased on average over the last five years. Let's be conservative and assume that the increase has been modest, to $40,000. Let's assume that the losses can be entirely captured by taking into account the average value of time in terms of forgone earnings (this is probably conservative, too). Then, armed with this additional information, we can say that the cost to the city's residents of the illegal action by Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113 was at the very least $14,000,000. And don't forget that this was an illegal strike action.So, conservatively, we can say that the strike cost at least 350 productive years or $14 million. Remember that there is no account taken of, for example, the additional pollution that was caused by having so many additional vehicles creeping along city streets yesterday. The estimates also don't take into account the health costs borne by everyone who ventured out by foot or on bicycle during the city's first smog alert of the year. They don't take into account the additional gasoline used yesterday by all the cars on the road, or the wear and tear on the vehicles themselves or on the roads. Moreover, not just transit riders were affected. People who ordinarily carpool into work also had to put up with longer commutes. And it ignores the costs to customers who, for example, had to wait in longer lines because not all staff were able to make it into work. In short, this analysis ignores many costs that are more difficult to quantify. The $14,000,000 figure is a rock bottom, bare minimum estimate of the cost of this illegal strike.It remains unclear precisely what the stakes were over which this action was taken. The National Post reports that, "The walkout by 8,500 employees was prompted by a decision to move a handful of cleaning staff from the day shift to nights without the union's consent." CTV.ca says, "Maintenance workers angered by a shift change that forces them to work overnight sparked the dispute." The CBC has reported that, "The wildcat strike was ostensibly about a transfer of 22 cleaning staff from day to night shifts, a move the TTC says makes sense from an operational and budgetary standpoint."Two things are crystal clear. First, the costs faced by the 22 union members who were being moved to the night shift are far outweighed by the costs borne by the residents of Toronto. Second, the action was illegal. The natural question to ask at this point is, what should be done to deter socially wasteful action like this in the future? There are a number of options. As this was an illegal strike, it is unlikely that passing legislation would be helpful. Perhaps the most attractive option would be to follow the lead of New York City and impose heavy fines on one or more of (a) the union; (b) its leaders; and (c) the employees themselves.Comments are welcome.
↧
↧
Too Much 'Truthiness' in Judicial Activism Debate
Truthiness refers to “the quality of stating concepts or facts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.” It is an idea coined and popularized by political satirist Stephen Colbert on the first episode of The Colbert Report. The American Dialect Society named in the 2005 Word of the Year, and the New York Times declared it one of nine words that captured the spirit of 2005.Its spirit is surviving well into 2006.Just look at debates about judicial activism. Just look at the recent tempest in a teapot around Saskatchewan Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott's criticism of Chief Justice Beverly MacLaughlin.Let’s start with some facts (even though they may be of dubious value in a world of truthiness). Here’s what Vellacott said to CBC reporter Christina Lawand:“I don't think it is the role, whether left or right, conservative or whatever stripe it happens to be, to actually figure that they play the position of God.""Beverley McLachlin herself said actually that when they step into this role all of a sudden there's some mystical kind of power comes over them by which everything that they ever decree then is not to be questioned.""They actually have the discerning and almost prophetic abilities to be able to plumb and know the mind of the public and take on almost these Godlike powers."Of course, the problem for Vellacott is that she didn’t actually say it. She gave a speech in which she said lots of things about the unwritten constitutional principles. She never described what judges do as god like, she never discussed mystical powers or prophetic abilities. Vellacott had to apologize. Sort of. He issued a statement that he was referring to a lecture Chief Justice McLachlin gave in New Zealand on Dec. 1. "I may have given the impression that in the speech she expressly said that she had 'god-like powers.' I acknowledge that Ms. McLachlin did not literally use those words. I regret the misunderstanding that was created. I extend my apologies to her in this regard” the release said.So, she never actually said it. But, ultimately, it may not really matter. Because according to conservatives, the truthiness of the matter is that the courts are activist. Everyone knows it. In fact, some bloggers have suggested that all you need to do is actually read Chief Justice MacLachlin’s speech to see that she is a complete raving activist. The Black Rod (blackrod.blogspot.com) for example goes through the Chief Justice’s speech line by line to illustrate her activist beliefs adding that “Either the Chief Justice misled her spokesman about the New Zealand speech, or the spokesman outright lied to the CBC and to people of Canada.”Because the 'truthiness' of the matter is that judges who interprete constitutions do so in an activist way. Constitutional interpretation and judicial activism have become synonymous.The judicial activism debates are still relatively new in Canada. But, in the US, where debates over the legitimacy of judicial review has a rather more established pedigree, the judicial activism critique has reached hysterical pitches. There are websites and organizations dedicated to revealing the liberal conspiracy of activist judges. (My favorite outlandish site is called JudgesGoneWild.com dedicated to stopping left wing judges).In fact, the association of judicial activism with liberal left causes has been so effectively popularized by conservative critiques that is has become virtually impossible to counter. In recent years, it has become commonplace for liberals – particularly liberal law professors – to write about conservative judicial activism. In articles in the New York Times with titles such as “So Who are the Activists?” legal scholars ranging from Cass Sunstein to Paul Gerwirtz have attempted to show that on the Rehnquist Supreme Court, the conservative judges are the ones most likely to strike down Congressional laws, and the liberal judges are the ones most likely to uphold Congressional laws. Over and again, it is Justice Scalia who is most activist, and Justices Ginsberg and Breyer who are the least. But, no matter. Because ‘truthiness’ is what is important.Notwithstanding years of this critique of the critique of judicial activism, poll after poll show that a majority of Americans believe that judicial activism is a problem. And not surprisingly, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to think that judicial activism is a problem. In the popular imagination, judicial activism is synonymous not only with judges gone wild, but with left wing judges gone wild. Coming back to Canada, conservatives are intent on fostering exactly the same image of judicial activism in the public imagination. And all they have to do, apparently, is say it over and over again to make it true. This is where law professors and lawyers and others interested in the legitimacy of judicial review and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms need to take heed. Because sometimes, it doesn’t seem to matter what is actually true. Rather, it is about truthiness. It is about what folks prefer to believe is true.And what will be remembered about Vellacott’s criticism of the Court? Will the public remember that he actually got it all wrong? Or will it be remembered for showing us the tip of the conservative judicial activism iceberg that Prime Minister Harper has been trying to keep concealed? As the dust settles, it may be remembered more for the ‘political correctness’ surrounding criticism of the judiciary (gosh, you just can’t say anything now days) or for the fact that judiciary has powerful friends in powerful places protecting it. None of this is good, from the perspective of fostering meaningful dialogue and debate on the role and status of judicial review in a democratic society. None of it is particularly accurate either. But, hey, its not about accuracy. Its about what one feels to be true.In the words of Stephen Colbert:“I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. 'Cause face it, folks; we are a divided nation. Not between Democrats and Republicans, or conservatives and liberals, or tops and bottoms. No, we are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart...”The Vellacott fiasco may at the end of the day just strike one up for those who know with their heart.
↧
Human Rights Reform in Ontario: A Time for Change
For over fifteen years, there has been a growing dissatisfaction with the human rights process in Ontario. This dissatisfaction has been expressed by members of equity seeking communities, by human rights advocates and by lawyers practicing in the area of human rights. During that time, there have been four government-initiated reviews of human rights enforcement systems in Canada, one specifically directed at the Ontario legislation, one dealing with the very similar federal human rights complaint system, and two reviewing the systems in other provinces. Despite the fact that each of these reviews made very similar recommendations for reform of the human rights complaint process, to date no major reform has been undertaken in Ontario. That is, until now.On February 20th, 2006, Attorney General Michael Bryant announced proposals to reform the human rights system of Ontario. The proposals call for direct access to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario rather than the current system in which the Commission screens all complaints and decides which complaints will be referred on to a hearing in front of the Tribunal.Further, the current proposals are intended to enable the Ontario Human Rights Commission to take a leadership role in “public education, promotion and public advocacy,” While the Commission could still bring a complaint to the tribunal, its role would focus less on individual instances of discrimination and more on system or social discrimination.Reform of the human rights system is long overdue. The delay in complaints moving through the Commission investigation process and reaching the Tribunal (which can take years) has been, in many cases, unjustifiable and unacceptable. In the context of human rights, justice delayed is truly justice denied. The loss of control over complaints and the fact that only the Commission and not the complainant has decided whether the complaint merits a hearing is out of step with the intent that human rights protection empower vulnerable groups. In criminal justice, it is the state and not the “victim” who brings prosecution, but in the context of human rights, the person who alleges she has suffered discrimination ought to be able to control how her case proceeds and she should be entitled to a timely hearing before the Tribunal if her case merits it.The University of Toronto law school hosted a symposium in January of 2005 to explore the issue of human rights reform. People who represent those bringing complaints and those who have complaints brought against them joined together in calling for access to justice as a foundation for human rights protection. They agreed that some measure of direct access to the Human Rights Tribunal would advance this goal. This kind of consensus among those used to acting as adversaries is telling.While few deny the need for reform, not everyone has endorsed the current proposal. Some have suggested that these reforms have been developed by and for lawyers who would be beneficiaries of the new scheme. The idea that lawyers pursue human rights work because it is profitable to do so is misguided. Human rights lawyers, those working with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, legal aid clinics or for private firms share a commitment to finding just resolutions to disputes that advance the public interest for an Ontario free of discrimination. Other critics have raised concerns about process and the extent of the Government’s consultations. Given the discussions which gave rise to this set of proposals and the many studies and consultations which have preceded this round, it is difficult to imagine any views on the matter remain hidden. Finally, still other critics sensibly have focused on the aspect of the proposals which has yet to be fleshed out – namely, the provision of legal support to those seeking to take advantage of direct access. Sorting out how this will work and ensuring adequate funds are allocated to the task will be crucial to the success of the human rights system in Ontario.The Government’s current proposal is not perfect; it is, rather, a necessary and positive start. The Government should be lauded for not simply adding more reports on the subject of human rights reform but for acting. As the British Columbia experience has demonstrated (where the Human Rights Commission was eliminated altogether), providing access to a tribunal is not enough. Those who care about the protection and promotion of human rights should work with the Government to ensure the vulnerable are represented and that the Human Rights Commission is revitalized. Once the Government’s reform initiative is in place, the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Tribunal each will have a vital role to play in ensuring Ontario is defined by a culture of tolerance, compassion, human dignity and equality.
↧
The Afghan Apostate Case: Issues of Law and Development
Recent events in the Muslim world have occupied front page news for weeks. Between the violence generated by the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, and the recent capital case against the Afghan who converted from Islam to Christianity, questions about the nature and humanity of Islamic law loom large. Each instance, however, seems to be a symptom of a larger problem: namely, defining what Sharia is and its place in modern constitutional society.In the Afghan apostate case, for instance, the judge was in an unenviable position. Article 1 of the Afghan constitution states that Afghanistan is an Islamic republic. Article 2 declares Islam to be the state religion, while subsection (2) states that religious minorities are free to exercise their faith “within the limits of the provisions of law.”This begs the question: what defines those limits? Article 3 states unequivocally what those limits are: No law can contravene Islamic law. Consequently, a Muslim can live in Afghanistan in peace. A non-Muslim can also live in Afghanistan without suffering persecution for his or her faith. But if a Muslim converts to Christianity, this violates general provisions of Islamic law; any law drafted under Article 2(2) that protects the apostate would violate Article 3. For as long as Article 2(2) is read in light of Article 3, Sharia rules requiring execution will trump legislation protecting religious freedom for converts from Islam to other faiths.Certainly under Article 129, the President must approve any judicial decision that involves capital punishment. But if the court were to sentence the apostate to death, and Hamid Karzai failed to approve the sentence, his omission might be seen as undermining the independence of the judiciary as asserted under Article 116. Notably the constitution allows Karzai to undermine the judicial sentence. But if he were to do so, especially in light of extra-legal, political pressure, he may have a negative effect on the development of democratic institutions of justice in the long run.The Afghan apostasy case, therefore, raises fundamental questions about law, development and the accommodation of cultural values held by a particular society. Whether a constitution embraces Sharia because of domestic Islamization campaigns, or political compromises between occupying forces and local rulers, we are left with a question of definition. What is Sharia and who defines it? Or in other words, to borrow from the late H.L.A. Hart, what is the concept of Sharia, and who can be an expert in the tradition? Certainly the dominant topos of Sharia is of fixed antiquated rules that are meant to reflect the will of God. The expert is someone who can read medieval books and pronounce the majority rule of decision. And yet this particular image contradicts the history of Islamic law in the medieval Muslim world, prior to Islamization campaigns, nationalism, and colonialism. In the medieval world, Islamic law was more than just doctrine written in text. It involved adjudicating disputes in light of both text and context. There is a historical discontinuity between the Islamic rule of law that once existed, and the tyranny of Islamic legal rules that prevails in contemporary discourse. Beyond the conceptual disconnect, there is a larger question of the continued meaningfulness of the rule against apostasy. The concern with apostasy arose in the early period of Islam, during the caliphate of Abu Bakr (r. 632-634). He was the first caliph, taking power upon the death of Prophet Muhammad. During Muhammad’s life, the Arabian Peninsula was conquered and various tribes pledged loyalty to Muhammad, adopted Islam, and paid taxes to the public treasury. Upon Muhammad’s death, many of these tribes believed the agreements were no longer valid, and ceased to pay taxes or pledge loyalty. Abu Bakr then faced the first test of the nascent Islamic polity: is Islam going to be a religious message for the local few, or was Islam meant to be something more? He adopted the latter course and spent his two years as caliph fighting to keep the nascent polity together.Significantly, later Islamic historians collectively called these battles the Ridda Wars, or the Wars of Apostasy. But why apostasy? Many of these tribes remained Muslim but refused to pay taxes to the central treasury. Arguably, apostasy in this early period was not simply about a matter of conscience; apostasy was an act of treason. Where contemporary societies operate on secular default values, religious identity is a private affair, whereas citizenship (as a form of political identity and belonging) ideally is judged on different grounds. But in societies where religious identity overlaps with political identity, apostasy and its punishments assume a more nuanced meaning.One may agree or disagree with the military campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq, and with the efforts by various Western governments to shape the social, institutional and constitutional fabric of these societies. But regardless of one’s political opinions, the fact remains that the administration of justice in these countries has been and will continue to be affected by the role Sharia is allowed to play. How one understands the Islamic legal past and its relevance/coherence in the modern nation state will fundamentally affect the kinds of accommodations that can be reached where ideals and values collide Whether one considers Sharia arbitration in Ontario, the Danish cartoon controversy, or the Afghan apostate case, the issue linking all of them concerns how Sharia is understood, by whom, and in light of what concept of law? This issue is only further complicated by the fact that issues of Sharia law arise in the wake of colonial occupation, imposed constitutions, and nascent institutions that have yet to find a real footing in their societies.
↧
↧
Check out summer intern experiences in the IHRP's latest edition of "Rights Review"
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The International Human Rights Program has published the latest issue of its magazine Rights Review. This issue follows the experiences of IHRP summer interns in countries across the globe. Throughout these internships, IHRP interns engaged in diverse human rights issues ranging from rights to health to international justice mechanisms.
↧
IHRP director Renu Mandhane and 3L Rebecca Sutton: "There are many Ashley Smiths in Canada’s prisons"
Monday, October 29, 2012
International Human Rights Program director Renu Mandhane and JD student Rebecca Sutton have published a commentary in the Toronto Star describing their witnessing of the poor treatment of women with mental health issues in Canadian prisons ("There are many Ashley Smiths in Canada’s prisons," October 29, 2012).
Read the commentary on the Toronto Star website or below.
Renu Mandhane has also appeared in other media discussing this issue.
- CTV National News, Nov. 1, 2012 (starting at 3:14 minute mark)
There are many Ashley Smiths in Canada’s prisons
Renu Mandhane and Rebecca Sutton
She is imprisoned in the maximum security unit at Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener, far from home. She suffers from serious mental health issues, but instead of receiving treatment, is subject to extensive periods of segregation and repeated institutional transfers. She has been pepper sprayed and has engaged in self-harm. As her time in segregation increases, her mental health worsens. She becomes increasingly belligerent with guards and racks up criminal charges such that her sentence has now doubled. There is no end in sight.
This story sounds familiar, but this prisoner isn’t Ashley Smith.
We met this woman, K.J., earlier this year while conducting research on Canada’s treatment of federally sentenced women with serious mental health issues. There are others like her, with eerily similar stories. Their experiences show us that Ashley Smith’s treatment in the federal correctional system was not an anomaly.
Last week, Canada’s correctional ombudsman reported that the number of women in federal custody has increased almost 40 per cent since Smith’s death in 2007. Nearly a third of these women identify as having mental health issues upon admission. A full 85 per cent report a history of physical abuse, with half engaging in self-harm. The ombudsman blasts prison officials for viewing self-harming behaviour as a security threat that needs to be contained, rather than a cry for help and much-needed treatment.
The inquest into Ashley Smith’s death has been repeatedly delayed. Proceedings stalled again this week as the government tried to block the jury from seeing videos that show Smith being duct-taped to the seat of an airplane, forcibly tranquilized, and left lying in a wet gown on a metal gurney for hours without food or water.
The government’s stalling tactics and efforts to thwart access to important evidence mean that much-needed recommendations from the jury in the Smith inquest won’t come soon enough. These jury recommendations are the last hope for women like K.J.
While the government is busy publicly patting itself on the back for being a leader in mental health and corrections, it has repeatedly ignored requests from human rights experts and the United Nations to stop the practice of segregating prisoners with mental health issues. The sooner the jury places concrete recommendations before the federal government, the sooner we will be able to collectively hold them accountable for continuing cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners with mental health issues.
Renu Mandhane is director of the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law. Rebecca Sutton is a third-year law student.
↧
See Yourself Here
Friday, March 1, 2013 - 9:30am to 4:30pm
Location:
Bennett Lecture Hall, Moot Court Room and FLB
See Yourself Here provides high school, university and mature students that come from diverse backgrounds with an opportunity to learn about the law school admission process and the legal profession. Participants attend inspirational speaker sessions, educational workshops, and a networking reception with law students, alumni and members of the legal community. See Yourself Here began as an initiative by the Black Law Students’ Association to target black youth, and has since expanded to include law students and participants from a broad range of equity-seeking communities that have historically been underrepresented in legal education and the profession.
See the See Yourself Here web page for more information.
**NOTE**: As registration is full, new registrants are currently being waitlisted
Contact: seeyourselfhere2013@gmail.com
↧
ITLP graduate Akinwole Akindele recounts his experience with the program
Friday, February 22, 2013
In the Ministry of the Attorney General's Spotlight newsletter, Akinwole Akindele, a graduate of the Internationally Trained Lawyers Program, describes his experience with the program and how it led to legal work with the Ontario government. He concludes,
Through my journey and with the guidance of the ITLP, I have come a long way: I have learned about Canadian law; passed all my NCA challenge exams; built my own “Canadian” legal network; and greatly increased my confidence level. Now, I really do feel I can make my way as a lawyer in Canada.I am so grateful to the University of Toronto’s ITLP and the Ministry of the Attorney General and I am proud to make Ontario my home.
Read his full article (PDF).
↧
↧
Prof. Brenda Cossman awarded 2013 Ludwik and Estelle Jus Memorial Human Rights Prize
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Professor Brenda Cossman has been awarded the Ludwik and Estelle Jus Memorial Human Rights Prize by the University of Toronto for her work as Professor of Law and as Director of the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies.
This prize is awarded to an individual who has made a positive and lasting contribution in one or more of the areas of education and action against discrimination; supporting the University’s mission to realize an exemplary degree of equity and diversity; and extending our knowledge as a consequence of our diversity.
Prof. Cossman and other recipients of the University’s Awards of Excellence will be honoured at a ceremony to take place on April 10, 2013.
↧
Sixth annual See Yourself Here draws a record crowd and waitlist
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
By Lucianna Ciccocioppo and Adrienne Ho, 2L
More than 150 high school students, undergraduates and adults from diverse communities across the GTA visited the Faculty of Law March 1, 2013, eager to get a glimpse into the life of a lawyer—and how to become one—at the sixth annual See Yourself Here open house, sponsored by TD Bank.
Originally a student outreach event launched by the Black Law Students Association in 2008, See Yourself Here has since expanded to include students and participants from a broad range of equity-seeking communities. This year's attendees included high school, university and mature students from Turkish, Ethiopian, Métis, Afghani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, Iranian, West Indian, Russian, Sri Lankan, Ukrainian, Pakistani, Croatian and Hispanic backgrounds.
Ethiopian-born Canadian activist Samuel Getachew wrote about the event in his blog on The Huffington Post Canada.
"Everyone was friendly and open to discussions,” wrote one student as feedback. “The promotion of diversity showed me that law is a very changing field, and I look forward to seeing the progress in the future."
New this year was a mock law class, taught by one of the Faculty of Law’s most popular professors, Anthony Niblett. The witty, fun and interactive class energized the audience and provided “good understanding of and insight into law school," wrote one student.
In addition, See Yourself Here marked a new partnership between the Black Law Students Association and the Aboriginal Law Students' Association. For the first time, representatives from both groups were part of the welcoming remarks.
"I liked the diversity of the panelists. Their different backgrounds really helped shed some light on what it takes to get to law school," said a student.
The panels featured an impressive array of speakers, most of whom were participating in See Yourself Here for the first time. The morning panel included Clint Davis, an Inuk who is vice- president Aboriginal affairs at the TD Bank Group, Andrew Alleyne, the director of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, and Jean Teillet, an Aboriginal rights advocate and great- grandniece of Louis Riel. Mitch Frazer, a former member of the Ontario government's post-secondary education advisory committee on first generation students, and Eunice Machado, co-founder of the Portuguese Canadian Lawyers Association, also participated. Their "story telling was inspirational," noted a student.
After lunch, attendees heard from Anusha Aruliah, a Justice Canada lawyer specializing in Aboriginal law, CBC Television lawyer Gave Lindo, and Julian K. Roy, who was part of Maher Arar's legal team. Crown Counsel for the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General Emile Carrington and Sara Zborvoski, who frequently advocates before all branches of Health Canada, joined them.
"I liked the diversity of the panelists. Their different backgrounds really helped shed some light on what it takes to get to law school," said a student.
More than 30 law-student volunteers helped with the event, mingling with attendees throughout the day and presenting their own insight into legal education. "I like the part where law school students were actually sharing their experience at the law school which can help a lot of potential candidates to get more information about the program," said one student.
Planning is underway for See Yourself Here 2014. Alumni are welcome to share their success stories. If you wish to participate in next year's See Yourself Here, please email us at externalrelations.law@utoronto.ca
Photos: Cary Ferguson
↧
Dean Mayo Moran and alumna Justice Gloria Epstein honoured with YWCA Women of Distinction Awards
Thursday, March 7, 2013
By Lucianna Ciccocioppo
The Faculty of Law’s Dean Mayo Moran and distinguished alumna Justice Gloria Epstein, LLB 1977, of the Court of Appeal of Ontario, have been honoured with a 2013 YWCA Women of Distinction award, lauded for their outstanding work and “bold vision in significantly improving the lives of women and girls at home and abroad.”
On the eve of International Women’s Day, March 8, seven women were announced as recipients of the notable award, acknowledging their innovation in areas such as social justice, law, education, health, public service and volunteerism. A young woman of distinction is also recognized.
“Mayo Moran is a renowned legal scholar and a stellar dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto,” says Cheryl Misak, vice-president and provost. “The university is extremely pleased that her leadership has been recognized in this way.”
Applauded for her leadership in education, Moran is the first woman dean of the Faculty of Law and has raised awareness for and drawn much-needed attention to important matters, such as gender and diversity in the legal profession, access to justice, Aboriginal economic development and the Indian residential schools settlement agreement—issues that significantly impact the lives and women and girls.
As dean, Moran has launched the Women in Transition program to assist women re-entering the legal profession, and the groundbreaking Internationally Trained Lawyers Program, to help new Canadians with law degrees facilitate the maze of licensing requirements to practice in Ontario.
"I am honoured to receive the YWCA’s Women of Distinction award," says Moran. "I have always passionately believed in the importance of education in realizing the full potential of all individuals. Access to education has been especially transformative for girls and women and I am proud to be recognized by an organization like the YWCA which makes a tremendous difference."
The award recipients are doing tremendous things to build a world in which all women and girls can thrive.
Justice Epstein is considered a trailblazer in the legal profession, graduating at a time law was still considered a ‘man’s world.’ She honed her legal skills at two large firms, and later founded one of Toronto’s first women-owned legal firms.
Epstein is dedicated to supporting women lawyers. She lectures frequently on this issue, sharing her valuable work/life balance and parenting experiences with others, having raised three children and advancing her legal career from the bar to the bench.
She also volunteers her time on various boards, such a Pathways to Education, which encourages marginalized youth to complete high-school and attend post-secondary institutions, and the Ontario Justice Education Network, which promotes a more inclusive justice system.
The YWCA Women of Distinction awards, a 33-year tradition, “acknowledge[s] the determined, innovative work that is being done to address the specific barriers and challenges faced by women and girls,” says CEO Heather McGregor. “The award recipients are doing tremendous things to build a world in which all women and girls can thrive. We want to celebrate that work and encourage others to join in."
Recipients formally receive their awards at a celebratory and fundraising dinner for the YWCA Toronto on May 2, 2013.
↧
U of T Law once again offers free LSAT Course and Law School Prep Program for low-income students
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
For the second year running, the University of Toronto Faculty of Law is offering a free LSAT and law school prep course for high potential undergrads with limited financial resources. This initiative is one of several the Faculty is undertaking to proactively identify and reduce barriers to applying to law school.
Facilitated by a Faculty of Law student with support from admissions and financial aid staff, the course is offered free of charge and provides comprehensive LSAT preparation and tutoring; information and guidance regarding law school admissions and financial aid; and exposure to law school and the legal profession through panels, speakers and field trips to courts and legal clinics, etc.
Last year’s program was very successful and received excellent feedback from the participants. At least 5 students from the program have so far gained admission to Canadian law schools, including 2 who have been admitted to next year’s first year class at the University of Toronto law school.
The application deadline is May 10th. Applicants must have a minimum 78% undergraduate average and be a recipient of the Canada Student Grant for Persons From Low Income Families or otherwise able to demonstrate comparable low income.
↧
↧
Webcast of Access to Justice Town Hall now available
Thursday, November 29, 2012
The webcast of the Access to Justice Town Hall on Nov. 21, 2012 is now available.
The town hall discussed the latest developments in Ontario on access to justice, particularly for middle income citizens. The event celebrated the launch of Middle Income Access to Justice from UofT Press, and follow up on the Faculty's international colloquium on this issue. It featured leading figures from the Ontario legal community in a discussion moderated by Ellen Roseman of the Toronto Star.
Here is the event line-up:
- Welcome and Introduction to the Middle Income Access to Justice Initiative: Dean Mayo Moran
- Updates on Access to Justice and…
- Family law: Prof. Nick Bala, Queen's Faculty of Law
- Consumer law: Prof. Tony Duggan
- Labour law: Assistant Dean Judith McCormack
For further information regarding the book and initiative, see:
http://www.law.utoronto.ca/news/access-justice-project-publishes-its-book-strategies
↧
The Program on Ethics in Law and Business is calling for submissions
Friday, April 19, 2013
PROGRAM ON ETHICS IN LAW AND BUSINESS
Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Call for Submissions April 2013
The Program on Ethics in Law and Business (PELB) at the University of Toronto invites submissions on topics, issues, ideas for papers and panel discussions for the 2013-14 academic year. As part of its mandate, the PELB will utilize the submissions to create opportunities for dialogue among lawyers, judges, academics, and business leaders on ethical conduct in the business law context.
We invite submissions that stimulate and develop an on-going dialogue on how we as lawyers should conduct ourselves in the business law setting. Key themes may include:
- Legal ethics in the business context: Does ethical behavior extend beyond mere legal compliance? Should lawyers be the moral conscience for their clients?
- Conflicts: What ethical challenges arise when lawyers are asked to play multiple roles, such as joining the board of a corporate client?
- Disclosure: What are the obligations of a lawyer when required to make full disclosure to a regulator?
- What law reforms are needed, including for example, whether changes are required to protect whistle-blowers.
- The issue of withdrawal: When and how should lawyers withdraw legal services from clients?
- Self-regulation of the legal profession: When if at all should self-regulatory discipline be replaced by public prosecution?
- Any other issues relating to ethical matters arising in a business law context.
The PELB also seeks to explore the connection between corporate law, securities regulation, taxation, bankruptcy and insolvency law on the one hand, and ethical conduct, on the other. We therefore welcome submissions on substantive law topics that warrant examination from an ethical not simply a legal standpoint (e.g. break fees, golden parachutes and lock-up agreements…). What are the relevant issues in these areas of law that impact both ethical and legal considerations?
Please send your submissions (of approximately 500 words) to Professor Anita Anand, Academic Director of the PELB, by email to: anita.anand@utoronto.ca prior to May 30, 2013. Submissions may be utilized to develop the agenda for the first PELB conference to be held on November 7, 2013. If you would like to write a paper, please feel free to indicate your willingness to do so. Thank you for your interest.
↧
JD student Laura McGee writes "How to encourage corporate social responsibility" in Policy Options
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
In the magazine Policy Options, JD student Laura McGee has written an opinion piece proposing income tax incentives to encourage corporations to include “social responsibility” provisions in their articles of incorporation (""How to encourage corporate social responsibility," May 2013).
↧
Internationally Trained Lawyers Program celebrates its third commencement ceremony
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
The Faculty of Law’s innovative Internationally Trained Lawyers Program celebrated its third commencement ceremony April 29, 2013, with 37 graduates from 19 countries. And for the first time this cohort had lawyers from Albania, Guyana, Ireland, Malaysia, Moldova, Nepal, Sudan, and Venezuela.
“We were a group of strangers with a wealth of knowledge and experience and the largest combination of accents in one room that I had ever heard,” said Nadia Singh, the valedictorian. “Thirty-seven strangers became 37 friends.”
The ITLP, the only program of its kind in Canada to help new Canadians transition to their legal career in Ontario, combines coursework on how to best prepare for accreditation and licensing exams, with networking and internship opportunities, and small group meetings with law firms, legal departments and various members of the profession and judiciary. Students also learn about Canadian life and cultural fluency.
We had a student who was the author of the first book on environmental law in his home jurisdiction.
For Jane Price, acting director of the ITLP, each cohort brings new hope and new experiences. She’s been with the program since it launched, and in her commencement address, she said this year’s class was no different.
“Class members were UN lawyers, criminal prosecutors, corporate lawyers, human rights activists and military officers. We had lawyers from China—one who started studying law immediately following the Cultural Revolution—and offered our class a perspective quite unlike that any Canadian-educated lawyer could have. And we had another student who was the author of the first book on environmental law in his home jurisdiction.”
Students gathered with their family members and friends in the Great Hall at Hart House for an official ceremony to receive their certificates of completion, and an informal lunch.
And since this is the third completion ceremony, Price had some good news to share: “Our grads from years one and two are getting called to the bar, entering practice and making their way. All of you have survived this last year, and you are on your way to meaningful work in Canada, to making a contribution to this country.”
Valedictorian Nadia Singh
↧
↧
Attorney General of Ontario announces anti-SLAPP bill at Faculty of Law
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
By Lucianna Ciccocioppo
Dean Mayo Moran was part of a Ministry of the Attorney General announcement today, and played an integral role in recommending a proposed bill to protect freedom of speech and public participation while preventing nuisance litigation to deliberately tie up matters in court.
In a media conference at the Faculty of Law, Attorney General John Gerretsen announced the Ontario government’s Protection of Public Participation bill.
“We live in a fair and democratic society, and we believe that this law will provide a balanced approach that recognizes both the right to public expression and the importance of protection of reputation,” said Gerretsen.
If passed, the legislation would allow the courts to quickly identify and deal with strategic lawsuits, commonly known as SLAPPs (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation). They are used to curtail expression on public interest matters, such as environmental issues. It includes “a fast-track review process for lawsuits alleged to be strategic, rather than a legitimate defamation claim.” And a request to dismiss would have to be heard by the court within 60 days.
“Public participation is vital to a flourishing democracy,” said Dean Moran, who chaired the experts’ advisory panel on this matter. It included media lawyer Brian MacLeod Rogers, and Peter Downard, partner, Fasken Martineau in Toronto. “I am very pleased that the Government of Ontario is committed to creating conditions for a robust debate on issues of public importance.”
The panel, formed in 2010, concluded after extensive consultations that strategic lawsuits could potentially have a negative impact, deterring substantial numbers of people from speaking out on public issues. The panel recommended anti-SLAPP legislation.
Watch today's announcement on our YouTube channel.
Read the coverage in the Globe and Mail, and The Star.
↧
Centre for the Legal Profession announces Distinguished Visiting Jurist, The Honourable Robert P. Armstrong
Thursday, July 18, 2013
The Centre for the Legal Profession is delighted to announce that its Distinguished Visiting Jurist for 2013/2014 will be The Honourable Robert P. Armstrong. He was appointed directly from the Bar to the Court of Appeal for Ontario on January 25, 2002. He served on that court until March 6, 2013. He is presently at Arbitration Place in Toronto where he serves as an arbitrator and provides related ADR services.
Before his appointment to the Court of Appeal, Mr. Armstrong was a partner at Torys. His practice covered a variety of matters including cases at all levels of court (including the Supreme Court of Canada) and before arbitration panels and administrative tribunals. He also acted as commission counsel to a number of commissions of inquiry including the Dubin Inquiry on Drugs in Sport.
While at the Bar Mr. Armstrong was an active member of several legal organizations. He was Treasurer (Head) of the Law Society of Upper Canada from1999 to 2001. He is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a former member of its Board of Regents for a brief period prior to his appointment to the Court. He is the chair and president of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, which sponsors the Cambridge lectures and Les Journées Strasbourgeoises in Strasbourg, France.
Mr. Armstrong received an honours B.A. from Carleton University, an M.A. and an LL.B from the University of Toronto and an Honorary LL.D from the Law Society of Upper Canada.
We look forward to having his Honour participate in the teachings, events and programs at the Faculty and to learning from him.
↧
Downtown Legal Services & PBSC cited in Law Commission of Ontario's family law report
Thursday, July 25, 2013
In its final report Increasing Access to Family Justice through Comprehensive Entry Points and Inclusivity, the Law Commission of Ontario cited the Faculty of Law’s Downtown Legal Services—the only law school clinic with family law services—and Pro Bono Students Canada’s family law project as examples of diverse access and entry points to the legal system with supervised law students.
DLS and PBSC are mentioned on: pages 27-28, p. 68, p. 91, p. 93 and p. 98 footnotes 127 – 130.
The legal profession has researched and discussed simplifying and streamlining the complicated family law system for many years, and family law was one of the major components of the Faculty of Law’s Middle Income Access to Justice initiative.
DLS’s Lisa Cirillo was interviewed on CBC’s Metro Morning on the issues raised in the report, and its ideas for solutions. She and host Matt Galloway were able to highlight the good work of the DLS.
Listen to the CBC Radio interview. [Runs: 8:15]
↧