Journal des étudia nt-e-s

en droit de l’université M cGill

McGill Law’s

Weekly Student Newspaper

Vo l u m e 3 4 , n o 1 1

2 9 j a n v i e r 2 0 1 3 | J a n u a r y 2 9 t h 2 0 1 3

WHAT’S INSIDE? QUEL EST LE CONTENU?

WANT TO TALK?

TU VEUX T’EXPRIMER?

ÉDITO 3LAW SCHOOL: KEEPING IT WHACKY 4TLC FROM THE MLJ 7TOWN HALL SUR LE BILINGUISME à LA FACULTÉ 8RE RESPONSE TO “ONE L” 9MLJ SCC TRIP 10OVERHEARD AT THE FAC? 11

Envoyez vos commentaires ou articles avantjeudi 17h a l’adresse : quid.law@mcgill.ca

Toute contribution doit indiquer le nom del’auteur, son année d’étude ainsi qu’un titrepour l’article. L’article ne sera publie qu’a ladiscretion du comite de redaction, qui

basera sa decision sur la politique de redaction.

Contributions should preferably be submitted asa .doc attachment (and not, for instance, a“.docx.”).

The Quid Novi is published weekly by the students of the Faculty of Law at McGill University. Production is made possible through the direct support of students. All contents copyright 2013 Quid Novi.Les opinions exprimees sont propres aux auteurs et ne refletent pas necessairement celles de l’equipe du Quid Novi. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views of the McGill LawStudents’ Association or of McGill University.

Vo l u m e 3 4 , n o 1 1

2 9 j a n v i e r 2 0 1 3 | J a n u a r y 2 9 t h 2 0 1 3

J o u r n a l d e s é t u d i a n t - e - s

e n d r o i t d e l ’u n i v e r s i t é M c G i l l

M c G i l l L a w ’s W e e k l y S t u d e n t N e w s p a p e r

QUID NOVI

3661 Peel Street Montreal, Quebec H2A 1X1

http://quid.mcgill.ca/

EDITORS IN CHIEFJérémy Boulanger-BonnellyAaron Fergie

LAYOUT EDITORSXiaocai FuKai Shan HeGabriel Rochette

ASSOCIATE REVIEWERSKatherine Abarca Eliza CohenKai Shan He Charlotte-Anne MalischewskiAudrey MayrandLana McCreaAngèle Périllat-AmédéeDan SnyderAnne-Sophie VilleneuveSusanne Wladysiuk

STAFF WRITERSLudovic BourdagesDavid GrovesMichael Shortt Warwick WaltonDerek Zeisman

É D I T O

QN • JANUARY 29 2013 • 3

AARoN FERGIE

C o - E d i t o r i n C h i e f

This editorical is consecrated to a reflection upon theiutility of legal knowledge in everyday life. To elabo-rate: as a law student, when confronted with a rela-tional problem in “everday life” I have found that moreand more reflexively I turn to the law for guidance. Theproblem confronting me this week was an anonymouscomplaint by one of the divided co-owners in mycondo concerning my playing of percussion music(which, I might add, is a great way to loosen up theshoulders after a long law day). The complaint was arequest to effectively cease playing at all times of theday, every day of the week. So, having already em-barked upon the mysterious journey of “voisinage” and“abus de droit” in civil law property, I thought the timeripe to inform myself about my legal obligations in thissituation.

Mes résultats sont les suivants :

Premièrement, bien que le droit puisse être utile pournous informer des limites légales de nos actions, il fauts'interroger sur son utilité dans une situation de“everyday life” puisqu’il est plutôt un outil dur pour lessituations extrêmes.

Deuxièmement, une chose intéressante avec l’abus dedroit est que, même si nous semblons juridiquementjustifiés à faire quelque chose, le fait même de ne pasessayer de concilier nos activités avec celles des autres(hors du contexte juridique) pourrait signaler aux coursque nous avons utilisé nos droits d’une manière exces-sive ou déraisonnable. Le droit nous pousse à ne pastrop compter sur le droit.

Thirdly, the law can act as a good guide for prudentialreasoning: by reading through the facts of nuisancecases, we can get a pretty good idea of how not to goabout solving problems with our neighbours. Many ofthese situations quickly become escalatory conflict spi-rals.

The sound of traditional Korean drums through thewalls, or the sight of an unsigned letter, put a wall be-tween us and the human faces on the other side. Per-haps we resort to these mechanisms because we areafraid. Even symbolically, I discovered that neighboursfrequently erect excessively high walls that not only killroses by blocking the sun, but sometimes display con-querors flags. But although the walls are an attempt tosolve the problem, they tend to do the opposite.

Inspiré par ces résultats, j’ai décidé de fermer meslivres de droit et d’ouvrir les portes. J’ai parlé avecquelques-uns de mes voisins (il en reste encorequelques-uns) et j’ai essayé simplement de voir leursbesoins. Et le monstre n’est jamais si large dans la lu-mière : leurs vraies demandes étaient modestes et lasource des plaintes était plutôt d’autres problèmespersistants qui n’ont rien à voir avec moi.

In sum, although the law is a powerful tool that canforce a solution, it also has the potential to act as awall of formal procedure that can hide the humanfaces on the other side. Perhaps that’s why “abus dedroit” forces us to take steps to conciliate. A wise per-son once said, “Never open a law book when you canpick up a phone book and make a simple call instead.”

*The title is taken from: Daniel Jutras, « The Legal Di-mensions of Everyday Life », (2001) 20 Canadian Jour-nal of Law & Society 45.

“LAW AND EVERDAY LIFE”*

4 • 29 JANVIER 2013 • QN

LAW SCHooL: KEEPING IT WACKY JESSICAMAGoNET

L a w I I

You don’t need to know why you are here.

I don’t really know why I am.

Many of you picked law school with a grand plan in mind, clearcareer goals and the will to achieve them.

But some of us fell into law school, like Alice down the rabbithole. We picked the red pill.

And that’s ok too. As long as we are enjoying the ride.

My experience at New Chancellor Day Hall hasn’t always beenenjoyable. Some days I raged as I read the civil code, asking my-self why, of all the magnificent books in the world, I had chosento spend my time studying this dry, red brick.

But I have had classes here that have sparked something deepinside me. Ideas that caught me off guard. Moments of wonder.

(Sorry for the nerdiness.)

Law school isn’t a contract, it’s a relationship. If you are willing toinvest time into the relationship, you can really make it yourown. We are given (a degree of) latitude here to learn what wewant to. So take advantage of it!

My experience at law school certainly hasn’t been perfect. Yet Isuspect it has been a bit atypical. I want to tell you about it, not because I think it is the ideal expe-rience, one that everyone should mimic. I want to tell you aboutit to encourage you to think seriously about the time you arespending here. I want to inspire you to do what you can to makethis place inspire you.

I want to show you that you can do things differently.

Here is a list of unexpected things I have done as a McGill lawstudent: • I wrote my final exam for Advanced Common Law obligationsabout imagination;• I took a class on law and art history;• I am taking an elective in the Philosophy of Geometry, and forthose of you who think this has no relationship to law check outLeibniz and Hobbes; I didn’t see that one coming;• I wrote a paper about Edward Burtynsky’s photography, bio-philia, aesthetics and wilderness law;• I’m taking a class where the only text is The Leviathan;• I joined a journal that publishes articles in a field that really in-terests me;• I was working for a law professor;• I spent a fair bit of my summer thinking about South African lit-erature and Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.

No one is forcing you to do the courses aux stages and to takecourses that will train you for a bar exam. These are all choiceswe get to make, and they can be fine choices as well! But if theyaren’t the right choices for you, if their instrumental purpose orimmediate benefit isn’t that compelling, don’t make them!

I don’t know if my time here will prepare me to be a kick-ass liti-gator. It might not help me to save the United Nations. And itmay not arm me with the tools to help the city’s most vulnerablenavigate the legal system. But it has often been exactly what Iwas looking for: an exciting intellectual adventure!

DARE to spend your time here getting, not just a degree, but aneducation.

“SUZY SEATMATE”

"CLASS RoULETTE"What you do on your screen is your business. Yes, it may be distracting to others. But we're all guilty of it.

However, a Skype video chat crosses a line. There is no need, just wait for the end of class.

And let's face it, if you're skyping with a dude, and he's only visible from the chest up, he looks like he'smasturbating.

Thank you.

6 • 29 JANVIER 2013 • QN

!

QN • JANUARY 29 2013 • 7

TLC FRoM THE MLJ

on Monday, January 21st, McGill Law

Journal members treated 1Ls to somebaked goods and motivation cards! Yes,1L can be hard. We hear you. Don’t giveup yet!

Afin de vous soutenir moralement, nousvous avons demandé d’écrire vos voeuxou objectifs pour l’année.

Here are a few 1L goals and wishes.

1Ls plan to…

Get an awesome RA job this summer!Lâcher prise.Sleep!Get a B in Kong’s class.Keep on with friends and family.Avoir un stage et des bonnes notes.Passer moins de temps sur la forme quesur le contenu.To live a balanced life full of joy and pur-pose.Get in the top 10%Get straight As.Figure out what they want to do afterLaw School!Be back here in September.“Goal: to remain whole, keep my senseof humour, know that law is rich andgoes well beyond law school and toshare my successes and failures.”Moot and present to audiences withflair, precision and confidence.Be a better person.Join the MLJ editorial board!Achieve success and nothing less.

1Ls wish for…“I wish for sunshine”“I wish I get 6 As in my finals” :)“I wish for enough success to keep megoing, and enough failure that I learnsomething useful before I die.”“I wish for this year to be fantastic!”

“Health and happiness for all students!”“I wish to be in Paris this summer!”“Happy home!”“I wish I get a 3-month internship inSydney, Australia.”“I wish to be happy and healthy and sur-round myself with positive people.”“That the Jews and the Palestiniansmake peace.” [ed: we wish for this too!]

Did you know that people who writedown their goals are 10 times morelikely to achieve them? Here are sometips to help you better write your objec-tives and get a step closer to reachingthem.

Astuces pour rédiger des objectifs réalisables

- Break it down! Break down your biggoal into multiple smaller goals.

“Je termine ma recherche pour madissertation d’ici le 30 janvier 2013. Ifinish reading the research material byFebruary 28, 2013. Je termine monébauche d’ici le 1er mars. J’écris 3 pageschaque jour pendant la semaine derelâche . I send my draft paper to peersfor feedback by March 10th….”

“I write my term paper.”

- Écrivez votre objectif au présent,comme s’il était réalisé.

Par exemple : Je lis toutes mes lectures et relis

mes notes avant chaque cours. Je relis mes notes de cours chaque

samedi matin.I breathe in deeply and I remain

calm throughout my exams.

Questions à garder en tête:

- Votre objectif est-il quantifiable? Sivous ne pouvez pas le mesurer, ce n’estpas un objectif assez clair.

“Je lis le chapitre 4 du recueil decours de droit pénal.”

“Je fait du droit pénal.”

- Are you using affirmative language foryour goal? Are you indicating what youwant rather than what you don’t want?Positive language is more powerful thannegative language.

“I get things done on time.”“I stop procrastinating.”

- Votre objectif est-il spécifique?

“J’écris le paragraphe d’introductiondu factum entre 18h et 20h ce soir.”

“I work on my factum.”

- By when? Do your goals have a time-line?

“J’édite les notes de bas de page dema dissertation ce soir, après mondernier cours jusqu’à 20h, et les vérifieune dernière fois demain matin, entre10h et midi.”

“I do my footnotes.”

Bonne chance à tous!

MLJ MANAGERS

8 • 29 JANVIER 2013 • QN

Avez-vous des préoccupations quant au bilinguisme à la Faculté? Intrigued by McGill Law’s amorphousbilingualism? Vous aimeriez discuter avec vos collègues de votre expérience ou de votre relation avec lebilinguisme de la Faculté?

Come to our Town Hall meeting on “Best Practices in McGill Law Bilingualism”! Au programme : débats,brainstorming, échanges courtois sur la question suivante : « Comment vivez-vous le bilinguisme à laFaculté de droit? »

Join your friends from the official Languages Committee for an interactive discussion and some freepizza, Wednesday January 30th at 12:30 in room 101.

à très bientôt!

CoMITÉ DESLANGUES

oFFICIELLES

ToWN HALL SUR LE BILINGUISME à LA FACULTÉ

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt S.E.N.C.R.L./s.r.l.

Vous vous attendez à d’excellents mentors, ce sont les sourires qui vous épateront.

Bien sûr, nous tenons nos étudiants occupés. Mais nous savons qu’un étudiant stimulé est un étudiant qui réussit. Chez Osler, vous trouverez une

culture d’entreprise et un amour du travail qui sauront nourrir vos ambitions.

etudiantosler.com

Droit au but

Montréal | Toronto | Calgary | Ottawa | New York

A REPLY TO MR. SHORTT

In 2013’s first issue of the Quid Novi,Michael Shortt replied to an article ofmine entitled “one L”, which dealt with is-sues of legal pedagogy. Although I find MrShortt’s Pub Doc summaries well-re-searched and well-written, I cannot, withall due respect, say so about his article. Iwas left wondering whether he and I hadread the same article. I found that he wasmisled both on the state of legal peda-gogy at McGill and on the thesis that I putforward.

THE SOCRATIC METHOD?

Firstly, I argued that “despite first-year lawclasses having officially dropped what hasbeen known as the classicalSocratic/Langdellian Method, this peda-gogical instrument continues to play a

crucial role in the curriculum”. I groundedthis affirmation by citing the EducatingLawyers: Preparation for the Profession ofLaw and The Language of Law School:Learning to “Think Like a Lawyer” .

Mr. Shortt presented a very “classical” or“traditional” view of the Socratic Method.While I do not disagree with his descrip-tion, it was a mistake to say that I believeMcGill has adopted this view. I clearlyspecified it was abandoned by most lawschools.

Despite this correction, my understandingof my colleague’s reply suggests that hedoes not concur with me in regards to thepresence of the modern version of theLangdellian Method at McGill. I based thisaffirmation from the following four ex-

cerpts from his article which I will, in turn,prove wrong.

Firstly, he wrote: “Questions at McGill arenot central to professors' knowledge-transfer strategy”. on the contrary, I thinkprofessors do raise questions on cases topass on lawyer skills. In “CurricularStress”, Edward Rubin says: “the basicmethod of teaching in first-year lawclasses continues to be something thatcan be described as the Socratic Method,that is, an intensive interrogation (…) intothe doctrinal logic of a legal case” . Todemonstrate how this would apply toMcGill, one must simply look at the exam-ples of professors who constantly askedus the facts of the case, the arguments ofthe majority, the critique of the dissent,etc. If Mr. Shortt pays attention to this

RE RESPoNSE To “oNE L”JONATHAN

BROSSEAU

L a w I I

QN • JANUARY 29 2013 • 9

C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 1 1

10 • 29 JANVIER 2013 • QN

on the icy early (5:00am) morning of December 10th, 2012 theMcGill Journal of Law and Health organized a group of eight fac-ulty students to make the trek to Canada’s Supreme Court. Thetrip was only made possible withgenerous funding from Dean’sDiscretionary Fund. A unique ex-perience, students got the oppor-tunity to hear firsthand thearguments brought forth in thepotentially trailblazing Rasoulicase on the question of decisionmaking in terminating end of lifecare.

Pendant trois heures, deux avo-cats et six groupes d'intervenantsont débattu des différences entre “tuer” et “laisser mourir” ainsique de la gravité de l'état végétatif de monsieur Rasouli. Ils ontégalement délibéré sur la question à savoir si les médecins pou-vaient mettre fin aux soins de maintien de la vie sans le consen-tement de la famille du patient.

The ontarian Consent and Capacity Board was created to medi-ate any differences which might arise between the decision-mak-

ing power of doctors conflicting with the wishes of family mem-bers. Unfortunately, the Board has been the subject of many crit-icisms, especially in the face of uncertain diagnostic testing.

Many questions remain to be answered in thisparticular area of health law. The seven sittingjustices will have to craft a decision which bal-ances Charter considerations for religious andpersonal rights, the efficiency of the healthcare system, the accuracy of medical testingand, to some extent, the scarcity of availablemedical resources.

Le grand nombre des intervenants montre quece cas n`est pas unique et la décision aura desconséquences plus significatifs pour le systemde santé. Hasan Rasouli reste toujours dans

un état végétatif pendant que sa famille et ses médecins atten-dent la conclusion de la Cour Suprême, décision qui amènerades changements et éclaircissements pour les soins en fin de vie.

Alternatively, the Court may only decide to address the constitu-tionality of ontario Provision/Statue in question. Health law ob-servers will have to wait roughly 4-6 months to see how the caseturns out.

DANIEL MASTINE &ALEXANDRA

BoRNAC

MJLH SCC TRIP

TIRAGE MINI-IPAD HEENAN BLAIKIE!

Courez la chance de gagner un mini-ipad gracieusement offert par Heenan Blaikie ! Il suffit simplement de remplir le questionnaire ci-dessous (version électronique ou papier - disponible au bureau de l'AÉD) et de le soumettre à Carole Gilbert, VP Relations Publiquesavant le 30 janvier 2013 pour participer au tirage :) The winner will be announced at Heenan Blaikie's upcoming Coffeehouse on Jan-uary 31st. This is an exciting opportunity not to be missed !!

QN • JANUARY 29 2013 • 11

phenomenon on a day-to-day basis, I amsure he will realize how this occurs sys-tematically.

Secondly, he argues that “when questionsare asked, they are posed to the class ingeneral, not to specific individuals. Mosttellingly of all, a refusal to answer ques-tions carries no penalty.” I do think profes-sors or lecturers rarely ask a particularstudent to answer a question on the logicof a case, but the fact that participation inclass is part of the final grade in somecourses, inter alia both courses of ad-vanced obligations, still gives a strong in-centive to every student to raise his handin class. And even if they do not, they arecaught up anyway in the modern methodof the progression of the class.

Thirdly, he states that professors are so-cialized out of the Socratic Method. Mr.Shortt cites the example of a practitionerwho, after screaming at a class becausestudents refuse to answer questionsbased on readings, was not rehired. Irather believe that these professors weresocialized out of the use of physical vio-lence. If this feature may have been inter-twined with the Langdellian Methodonce, it was never central to it’s peda-gogy. Instead, confronting student withthe density of common law doctrine (ahigh volume of highly complex readings),the absence of context (no preparationbefore law school) and the painful charac-ter of the 1L experience are the funda-mental caracteristic of the method.

Finally, Mr Shortt concludes by saying that“McGill law is not a brutalizing environ-ment.” As suggested above, the roots ofthe Socratic Method are more alive thanever in the law school pedagogy. Indeed,McGill Law School curriculum is based onthe assumption, like I wrote in “one L”,

that “learning to think like a lawyer in-volves the painful reorientation thatSocrates regarded as the essence of edu-cation” . I do accept that qualifying thisprocess of “brutalization” may be a littleextreme. Maybe calling it “re-socialisa-tion” may have resulted in less contro-versy. Nonetheless, the stress on theshoulder of a 1L, which tries to learn notonly one, but two legal systems, directedmy choice at the end of the day. I shallnow tackle the argument on the purpo-sive caracter of this brutalization.

PURPOSIVE BRUTALIZATION?

on the second issue raised in MichaelShortt’s reply, I must again differ. Hewrote: “Even if our professors could agreeon the need to indoctrinate their students(already a ridiculous idea), it seems fairlyclear that they could never agree on a sin-gle viewpoint to which all students shouldconform.” I do not understand how my ar-ticle came to be interpreted in such a way.

I asked at the beginning of my article thefollowing question: “[Is 1L] carefullydrafted to melt us in a single shape?”Even if I left it unresolved, he seems tohave interpreted the answer as being theprofessor. However, I never said they werethe source of this system.

I will seize this opportunity given to me toanswer the question Mr. Shortt asked inthe last issue of the Quid Novi: “justwhose shape are we being mouldedinto?” I am under the impression that weare moulded into the shape of jurist bythe jurists themselves. While a vague re-sponse, it is a result of an interesting real-ity that lawyers must be trained to “thinklike lawyers”. Learning the law is alsolearning the values of the legal profession,which lie both in its culture, history andlanguage.

Each profession requires the learning ofnew mores. However, few professions re-quire such a profound brutalization, or so-cialisation if you prefer, like the legalprofession. I am of the opinion that it setsus apart, it isolate us, from the rest of thesociety. And the consequence of thismight, even if they are grounded in a ra-tionale, have deep negative effects.

A WORD TO MR SHORTT

I know McGill Law is a unique legal educa-tional institution. We are taught to be crit-ical of the law. Had I been studying atanother institution, I may never have writ-ten “one L”. That being said, I believe thisis an opportunity to reconceptualise ourunderstanding of legal pedagogy in amore profound way going forward. Wemust understand how the SocraticMethod treats us in order to determinehow we want to treat it. That was thepoint of my article and both sections; theone on legal education and the one on in-ternal motivation, were interconected.

To conclude, my colleague wrote that“[he] was left wondering whether he and Iwere attending the same law school” andthat “Mr Brosseau makes a critical pointabout the importance of inherent motiva-tion”. Thus, if he had read my article morecarefully and reflected on it more deeply,he would have understood it is partiallyup to us to decide which law school wewant to attend.

I made my choice.

For those who would like to join in the de-

bate, whether professors or students, the

floor is open! [Eds.]

oVERHEARD AT THE FAC?This week there were not enough submissions to the overheards to create this section. We are currently considering ways to garnermore participation, so please stay tuned!

Si vous voulez soumettre un overheard, s.v.p. envoyez un courriel à: quid.overheard@gmail.com

C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 9

1This financial package is offered to full-time university students in accounting, accountancy, law or notarial law and to students at HEC Montréal who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada. Students must provide proof of their full-time student status.

THE BENEFITS ARE HARD TO DISPUTE

nbc.ca/lawyersstudents

Our financial package1 for law students offers a wide range of advantages you have to see to believe. Sign up today.

Drop in and see for yourself:

1140 Sherbrooke West, 514-281-9621955 de Maisonneuve West, 514-281-9620

! ! !

!

! !