Journal des étudia nt-e-s

en droit de l’université M cGill

McGill Law’s

Weekly Student Newspaper

Vo

lum

e 3

3,

no

13

31

ja

nv

ier

20

12

|

J

an

ua

ry

31

st

20

12

WHAT’S INSIDE? QUEL EST LE CONTENU?

WANT TO TALK?

TU VEUX T’EXPRIMER?

ÉDITO 3TALES OF SNAILS 4ON LIBRARIES AND LIBERTINISM 6gETTINg OLD, STAYINg THE SAME? 8pOèME 9SECRET SAO STATISTICS 9LLB TO jD: THE WAY FORWARD FOR MCgILL 12STUDENT COLLOQUIUM 14WHEN gRADES FAIL 15ACTUS REUS pRESENTS: THE MOUSETRAp 18SAO ANNOUNCEMENTS 19WHAT’S gOINg ON WITH THE LSA THIS SEMESTER? 21LIBRARY NEWS 23CApSLE REpORT 24OVERHEARD AT THE FAC 26UpCOMINg: VALENTINE’S DAY ISSUE 27

QUID NOVI

3661 Peel Street Montreal, Quebec H2A 1X1

http://quid.mcgill.ca/

EDITORS IN CHIEFAmanda PetrakisHélia TaheriThomas Gagnon-van Leeuwen

ASSOCIATE REVIEWERSKatherine AbarcaAlexandra Belley-McKinnonIvana CescuttiEliza CohenKelly CohenGiselle DavidianKai Shan HeAlexandra LazarAngèle Périllat-AmédéeCatherine HamillAudrey MayrandGolnaz NayerahmadiAnh Thang NguyenJames NowlanLaura ScheimDaniel Tsarevsky

LAYOUT EDITORSKatherine AbarcaJérémy Boulanger-BonnellyNicholas ChoinièreKai Shan HeMaxime PuteauxGabriel Rochette

STAFF WRITERSLudovic BourdagesJonathan BrosseauDavid GrovesAlexandre MichaudVincent RangerMichael Shortt

CARTOONISTAndrew Baker

WEBMASTERJérémy Boulanger-Bonnelly

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 publiee 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 2011 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 3 n o 1 3

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

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

É D I T O

QN • JANUARY 31 2012 • 3

HÉLIATAHERI

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

THE PORTRAIT

I’m not sure what the theme of my editorial ought tobe. Do I want to speak of the lack of space in NahumGelber Law Library? Not really, no.

Do I want to speak of the lack of resources provided tolaw students due to the library’s welcoming of thewhole McGill community? Not really, no.

Do I want to speak of the priority law students deserveover the library? Not really, no.

Do I want to speak of the administration’s alleged fai-lure to address law students’ concerns? Not really, no.

These issues have been discussed by Nicola Langille andScott Horne in their respective articles at pages 4 and 6of this issue.

Bien que je ne sois pas entièrement d’accord avec tousles arguments avancés par les auteurs — par exemple,je trouve cela difficile de comparer la bibliothèque dedroit au laboratoire de chimie: il ne faut pas oublier queles étudiants de chimie ouvrent autant de livres, sinonplus, que les étudiants de droit; alors pourquoi ne pascomparer une bibliothèque de droit à une bibliothèquede la faculté des sciences? — je ne crois pas que j’ergo-terai sur ces questions.

I want to talk about issues that are more emotionalthan facual. I want to talk about acceptance, humility,pride and shame; about humanity. I do not believe thatMs. Larose’s article misses “the” point. I do not believethat there is only one point to this issue. While Nicolaand Scott express their concerns about lack of spaceand the administration response, Ms. Larose talksabout human interactions.

As much as it breaks my heart to admit it, I am some-times ashamed of calling myself a McGill Law student.We might want to step back for a few moments andthink of this self-portrait that we exhibit. Please allowme to elaborate.

I guess you can call me a snail lover! Ever since my firstyear, I have brought friends to the faculty; sometimeswe study together, sometimes we grab a bite, some-times we chatter; sometimes we play foosball. And Ihave spent time at other faculties, for very similar pur-poses! I was bewildered by the discrepancy of hospita-lity when it came to greeting strangers in one’s faculty. Iwas greeted with a smile and an inquiry on my name.My friends were greeted with a smile and snail-relatedcomments, most of which were told in good ol’ jest, butwe all know a truth lies behind every good ol’ jest. Weall know the value of sarcasm and we all know how itfeels to walk in a corridor with eyes surrounding uswith judgment.

Our faculty’s hallway is not a runway, and snails are notinexperienced, awkward models. Our faculty’s hallwayis not “our” territory and snails are not “the enemy”.Our faculty’s hallway is most definitely not the RoyalPalace, and snails are not intruding peasants. It is just ahallway; just a hallway in a faculty. If we don’t conceiveof our faculty in these ways, why then do we conveythe image that we do? Why do we behave as if ourcountry has been invaded when we see SNAILS around?Aren’t we slightly overreacting?

Je comprends à quel point cela puisse être frustrant dene pas pouvoir trouver un espace adéquat dans la bi-bliothèque lorsque l’on jongle avec trois essais. J’ad-mets que je n’ai jamais dû jongler avec trois essais etque cela influence sans doute mon opinion. Néan-moins, imaginer un étudiant de droit, avec une dizainede livres de réserve sous les bras, qui doit absolumentrester à l’intérieur de la bibliothèque et qui ne retrouvepas de place est une tâche fort laborieuse pour moi.Certes, l’inconvénient n’est pas totalement absent,mais est-il si insupportable que l’on ressent le besoin delever le ton de la voix en présence d’un SNAIL afin des’assurer que l’on se fait entendre dire : « c’est qui cesgens-là anyways? »; « undergrads, so immature ».

(continued on page 26)

TALES OF SNAILSREFOCUSING THE GELBER DEBATE

NICOLALANGILLE

L a w I I

I am pleased to see that the issue of li-brary space, while perhaps provocativelyraised in the Quid two weeks ago, is com-ing into focus at our faculty. And yet, I saywith the greatest respect that the last twosubmissions about the problem of non-law students in the law library completelymiss the point. The issue is not that lawstudents are intolerant egoists, but thatthere is inadequate space in our library(and in other campus libraries) in which tostudy. When forced to write 6-hourexams, or envision changes to the CivilCode (requiring poring over obscure pre-Codal reform documents on the fourthfloor), and simply to succeed as law stu-dents generally, we need appropriatestudy space. And this is not space we cur-rently have.

I find it surprising that students are oftenunwilling to even discuss stand-alone rea-sons for which it may be acceptable forlaw students to be guaranteed space inthe library, and I first want to take this op-portunity to do so. By stand-alone rea-sons, I mean justifications for reservingspace in the library for law students apartfrom any general problem of inadequatelibrary space (which, I think we can allagree, McGill faces). There are three po-tential stand-alone arguments. Note:throughout this discussion I use the term‘undergraduates’ as a short-cut for non-law students (I am aware that we, too, areundergrads).

First, one of the great aspects of a McGillLaw education (as rightly perceived by MsLarose last week) is the community weare encouraged to create. So much of theMcGill Law student’s life is centred aroundthe faculty as a physical space: all of ourclasses take place here, our lockers are

here, our coffeehouses and other socialand extra-curricular activities take placehere. We are encouraged to make NCDHand its adjoining structures the focal pointof our 3.5-year term. It thus makes sensethat the library that is part of this series ofbuildings would also be a place we shouldbe able to consider part of our communi-tarian life, and that the students we findin that space would at least predomi-nately be law students.

Second, Nahum Gelber library was par-tially (and I don’t know the details regard-ing to what extent) built thanks to thegenerosity of over 300 members of thelegal community. Past and current profes-sors, future employers, and former stu-dents all contributed to building thislibrary so that law students would have aplace to do what is required of them aslaw students. Their goal, the very reasonfor their contributions, is not being real-ized. I don’t think it is good for McGill orthose donors to be deceived into thinkingthey are helping us. Donations, it seems,have ended up serving a purpose com-pletely different from those they wereearmarked to fulfil (helping undergradsrather than students from the faculty).This is not a sustainable way to run uni-versity fundraising.

Finally, there is the most central argument(a rebuttal one, I admit). When I discussthis issue with others, many (including lastweek’s columnist) start from the positionthat ‘we all pay tuition fees’ and therefore‘we all have equal rights’. I find this posi-tion simplistic. In her piece, Ms Larosementioned her love of books. I too lovebooks. I also love chemicals. But payingtuition fees does not give me an unlimitedright to access and play with chemicals at

the expense of McGill science students.Each faculty places different financial bur-dens on the university. A law degree is arelatively cheap endeavour: we requireclassrooms, professors, and (occasionally)clicker-technology-enabled screens. Idon’t mind that science students place adisproportionate financial burden on theuniversity to the exclusion of others, be-cause that’s what they require to succeedin their degree and, ultimately, career. Werequire, beyond those basic tools I men-tioned, a place in which to digest our ma-terials. And I have a hard time acceptingthat this is an obscene thing to ask of auniversity, or that I should feel bad forholding this opinion.

I have heard two responses to this argu-ment when I make it. The first response isthat science labs were built for sciencestudents, whereas university libraries arebuilt for all. I was at first persuaded by thisreasoning, but soon realized it is a glaringtautology. A law library is only non-essen-tial for law students alone and open to allif we decide it is open to all in the sameway that, theoretically, McGill could havesupervised lab drop-in hours for non-sci-ence students who miss titration. If some-one were to respond to this point bysaying that the labs might be less sustain-able if untrained, science-averse studentshad access to them, I think they would bevery on point. Our library is rendered lesssustainable in the function it was in-tended to serve by allowing undergradu-ates to actually displace law studentsfrom their study spots (recognizing I amslipping away from stand-alone argu-ments here and into our inadequate spaceproblem) and our studies are compro-mised as a result in a way comparable tothe effect breaking all of the chemistry

4 • 31 JANVIER 2012 • QN

QN • JANUARY 31 2012 • 5

C O N T I N U E D F R O M P R E V I O U S PA G E

department’s beakers would have on sci-ence students’ studies.

The second response to the argument isthat undergraduates also need libraryspace and should have a right to it. I ofcourse don’t deny this for one moment.Library space should be ensured for un-dergraduates. Space should also be pro-vided for us. I would never suggest thatwe should exclude any other faculty orperson from accessing our materials, but,as I said before, I also don’t think that say-ing our degree requires a quiet place inwhich to study is an unfair or particularlyunreasonable demand (even apart fromthe context of space shortage I am aboutto address). And given this, it makes sensethat our space be built around the materi-als most relevant to our studies.

And yet, especially since I sometimeshave my own misgivings about the abovearguments, I recognize that I may nothave converted all readers to my allegedlyelitist, exclusive perspective withoutsome injection of reality into this discus-sion. The reality is this: when I arrived atthe library at 10:15 AM to study last term,there were no seats remaining. Walkingthrough the library, I was frustrated,stressed, and at times offended to seeseats being reserved by anyone (I don’tcare whether law students or not) forhours at a time (I witnessed one particu-larly impressive 8-hour reservation periodfor someone’s friend). Studies were con-tinually interrupted by aggressive under-graduate make-out sessions and cellphone conversations in areas where suchconversations were clearly audible to all. Ioften questioned my eyesight as I walkedentire floors without recognizing anyone

from our faculty. When failing to find aspot, I would either sequester myself tothe only remaining spot in the library bystudying in isolation to the lulling hum ofthe basement boiler room, or try to find aspot in a New Chancellor Day Hall class-room. A quick spin though NCDH revealedthat I was far from alone in my despera-tion: dozens of law students sufferingforced exodus took shelter in the fluores-cent sauna of the 3rd floor. For those ofus for whom studying at home is not pos-sible, neither of these options is viable orsustainable.

If we did not have these space shortages,then accepting or rejecting my stand-alone arguments would make no differ-ence, for we would have no problem andwould not need to take action to securespace for law students. There is nothinginferior or demeaning about having non-law students in our library (and I thinksometimes we all get distracted by franklylame and unhelpful terms like SNAILS).But it is problematic when their presenceactually prevents us from studying, fromaccessing materials some of which theycan’t possibly want but that we mightneed, and quite simply from being suc-cessful law students. And when the rightsof non-law and law students conflict inour extremely limited space, I have noproblem using the arguments I madeabove to justify why our claim to thisspace should prevail.

Yet, I want to make it clear that what re-ally matters in all of this discussion—andwhat should be the focus of our atten-tion—is the general lack of library spaceon McGill campus, for undergrads and lawstudents alike, particularly during high-

stress periods like exams. And what isperhaps most troublesome about this sit-uation is that the administration (particu-larly the library staff, with which we havethe most contact on this issue) at leastgives appearances of not caring. Insteadof sending emails reminding law studentsto be nice people, or having a librarianscathingly suggest I give the universitymillions of dollars when I try to talk tothem reasonably about lack of space inMcGill libraries, the administration needsto begin discussing the real issue: the sta-tus quo of inadequate library space is un-acceptable for all students, law andnon-law alike. Without an administrationand library staff that is willing to engagein positive discussions about what ouruniversity can do to manage the stressesit faces, students feel alienated and theirconcerns belittled, and the university as awhole doesn’t (or at least doesn’t appearto) come to terms with the real extent ofits needs. If the university were to openitself up to a discussion about its financialrealities (and I have no doubt that the lackof library space is related to these reali-ties), and students were engaged in thatprocess, perhaps we wouldn’t have riotson campus when tuition fees go up $325.Regardless, students need to feel as iftheir very real concerns are being takenseriously. Such concerns, not whether lawstudents are elitist or snails should besalted or not, are the heart of the matter.The university only stands to gain frombeginning a process that will make thishappen.

6 • 31 JANVIER 2012 • QN

ON LIBRARIES AND LIBERTINISM

SCOTTHORNE

Students not actually in law. Sometimes endearingly,sometimes not, they’re known as SNAILs at law schoolsfrom Montréal to Melbourne. Mind you, we law stu-dents have nothing against them. After all, we wereonce SNAILs ourselves, in a past life. Oft o’ nights,straining purblind over eighteenth-century appellatecases, we dream of changing places with our limacinefriends.

Sad but true, our relationship has soured. “SNAIL” thesedays is often preceded by an Anglo-Saxon present par-ticiple, and pointed allusions to Donoghue v Stevenson,[1932] AC 562 (HL), have become commonplace. Butwho can blame us for resenting the hordes of SNAILsthat deprive us of our library? Tolerable enough at thestart of the semester, they multiply and proliferate soquickly as to crowd us out by mid-term, frequently tak-ing up all but two or three seats. Quantitative change,in Hegel’s memorable words, gives rise to qualitativechange: the law library becomes unusable for its in-tended purpose.

We don’t blame the SNAILs for coming; we ratherblame the university’s administration, which in Decem-ber dismissed numerous complaints with the treaclyplatitude that “all members of the McGill communityare welcome to use the Gelber Law Library”. As justifi-cation for not ensuring our access to the library, this po-sition reeks of namby-pamby liberalism à outrance. It isrooted in an equivocation on the term “use”. SNAILsthat use the library as a law library, for legal study andresearch, are most welcome; no one objects to theirpresence. But the vast majority of SNAILs use it only asa warm building that incidentally—perhaps even incon-veniently—houses a library. The only resources thatthey ever use are the tables and chairs. All are welcometo use the library—for what? any purpose whatsoever?

All are welcome to use the public thoroughfares, butnot for parking cars or playing hopscotch.

Good stewardship of a scarce resource is essential. Theuniversity’s administration knows this well: it reservesathletic facilities for varsity athletes and practice roomsfor music students; it even allows graduate students inthe Faculty to reserve carrels in our library. Yet the li-brary’s doors are thrown open to all on a putativelyequal basis—in wide-eyed innocence of what SNAILsactually do there: playing video games, fooling aroundon Facebook, conversing, even eating and sleeping.Some SNAILs, it is true, come to do their algebra home-work or read about hepatic disorders. But those activi-ties can be done anywhere; our research and studycannot. “Equal” access for everyone means decidedlyunequal access for those of us who need it most. Out-numbered sixty to one, we are inexorably excludedfrom our own library.

Law students deserve priority during busy times. UnlikeSNAILs, we need the law library: no other facility hasthe resources that we require. To the extent that lawstudents need access, people who are just taking upseats should be required to make way. We don’t claimthe library as our exclusive demesne; we merely claimpriority.

Our “library” has been shamefully reduced to a reposi-tory of tables and chairs. The university’s asinine policydisfavours law students, degrades our dear librarians,and dishonours the donors who built the library—all inthe name of some trendy nihilist brand of pseudo-egali-tarianism. Until the policy changes, you’ll know whyirate law students retain as our watchword Psalm lviii.8:“As a snail which melteth, let every one of them passaway.”

L a w I I

QN • JANUARY 31 2012 • 7

8 • 31 JANVIER 2012 • QN

“If you’re conservative when you’reyoung, you have no heart. If you’re liberalwhen you’re old, you have no head.”Among the various empty political apho-risms that refuse to find a quiet place anddie, this one is the worst. When I wasyounger, I went to a very conservativeschool, and not being a very conservativeguy, I wound up in dozens of debates withfellow students that ended with: “well, ofcourse you would think that – you’reyoung.” Never mind the implication thatthey are heartless monsters, twisted intoconservative cold-bloodedness well be-fore their time; according to them, I wasliberal because I had no head, and if I hadone, I’d probably also want a lower capitalgains tax, or a deregulated energy indus-try, or even a Patriot Act of my own. Withtime, I would come to grow out of myboyhood dreams of equality of opportu-nity and green energy, just like I eventu-ally grew out of Pokémon and puttingCheez Whiz on celery. Even now, my mostheated Revenge of the Nerds-style fan-tasies involved me cruising back to my oldhigh school in a monster truck, finding mypolitical nemesis – who told me I wasbrainless for wanting George Bush to losein 2004 – and reading out a list of every-thing that went horribly wrong betweenthe years of 2004 and 2008, all whilewomen in bikinis spray champagne every-where.

It was therefore with great pleasure that Iread last week in Discovery News of thework of Nick Dangelis, a sociologist at theUniversity of Vermont, who has over thelast five years been researching the ef-fects of aging on political opinion throughextensive surveying. The conclusion:

“groups of people actually became moretolerant, not more conservative, after age60.” Of course, tolerance has little to dowith most political beliefs, especiallywhere the economy or the environmentare concerned. But the point is that theconnection between age and ideologyisn’t so clear-cut. My grandmother hadpictures of Trudeau and Chrétien in themiddle of her mantelpiece, and at times Ifound myself arguing well to the right ofher. A second and probably more impor-tant point in the article comes from an-other sociologist, Karl Pillemer: “what'shappening in society at large as peoplecome of age seems to matter most in de-termining the starting point for their corebeliefs.” In other words, age might noteven have anything to do with it! Instead,we might draw political views from ourexperiences, or books we read, or teach-ers we have, and those views might be ca-pable of change. How radical!

Perhaps I’m a little too hung up on this,but we should all be relieved that “Child-ish Liberalism v. Hoary Conservatism” mayfinally get put out to pasture. The age-ide-ology connection belongs to a dangerouscategory of untested common-sense thatmakes political persuasion an impossibletask. For one thing, it reinforces a notion,on both sides of the aisle, of inherent su-periority. Liberals get to say they’re morecompassionate, and conservatives get tosay they’re smarter. Of course, if you actu-ally spend time with people who disagreewith you politically, you might find thatthey are, surprise surprise, diverse andcomplicated people, not unlike the peopleyou agree with. But why would you makethat effort if you know they’re either

going to be callous and self-interested orfeeble-minded and over-emotional?

To say that your age dictates your beliefscreates a chasm between different per-spectives. Neither side actually has to doany real persuading; rather, if I can’t con-vince you, it’s simply because you lack thething (tempered experience, youthful en-ergy) necessary to be convinced. Debateover. It defines politics so thoroughly as apart of identity that you might as well noteven try converting a person – you’d havejust as much luck telling them to changetheir eye colour or stop liking Doctor Who.

If we start from the assumption that gen-uine political debate is a process of siftingfor the best, most compelling ideas outthere on how to govern and live, then theidea that our physiology actually preventsus from persuading or being persuaded iskind of terrifying. It makes the only usefulkind of communication the kind thatpreaches to the choir, the kind that makesthose attuned to it more excited, morescared of the other side, or more willingto get involved. Politicians call this “divi-sive rhetoric” when it’s against them and“exciting the base” when it’s for them. Atany rate they know it works and theyknow how to use it, and it will remainmore useful than actual outreach until wedivorce ourselves from the idea that ourviews spring unalterably and immovablyfrom who we are. Regardless of your feel-ings towards all-day Matlock marathonsand doilies with birds stitched into them,persuasion is possible. Age is nothing buta number.

GETTING OLD, STAYINGTHE SAME ?

DAVIDGROVES

THE OPTIMISTL a w I

QN • JANUARY 31 2012 • 9

LUDOVICBOURDAGES

L a w I

Je pense encore à toià nos coïts avortés à tes mains de chirurgiennecaressant mon corps nu et étendusur la table de dissectionbercé par ton regard anesthésiquela morphine dégoulinant de tes lèvresà ma bouche intubéeà ma poitrine éventréeà mon sexe dilatémes yeux se fermentavant que tu me découpesà cœur ouvert.

SECRET SAO STATISTICSNICHOLASCHOINIèRE

L a w I I

10 • 31 JANVIER 2012 • QN

QN • JANUARY 31 2012 • 11

NOTICE OF ASSEMBLY ÉE

Juris Doctor McGillensis (JD McGill) Why: To update students on the JD/LLB conversion process When: Wednesday, Feb. 1, 12h30 14h30 Where: Moot Court, NCDH Who: You! Refreshments will be served for those who stay to hear the details! Lors du référendum tenu en avril 2011, les étudiant(e)s de droit de McGill ont voté en faveur d'un changement de désignation du diplôme de common law de « LLB » à « JD » (Juris Doctor). McGill est maintenant la dernière faculté de droit en Amérique du Nord à utiliser la désignation « LLB ». Beaucoup d'idées fausses continuent d'entourer la question de la conversion de LLB à JD. Venez à l'assemblée pour vous mettre à jour sur cette question importante !

See presentations on why the change is being proposed Participate in the LLB/JD Q&A session Receive written materials explaining the proposed change MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

~~ Au plaisir de vous y voir ! ~~

12 • 31 JANVIER 2012 • QN

LLB V. jD: TALk TO TALk, TIME TO LIS-TEN

This Wednesday, February 1, JD-McGill (acommittee of the Law Students Associa-tion) will hold a JD Town Hall in the MootCourt from 12h30 to 14h30. During thispublic meeting, we hope to provide stu-dents with an update on the progress ofMcGill Law toward transitioning to fromthe LLB to the Juris Doctor (JD) degree.

This Town Hall will be an opportunity todispel some of the rumours and false-hoods that have surrounded the JD atMcGill for the last several years. In the fol-lowing paragraphs, we will try to raisesome of the typical arguments, both pro-and anti-, raised in recent JD discussions.

THE pREVAILINg TREND TOWARD THEjD

The LLB is a Bachelor of Laws, from theLatin Legum Baccalaureus. In North Ame-rica, it was the standard first degree inCommon law until the second half of the20th century. It has also been standard inmost Commonwealth jurisdictions sincethe 19th century.

The JD, or Juris Doctor, was first grantedby American universities in the place ofthe LLB the late 19th century. The new de-gree was meant to designate more com-prehensive legal training than theAmerican LLB, which was regarded strictlyas a professional diploma. In 1971, Yalebecame the last U.S. university to replacethe LLB with the JD. Canada, Australia,Japan and the Philippines have also beenchanging to the JD since the 1990s.

Since 2001, fifteen of Canada’s sixteenCommon-law faculties have moved to re-place the LLB with the JD designation. Inthat year, the University of Toronto be-

came the first to adopt the JD. Since 2008,all other Canadian law faculties have follo-wed suit (see chart). Moncton and NewBrunswick are currently transitioning tothe JD.

Lors du référendum tenu en avril 2011, lesétudiant(e)s de droit de McGill ont votéen faveur d'un changement de désigna-tion du diplôme de common law de « LLB» à « JD » (Juris Doctor). McGill est main-tenant la dernière faculté de droit enAmérique du Nord à utiliser la désignation« LLB ». The results of the referendumwere 212 (68.4%) in favour of changingthe name of our common law degreefrom LLB to JD, 87 opposed and 11 spoi-led. Total turnout was 310, or roughly 45%of the student body. Néanmoins, beau-coup d'idées fausses continuent d'entou-rer la question de la Conversion de LLB àJD.

The move toward the JD degree has beenstudent-initiated in other Canadian com-mon law faculties, with referendum votesby the student body followed by alumniconsultation, adoption of the change byuniversity senates, and approval by theappropriate provincial ministry of educa-tion. Every university that has adoptedthe JD gives its alumni the option of ex-changing their LLB diplomas for JD de-grees, either free of charge or uponpayment of a nominal fee.

ARgUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF A SWITCH

The overwhelming trend at other Cana-dian common law faculties: With the soleexception of McGill, all Canadian facultiesof Common law have adopted the JD des-ignation or are in the process of doing so.LLB graduates may therefore be regardedas outliers in the Canadian common lawcontext, if only from a cosmetic, psycholo-gical standpoint. The LLB may come to ap-

pear antiquated and confusing, to the di-sadvantage of LLB holders. Moreover, thepotential for uncertainty and doubt as tothe value of a Canadian LLB in Americanand foreign markets will only increaseonce all other Canadian universities havetransitioned to the JD by 2012.

perceived advantages in U.S. and foreignjob markets: A Dalhousie quantitativestudy found that 56% of LLB alumni wor-king abroad had themselves experiencedor were aware of others who had expe-rienced confusion or adverse treatmentdue to the LLB designation. Furthermore,a University of Windsor report indicatedthat certain overseas legal communities(i.e. Hong Kong, Japan) view the JD as ahigher level of education and accord itpreference when hiring.

This concern is especially relevant atMcGill, many of whose graduates go on towork internationally. Owing to the LLBdesignation, some have experienced diffi-culties in obtaining employment. Forexample, the Dean’s office has had to di-rectly intercede on behalf of students ap-plying for jobs at the United Nations. TheDalhousie report mentioned difficulties inobtaining visas and work permits in theUK and Australia.

In response to this concern, the adminis-tration has raised the argument that theMcGill “brand” stands apart from the de-gree name, and that employers overseasare aware of what a McGill diplomameans. While we understand the adminis-tration may be in a better position to as-sess this claim, we have not beenprovided with any concrete informationthat substantiates it.

juris Doctor better reflects the value ofthe common law degree: The LLB is typi-cally seen as a first degree. A move to the

JD-MCGILLCOMMITTEE

LLB TO JD: THE WAY FORWARD FOR MCGILL

QN • JANUARY 31 2012 • 13

JD would enhance and strengthen theperceived value of the McGill commonlaw degree. That said, the proposed JDdesignation would be a change in degreetitle only. It would in no way affect the en-trance standards, content or academic re-quirements of the trans-systemic legalprogram offered by McGill Law. TheBCL/JD would continue to be an undergra-duate degree program fully accessible toQuebec CÉGEP graduates, and wouldcontinue to be designated as an under-grad program by McGill University and thegovernment of Quebec. We note thatother professional doctorates such as theMD (Doctor of Medicine) are awarded tostudents coming directly from CÉGEP, and

some other Canadian JD programs (i.e. Al-berta) admit students who hold no prioruniversity degree.

Recruitment may be adversely affectedby offering an LLB: Faculties of law havereported that prospective students do askabout the JD/LLB issue. While this issuemay have been less important severalyears ago when fewer faculties were ma-king the switch, today’s academic land-scape in which McGill’s LLB stands alonemay cause this concern to grow in impor-tance.

potential confusion in and outside Que-bec re the LLB: In all other Quebec univer-sity law faculties, the LLB designation is

used to confer civil law degrees, ratherthan those in common law. The McGill LLBcould thus potentially be mistaken as civi-lian in nature. A move to the standardizedJD would obviously eliminate this poten-tial problem.

potential difficulty in pursuing graduatestudies outside Canada: A Dalhousie Lawstudy found that among LLB alumni res-pondents who went on to pursue gra-duate studies in law outside Canada,24.3% indicated they had experienced orwere aware of others experiencing confu-sion or adverse treatment in non-Cana-dian jurisdictions as a result of the LLBdesignation.

pROgRAMMES DE pREMIER CYCLE EN DROIT AU CANADA

À remarquer : (1) parmi les programmes de common law au Canada, tous sauf McGill octroient le JD; et

(2) parmi tous les programmes de droit canadiens, seul celui de McGill utilise le signe LLB pour désigner un diplôme decommon law (Laval, UQAM, UdeM et Sherbrooke l'utilisent pour le droit civil).

C O N T I N U E S O N N E X T PA G E

14 • 31 JANVIER 2012 • QN

C O N T I N U E D F R O M P R E V I O U S PA G E

STUDENT COLLOQUIUM

Do you want to potentially boost your grade by getting feedbackfrom your profs and peers? Interested in sharing your hard workwith awesome people and getting a pat on the back (and somewine)? Then sign up to present at this year’s Student Collo-quium.

What: a mini conference for students who are writing or have re-cently written a term paper or honours thesis. Students will pres-ent their work and get feedback from professors and otherstudents in the audience.

Quand: le vendredi 2 mars 2012.

Pour participer, envoyez un courriel à Alison au Bureau de larecherche (Alison.glaser@mcgill.ca) avant le 3 février avec votrenom et le sujet de votre essai. La journée du colloque, vousaurez environ 15 minutes pour présenter votre travail, suivi pardes questions des autres participants et du modérateur. Après,vous pourrez vous détendre avec un peu de vin et des fromages!

Hope to see you there!

ALISONGLASER

R e s e a r c h A d m i n i s t r a t o r

ARgUMENTS AgAINST A SWITCH

Tradition: Some have argued that McGillLaw has a long and venerable history ofawarding the LLB, and we should not dis-turb this tradition. All other Canadiancommon law faculties, however, once en-joyed this same tradition, but ultimatelyfound good reasons to abandon it. Giventhe unique nature of McGill’s trans-syste-mic program compared to other universi-ties, a counter-argument to this would bethat a move to the JD in itself will not ad-versely affect McGill strong and unique re-putation.

“Americanization” of the Mcgill degree:The J.D. would place McGill more closelyin line with American legal nomenclature.As such, adopting the traditionally Ameri-can title JD may reduce our institution’sdistinctiveness in the U.S. market. On theother hand, the JD is now the commonstandard not only in the U.S., but in Ca-nada and many other countries aroundthe world.

NExT STEpS: THE WAY FORWARD

The JD-McGill Committee is committed toensuring that all voices are heard, as weadvocate for a change in our common lawdegree designation from JD to LLB. In theweeks and months ahead, we will conti-nue to consult students, Faculty mem-bers, law alumni, and potential employersto ensure we receive the broadest possi-ble input and feedback from all relevantstakeholders regarding the JD concept.

Ultimately, in order for the JD to take ef-fect, we will require the support and ap-proval not only of the Dean and FacultyCouncil, but also approval from the McGillUniversity Senate and the Quebec Minis-try of Education. That said, these laststeps are likely to follow if Faculty Councilplaces its stamp of approval on this pro-ject.

In a motion passed on Sept. 26, 2011, LSACouncil formally resolved to “dedicate itsresources, to the best of its ability, to ad-vocate in favour of changing the name of

our common law degree from LLB to JD.”However, little progress has been made inthe intervening period. We consider theJD issue to be of paramount importance.McGill Law students deserve every possi-ble advantage as they seek to make theiracademic knowledge marketable to futureemployers or graduate studies programs

Clearly, a continuation of the LLB may pre-sent potential obstacles in this regard. Ex-ternally, the antiquated common law LLBmay also serve to make McGill appear tobe something of an academic laggard,which is anything but the case given thehigh quality of the Faculty’s legal instruc-tion and research. We consider this mostunfortunate, and will continue to workwith students, Faculty and externalplayers to ensure that McGill Law remainsat the forefront of Canadian legal educa-tion. The February 1st Town Hall will be animportant step in this process.

QN • JANUARY 31 2012 • 15

WHEN GRADES FAILADAM LA FRANCE

L a w I I I

On the eve of marks being released for another term, I'm remin-ded of just how little letter grades actually matter in a place likelaw school. During my time at McGill Law, I have genuinely cometo believe that ALL law school courses should be evaluated on aFail/Pass/High Pass basis. Hear me out.

- grades are not reflective of substantive knowledge:

Anyone who knows a subject front-to-back only to get a poorgrade, much like anyone who never went to a single class butcrammed and still did well, can attest to the fact that your gradesdoesn't always represent what you actually know.

Moreover, in a program as heavily bell-curved as McGill Law,grades don't represent what you know butsimply where you sit in relation to everyoneelse in the class. The rigid nature of the bell-curve also brings me to my next point.

- grades make law students academicallyapathetic or misguided keeners:

If you're pretty much guaranteed a B rangegrade irrespective of how much effort youput in (think of Legal Methodology), are youreally going to go that extra mile? Simplyput, what's the point of trying if the end re-sult is the same?

I know what you're probably thinking: if you get rid of gradeswon't people care even less? Not if you set the bar to get a pas-sing grade higher, say roughly equal to a C+/B-. "Pass" doesn'thave to mean 50% or better.

The flip side is that for those law students who are genuinelyconcerned about getting the best possible mark in any givenclass, grades only distract from actual learning. Rather than focu-sing on expanding personal knowledge, grades only motivate thekeeners to do well on assignments or exams. When all you do isstudy for the test, what are you really learning?

Don't worry, a Pass/Fail system will still appeal to the appeal tothe keeners too. If you thought an "A" was prestigious, just thinkabout showing off a rare "High Pass". All this to say that aPass/Fail system can still recognize academic distinction when itis warranted.

On a personal note, some of the most educationally rewardingexperiences I've had in law school thus far have been in Pass/Failcourses. By taking the pressure & emphasis off grades, I had theopportunity to actually learn a thing or two. Fancy that.

- grades are an arbitrary benchmark for life after law school:

I know that some might say, "If not for my GPA, how can I distin-guish myself from my peers when competing for jobs afterschool?" Guess what? If you really want to distinguish yourself,get active, get involved in a cause and actually DO something todistinguish yourself.

Besides, if my experience during the "course aux stages" thispast year is any indication, anything above a3.0 GPA at McGill is pretty competitive. Sowhy not set the bar for a Pass at a compara-ble level and be done with it?

For a school that likes to bill itself as the"Harvard of the North", why not act like theHarvard of the South and do away with lettergrades ( http://www.law.harvard.edu/cur-rent/careers/ocs/employers/about-our-stu-dents/grading.html ). If McGill really is atop-tier law school, can we not legitimatelyexpect prospective employers to recognizethe fact that a "Pass" from McGill is a compe-titive mark?

The bottom line is that law school grades don't matter and we'llall be better off as soon as we acknowledge it.

Anyways, that's about all the rant that I had to make. Please feelfree to chime in with your two cents, any thoughts or commentsare appreciated! Finally, regardless of what tomorrow may bring,just remember that "you're cool, we're cool and we belong toge-ther" (Dean Jutras, 2009 Welcome Speech).

Cheers,Adam

RESPONSES

Lucas Collecchia: The solution isn't the elimination of grades. Itis the introduction of quantitative methods of testing. Bring tests

Note: The following comments (and responses) were written last May prior to

grades being released for the Winter 2011 term. After reading several well writ-

ten pieces in last week’s edition of the Quid, however, I was struck by how every

time grades are posted we collectively seem to address the symptoms rather the

cause. As such, I felt compelled to republish this piece.

during the term that ask multiple-choice questions on the cases.Remove 'participation' as an ambivalent category and set targetsfor set amounts of grades. If students all end up excelling, I guesswe'll just have to pat ourselves on the back for getting people towant to learn.

The law faculty is a complete joke, and everyone knows it. Peo-ple will drift by at B, and they can excel and still hit B. There's nopressure to standardize tests over years to provide comprehen-sive analysis of teacher success or student engagement. No won-der no one fills out our class evaluation forms: no one caresenough, given the lack of basic tools provided by the faculty.

But it doesn't stop there. Our student society's main job is tos-sing cash at various niche clubs and subsidizing alcohol and foodat the faculty rather than attempting to enrich the experience byaddressing academic concerns. The various student run initia-tives have fallen very far short of those which have been takenup by a number of other faculties on campus. Instead we writeup rules. Fantastic rules. And we continue doing it because it’sconvenient, simple and comforting.

So no, we're not cool. There's nothing coolabout anything which has gone on. We'vesettled for an experience which is a shadowof what it could be and we have no one toblame but ourselves for not demanding bet-ter.

Adam’s Response to Lucas:

Although I agree that the methods of evalua-tion at law school could be improved, that's awhole other can of worms. While related, ar-guments about various types of testing aredistinct from arguments about the effective-ness of a letter-based grading scheme.

That said, I don't think standardized testing is an effective solu-tion either. Just look at the LSAT. I disagree with the notion thatthe LSAT is an accurate indicator of how well someone will do inlaw school. To the same end, introducing standardized multiplechoice tests in law school won't be any better at determininghow good of a lawyer you'll be.

My main point is that letter based grading systems in law schoolare not an effective indicator of substantive knowledge foranyone. Not for students, not for teachers, not for employers.

Students need detailed feedback and constructive criticism inorder to understand their strengths and weaknesses. Teachersneed the flexibility and liberty to give that feedback without wor-rying where a student fits into a rigid grading rubric or bell-curve. Employers need to shift their recruitment processes awayfrom a GPA-centric approach and focus on other means of selec-ting candidates.

I also think getting rid of grades addresses your second point.The bell-curve pits student against each other for marks. Youwant to improve students' academic and extra-curricular expe-rience? Take the emphasis off marks and encourage people toactually get involved by fostering an environment where learningisn't a zero-sum game.

A "Pass/Fail" system would get rid of the antagonism betweenstudents, raise academic standards and enrich everyone's expe-rience both in and outside the classroom.

The long and the short of it is that we should demand better. Wedo have a student government and a whole mess of rules at ourdisposal. Why not use them to change things?

Edward Bechard-Torres:

I don't think the problems Adam's succinctly outlined will be sol-ved with pass/fail/high pass grading rubric. It would be a lessclear indicator of substantive knowledge. True, it would require

someone to be evaluated according to whatthey know and can produce and not to theirrelative quality of output, but it’s hard toimagine it working out any other way thanthe vast majority of students being assigneda 'pass'. That seemed to be the case for thisyear's second-year moots, where that rubricwas used. And getting a 'pass' won't be re-flective of much if nearly everyone is gettingnothing but passes. That's the same problemeveryone has had with McGill's insistence ona high curve peaking on the B. People wouldcoast on passes, to be sure. It's hard to ima-gine, as Adam suggests, the faculty setting

the 'fail' standard very high (which would require students to re-take courses that are a treasured, scarce commodity here). Evenif it were set at, say, today's C+ that would still mean most stu-dents could leave free of fear that they'd fail a course.

It’s true that a competitive grading scheme will incite students tofocus on grades more than a pass/fail/high pass system. That’sone of the reasons (I believe) the faculty has adopted the sug-gested grading curve it has. At any rate, this is probably thespace where debates around evaluative methods should takeplace. Presumably tests could be designed to better reflect stu-dents’ substantive knowledge. That, coupled with a completeabandonment of a grading curve or ‘target average’ would allowgrades to better reflect ‘substantive knowledge’ of what wastaught in course.

And grades are useful signals to both students and prospectiveemployers and graduate schools. They may not signal intelli-gence, but they can signal the extent to which a student has

16 • 31 JANVIER 2012 • QN

C O N T I N U E D F R O M P R E V I O U S PA G E

QN • JANUARY 31 2012 • 17

mastered the legal concepts and their application within a givencourse and even the student’s level of passion and interest for aparticular subject. Extra-curricular and community engagementare even more limited in their ability signal those things. Gradesobviously don’t tell the whole story, but my impression of the‘course-aux-stages’ was that employers were as interested incommunity engagement, personality and extra-curricular inte-rests as they were in grades. Also, hiring committees of at leastthe big Montreal firms--staffed often by a small army of qualifiedand thoughtful lawyers--should be free to put as much weight onthe grades issued as they think is wise and not to have studentsor the law faculty make the decision for them by intentionallyobscuring the signaling value of grades issued. Besides, if stu-dents were made to rely wholly on extra-curriculars to set themapart, you’d expect there to be some tense competition for pro-minent positions and influence within those groups, communi-ties or causes. That’s probably worse than having studentscompete in a classroom, since it is easier to learn individually in aclassroom than it is to work in or direct an internally competitivegroup.

Lastly, I don’t think the solution is quantita-tive testing. First, multiple-choice questionscannot easily be designed to test the impor-tant things like issue spotting and legal rea-soning or even to fairly test complexconceptual analysis. Also, the subjectivity oflegal reasoning is something that lawyers—who provide a service that will be subjecti-vely evaluated by a client or judge—will justhave to accept.

Adam’s Response to Edward:

I think your first criticism can be addressed inpart by the arguments Lucas raised. What's clear from the 2Lmoots (i.e. show up, stand up, say something = pass) is that apoorly structured system will generate poor results. Thus, if aPass/Fail system is truly to work, it would require a serious re-examination of evaluation methods coupled with a very specificarticulation for students as to what was actually required topass.

Under a P/F system, I don't think failing a class should necessarilybe perceived as a bad thing. A "Fail" simply means that a studenthasn't met the requisite standard for the course, not that theythemselves are a failure. A quick look at the current grade distri-bution tables shows that currently a few people DO fail any givenclass, and often have to repeat the course in order to graduate. Idon't think that a P/F system wouldn't set drastically differentacademic standards from what we have now, but it would radi-cally alter how these standards are perceived and met by stu-dents.

I think there is a genuine fear of failure which permeates the LawFaculty, and this is in large part due to the competitive atmos-phere that a letter-based grading system engenders. Why wouldgetting rid of this fear of failure be a bad thing? If anything, itmight encourage students to think critically and feel free to ad-vance different opinions about the law, rather than simply regur-gitating the doctrine we read & hear (3Ls, think of your termpaper for Advanced Civil Obs last year). Moreover, getting stu-dents used to failing every now and then might actually be goodpractice for the real world. Even the best lawyers don't win everycase.

As for the signaling value of grades, let's not overestimate things.It's well-known both in and outside law schools that not all GPAsare created equally; employers know that an "A" doesn't meanthe same thing at every law school. As such, prospective em-ployers generally uses grades as a cut-off point to help in the ini-tial triage of applicants. But this just brings me back to my initialpoint: set the bar higher so that employers know that a "Pass"from McGill meets their standards. The bottom line is that law

school should be first and foremost aboutproviding students with a quality education,not worrying about how students will be per-ceived by prospective employers. Do youreally think graduates of Harvard Law andYale Law are having a hard time getting jobsbecause they've adopted P/F systems?

I do agree that most firms showed an interestin extra-curriculars and civic engagement. Butit's also worth mentioning that not all law stu-dents are interested in working for law firms.Not all recruitment processes are as competi-tive as the course-aux-stages, and not all em-ployers require the same extent of signaling

that letter grades purport to provide. My worry is that for lawstudents whose professional ambitions don't require top marks,a letter based grading system not only doesn't serve any practi-cal purpose, it distracts & detracts from a quality legal education.And for those who do need top marks, that's what a "High Pass"is for.

Again, these are just my thoughts. Any comments or criticism arewelcome, keep 'em coming!

Disclaimer: While I have received a range of grades along the

curve, and will happily divulge my GPA to anyone who truly

cares, I will be graduating this spring and have no vested interest

in changing the current status quo. This isn’t an appeal for me

but for those to come.

18 • 31 JANVIER 2012 • QN

To further a tradition of terrible theatre re-views and trifling tries at alliteration, I sawand savoured Actus Reus’ delightful and da-ring production of ‘The Mousetrap’ by Aga-tha Christie.

If you’re reading this, you’ve missed yourchance to see the play so I don’t feel badabout spoilers. And really, the only spoil heregoes to the audience, spoiled by Actus Reus’strongest ensemble cast in years. (Disclaimer:I’ve only seen four Actus Reus productions,which doesn’t really qualify me to make thatstatement. But then again, I took final examshaving reading less than four cases and thatdidn’t stop my from pontificating… so… :-P)

Katie Webber shined as she always does – Idon’t even know why she bothers attendinglaw school when it’s obvious she needs to be-come a character actress. I only regret thather character died not that long into the playso we didn’t get to see more of her. Also, ifit’s not obvious I am truly, madly, deeply – Sa-vage Garden style – infatuated with her, Iguess it is now!

Really, standout performances all around, and mostly from new-comers. I realize it would be nice to give names and single outroles, but I’m writing this having lost my program so you’ll haveto forgive me. Best accent award goes to the guy who playedGiles Ralston (insert name here) while most hilarious goes to

Derek Z, because I’ve arbitrarily decided. Mostunexpected character goes to Chris Durrant, be-cause really, WHO SAW THAT COMING!?

Really, truly, I enjoyed this murder mystery / who-dunit. It made me nostalgic for Prof. Klein’s Crimi-nal Evidence and Criminal Procedure courses,which you all should take because they are ama-zing. It also made me wonder what I rememberedfrom Criminal Law… and that’s as far as I got onthat question before deciding that the courseshould be built around this play – CurriculumCommittee, consider this your notice.

Everyone did a great job and it truly was enjoya-ble. While I could quibble that some points werebelaboured, this is an issue for me to take up withAgatha Christie, who would surely have failedLegal Meth for not being point first in her writing.

Also, I was told there was an intermission (wholied to me!?) and as such I kept thinking ‘THIS ISTHE LONGEST FIRST ACT EVER!’ But really, it wasa great time and props to everyone for all thehard work that when into the show. It’s truly

amazing and inspiring that y’all memorize everything and ma-nage rehearsal on top of all law school entails!

Bravo, Actus Reus on a job well done. And Katie Webber, will youmarry me? In the alternative, will your character, Mrs. Boyle,marry me? I think I’m in love…

ACTUS REUS PRESENTS:

THE MOUSETRAP(OR WHY I LOVE KATIE WEBBER)

CHARLIEFELDMAN

B . C . L . / L L . B . 2 0 1 1

With an ensemble this strong and many new faces on the Moot Court stage, I can hardly wait to see the next Actus Reus production!

Katie Webber: is there anything she can’tdo?

QN • JANUARY 31 2012 • 19

SAO SAO ANNOUNCEMENTS

Exam numbers

NEW this term and available now on Minerva, the LawExam number (4 digit, term specific) is displayed underthe “Student Menu”, click on “Registration Menu” andgo to the “Check your Registration Eligibility and Verifyyour curriculum” page. The Law Exam# is listed on theleft, just above “Earned Credit.”

The Law Exam# for the current term will be displayedonly (cannot view previous terms).

Due to this new functionality on Minerva, the SAO willno longer provide stickers.

The Law Exam # is for midterm exams of a substantialnature and final exams ONLY. It is NOT to be use on es-says, papers or in-term assignments.

If for any reason a student does not see a Law Exam# onMinerva, please email info.law@mcgill.ca and includethe McGill Student ID number.

Room Requests procedures for Law Staff and Stu-dents

Complete information on room request policies & regu-lations and the on-line request form are found athttp://www.mcgill.ca/law-studies/room-bookings/.

In order to use a room (including the Atrium & 609) inthe Faculty of Law, a request MUST be submittedthrough the on-line Room Request Form. You will be re-quired to login using your McGill username and McGillpassword.

Requests to book the Common Room, Room 16 and the5th floor gallery must be made through the Dean’s Of-fice.

This form is to be used for all Faculty Law events: coursereviews, course make-ups, conferences, seminars, work-shops, student groups… This new on-line format willallow the SAO to track and follow up on requests underone resource email.

A minimum of 2 working days for processing is re-quested; however, you may experience a greater delay

during SAO peak periods (September/December/Janu-ary/May).

Please note the following:

• If you decide to use a room without making an officialbooking, you may be asked to leave the room for an offi-cial event.

• Food and beverages are NOT permitted in any class-room.

• Rooms must be returned to their original condition(chairs, tables back in their original position as the roomwas designed). If a room is found in disarray after abooking, the person(s) who booked it may be liable forcleaning services at a minimum charge of $245.

Enquiries regarding room requests may be sent to room-bookings.law@mcgill.ca.

Office Hours

Please take note of the following changes in SAO officehours:

SAO OFFICE HOURS:

Monday – Thursday 9:00 – 16:00

Friday 10:00 – 16:00 (New)

*except during exams, when we are open 9:00 - 17:00Monday - Friday.

SAO DROP IN HOURS:

Mon 11:30 – 12:30 (New)

Tue: 10:00 – 11:00

Wed: 16:00 – 17:00

Thu: 9:00 – 10:00

http://www.mcgill.ca/law-studies/sao/

EXAM NUMBERS, ROOM REQUESTS AND OFFICE/DROP-IN HOURS

20 • 31 JANVIER 2012 • QN

LES GRANDS AVOCATSDU MONDE SONT AVANT TOUT DE GRANDS CITOYENS DU MONDE.À notre cabinet, vous travaillerez avec des avocats ayant conclu des transactions de plusieurs milliards de dollars, d’autres ayant représenté des premiers ministres et d’autres encore ayant plaidé devant la Cour suprême des causes qui ont fait jurisprudence. Qu’ils courent des marathons, vivent de grandes aventures ou se dévouent pour des causes humanitaires, vous verrez que les membres de notre équipe comptent plusieurs êtres d’exception. Chaque année, dans le cadre de nos programmes d’emplois d’été et de stages, nous cherchons à identifier des étudiants qui, tout comme nous, conjuguent leur coup de cœur pour le droit à un profond désir de se surpasser.

Nous ne sommes pas seulement à la recherche d’avocats exceptionnels, mais surtout d’êtres d’exception.

Pour consulter les fiches biographiques de nos avocats et voir si BLG répond à vos aspirations, visitez le site blg.com/etudiants.

Calgary | Montréal | Ottawa Toronto | Vancouver | Région de WaterlooAvocats | Agents de brevets et de marques de commerceBorden Ladner Gervais S.E.N.C.R.L., S.R.L.

est une société à responsabilité limitée de l’Ontario.

blg.com

QN • JANUARY 24 2012 • 21

WHAT’S GOING ON WITHTHE LSA THIS SEMESTER?

Dear students,

Ce message a comme objectif de voustransmettre un bref aperçu de ce quipasse avec votre association étudiante. Jepeux vous dire après un semestre completà travailler avec tous les VPs, je mecompte vraiment chanceuse d’avoir uneaussi bonne équipe!

On a commencé l’automne en grand avecnotre retreat où nous avons établi nos ob-jectifs de l’année. Comme vous allez pou-voir le voir, on avance très bien. Je doisaussi vous dire que je suis très heureusede votre participation à toutes nos activ-ités, mais aussi aux différents débats ausein de la Faculté. Nous étions tous con-tents de voir autant de gens à notre As-semblée Générale et je vous invite àcontinuer activement à venir assister à cesdébats, car comme vous le verrez plusloin, l’hiver sera assez occupé de ce côté!Bien sûr, vous n’êtes pas toujours d’ac-cord avec nous, mais je crois fortementque le fait d’échanger nos opinions estune grande force et prouve que notre vieétudiante se porte bien.

Our first goal this year was to make theLSA more accessible and, as I said duringmy campaign last spring, I wanted to im-plement an open door policy. I am reallyproud of what we have accomplishedsince fall. I hope that you’ve noticed thatevery time there is an exec in the office,the door is open (except when we havemeetings). We are also trying to partici-pate as much as we can in events organ-ized at the faculty by clubs or students.Moreover, we started this year with a newinitiative: Breakfast with the execs everytwo weeks! It is always well-attended andwe will definitely continue throughout thesemester. It’s always a pleasure to hearyour comments and suggestions on howto improve student life at the Faculty.

Maintenant voici un bref topo de ce qui sepassera cet hiver :

• Nous avons voté à l’automne contre lahausse des frais de scolarité et un Comitéde mobilisation a été mis sur place. Quevous soyez pour ou contre venez leur ap-portez vos idées et solutions.

• Many events will be organized by yourVP-Internals this winter. Il y aura plusieursévénements à la Faculté pour la Fran-cofête dont une journée Québec d’Antanavec cabane à sucre et danse tradition-nelle. Vous aurez les détails très bientôt!

• Un autre sujet chaud est bien sûr leJD/LLB. Un référendum vous sera sûre-ment proposé afin de connaître votreopinion. Nous voulons nous assurer quecette fois ci tous les étudiants compren-nent bien les enjeux. Plusieurs questionsse posent et le Comité JD/LLB travaille à yrépondre.

• On February 8th, The LSA will be hostinga Special General Meeting to discuss themerits of Bill C-10 and whether the LSAshould take a public stance on the issue.

• Soyez assuré que nous travaillons en cemoment pour trouver des solutions aumanque d’espace de la bibliothèque, noussommes en pourparlers avec le doyen afinde réaménager la faculté (ajout de fau-teuils et espaces d’études). Nous pensonsaussi à une solution pour permettre plusd’espaces d’études lors des examens …c’est à suivre.

• This year, LSA clubs have organized animpressive array of lectures and socialevents, adding to the rich intellectual andcultural life of the faculty. We strongly en-courage you to participate in as manyevents as you can in the winter semester.

• La semaine dernière, Dominic, présidentde première année, Georgia, VP-Académique et moi, nous nous sommes

rencontrés pour mettre sur pied le comitésur la Politique linguistique et déterminerl’échéancier. En effet, présentement, lapolitique linguistique de la Faculté date de1992 et nous pensons qu’il est temps 20ans plus tard de la regarder et d’y faire lesmodifications appropriées. Si la languefrançaise vous tient à cœur, je vous en-courage fortement de venir participer ànos réunions – les informations seront bi-entôt mises sur le site web et dans le List-serv.

• You will soon be able to read our Consti-tution and By-laws in both languagesthanks to our Translation Committeewhich has worked very effectively thisyear!

• Les événements sponsorisés tirent bien-tôt à leur fin, un gros bravo à notre VP PRpour le travail qu’elle a fait cette année!Participez en grand nombre aux derniersévénements! Aussi, n’hésitez pas à mecontacter si vous avez des questions engénéral sur la Course aux stages, ayantpassé par le processus il y a 2 ans, je peuxessayer de diminuer votre stress.

Enfin, la fin de notre mandat arrive trèsrapidement et nous devons déjà penser ànotre relève! Si faire partie de l’AÉD vousintéresse, je vous encourage dès main-tenant à venir manifester votre intérêt etdécouvrir plus précisément ce que nousfaisons au quotidien. Vous êtes les bien-venus à toutes les réunions. Send usemails to tell us about your interests andwe will be sure to provide you all the in-formation that you need. It will also helpthe transition if you already know the insand outs of your future position! Notresite web regorge aussi de plein d’informa-tions, continuez à le consulter fréquem-ment!

Bonne session!

CATHERINECOURSOL

L S A P r e s i d e n t

22 • 31 JANVIER 2012 • QN

30 ans après le rapatriement: quel avenir pourla constitution?

MONTREAL, le 23 janvier, 2012 -- La Revue de droit deMcGill est heureuse de vous inviter, le vendredi 3 février2012 à 13:30, pour un débat sur le thème de la Constitu-tion qui réunira les distingués professeurs Benoît Pelletier(Université d'Ottawa), Daniel Turp (Université de Montréal)et Serge Rousselle (University de Moncton).

As the 30th anniversary of the repatriation of the Constitu-tion approaches, the Journal wishes to take advantage ofthe recent political situation -- namely the results of thelast federal election, the recent crisis within the Quebecsovereignty movement, the recent Harris-Decima pollwhich suggests that most Canadians are now willing to reo-pen the Constitution, etc.. -- to broach various themes lin-ked to the Constitution, as well as Quebec and Canadianpolitics.

Alors que certains commentateurs annoncent la fin de la"grille Meech" et prévoient un profond bouleversement du

contexte dans lequel les enjeux constitutionnels sont abor-dés depuis plusieurs décennies, la Revue estime qu'il seraitintéressant de se pencher à nouveaux frais sur diversesquestions telles que l'éventuelle adhésion du Québec à laLoi constitutionnelle de 1982, la réforme ou l'abolition duSénat ou encore les modifications pouvant être apportéesau système électoral canadien.

We believe that this debate will give rise to an invigoratingand interesting discussion and, as we anticipate a greatnumber of attendees, we encourage you R.S.V.P. before Fe-bruary 1st, 2012.

The debate will begin at 1:30 pm in Room 100 (MootCourt) of New Chancellor Day Hall (3644 Peel Street) atMcGill's Faculty of Law. The debate will be followed by areception.

pour plus de renseignements, veuillez contacter Laureprévost ou Simone Samuels au (514) 398- 7397 oujournal.law@mcgill.ca

���������������������� �� � ����������������������������������������������� �������!�

"�������#���������������$�%��&��������������������'��

�((�����#�������������)���*+��,-��

.��/��0������1�������������2������3������1�4���������5��

QN • JANUARY 31 2012 • 23

LAWLIBRARY LIBRARY NEWS

Books that I likedAs you surely know, Nahum Gelber Law Library is con-stantly acquiring new books that can help you in yourstudies. Beginning from this issue, I will try to ‘show-case’ one or two of them that I find particularly inter-esting in the section “Books that I liked”. It does notmean that I do not like other books that we are buying

• Entre amour et droit: le lien conjugal dans la penséejuridique moderne (XVIe-XXIe siècles)/ Arnould Beth-ery de la Brosse.L'auteur se livre à une enquête historique qui le plongejusqu'aux sources de notre modernité juridique. Cetteaventure l'amène à faire revivre la grande controverseentre amour et droit - dont l'importance des enjeux nerivalise qu'avec la profondeur de vue des grands au-teurs étudiés.

• Droit civil illustré/ Philippe Malaurie, Philippe De-lestreLes textes de Philippe Malaurie sont combinés aux il-lustrations de Philippe Delestre dans ce manuel drôleet décalé. Chaque chapitre n’est constitué que de deuxpages : un texte court pour expliquer la règle de droitet un croquis léger pour l’illustrer. Ce livre touche àtous les aspects du droit civil, de l'inflation législative àau régime dotale et en effet, le Droit civil illustré est unouvrage de divertissement en même temps que d'in-formation.

TaxNet.proSince January 2012, McGill Library bought campus-wide access to the TaxNet.pro database, THE databaseon tax law and policy. The database has now moved toa new platform that makes your research easier andfaster. If you would like to learn more about this data-base, I would advise you to take a look at its “Learn-it”section. The Learn-It area has been created for users toallow them to discover the enhanced features ofTaxnet Pro through a wide selection of video tutorials.

Newlook de Doctrinal plusLe doctrinale Plus, la base de données bibli-ographiques résultant du recensement quotidien desarticles de doctrine parus dans de plus de 150 péri-odiques et une base de textes officiels (français et eu-ropéens) et de la jurisprudence des Cours supérieures(françaises et européennes) a obtenu a newlook. Lanavigation et la recherche sont devenues plus simpleset plus intuitives.

Question – Answer

- I have a problem accessing the ICC Dispute Resolu-tion Library. Even though I am connected to the VPN, Iam getting this message “Restricted access - please login” whenever I click on something I’d like to read.

Due to some technical reasons, we cannot provide anautomatic login into this database. To access the li-cenced content of the ICC Dispute Resolution Libraryyou need to log in using the information that appearson the screen when you click on the link to ICC DisputeResolution Library in our subject guide (Username:McGillLibrary Password: McGillLibrary746)

Library is Open for Study 24 h Monday-ThursdayJust to remind you that you do not need to leave thebuilding at 6:00 p.m. when the services are closing.You can study in the Nahum Gelber Law Library 24 hMonday – Thursday.

In this column, we would be delighted to answer all

your library-services-related questions. Please send

your questions to Svetlana Kochkina svetlana.kochk-

ina@mcgill.ca, Liaison Librarian Nahum Gelber Law Li-

brary.

24 • 31 JANVIER 2012 • QN

CAPSLE REPORT

In May 2011, I presented a paper at the Canadian As-sociation for the Practical Study of Law and Educa-tion's annual conference. The organization is apre-eminent organization in Education law and I hadthe opportunity to learn and share in a diverse envi-ronment – with teachers, administrators, lawyers,government, union representatives, and other inter-ested parties. Without the support of the Beaver-brook foundation, my participation would have notbeen possible. I would also like to explicitly thank theLSA and dean's discretionary fund – for support and'inspiring' this article.

The paper I presented was a review of Justice Educa-tion and the student-initiated seminar I prepared in2010. I presented several questions regarding therole of universities and law students in the 'publiclegal education' or 'citizenship education'. I had sometime to meditate on the subject before, during, andin the time that has lapsed since the 2010 seminar.The paper allowed me to synthesize my thoughts andevaluate the entire experience with a critical lens.

At the outset of law school, I had no ambition to pur-sue 'education law' as s specialization. Before lawschool I was a high school teacher, but intended touse my law studies for social justice issues. Aftersome inspiration from a colleague, I entered into theHigh School Outreach Program. The interplay be-tween learning, law, society, and ideas of justice hascaptured me for some time. This inspired me to writea “citizenship education” paper with Professor RodMacdonald. After putting on the Seminar “JusticeEducation: from classroom to the university”, Imoved into an internship at Toronto-based legalclinic, Justice for Children and Youth, which boasts aspecialization in education law. I also started workwith Professor Shaheen Shariff in the Education fac-ulty on related subjects. (receiving?) Support for theconference allowed me to deepen my connection tothe issues, giving me an opportunity to interact withthe leaders in this area.

Attending the CAPSLE conference was an excellentexperience for many reasons. As a law student, it is

important to have the opportunity to share yourideas and opinions outside the school context. At thisconference, I was still held to a high standard of qual-ity, yet the bar was not enforced through a grade; in-stead, utility was the evaluator. I met with variousindividuals from across Canada and grasped the di-versity within the field. Indeed, this participationopened my eyes to potential future projects and cur-rent issues within the field.

My particular presentation was not as well attendedas I would have liked. I prepared a powerpoint,hand-outs, interactive activities – but due to my over-estimation of the numbers, the presentation did notgo as planned. Indeed, the majority of conferenceparticipants were teachers and administrators – all ofwhom much preferred specific policy / practicalbased presentations on grievance procedures andthe like. For better or worse, my own presentationwas limited to a group of individuals who had somespecialization in the area of Justice Education. Thiswas nice insofar as it allowed for a fruitful discussionof the subject. I was disappointed that I could not getfresh eyes on the subject matter, but I hear (fromgraduate student friends also shopping their papers)that getting numbers is often a difficulty.

I enjoyed discussing McGill's HSOP program and jus-tice education generally. I hope that my contributionto the broad structure helps empower the programand its participants to keep on producing quality ma-terial and a healthy structure.

As a quick note, fellow McGillians, be aware that youare well placed to apply for the CAPSLE fellowship. Itis broad in scope and generous in funding. All youneed is an interest in education law. McGill has wonbefore, and I was a runner-up. It is a great opportu-nity for those seeking professional development andconnections in an interesting area of law. McGill iswell-placed for this award due to our coveted trans-systemic pedagogy.

JESSEGUTMAN

A l u m n u s

QN • JANUARY 24 2012 • 25

Two journeys… One historical, in search of a new life. One modern, in search of justice.

A PEOPLE’S STRUGGLE FOR JUSTICE

A documentary by Lost Years Productions Inc. www.lostyears.ca

A film screening presented by the Asia Pacific Law Association of McGill & Contraste Agence d'Art

Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 7:00 pmRm 100, New Chancellor Day Hall 3660 Peel Street, MontrealFree admission. Seats available on a first come, first served basis.

With the participation ofCanadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit

New Media supported in part by Industry CanadaSmall Business Internship Program

Through the support of

Community Historical Recognition Program

Chinese Graduates Association of Alberta

In collaboration withProduced in association with Produced with the assistance of

Alberta Multimedia Development Fund

A PEO

OPLE’S ST

TRUGGLE

FOR JUS

TICE

26 • 31 JANVIER 2012 • QN

OVERHEARD AT THE FAC

3L (en parlant du Quid Novi): Oh, ils ontrecommancé à publier ce truc… Gaspillagede papier.3L: Effectivement.(Haters gonna hate —Ed.)

2L: Il me semble que le parvis de la facultén'était pas aussi large auparavant… On de-vrait confier le mandat d'investigation àJutras... Superhéros Jutras!

2L: I will stand facing the wind.2L: Odd...2L: It is better for my hair.

Me Grossman, on experts witnesses with

no last name: Come on, you wouldn'ttrust Madonna to testify on door handles?

Me Nadon: Je dis pas de ne pas aller enGaspésie; c'est vraiment loin, c'est vrai-ment frette, mais ça vaut la peine.

Prof. [redacted]: Does the use of mari-juana do little to harm others? Anyonewho can speak from experience?

Overheard from lawyers at the mootingworkshop…"If you are in litigation, you will be thebiggest paid storytellers on earth!” "I was on a 5 month trial. When did thatend again…? I’ve forgotten because halfmy brain cells are gone."

"I sometimes argue with my significantother about inconsequential things… I willconcede something – I won’t even say she

was right - and it is like magic! ‘Ok maybewe can go to the Star Trek marathon afterall!’"

On judges catching on to a weakness in

your case that you don’t address: “Dan-gerous: he’s gonna start thinking on hisown.”

SEND OVERHEARDS!quid.overheard@gmail.com

Please send in quotes from professors

with names - we will redact them if neces-

sary. However, always send student

quotes as anonymous (1L, 2L, Grad, etc.).

Merci!

EDITORIAL (continued from page 3)

Words hurt and what gives us the right to hurtthose who are different? Why do we have tocreate such a vivid division in the first place? Us,law students and them, non-law students. Is it be-cause our faculty is actually a small community?Are we a united family? Maybe! Does it justify ourbehaviour? Not in my opinion. Quite frankly, whenI hear SNAIL jokes, or I read SNAIL Facebook sta-tuses or I look at how my friends are treated in thefaculty, the first thing that strikes my mind is thatwe need to calm down: yes, there is a lack ofspace in the faculty; yes, we are allowed to getmad; yes, we need to fight for what we think isours with the administration; no, we don’t havethe right to insult those who are not in law (I usethe word insult because I have heard insults).

Ceux qui ont financé la bibliothèque de la facultése retourneraient dans leur tombe sachant queleurs successeurs ont tout oublié de la civilité.

Avons-nous perdu le contrôle? Nous ne nousconsidérons pas comme l’élite de la société, dumoins, je l’espère; alors pourquoi faire déglutinerla prétention des murs de notre faculté?

A law student should not lose his pride by walkingto another library. The med students’ library isonly five minutes away and trust me, no one willlook at you and whisper “SNAIM”. The Blackaderlibrary and the Islamic Studies library are only tenminutes away and, despite their overwhelminglyundergraduate population, they are not filled withimmature undergrads who speak, eat, Facebookchat or make out! Inconsiderate people are eve-rywhere, as much in a law faculty as elsewhere.

The movie Chocolat being my bible, I would like toend on this quote: “We've got to measure good-ness by what we embrace, what we create... andwho we include.”

QN • JANUARY 31 2012 • 27

Valentine's Day happens to be a Tuesday thisyear, which is perfect for the Quid’s traditionalValentine’s Day issue. Every year, it is filledwith nothing less than capital 'L' Love by stu-dents that send short Valentine’s messages toone another.

This is what you have to do: send us your va-lentines at quid.law@mcgill.ca, subject line“Valentines”. Grazie mille! DEADLINE: Thurs-day, February 9th at 5pm!

You can profess your undying love for a class-mate or simply shout-out a friend who meansa lot to you. You can propose marriage to yoursteady, or simply let your secret crush know(anonymously) that they have a secret admi-rer. Just think of the possibilities!

Send as many as you like. Love knows nobounds!

Vous voulez sans doute participer maintenant.Voici plus de détails techniques pour vous mettre sur la bonnepiste:

For the sender and intended recipient(s), indicate studentyear and initials.

Example : From MAP (2L) to TGVL (2L) : Mandy is randy for

your layout skills, baby!

If you are unsure of the year, you may use question marks.To remain anonymous (on either or both sides), simply usequestion marks.

Example:

From CF (3L) to ?? (2L): You are the Nahum to my Gelber.

For LLM students write LLM, and for exchange students, sim-ply use EXC. If you aren’t sure, use question marks.

Example:

From ?? to JG (EXC): Scotland is not that amazing, but thanks

for playing. Love you like you love haggis!

Keep it classy, or at least try to... It’s a fine line, so use yourjudgment and please don’t make the Quid Editorial Teamagonize over it. See first example above: that one is right onthe line...

Greatmentorsrequiregreatstudents.

oslerstudent.com | Toronto Montréal Calgary Ottawa New York

That’s why we look for smart, motivated students who relish the opportunity to receive invaluable exposure,guidance and mentoring as they contribute to our firm and clients.

Learn more at oslerstudent.comOsler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP