quid novi

Journal des tudia nt-e-s en droit de luniversit M cGill

McGill LawsWeekly Student Newspaper

Vo l u m e 3 3 , n o 1 11 7 j a n v i e r 2 0 1 1 | J a n u a r y 1 7 N D 2 0 1 2

WHATS INSIDE? QUEL EST LE CONTENU?

WANT TO TALK?

TU VEUX TEXPRIMER?

DITO 3WHERE IS THE LOVE? 4BARREAU C ST-LAURENT 5NEGOTIATING SKILLS WORKSHOP 7LAW GAMES 8A TALE OF TWO RACES 11HONOURING ALEX-THE ALEXANDRA DODGER MEMORIAL AWARD 12TO LEAVE NO ... 15QUID EDITORIAL POLICY 16HELENA MCGILLENSIS: AN ODE 19OVERHEARD AT THE FAC 19

QUID NOVI

3661 Peel Street Montreal, Quebec H2A 1X1

http://quid.mcgill.ca/

EDITORS IN CHIEFAmanda PetrakisHlia TaheriThomas Gagnon-van Leeuwen

ASSOCIATE REVIEWERSKatherine AbarcaAlexandra Belley-McKinnonIvana CescuttiEliza CohenKelly CohenGiselle DavidianKai Shan HeAlexandra LazarAngle Prillat-AmdeCatherine HamillAudrey MayrandGolnaz NayerahmadiAnh Thang NguyenJames NowlanLaura ScheimDaniel Tsarevsky

LAYOUT EDITORSKatherine AbarcaJrmy Boulanger-BonnellyNicholas ChoinireKai Shan HeMaxime PuteauxGabriel Rochette

STAFF WRITERSLudovic BourdagesJonathan BrosseauDavid GrovesAlexandre MichaudVincent RangerMichael Shortt

CARTOONISTAndrew Baker

WEBMASTERJrmy Boulanger-Bonnelly

Envoyez vos commentaires ou articles avantjeudi 17h a ladresse : [email protected]

Toute contribution doit indiquer le nom delauteur, son anne dtude ainsi quun titrepour larticle. Larticle ne sera publiee qua 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 lequipe 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 11 7 j a n v i e r 2 0 1 1 | J a n u a r y 1 7 N D 2 0 1 2

J o u r n a l d e s 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 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

D I T O

QN JANUARY 17 2012 3

THOMASGAGNON-VAN

LEEUWEN

C o - r d a c t e u r - e n - c h e f

BON RETOUR!

On dirait quil y a peine quelques jours que nous des-cendions la cte de la rue Peel pour aller livrer le der-nier numro du Quid Novi Copie Nova de l'anne2011. En fait, c'tait il y a presque deux mois!

Entre temps, il y a eu l'excellente soire Law School ofRock au Divan Orange le 21 novembre, mettant en ve-dette les talents musicaux de nos collgues, dont unecertaine Co-rdactrice-en-chef du Quid; la prioded'examens, durant laquelle des tudiants zombis par-courent le pavillon NCDH semi-dsert; la publication durapport du Doyen Jutras, le 15 dcembre, sur les vne-ments du 10 novembre dernier; et, bien sr, les va-cances! Quoi que vous ayez ftNol, Hannukah, lefait de vous retrouver parmi ceux que vous aimez ou lefait de vous retrouver sans lectures de droitle Quidespre que vous revenez la facult avec une rserved'nergie bien remplie.

La session dernire fut certainement l'une des plusprouvantes pour McGill et la Facult de droit. Il y a eudes dbats enamms sur la grve de MUNACA, lahausse des frais de scolarit, et l'intervention du SPVMsur notre campusles sujets ne manquaient pas et les

pages du Quid ne furent pas pargnes. Nous souhai-tons que l'hiver 2012 sera aussi riche en ides, maisplus riche en amour: ce sujet, voir l'article de KristaKais-Prial, "Where is the Love?", p. 4.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE QUIDSpeaking of lling our pages with ideas, the start of anew semester is a great time to remind you of our sub-missions policy. The Quid is entirely submission-based:without your contributions, we wouldn't exist. So don'tbe shy! Submit an opinion piece, a literary creation orthe poster for your upcoming event and we'll publish itif it meets our editorial policy (p. 16).

The deadline for every issue is Thursday at 5 p.m.Please send submissions by email [email protected] attached in a Word document thatclearly includes a title and the author's name and yearof study (1L, 2L, Graduate, etc.).

A happy new year to all! Nous avons hte de vous lire.

Here at the Quid, we pride ourselves on our exhibitionism (in a non-corporal wayof course...). Inspired by article 1604 CCQ, we thought we would share our NewYears resolutions...and resiliations with you!

Resolution: taken in the traditional, colloquial sense. Your goal for the year 2012.Resiliation: taken in the contract law sense. A bad habit to which you are puttingan end.

Thomas

My resolution: Tea over coee.My resiliation: Perfectionism when doing Quid layout.

Amanda

My resolution: Self-condence.My resiliation: Fear (and whining).

Hlia

My resolution: Passion-Life-Happiness.My resiliation: Frenzy-Nostalgia.

WHERE IS THE LOVE ? KRISTAKAIS-PRIAL

L a w I I I

At first I thought I was being overly sensitive.Then I started talking to people about it, andthey agreed there are some seriously nega-tive vibes happening up in this faculty, and itis not pleasant. Its all over the place! In theQuid, on facebook, on lockers, in hallwaysand in the classroom. The faculty seems tobe divided into whispering, resentful fac-tions.

I think everyone can agree that theres noth-ing wrong with heated debate, and that iswhat makes our faculty so exciting. Every daythere seems to be a new controversy, a newjuicy drama, a new Did you hear about whatso-and-so said about this topical issue?OMG. To a certain extent, this is healthy forus. We are being trained to make our pointsconvincingly and to point out flaws in thecounter-argument. We are being taught howto analyze texts until theres nothing left butshredded ribbons of paper. We are striving tobe fast, thorough and sharp as a tack.

But damn, why we gotta be hatin so much?Seriously.

Maybe its that in a faculty with such bright,ambitious minds competing on the way tothe top, we come to value being right, orshouting the loudest, or being the most ag-gressive. But what about compassion? Whatabout honouring your opponents opinion in-

stead of spitting on it? What about attempt-ing to understand the other side of things,and allowing room for the fact that your an-swer might not be the only right one? Whatabout a little uncertainty, a little self-doubt, alittle acknowledgement that there is a hugearea of grey between the black and thewhite?

We are taught to be analytical. But maybebeing constantly, mercilessly, robotically ana-lytical causes detachment, isolation and divi-sion. Maybe we need turn off our brainsonce in a while, and turn on the cheese. Ifyoure anti-union, hug a MUNACA supporter.If you dont want your tuition fees raised,look at your classmates points and respecttheir reasons for thinking what they think.Allow yourself space to wonder if yourewrong. Find the good in people, and seekcommon ground.

You may think this is preachy, trite schlock.And youre probably right. But its a roughtime of year, and people are tired, and cold,and stressed, and what we all really need issome warm fuzzy words and a good hug.Lets smile! And relax! And focus on beingkind rather than on being right. In the endwere all looking for the same thing for our-selves and for the world in general stability,acceptance and peace.

Editors Note: we received this submission last November, after our nal issue, but it is as rel-

evant today as it was then, especially as we reect on the past semester and the new year.

4 17 JANVIER 2012 QN

Keene JCQ presiding, today rendered judgment in a case of interest to law students, citizens, and those who make their living by selling legal services in the province of Qubec: The Barreau du Qubec pursues Andr Richard for illegal practice of the profession of advocate, specifically for offering legal advice contrary to s 128(1)(a) of the Act respecting the Barreau du Qubec.1 If convicted, Richard faces a minimum fine of $1,500, and possibly as much as $20,000,2 depending on my mood upon the day of sentencing. The facts of the case are simple and largely agreed between the parties. Richard, who volunteered regularly at the McGill Legal Information Clinic, was alleged to have given legal advice pertaining to trade-marks on the 28th of September, 2011. It is admitted that Richard told a visitor to the Clinic that while descriptive words could not be trade-PDUNHG VXFK DV WKHZRUG SL]]D IRU UHVWDXUDQWV Dfanciful combination of descriptive words (such as the well-known PIZZA PIZZA mark3) could very well be registered with the right disclaimers. A few days later, under somewhat murky circumstances, the Barreau got wind of this alleged advice. The rest, as they say, is judicial history. Counsel for the Barreau rightly contends that s 128(1)(a) exists to protect the public, and on this question of law, she has the weighty authority of the Supreme Court behind him.4 An interesting question of fact is the extent to which the public is in need of such protection. Taking counsel for the Barreau at her word, there should be an ample body of case law in which the public is heroically defended from legions of unlicensed lawyers. In point of fact, counsel for both parties presented me with less than a dozen decisions. I confess to having been unable to find any more myself, nor is there any doctrinal commentary of note on the issue. Turning to the case law as even we civilians eventually must I discern two competing currents in our jurisprudence. The first is fair, just, and reasonable. The second is incoherent and wrong-headed. For the reasons developed below, I prefer the latter. The first current follows the holding of St-Pierre JCQ in Barreau de LAbitibi-Temiscamingue c Guidon.5 In that case, the learned justice defined legal advice as follows:

Ce qui est du ressort exclusif de lavocat, cest de 1 RSQ c B-1. 2 Ibid, s 132; Professional Code, RSQ, c C-26, s 188. 3 See e.g. 3L]]D 3L]]D 'HVLJQ 3L]]D 3L]]D /WG &DQ 1RTMA488817, (30 January 1998), registered. 4 Fortin v Chrtien, 2001 SCC 45, [2001] 2 SCR 500; Finney v Barreau du Qubec, 2004 SCC 36, [2004] 2 SCR 17. 5 Barreau de LAbitibi-Temiscamingue c Guindon (1991), AZ-91031135 at 3-4, JE 91-777 (CQ).

donner des consultations et des avis d'ordre juridique; la seule lecture des mots nous laisse dj entrevoir que ds que lon consulte ou quon demande un avis, il y a matire controverse ou FRQWHVWDWLRQ RXTXon recherche une prcision sur quelque chose qui nest pas claire. [U]n avis, cest plus quun renseignement ou quune information : cela requiert quon donne une opinion, ou un point de vue ou quon exprime sa pense sur un sujet sur lequel il peut y avoir plusieurs opinions diffrentes. Et si ces avis ou opinions portent sur une matire dordre juridique, alors elles sont du ressort exclusif de lavocat.

Thus it is not legal advice to answer a question which has only one clear and patently obvious response. For example, it would not be legal advice to tell someone that hairdressers in the Outaouais may not admit customers after 6 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, or Wednesdays.6 Nor would it be legal advice to say that bingo events may not continue for more than 19 consecutive hours.7 Finally, one might safely warn a mystically-inclined friend that the practice of ZLWFKFUDIW VRUFHU\ HQFKDQWPHQW RU FRQMXUDWLRQ LV Dcriminal offense.8 Of course, this rule is not confined to statutes: clear and consistent case law (jurisprudence constante in French) may be explained without crossing into the realm of legal advice, since there is no possibility of controversy or legal opinion involved. For example, a student working at a legal information clinic could lawfully explain that attempted murder constitutes ingratitude justifying the revocation of a gift inter vivos (art 1836 CCQ).9 The approach outlined by St-Pierre JCQ has been followed several times by Qubec courts interpreting s 128(1)(a).10 The second current, presently a minority of one, was articulated in the recent case of Barreau c Charlebois.11 There, the Superior Court overruled an acquittal rendered

6 Decree respecting hairdressers in the Outaouais region, RRQ c D-2, r 4, s 5.07(2)(a). 7 Bingo Rules, RRQ c L-6, r 5, s 2. 8 Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 365(a). I note with some SHUSOH[LW\ WKDW VHFWLRQ D FULPLQDOL]HV RQO\ SUHWHQGing to practice witchcraft, sorcery, etc. Presumably Parliament intended possession of genuine occult powers to be a full defense under s 365(a). 9 See Arpin c Arpin, 2009 QCCS 6126 at para 125; Desmarais c Ziggiotti, [2003] RJQ 840 at paras 17-18 (CA); Bresse c Audet-Lemay, [2004] RDI 743 (CQ). 10 See e.g. Barreau du Qubec c Descteaux, 2007 QCCQ 6586; Barreau du Qubec c Qubec (Procureur gnral), 2008 QCCS 897; Barreau du Qubec c Dumas, 2006 QCCQ 12807; Barreau du Qubec c Charlebois, 2007 QCCQ 116 (reversed, as we shall later see, by 2010 QCCS 6483, infra note 11). 11 2010 QCCS 6483.


BARREAU c ST-LAURENT, [2011] 1 FML 225MICHAELSHORTT

L a w I I I

by the Court of Qubec, which had concluded that only legal information, and not legal advice, had been offered by the respondent-defendant. The facts of Charlebois were undisputed, and as Fraser JCS KLPVHOI DGPLWWHG WULYLDO12 The facts were these: a co-proprietor of a condominium wished to vary the order of items on the agenda for an upcoming meeting of co-proprietors. The president of the association asked the respondent Charlebois whether this change to the agenda was permissible or not. Charlebois answered this question based on his understanding of the Civil Code of Qubec, and in so doing paraphrased several of its articles. This, according to Fraser JCS, was fatal to the defendants case:

Ironically, for all practical purposes, the answer emerging from [the Code Morin13] is little different from that arrived at finally by the respondent save that, as I have said in addressing the problem he permitted himself to embark on a consideration of various articles of the CCQ. In the process, unfortunately for him, he contravened section 128 (1) a) of la Loi sur le Barreau [sic].14 By deciding to frame his reply within the context of the articles of the CCQ cited above the respondent based his advice, at least in part, on the content of these articles and also upon his interpretation of them. ... In framing his answer as he did he effectively issued a legal opinion.15

Interestingly, this approach seems to criminalize merely talking about the law, or perhaps more narrowly, talking like a lawyer. While Justice Fraser was willing to consider that the simple copy-pasting of the CCQ is sufficient to avoid liability,16 venturing beyond this rather fragile limit would result in penal sanctions. Neither approach is binding upon me, as both emanate from first-instance courts, and there is no Court of Appeal decision on this issue. Counsel proffered Barreau du Qubec c Qubec (Procureur gnral),17 but it is manifestly not on point. The Court of Appeal in that case repeatedly emphasizes that they did not consider their ruling to touch on the concept of legal advice at all.18 Hence the choice is mine. Representing himself, Richard vigorously argued that I should prefer the approach of St-Pierre JCQ over that of Fraser JCS. According to Richard, the narrow definition of legal advice used by Justice St-Pierre has much to recommend it: it favours access to justice, and provides a clear distinction between rightful and wrongful conduct. By contrast, Richard argues, the approach of Justice Fraser is fraught with numerous difficulties: under this approach 12 Ibid at para 3. 13 For the benefit of my Anglophone readership: the Code Morin is the Qubec equivalent to Roberts Rules of Order. 14 Charlebois, supra note 11 at para 16. 15 Ibid at para 25. 16 Ibid at paras 21-22. 17 2010 QCCA 1051 (CA). 18 Ibid at paras 23, 26, 29.

where is the line between information and advice? In a province where the CCQ may be purchased at Walmart, should citizens nonetheless be barred from quoting it to one another? Should the absence of harm to the public be relevant in a determination of guilt?19

These are powerful submissions, yet they overlook a judicial policy of critical importance. It is well established that the independence of judges depends upon their receipt of sufficiently generous salaries.20 The same, mutatis mutandis, applies to lawyers. After all, lawyers owe a legal duty of independence to their clients.21 If lawyers are to be independent of the very clients who pay their salaries, it is essential that lawyers have many clients, for how can a lawyer be impartial if losing one client could pose a financial hardship? Hence preservation of the financial well-being of this provinces lawyers is the responsibility not only of the Bar, but of the Bench as well.22

It requires a considerable investment of time and money to learn how to talk like a lawyer. The value of that investment must be protected. Trivial mandates, whether they involve incorporation, boilerplate contracts, or advice on self-evident matters, are among the most profitable mandates for lawyers. Without trivial mandates, realization ratios will plummet across the province.

Furthermore, the narrow approach advocated by Richard and St-Pierre JCS, creates a perilously slippery slope. What is next? Will the uninitiated be permitted to talk like judges? Perish the thought! I therefor adopt the broad approach of Fraser JCS, and declare unlawful all attempts to talk like a lawyer.

By providing advice on trade-marks, even self-evident advice, Richard nevertheless expressed an opinion on a legal subject and thereby violated s 128(1)(a) of the Law respecting the Barreau. I therefore:

FIND the defendant Andr Richard guilty.

ORDER the parties to appear in one weeks time to be heard on the issue of sentencing.

THE WHOLE without costs.

19 Charlebois, supra note 5 WKH SXEOLFZDV KDUGO\ LQ MHRSDUG\here nor for that matter were the co-proprietors of the Syndicat de coproprit L$ULVWRFUDWH DW SDUD ; contrast with Barreau du Qubec c Pelletier, 2007 QCCQ 12493 /HEXWGHFHWWHORLpWDQWla protection du public, le Tribunal doit ncessairement en conclure ici que personne na t ls et que la Loi sur le Barreau na pas pWpHQIUHLQWHDWSDUD 20 Reference Re Provincial Judges Remuneration, [1997] 3 SCR 3. 21 Code of ethics of advocates, RRQ c B-1, r 3, ss 3.00.01, 3.06.05, Division III 5. 22 See Barreau du Qubec c Qubec (Procureur gnral), supra note 17, for an admirable attempt by the Barreau to promote full employment of law school graduates in this province. See also the copyright case of CCH Canada Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13, [2004] 1 SCR 339, where the Supreme Court adopted as ODUJHDQGOLEHUDO a definition of fair dealing as was necessary to permit lawyers in Ontario to avoid paying for things they had previously received for free.


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


NEGOTIATION SKILLS WORKSHOPMcGILLARBITRATIONSOCIETY

On November 14th, Professor JayHewlin from the Desautels Faculty ofManagement collaborated with theMcGill Arbitration Society to host a 2hour workshop on negotiation skills.The goal of the conference was todemonstrate the value of negotiationskills in the participants personal andprofessional lives. Conference atten-dance was capped at 30 participants, toensure an intimate environment whereMr. Hewlin would be able to engage di-rectly with the students.

Professor Hewlin began his lecture byintroducing the class to a number ofmodern negotiation theories, whileinviting questions from the participants.He then ran a sequence of simulationsintended to serve as case studies,demonstrating the strengths and weak-ness of various negotiation theories,while also highlighting the fallacies of anumber of common negotiation as-sumptions. His simulations covered abroad spectrum of hypothetical scenar-ios, from negotiating a division of an or-ange between two parties to resolutionsof classroom border disputes. A themeof negotiation creating mutual advan-tage ran through Mr. Hewlins seminar,

and he made clear that he expectedparticipants to leave with an apprecia-tion that negotiations need not be zerosum games. The seminar was well re-ceived, and a number of participantssought out Mr. Hewlins e-mail in orderto continue their dialogues with him be-yond the seminar.

Jay A. Hewlin is an attorney and consult-ant specializing in managerial eective-ness, leadership and employment law.He is a lecturer at McGill Faculty ofManagement, where he teaches Negoti-ations and Conict Management. In ad-dition to his legal experience, Mr.Hewlin is a seasoned manager and en-trepreneur, having worked as an execu-tive in private industry and managed hisown corporation in New York. He has ex-tensive experience in negotiating anddrafting contracts. He received his JurisDoctorate from Columbia UniversitySchool of Law and BA in Music fromBoston University. He has published inThe Corporate Counsellor, ColumbiaLaw Review and Ovation Magazine. Aswell he authored a book titled: The FirstFifteen Minutes (For Those Dating WithMarriage in Mind).


Neither Vancouver nor this years 15McGill law gamers may ever be the same.

Cette anne, les Jeuxridiques ont eu lieu UBC durant la premire semaine de jan-vier. McGill, tant une des 16 coles par-ticipantes, avait envoy une quipe de 15persoones. Lquipe tait une des plus pe-tites, mais une des plus enthousiastes.Pourtant, on a bien reprsent McGill enportant des survtements rouges tousles vnements.

Law games is an annual four day eventconsisting of sports during the days andparties during the nights (though the two

are not mutually exclusive). For sports weparticipated in inner-tube waterpolo,dodgeball, kickball, soccer, and flag foot-ball under Vancouvers perpetually rainyskies. We lost every sport. Yet, for somereason, we managed to finish first in ourheat, and second overall, in the presti-gious polar bear swim which took placeon Vancouvers famous Wreck Beach. Weare lobbying to have this event instated asa full sport for next years games.

However there were other successes. Gra-ham Splawski and Gab Joshee-Arnal main-tained our honour by winning the moot,demonstrating McGills intellectualprowess, The pair successfully defended

their client against charges of rioting andlooting in the post-Stanley Cup turmoil infront of a panel composed of practitionersand UBC professors. We also won everycompetition in the pub crawl, proving thatMcGill law students are only good for twothings: thinking and drinking.

Tout le monde a apprci lopportunit rencontrer les tudiants de partout auCanada, malgr le fait que presque per-sonne ne pouvait se rappeler de leursnoms. On a russi nerver les autrescoles de droit du Qubec en chantantGod Save the Queen haute voix, enfranais (oui il existe une version traduite).

En tout, McGill tait l-cole le plus bruyante avecles meilleurs chants (M-G-C-I-L, were so drunk wecannot spell, et beaucoupdautres). Sherbrooke atenu sa rputation, enlanant une chaise du bal-con du 30e tage de lh-tel, et U Vic offrait boiredun fer repasser remplide gin.

Although Vancouver was a fun city to visit,most McGill students should be happythey live in Montreal. For unlike Vancou-ver, in Montreal, beers do not cost 8$ at a

student organized party, and it does notrain every single day. However, copiousbottles of rye helped remedy the problemof expensive drinks, and Vancouver is in avery pretty location, when its not ob-scured by rain.

To those who missed this year, fear not,you are all welcome to attend next yearslaw games, whose location will be deter-mined this spring. Thank you to UBC fororganizing the event, but most of all to allof McGills team who came out to makethis years law games one of the most funtimes weve ever had.

LAW GAMESPAUL GIRARD& ANDREWBAKER

NEITHER VANCOUVER NOR THIS YEARS 15 MCGILL LAW GAMERS MAY EVERBE THE SAME

L a w I I


Greatmentorsrequiregreatstudents.

oslerstudent.com | Toronto Montral Calgary Ottawa New York

Thats 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


LES GRANDS AVOCATSDU MONDE SONT AVANT TOUT DE GRANDS CITOYENS DU MONDE. notre cabinet, vous travaillerez avec des avocats ayant conclu des transactions de plusieurs milliards de dollars, dautres ayant reprsent des premiers ministres et dautres encore ayant plaid devant la Cour suprme des causes qui ont fait jurisprudence. Quils courent des marathons, vivent de grandes aventures ou se dvouent pour des causes humanitaires, vous verrez que les membres de notre quipe comptent plusieurs tres dexception. Chaque anne, dans le cadre de nos programmes demplois dt et de stages, nous cherchons identifier des tudiants qui, tout comme nous, conjuguent leur coup de cur pour le droit un profond dsir de se surpasser.

Nous ne sommes pas seulement la recherche davocats exceptionnels, mais surtout dtres dexception.

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

Calgary | Montral | Ottawa Toronto | Vancouver | Rgion de WaterlooAvocats | Agents de brevets et de marques de commerceBorden Ladner Gervais S.E.N.C.R.L., S.R.L. est une socit responsabilit limite de lOntario.

blg.com


Every four years, the United States turnsits eyes to the suddenly pivotal states ofIowa and New Hampshire, to watch asmall number of people (this year,122,000 and 239,000 respectively) nomi-nate candidates for the presidency. Thewhole affair has taken on almost ritualisticqualities, full of hand-shaking, baby-kiss-ing, midnight voting, and pilgrimages tolocal diners to pray before the patronsaint of American politics, the AverageVoter. This year was no different, and theRepublican nomination process has al-ready eaten up months of airtime, rain-forests worth of newsprint, and terabytesof breathless blog analysis, all eagerlyconsumed and discussed. Come March24, the New Democratic Party will alsoelect a new leader, a position that, whilesignificantly different from that of Repub-lican presidential candidate, is no less im-portant in defining the choice Canadianswill (eventually) have to make. But our mi-nority leadership race has been about asexciting as a visit to the DMV. Turn to theGlobe and Mail and you get articles likeTopp tries to spice up NDP race with callto end corporate gravy train, whichsounds a lot like Topp tries to spice upseniors cruise by spiking Jello tray. If youneed to spice something up, it means noone is eating it.

So how do we explain this? Why does thenominating process in the States arouseso much passion, but here, you actuallyhave to scrounge around for news on theNDP race? A flattering answer might bethat as Canadians, we just like things quietand non-confrontational, while our neigh-bours to the south like their politics likethey like their monster truck rallies, allyelling and crashing and explosions. But as

an avowed American politics junkie, I cantell you I am far from the only Canadianspending most of his time reading aboutNewt Gingrichs hair-cut or the varioushorrible things Rick Perry has written onrocks in his hunting property. Americanpolitics for Canadians is the ultimate spec-tator spot we get all of the entertain-ment, but none of thenow-you-live-with-this hangover, andwe eat it up, even as we ignore things athome.

Part of the discrepancy is procedural. By amix of deliberate self-aggrandizement andhistorical quirk, the primary system in thestates has expanded into a months-long,multi-stage horse race. By contrast, thenominating process for the NDP takesplace at a convention, all at once, andtheres only so much you can write aboutit before it actually happens. Its a lot eas-ier to generate a coherent narrative abouta primary than a convention vote becauseevery week or so the state of the racechanges in a tangible way. Without muchpolling, political journalists are left to lookat the candidates actual platforms, some-thing that, in a chicken-and-egg way, theyeither cant do well or dont get enoughpublic attention from to merit examining.

Another part is the question of relevance.Jack Layton was a unique oppositionleader in the sense that he was electrify-ing and inspiring, but even he would havestruggled under the mantle. Oppositionleaders under a majority governmenthave about as much ability to direct gov-ernment policy as Rick Mercer does itsreally just a soap-box from which you po-sition an electoral push a few years downthe road. In America, by contrast, the

leader of the other party almost alwayshas a realistic shot at the presidency, es-pecially during a recession, and they donthave to wait patiently in the legislature totake it. Also, the Presidency of the UnitedStates is kind of a big deal. Even if ourelections were settled American Gladia-tor-style, with the candidates climbing upwalls while their opponents fired dodge-balls at them, people would still pay moreattention to Mitt Romney than Tom Mul-cair because Mitt Romney might eventu-ally get to walk around with the nuclearlaunch codes.

Beyond all that, though, were just not acountry that gets all that interested in ourpolitics. Voter turnout for last years fed-eral election was 61.4%, which is betterthan 2008 but still pretty pathetic (to befair, American turnout in 2008 was 57.4%,but thats still a lot more people and so alot more conversation). I wont play poppsychologist and try and explain this apa-thy, but I will say that its the reason weget what we get. Harper prorogues parlia-ment; the country yawns; politicians learna valuable lesson. The NDP leadershipcandidates put their platform out to thepublic; only die-hard politicos look into it;those candidates learn a valuable lessonabout not wasting their limited time andresources on national outreach. Politiciansare nothing if not coldly responsive to ourlaziest instincts, and when we reinforcethat laziness they recognize theyre play-ing their hands right. In other words, ei-ther we start paying attention, or therewill be less and less to actually pay atten-tion to.

A TALE OF TWO RACESDAvIDGROvES

THE OPTIMIST

L a w I


HONOURING ALEX

HELP ESTABLISH THE ALEXANDRADODGER MEMORIAL AWARD

LAEKA REZA& HLOSEAPESTGUY-

REUx

This past weekend marked the third month anniversaryof Alexandra Dodgers passing. For those who knew her,coming to terms with her death has been a sad and sur-real experience. We miss her infectious smile, her sharpwit, her embracing warmth and the passion with whichshe lived her life.

Alex came from humble roots and worked hard toachieve her academic credentials, all the while, making adifference for so many other people. Shortly after herdeath, one of her friends commented that it is hard toimagine a world without Alex fighting for change in thedecades to come. Even those who never met Alex sharethis sentiment.

Cest pour cela que nous voulons crer, en tant quamisdAlex, la Bourse Alexandra Dodger / Alexandra DodgerMemorial Award la facult de droit de McGill. Elle se-rait accorde un tudiant ou une tudiante de pre-mire anne ayant besoin daide financire et quipartage lengagement dAlex envers les dmunis.

Nous faisons appel la communaut de la facult dedroit de McGill pour nous aider faire de cette bourseune ralit. Pour tablir une bourse permanente, nousaimerions recueillir 60 000$. Toute contribution, quelquen soit le montant, sera la bienvenue et permettra dautre personnes decontinuer le travailquAlex ne peut plusfaire.

Please join us in making your contribution in the comingweeks as we will be providing a tally at the end of Ja-nuary for how much we have raised so far.

To contribute online: Visit McGill's secured donations page athttps://www.alumni.mcgill.ca/aoc/online-giving/ andenter your personal information; Click the proceed to the next step button. In the text-box on the middle of the next page, enter Alex DodgerMemorial Fund, Allocation 04984 and how much youwould like to give; Again click the proceed to the next step button andconfirm your details; Complete payment information and submit the form. All donations are tax deductible.

Ou vous pouvez remplir le formulaire de don la pagesuivante.

Pour toute mise jour au sujet de la bourse ainsi quepour les liens aux articles rendant hommage Alex, visi-tez :http://alexdodgerbursary.webstarts.com/index.html

Merci de votre aide.

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

Alex in Beirut in De-cember 2010 (PhotoCredit: Dina Awad,B.C.L./LL.B. 2011)


What are you doing this summer?

Canadian Lawyers Abroad

Summer Student Internship Program 2012

Application Deadline is JANUARY 31, 2012

INTERNSHIPS ALL OVER THE WORLD!

Nairobi, Kenya Bangkok, Thailand

Accra, Ghana Nunavut, Canada Dili, Timor-Les te

For more information and to apply check out:

http://cla-ace.ca/what- we-do/internships/2012-summer-internships/

!

"#

$%&

'(

)*

+

'

%'!'

"'$$,-


SCOTT

HORNE

La

w I

I

Editors Note/Friendly Disclaimer: the content of the Quid Novi does not represent the opinions of its sta,

the McGill Faculty of Law or McGill University. Nor those of Euripides.


QUID EDITORIAL POLICYIt is Quid policy to publish our Policies and Operating Guidelines in the first issue of each semester.

The policy is also available on our website: quid.mcgill.ca

Wherever possible, the Quid publisheseverything submitted. However, to encou-rage a climate where each student willfeel comfortable sharing his/her opinions,in rare circumstances, articles may be edi-ted, and in extreme cases refused, at thediscretion of the Editors-in-Chief.

While all submissions are presumptivelypublishable, potentially criminal speech(i.e. hate speech) and-or libellous speechare not presumptively publishable. In suchcases the author must make a strong casethat the information is accurate, that jour-nalistic standards and ethics were follo-wed; discretion to publish such articleslies solely with the Editors-in-Chief.

QUID NOVI POLICIES AND OPERATINGGUIDELINES

The Quid belongs to students enrolled inthe Faculty of Law at McGill University. Itis essential that it maintains transparentpolicies and guidelines that take intoconsideration values such as the freedomof expression as well as interests such asthose of students and faculty. The policiesand operating guidelines are set forthbelow. Questions and comments may bedirected to: [email protected]. This po-licy is updated at the sole discretion of theEditors-in-Chief provided notice of updatehas been published in the Quid.

This version of the policy is enacted as of2010. Its French translation is enacted asof 2011.

This document has five sections:

1) General Guidelines2) Submission and Revocation Policy3) Anonymous Submission Policy4) Editing Guidelines5) Content Review Policy6) Notice and Amendment Process

1) GENERAL GUIDELINES

Every item appearing in the Quid Novi isan opinion piece that reflects only theviews of the person (s) submitting theitem. Neither the Quid Novi, the LSA, northe Faculty of Law endorses any of thematerial or views contained therein.Given the nature of the publication and itslimited resources, the Quid will not under-take to evaluate the factual accuracy ofsubmissions. Submissions are presumpti-vely publishable unless they do notconform to the guidelines contained he-rein.

2) SUBMISSION AND REVOCATION PO-LICY

The Quid is a submission-driven publica-tion. The deadline for submission shall ap-pear in every issue. Articles submittedmust include the author's name and yearof study. If the author is writing in a parti-cular capacity (i.e. 'LSA President'; 'Headof Student Club') this is to be indicated bythe author.

No material submitted after the deadlineshall be published without the expressconsent of the Editors-in-Chief. Late sub-missions will be slated for publication inthe subsequent edition.

Articles submitted for publication may berevoked by the author. The Quid will ho-nour all such requests provided they aremade at least two days prior to publica-tion. The Quid will do its best to honour alate revocation request, but will not stopthe printing of an issue that has alreadygone to press.

3) ANONYMOUS SUBMISSION POLICY

The Quid will publish anonymous articlesprovided they conform to the Quid policyand operating guidelines. Anonymous ar-

ticles present a challenge for content re-view for they do not allow the Editors-in-Chief to consult with the author. As such,if an anonymous article is rejected for pu-blication, notification of rejection must bepublished in the Quid.

4) EDITING GUIDELINES

Every item submitted to the Quid shall bereviewed. The Quid reserves the right tomake grammatical edits to improve thereadability or suitability for publication ofan article. Editors may also correct spel-ling mistakes. If a submission requires si-gnificant editing - in the view of the firstperson reviewing the article - this shall beindicated to the Editors-in-Chief. The Edi-tors may refuse to publish the article forlack of suitability, or may conduct signifi-cant edits and publish the submission.Minor edits need not be communicated tothe author prior to publication.

5) CONTENT REVIEW POLICY

All submissions made to the Quid shall bereviewed for content. There is a four-stepreview process.

1) Review by Editor

The Editor assigned to review the article(or an Editor-in-Chief) individually reviewsthe submission for content they believe tobe questionable. Questionable content iscontent that, in the appreciation of thatrespective Editor, is either potentially of-fensive, or potentially not suitable for pu-blication. The following factors will beconsidered when assessing potential of-fensiveness: the overall tone of the sub-mission, the specific word(s) used, thecontext in which they are used, coupledwith an individual appreciation of the po-tential reaction to said material by thestudent body, professors, alumni, and theMontreal legal community. If, on balance,


any individual Editor or an Editor-in-Chiefbelieves there is questionable content,this is communicated to the Editors-in-Chief.

Items that are potentially not suitable forpublication include, but are not limited to:submissions that are too long or tooshort; submissions that have the potentialto create a hostile environment for facultyor students; and submissions that are de-famatory in nature.

2) Discussion

At the second stage of review, the Editors-in-Chief and Editor who did the initial re-view discuss their specific findings withone another in relation to the submission.If there is a finding of questionablecontent that is agreed to by a majority(i.e. at least two-out-of-three between thereviewing editor and the Editors-in Chief),the article goes for consultation. If there isno agreed finding of questionablecontent, the article is published as is, orwith edits at the discretion of the Editors-in-Chief.

3) Consultation

At the Consultation stage, the Editors-in-Chief must advise the author that there isa content concern. The Editors-in-Chiefmay consult others about the submission,provided there is no information givenidentifying the author(s). The Editors-in-Chief may consult with any individualsmentioned in the article, fellow students,faculty members, and/or alumni, at thediscretion of the Editors-in-Chief. Consul-tation is not a question of how-many-forvs. how-many-against; rather, given thenature and role of the Quid, consultationis premised on whether the specificcontent is suitable for publication. The au-thor may be consulted numerous times ifthe Editors-in-Chief feel this is necessary.

4) Decision

The Editors-in-Chief will discuss the re-sults of their consultations and will rendera decision to: [a] accept the submission asis; [b] accept the submission with minoredit(s) to be completed by the Editors-in-Chief; [c] return the submission to the au-thor for modification with suggestionsprovided at the discretion of the Editors-

in-Chief, or, alternatively, [d] reject publi-cation without modification suggestions.The decision of the Editors-in-Chief is finaland binding. The Editors-in-Chief, attheir discretion, may publish a notice ofrejection in the Quid with their reasons,indicating, at their discretion, the name(s)of the author(s). Alternatively, the au-thor(s) may request that such a notice ap-pear, in which case the notice will bearthe format: AUTHOR -- YEAR -- TITLE OFSUBMISSION was submitted for publica-tion but will not be printed in accordancewith the Quid Policy and Operational Gui-delines.

6) NOTICE AND AMENDMENT PROCESS

The Editors-in-Chief shall publish theseguidelines in the Quid in the first issue ofevery semester. Changes may only be pro-posed by Quid staff. If there is a proposedchange, it will be indicated in the nextissue of the Quid with the opportunity forstudents to make submissions for a periodof at least one week. Changes must be ap-proved by a majority of active Quid staff.The Editors-in-Chief must publish noticeof any change or change attempt in theQuid.

VERSION FRANAISE

Lorsque cest possible, le Quid publietoutes les contributions quil reoit. Ce-pendant, dans le but de favoriser un cli-mat o chaque tudiant sera confortabledexprimer ses opinions, les rdacteurs-en-chef se rservent le droit de modifierdes articles ou mme, dans des circons-tances rares, de les refuser. Ce pouvoirsera exerc la discrtion des rdacteurs-en-chef.

Nous prsumons que toutes les contribu-tions sont dignes de publication. Nan-moins, des propos potentiellementcriminels (i.e. le discours de haine) et despropos diffamatoires ne bnficient pasde cette prsomption. Dans de tels cas,lauteur doit dmontrer de faon pro-bante que les informations contenuesdans sa contribution sont vridiques etque les principes de la dontologie jour-nalistique ont t suivis. La dcision depublier ces articles relve uniquement des

rdacteurs-en-chef.

POLITIQUES ET PRINCIPES DOPRATIONDU QUID NOVI

Le Quid appartient aux tudiants de la Fa-cult de droit de lUniversit McGill. Il estdonc essentiel quil suive des politiques etprincipes transparents, qui prennent enconsidration la valeur de la libert dex-pression ainsi que les intrts des tu-diants et des professeurs. Les politiques etles principes dopration sont exposs ci-bas. Les questions et commentaires syrapportant peuvent tre adresss :[email protected]. Cette politique estmise jour la discrtion des rdacteurs-en-chef, la seule condition quun pravisde la mise jour soit publie dans le Quid.

Cette version de la politique sappliquedepuis 2010. Sa traduction franaise datede 2011.

Ce document contient cinq sections :

1) Principes gnraux2) Politique de contribution et de rvoca-tion3) Politique de contribution anonyme4) Politique de correction5) Politique de rvision du contenu6) Procdures de pravis et damende-ment

1) PRINCIPES GNRAUX

Chaque item apparaissant dans le QuidNovi est un article dopinion qui reflteuniquement le point de vue de la per-sonne ou des personnes qui ont critlitem. Ni le Quid Novi, ni lAD, ni la Fa-cult de droit nendosse les opinionscontenues dans les contributions pu-blies. tant donn la nature de cette pu-blication et ses ressources limites, leQuid ne sengagera pas dans la vrifica-tion de la vracit factuelle des contribu-tions.

Les contributions sont prsumes dignesde publication, moins de ne pas seconformer aux principes numrs ici.

2) POLITIQUE DE CONTRIBUTION ET DERVOCATION

Le Quid est une publication qui survitgrce aux contributions. La date limitepour les contributions apparatra dans


chaque numro. Les articles soumis doi-vent contenir le nom de lauteur ainsi queson anne dtude. Si lauteur crit dansun rle particulier (i.e. Prsident delAD; Prsident dun club tudiant),ceci doit galement tre indiqu.

Aucun item soumis aprs la date limite nesera publi sans le consentement explicitedes rdacteurs-en-chef. Les contributionstardives seront conserves et publiesdans le numro subsquent.

Les articles soumis pour publication peu-vent tre rvoqus par lauteur, du mo-ment que cette requte soit faite aumoins deux jours avant la publication dunumro en question. Le Quid fera de sonmieux pour faire suite une requte tar-dive, mais il narrtera pas la publicationdun numro qui est dj en impression.

3) POLITIQUE DE CONTRIBUTION ANO-NYME

Le Quid publiera des articles anonymes, la condition que ceux-ci se conforment ses politiques et principes dopration. Lesarticles anonymes prsentent un dfi par-ticulier pour la rvision du contenu, car ilsne permettent pas aux rdacteurs-en-chefde consulter avec lauteur. Ainsi, si un arti-cle anonyme est refus, un avis de refusdoit tre publi dans le Quid.

4) POLITIQUE DE CORRECTION

Chaque item soumis au Quid sera rvis.Le Quid se rserve le droit de faire desmodifications grammaticales afin dam-liorer la prsentation et la lisibilit dun ar-ticle. Les rdacteurs peuvent galementcorriger les fautes dorthographe. Si unecontribution ncessite des modificationsimportantes, dans lavis de la personnequi le rvise, ceci sera indiqu aux rdac-teurs-en-chef. Ceux-ci peuvent refuser depublier larticle ou bien effectuer des mo-difications importantes pour ensuite lepublier. Les modifications mineures nesont pas ncessairement communiques lauteur avant la publication.

5) POLITIQUE DE RVISION DU CONTENU

Toutes les contributions au Quid serontrvises au niveau du contenu. Il existe unprocessus de rvision comportant quatretapes.

1) Rvision par le rdacteur

Le rdacteur ou rdacteur-en-chef chargde la rvision dun article accomplit cettetche en vrifiant sil contient du contenucontestable. Le contenu contestable d-note du contenu que le rdacteur enquestion juge comme potentiellement of-fensant ou autrement inadquat pour lapublication. Les facteurs suivants serontconsidrs lors de lvaluation du poten-tiel offensant: le ton gnral de la contri-bution, les mots prcis utiliss dans leurcontexte prcis, ainsi quune apprciationde la raction potentielle du corps tu-diant, des professeurs, des anciens tu-diants et de la communaut juridiquemontralaise. Si le rdacteur individuelestime que le contenu est contestable, ilcommunique ceci aux rdacteurs-en-chef.

Les items qui sont potentiellement inad-quats pour la publication incluent (sanssy limiter): les contributions qui sont troplongues ou trop courtes; les contributionsqui possdent le potentiel de crer un en-vironnement hostile pour les professeursou les tudiants; et les contributions na-ture diffamatoire.

2) Discussion

la deuxime tape de la rvision, les r-dacteurs-en-chef et le rdacteur qui a ac-compli la rvision initiale discutent deleurs conclusions spcifiques vis--vis lar-ticle. Sil existe un consensus de contenucontestable parmi une majorit (moinsdeux sur trois parmi le rdacteur et les r-dacteurs-en-chef), larticle procde ltape de la consultation. Sil nexiste pasun tel consensus, larticle est publicomme tel ou avec des modifications por-tes la discrtion des rdacteurs-en-chef.

3) Consultation

Au stade de la consultation, les rdac-teurs-en-chef doivent aviser lauteur quilexiste des proccupations au niveau ducontenu. Les rdacteurs-en-chef peuventconsulter dautres individus au sujet de lacontribution, la condition de ne fourniraucune information permettant didenti-fier lauteur. Les rdacteurs peuventconsulter avec des individus mentionnsdans larticle, dautres tudiants, des pro-

fesseurs ou des anciens tudiants, leurpropre discrtion. La consultation nestpas un concours de combien-sont-pourvs. combien-sont-contre. Compte tenu dela nature et du rle du Quid, la consulta-tion doit dterminer si le contenu spci-fique est digne de publication. Lauteurpeut tre consult de nombreuses re-prises si les rdacteurs-en-chef jugent quececi est ncessaire.

4) Dcision

Les rdacteurs-en-chef discuteront des r-sultats de leurs consultations et rendrontune dcision de: a) accepter la contribu-tion comme telle; b) accepter la contribu-tion avec des modifications mineuresportes par eux-mmes; c) retourner lacontribution lauteur pour modificationavec des suggestions portes la discr-tion des rdacteurs-en-chef; d) rejeter lacontribution sans offrir des suggestions.La dcision des rdacteurs-en-chef est fi-nale et incontestable.

Les rdacteurs-en-chef, leur discrtion,peuvent publier un avis de refus dans leQuid avec les raisons du refus ainsi que lenom de lauteur. Lauteur peut galementdemander quun tel avis apparaisse; dansun tel cas, lavis portera le format suivant: AUTEUR --- ANNE --- TITRE a t sou-mis pour publication mais ne sera pas im-prim, en accord avec les politiques etprincipes dopration du Quid .

6) POLITIQUE DE PRAVIS ET DAMENDE-MENT

Les rdacteurs-en-chef publieront cesprincipes dans le premier numro du Quid chaque semestre. Des amendementspeuvent tre proposs uniquement par lepersonnel du Quid. Si un amendement estpropos, il sera indiqu dans le numrosubsquent du Quid afin doffrir une op-portunit dau moins une semaine auxtudiants de rdiger des contributions.Les amendements doivent tre approuvspar une majorit du personnel actif duQuid. Les rdacteurs-en-chef doivent pu-blier un avis de tout changement ou detoute tentative de changement dans leQuid.


Words of fury and prideSail across seas of petulant froth,How dare you!, they cry;Her patrician glance reduces their tears to weak broth.Argentic hair matches silvery voiceRinging out over students stannic stammers ofA B! A B! Not of prosody do they speak;Wounded minds in vitriolic tongues remedy seek.In the sweat of thy brow shall you nd gain:Helenas gentle wisdom laid out plain.Pursuing their mistress with savage resolve:Thy pedagogy suspect! An error of fact!A retrial of my genius! Yet she will not absolve.Not she of Troy do I sing,But her name with Mediterranean spice does sting.Die gyptische Helena? Nein, mein freund.Notre Me Lamed, notre grie ignore, notre Sibylle mprise!Heed her words as you climb Peel Parnassus isSteep and Bs are real.

PUBLIUSSAMNITICUS

HELENA MCGILLENSIS:AN ODE

OVERHEARD AT THE FAC

OVERHEARDS FROM 2011...

2L: Dans le fond, le droit de la famille,c'est simple. Les lles sont toutes desfolles; les gars sont tous des violents con-trlants.

Prof. Gold: Do you own your children?From the practical point of view, they ownyou.

Prof. [redacted]: My cousin met the per-son who did the autopsy on Elvis and shesays Elvis is dead.

Prof. Adams, re exam: No one dies in thefact-pattern!

Prof. [redacted] Yeah, I just blew thatclass. I want to take it out of next year'ssyllabus, I feel so scarred.

Prof [redacted]: Je vous rassure qu'un "B",c'est un bonne note. Srieusement! Jesais que c'est dur de recevoir un B. Quandmoi je recevais des "B"s en droit, monpetit coeur saignait

Prof. [redacted]: I was a teenager in the70s. If you were a teenager and youweren't taking drugs, you weren't ateenager.

...AND 2012

Prof. Gold: Common law is not that com-plicated, it's only messy. It's like vomit. Iwant you to engage in this vomit.

WANT TO READ OVER-

HEARDS?

SENDTHEM [email protected]

T O I N N O VAT I O NT O T E A M W O R KT O D I V E R S I T YT O R E C O G N I T I O NT O E X P E R I E N C ET O O P P O R T U N I T I E ST O C L I E N T ST O R E S P E C TT O R E A L F I L E S

Summering at FMC combined the best of all worlds challenging mandates, working with dynamic lawyers, team spirit and community involvement. Everyone at the firm really seems to value the balance between professional and personal development. The lawyers were keen to share their knowledge by involving students in every step of the files they worked on, and showed genuine interest in our opinions. It was a great summer.

lauren pag, mcgill university

THE FMC STUDENT PROGRAM POINT YOUR CAREER IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FMC-LAW.COM/STUDENTS

Fraser Milner Casgrain llp

MONTRAL OTTAWA TORONTO EDMONTON CALGARY VANCOUVER

YOUR PATHYOUR PATH

Y

T IAV I N N O

O EDONTORA TWATTL O

RROUOURYOURROUOU

O N

AY VARGON CALONTM ED

TTATATT PA PAARR TR ATTTAAATAAAATATAATA P P PA P P P PA PA PA P PA PRR

OUVERANC

HHTTHTHHTT

T IAV I N N OO R T E A M W

N I T

eam spirit and c

R E Cwith dynamic la

I E Ned on, and sho

T U Og

t S I Tombined g R SMC c D I V ESummering at Feam spirit and c

D I V E R S I TG N

s, ts t

Gerer

O G N I T I O Nwywy

O c lawith dynamic la

G N I Talue the balanc R E Ceally seems t s tOo vO t Te Rr e Cs N I To sharo sharG Neen teen tO G N I T I O Ne ke kOererO ws wO G N I T I O Ner Cerwy E Cwyhe la R Ehe laT RT

R E C Rork E Ry w E X P Eof the files the I. P E R Ieat summer X Pas a gr EIt w I E X P E R I E N

g

Paa

P Puren puren p

O Plala

O,

Om Oc P P O Rgill university O P P O R

O NR KY he best of all w

O Nomm

Eed g

N I T I E S

challenging mandatorlds th best of all wYone eryvement. Eolvvy inommunit

T I O rit and c rit and c

O Neen pr vsonal desional and peresof olving students in eOwT Ie betT c Nwledg vy ine bwledge their knoT I Oe their knoest in our opinions.

T I O Nerenuine int g Cw N C sho N C E

orkinges, w ate at the firmelopment.v

epery stv e

T U O P P O RSRAM TOG

TS

R E A L F I L E

GR MS THE E N TTUDENT PROUR CAREER IN THE RIGHT DIRE IC S LM C LTHE F I E N TOUR CAREER IN SPOINT Y C LPOINT YS

C L I E N T CTT CNN CEE EDD EUU P E/ST/ST PMM SOO SCC S.W SW EAA ELL E-C C RMM RFF Pain g R E S Paser Milner Casgr Rr RF Pllp R E S P E C T

N I T I E S

E S

CTION HT DIRE

quid novi

Documents

tudia nte

e fbon retour

the students

the faculty

the content

where is the

chef du quid

overheard at the fac