Jump to content
  • ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Recent Posts

    • Ambit aren't you a 0L? Let's not speak with such confidence when you have literally zero exposure to the recruiting procedure from either side of the fence.
    • Hey OP, I would highly recommend just fool proofing the LG section using the 7Sage method. It is literally the best, IMO. Also, contrary to what has already been said, I highly recommend not doing LG sections from tests 1-30. They are very, very different from what you will encounter on test day! Believe me when I say that! After having mastered the games from 52 - 80s, I went back to try the LG sections from PTs 1-30 and they were very hard and very different and absolutely nothing like many of the recent games. Sometimes, those games also have like 2-3 misc. games (which you can't foolproof since they are always different). I would recommend just using PTs 52 - to the latest ones (80 something now) and fool proof those. By the end, you will be very prepared to handle virtually all games come your way test day. Hope that helps     ALSO: I think after fool proofing approximately 10 LG sections, you will start to approach the LG section almost unconsciously and on automatic, which is nice  
    • Graduation awards, as far as I know, have gone out. The rest I am not sure. Nevermind, I thought you meant graduation bursaries. So I actually don't know the answer to your question at all, haha
    • She provides that a decision having an unjustified and disproportionate impact (“that seriously infringes”, in your words) on a Charter right will always be unreasonable, but she doesn’t then say the LSBC’s decision was unjustified and disproportionate (or seriously infringed). She instead meets the majority and dissent halfway by reasoning that while the decision’s negative impact “could not be characterized as minor”, its benefits were nonetheless proportionate, rendering the decision reasonable. "With respect" followed by brow beating. They straight up called out McLachlin and Karakatsanis by saying they were hypocrites, citing extra-judicial commentary. Unbecoming to say the least.   The denial of TWU’s proposed law school with the mandatory covenant is itself good: (i) The covenant likely runs afoul of provincial human rights legislation; (ii) the covenant itself is unnecessary and ridiculous, (not convinced by the concurring or dissenting reasons to the contrary); and (iii) a ruling that TWU Law with the Covenant could go ahead would, however reasoned, reflect poorly on the legal profession because much of the general public wouldn’t appreciate the rationale behind such a decision. But the reasoning of this case, as you allude to, leaves much to be desired. I agree with Cote and Brown when they say the majority’s analysis of the LPA is wrong. They hit the nail on the head when they said that the scope of the LSBC’s statutory authority defines how it carries out its public interest mandate, and not the other way around. The LPA’s provisions and mandate relate to matters relevant to the governance of the legal profession and its constituent parts, and, in that way, they empower the LSBC to “control the doorway to the profession, not to decide who knocks on the door.” Equal access to the legal profession and diversity in the legal profession are, indeed, distinct from the duty to ensure competent practice and the majority decision does leave you wondering if things like tuition fees are also fair game (though I think bursaries, scholarships, loans, etc. weaken the dissent’s analogy). Beyond that and maybe their comments on the problems with weighing Charter rights and Charter values, the dissent goes off course and I prefer the concurring reasons. Brown and Cote’s diversity argument is borderline disingenuous. It stems from a conflation of “religious law schools” and “religious law schools with unnecessarily discriminatory covenants”. smh when they used the idea of religion being about “religious relationships” and when they said qualities that go to a person’s self-identity are at stake for TWU community members. On that note, I’m surprised McLachlin went as far as to say the LSBC’s decision deprives TWU community members of the ability to express their beliefs in institutional form and from associating in the manner they believe their faith requires. That is quite a stretch. I also think the dissent are off on the “reasonableness” piece when they say the Benchers abdicated their duty. I see no issue in conducting the reasonableness analysis when an elected administrative body carefully considers a proposition (or “deliberates”), determines it’s leaning one way on that proposition but thinks either of two solutions is reasonable, then puts that proposition to a referendum (though the Benchers likely knew what the outcome of the referendum would be, and also didn’t want to deal with the fallout of approving TWU Law with the covenant).
    • I would mention it for sure, my partner moved to Canada from Iran around 5 years ago as well and deinfltey the religious police.will be picky about stuff like that  Like.providence mentioned relate it back to law and keep it effiencnt there isn't that much space so show how that motivated you to be practice  law, she mentioned a few great ways of.how to do that, be honest and make.it personal because it will show and reflect positively In terms of gpa you have a OK cgpa ( just make.sure this the olsas cgpa) and  a very good  l2 and b3, for osgoode your cgpa and lower end lsat will not make you a strong applicant per say ( I think 2016 median cgpa was 3.67 and median lsat 162)and for u of t your b3 is competitive BUT your lsat will be a serious problem here because their median is 166, BUT for both schools they have "holistic" approaches so sometimes candidate get in who don't necceqaily meet the medians but they have other aspects or qualities that would be an asset to the incoming class and also prove their aptitude for law and plus your kinda close to the medians for osgoode so I woudlny be shocked u of t i think your lsat is hurting you a lot though and you would need that up significantly to go there  Ottawa is also a cgpa school but your lsat will be good I think, but your cgpa is not bad at all so maybe? I honestly don't know much about them I've never seen class stats for them I think western and queens would be solid schools to apply to as well, your l2 is above their last posted class median yoir cgpa is right at their class median, plus your lsat is closer to their class median of 161 albeit still a bit below  I would also apply to Windsor as well  they like personal statements tailored to social justice btw  If your lsat hit 166 or higher I think you have a strong shot at u of t, 164 or higher a strong shot at Osgoode ), western and queens 161 or higher  strong shot too especially since your b2/l2 beats the median for both and your cgpa beats the median for last year's class for cgpa for queens, but that guarantees nothing this whole admission process is a little random somtieme, deinfltey apply and I'm pretty confident you get in somewhere, stenghrn your LOT and personal statement and ec list as much as possible, and if you can try to get higher on the lsat I would.personally do so   Good luck!