Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/17/19 in all areas

  1. 22 points
    I turned down this offer earlier today. Thank you all for your input.
  2. 16 points
    Ok. Now I know all I need to know. Tell these people to go fuck themselves. Edit to add: Don't actually say that. But this is shady as fuck.
  3. 12 points
    Did you call and inquire before you applied? That would have been the intelligent thing to do if this was a real concern of yours. Come on, people. All these cries of 'unfair' are a bit silly. Who ever told you that life was fair? If you're this upset over a stated policy that you didn't investigate further, what are you going to do when you don't like being graded on a curve, or you don't get more OCIs than a classmate, or someone else gets hired back and you don't? I would caution those of you making the negative comments about those who have received acceptances, to remember that you may get in and then those people you are denigrating will be your classmates. Is this really the way you want to meet new friends, classmates and future colleagues? Lastly, it's mid-March. There is still lots of time to go in this cycle and there are likely to be many more offers made. Waiting sucks but allowing it to direct your confusion/anger/resentment towards others isn't productive and ultimately will only make the waiting worse.
  4. 12 points
    Where did you read that? Whoever wrote it clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. Look, there are some good articling experiences and some bad ones. Just as there are some good jobs with great co-workers and bosses, and terrible jobs with a toxic work environment. Overall, the reason articling involves stress and long hours is because that is exactly what the practice of law entails. This is not because a "toxic work environment" has been normalized in the profession. It's a simple reality that most lawyers are expected to be on call 24/7, have to work longer than 9-5 out of sheer necessity, and deal with stressful situations purely by the fact that the entire job is about dealing with conflict. If I had an articling experience where I was working 9-5 with only moderate pressure (all of which would have to be artificially enforced) I would have completely crumbled as an associate when I could not work 9-5 and would have the entire weight of a file on me. This is not to say that there aren't genuinely abusive articling positions out there. There are. But this view that the entire profession has a disposition towards exploitation is just silly. Insofar as people are complaining to the law society because they think their working hours are "unreasonable" or they are too stressed out, I'd suggest they quit right now because the practice of law is not for them.
  5. 12 points
    What people normally mean by "strong ECs" is "weak grades and/or LSAT." I've known students who had ECs that would make the average applicant cry out of frustration, if they knew that's what the competition looked like. But those aren't the students talking about their "strong ECs" at all. The students who talk up their ECs were the Presidents of their "pre-law" clubs. The ones who are on the Boards of national NFPs, who wrote books, were published in scholarly journals as undergrads, who compete internationally as athletes...they don't say anything at all. And generally they ALSO have strong grades and LSATs.
  6. 11 points
    The trick to succeeding at property law is realizing that it is fun. People try to make it boring or confusing, but they are wrong and bad. You can dig into just about any part of property law and find some interesting bit of trivia, or an exciting bit of history. For example, you have of course watched Showtime's wonderful program, The Tudors. Has your professor pointed out that the various equitable interests generally stem from reforms done by Cardinal Wolsey (played by Sam Neill)? Or all the fun property law based prosecutions he did to prevent the enclosure movement? The statute of fraud's rise due to the increase of the use of uses (now trusts) and the fact that you can't pass a trust through livery of seisen? And the torren's system - it can be a dry subject at time, but there is drama behind its introduction, practically everywhere that has adopted the system has had to fight against the local legal profession to get it put into place.
  7. 11 points
    Accepted today! cGPA: 2.98 L2: 3.70 LSAT: 159 General applicant
  8. 10 points
    Accepted Nov 28. LSAT - 174 GPA - 3.99 Probably rejecting for Harvard
  9. 10 points
    I articled working 9-5 and thrived as an associate. Hell, I still do 45-50 tops, except for trial times. Though if you really love working that many hours, I'll leave you my card. My separation agreement rates are very reasonable.
  10. 10 points
    Learn to cook and do your own laundry and iron a dress shirt. Get a suit and wear it around a bit until it’s a comfortable outfit and not a dress up costume. My usual advice is to go to a fancy bar and order a drink. Update all your health stuff - prescriptions, glasses, teeth, get a physical, etc. Then get photos of your family and friends developed and throw them in some frames. You’re going to want them in your new digs. Finish the novel you have been meaning to read. Finish knitting the scarf you started or building the shed in your parent’s backyard or whatever. Finish your tasks to feel good and motivated for the next steps. Read Getting To Maybe and relax.
  11. 9 points
    I say the below with respect and acknowledge your good stats. I can understand that from your position things may not seem fair and waiting out for a decision you really want to hear back from really sucks. But I also say this as one of those 153 LSAT maritimers you seem to be looking down your nose at. I'm also saying this because every time someone tries to explain this to you you seem to escalate into this 'not fair' narrative. In an earlier comment you mentioned the 153 student really shows you what UNB is looking for. I would agree in that the school is looking at factors that cannot be determined by numbers alone. I would also dare suggest that said person perhaps demonstrated other traits that the school was looking for. We do not know if they were accepted simply because they were from the maritimes. Honestly you seem to be blaming maritimers for not leaving room for you at UNB. Why should they when you yourself stated that the main reason you wanted to go there was because of the small student body. Maritimers have been born and raised there, not to mention demonstrated some measure of loyalty to a province that has barely anything going for it (no offence to my NB brothers and sisters, but it is true). You have been accepted to other schools and yet are totally caught up on this 'how dare they' complex directed at UNB; a school that is honestly trying its hardest to maintain the law infrastructure in the province because if they dont then you can count on no one else doing it. This is an assumption, but it seems you want to come in for 3 years to a school with only 96 seats then immediately leave, so honestly why should the school accept you ahead of a maritimer? I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed in, but I'm trying to put this into perspective, much like IrishStew and CrystalClear. I agree that province preference isn't necessarily fair, but every professional school does it because there aren't enough schools to go around and ultimately people tend to just go back home once they are done. Each school has a duty to maintain the professional structure of the province it is in first and foremost. It may not seem fair, but it is actually an ethical principle that puts the province's health ahead of individuals' desires. If the school accepted only the highest scoring applicants then it would quickly fill its seats with people from the GTA, Montreal, etc because that is where the greatest concentrations of people are. Thus, there would be much less room for maritimers and the province could quickly be beset by hard times. Lastly, regional preferences are certainly not "as unfair as it gets". I would argue that preferences along racial and gender lines would be far worse and have no effective basis when it came to eventual post graduation.
  12. 9 points
    LSAT: 175 CGPA: 3.5 (strong upward trend) Weak softs, decent PS Likely going to Western
  13. 9 points
    Yes, you're right. It's impossible to seek this information without using language that is likely to offend people - certainly likely to offend you - and so sooner than ask the question at all and risk speaking in these terms, it's better to pretend information is simply non-existent and/or unknowable. Because that's obviously better. You know, I think the OP's question is stupid. But I think responses of this nature are even more stupid. Of course every kind of decision-making is shrouded in uncertainty, and comparisons are necessarily imperfect. But if someone wants to know if being a visible minority is or is not an advantage of any sort in application to law school, it's not inherently an invalid question. And it shouldn't need to be couched in three paragraphs of context ("of course I know that any perceived consideration given to visible minorities is not really reflective of lower admissions standards but only a necessary and still insufficient correction for the disadvantages they have faced in the course of ...." etc. etc. etc.) And baiting someone into speaking in ever-more racially charged terms (which is what you were trying to do) just so you can spring an ultimate "gotcha!" at the end is not helpful. Let me expose just how ridiculous and slanted your inquiry really is. Does white privilege exist? If yes, what is it being compared with? And if you are suggesting there are white people, anywhere, who owe some of what they have to this privilege, how would you know if they obtained any particular benefit due to their race? Something either exists or it doesn't. People who want to deny the existence of white privilege generally try to make the whole thing so difficult to talk about that everyone gives up, so they can go back to pretending it doesn't exist and hasn't affected anything at all. I'm honestly kinda surprised to see you deploying exactly the same tactic from the other side.
  14. 9 points
    Please please please PLEASE don't take unpaid articles this early. Some provinces are imposing a minimum wage salary for articling students. Ontario is slow to do this. It doesn't mean you need to do this yet. do not do this out of desperation. If you really want this specific articling experience because it's in the very specific niche you're hoping to work in later, then think really really hard whether it's worth it. The presumption should be it's not worth it, especially at this stage. You have value and worth. Don't forget that.
  15. 9 points
    Although your statements quoted above are not factually inaccurate, maybe you should leave it to people actually practicing law to discuss what the reality is like. Your candy-coated ideas about putting up a website, waiting for people to call you, and then quoting them whatever amount of money you feel like charging them are frankly a bit offensive. You might as well tell someone to sit at a keyboard all day, write whatever they feel like writing, and then tell a publisher what they want to be paid for it. And then voila! Instant self-employment as an author, and at a good income! Seriously. There's a time and a place for would-be applicants to law school to chat with one another, here. But you don't know what you're talking about, right now.
  16. 9 points
    Without being too much of a kiss-ass, this reminds me of the mods' good work here. And it seems like a good time to thank them for doing the presumably thankless job of preventing an anonymous internet forum from degenerating into a venue for racist trolls and spammers. You guys are all excellent.
  17. 9 points
    Accepted this morning and this is my first acceptance! OLSAS GPA: 3.67 (Currently in fourth year so no L2) LSAT: 145,147,154,160 General Applicant
  18. 8 points
    First Ontario acceptance! 3.4 cgpa, 3.73 L2, 158 LSAT Extensive ECs and work experience. PS tailored to Windsor.
  19. 8 points
    Accepted this morning 167, 3.8
  20. 8 points
    But you’re missing how much more difficult it is to get B+ and 153 when you come from a reserve with schools full of mold that can’t retain teachers, you have to leave your community for high school, your family is dealing with the fallout from residential schools, you are unprepared for university due to all of this, the test itself has biases, etc etc. So how can it be easier? A white suburban person’s 153 is not the same as the 153 of many (not all) indigenous people. I know some schools struggle to fill their “aboriginal” spots or do not fill them all sone years.
  21. 8 points
  22. 8 points
    Yeah, see, but that is in fact toxic. You have drunk the koolaid and are now shilling it around. The fact is, law firms, especially the kind to expect associates to work consistently 60 hour weeks, are massively profitable. The margins are staggering and the business is pretty much dead simple. Not only is it not necessary that those employees work 60-70 hours per week, every week, but it's not necessary that most lawyers even work 2000 hours per year. If law firms wanted to, they could have everyone work 30 or 40 hours per week on average ( sometimes those hours would still be bad) and pay them literally 1/2 of the salary that they pay their current associates and come out only slightly behind. The reality here is that law firms want to maximize the amount of revenue per chair or per licensing fee, or whatever the hell metric you decide to use, but the important part is that the only reason this is the expectation is because "the partners aren't going to be hiring any more associates than we already budgeted for" coupled with "the partners get paid according to how much they bill, plus some bonuses for how much work they bring in to the firm". And let's all stop this shit about law not being for anyone who isn't willing to work those kinds of bullshit hours. Yes, sometimes you will have to work harder, you will have a long trial with dailies and harsh deadlines, briefs due at 9 am in a trial where you just finished at 5:30 pm. Or you might have to put together a deal, or what have you, but in law there's a lot more opportunity to structure your life positively with lots of down time instead of running from tire fire to tire fire dabbing it out with your clients' hundred-dollar bills.
  23. 8 points
  24. 8 points
  25. 7 points
    In determining whether UNB and Dal should lower their entrance requirements for Atlantic Canadians, the relevant question is whether (i) the region is actually underserved and (ii) whether that admissions policy will put more lawyers in the underserved regions. On point (i) yeah, many parts of Canada are underserved. Maybe not Halifax overall, but lots of different places are starving for either general counsel or certain types of lawyers. As I understand it, the problem is attracting and retaining lawyers in rural areas and, to some extent, retaining lawyers in the cities. The theory is basically that local candidates, are more likely to stay and work in the region. They have personal connections, emotional attachments, and for many, it is their home. Outside candidates may decide to stay, but rural practitioners I’ve talked to all seem to have a story of a student or new associate who claimed to want to settle down in Wherever Bay or Somewhere Brook and then, boom, when they got to their second year of practice and were profitable, they moved back to the city. First of all, whether a region is underserved can’t be measured by the number of articling positions available or by quoting a couple of interviews with graduates and lawyers in Canada. Is the lower admissions thing perfect? No. As you point out, there’s still a problem with getting some of those candidates licensed – those rural, small firms and solo practitioners in underserved areas often don’t have the budgetary flexibility to train new lawyers. Would that be solved by just making less Atlantic Canadian lawyers? Also, no. I think the admissions policy probably helps on balance, and that other incentives and funding would be needed to ensure that new calls and articling students end up in the underserved areas being targeted. The posts here are obviously self-serving. And that’s fine, everyone serves themselves. But I’m not going to pretend they’re good policy, just because you’d like a better shot at more schools. Atlantic schools and Halifax firms shouldn’t be a farm league to train future Toronto and Vancouver lawyers. We’re talking about schools supported by public funds in have-not provinces. Lets not pretend that this is some equality issue, where you’re being horribly discriminated against by UNB and Dal -- being from Ontario or somewhere is not really a ground for discrimination. But they’ve chosen to make their local legal markets a priority, and I really see nothing wrong with that.
  26. 7 points
    Accepted Today(March 15), In queue since November 16. cGPA 3.98 LSAT 160
  27. 7 points
    OLSAS CGPA: 3.47 L2: 3.5 LSAT: 155, 152, 155 There is hope out there!
  28. 7 points
    Tête haute tout le monde! Félicitation à ceux qui ont reçu un deuxième appel, vous avez travailler fort et vous y être presque. Pour les ''déçus'' ce soir, c'est le temps de se trouver une job d'été DÈS maintenant, je sais que c'est rough, mais laissez pas les blues vous détourner de belles opportunités cet été. Il y a plein d'employeur dans différent milieu qui recherche des jeunes aussi dynamique que vous. Les belles jobs qui agrémente votre C.V ne se trouve pas au mois de Mai ou de Juin. C'est plus facile de curé son blues post-course avec une job à 25$/h qu'en coupant des gazon à 14$/h ou vendre du couvre-plancher au Rona pour 11,50$/h. Pour les deuxièmes années, Il y a toujours l'année prochaine! Continuer de travailler fort! Les efforts portes généralement fruit. - Gros love
  29. 7 points
    The people that say that are generally law student hopefuls that have nothing to base that opinion on other than outdated news articles from before there where any TRU grads to judge. TRU students hold their own at all the Moots they participate in, our OCI hiring rates are on par with other law schools across Canada, our articling rates are on par with UBC and UVic. TRU produces capable lawyers just like every other law school in canada. Canada does not have a firm tier structure like the states does for law school and people need to stop trying to make it that way, its not how it works here. TRU has a holistic application process, which means that people with lower stats do have a better chance to get in but those lower stats will need to be countered with some other reason for the person to be admitted, something that proves you are still capable of performing at the level of the people with stronger stats. So while yes the school is more accessible to people with lower stats you really need to bring some else to the table if you want in. There is one major issue with TRU and that is the lack of notable alumni, which is due to the lack of graduates that have been in the workforce long enough to become partners at major firms. Also the tuition is high, I could do without that.
  30. 7 points
    Accepted this morning. CGPA 3.42(WES), LSAT 153 (Nov), 157 (Jan). Feeling Ecstatic!!!
  31. 7 points
    Accepted today LSAT 162 (highest) CGPA 3.44 Mature application, didn't fill out part B.
  32. 7 points
    No, Maybe, Sometimes. If you call it a mental health day - frown. If you request it the day before a big closing/trial commencement/project due date - frown If you just take it the morning after a student dinner (*you know 'cause the drinking) - frown. If you ask for it so you can attend your Aunt Matilda's funeral, again - frown. If you want to attend your cousin's wedding in August and you ask for it in May- smiles. If you are speaking to a seminar of billionaires - SMILES.
  33. 7 points
    Not really. Government, small office, etc. Work-life balance isn't the caveat. My billings are lower, as is my salary, but a worthwhile trade. I was more being tongue-in-cheek where you say that those of us doing the 9-5 can't be hard workers/are entitled. I work fucking hard in a day, with minimal breaks. My articling was like that - breaks were unheard of, with clients/lawyers following me into the bathroom at times (though I did tell off opposing counsel for that). This isn't a race to the bottom either - just because other people have it shitty doesn't mean everyone should settle. Also, I digress, families that don't see each other are the reason why I am insanely busy. Hmmmm. I take it back - GO OUT AND WORK 100 HOURS PER WEEK PLEASE AND THANK YOU.
  34. 7 points
    I think it also depends on the firm and the nature of the articling position. I interviewed for one position which wasn't unpaid, but offered little as far as compensation (about $20,000 annualized). Even though I didn't end up articling there, I didn't find the low pay offensive or bothersome. The interviewer explained that they simply couldn't afford to pay more, as the firm does a lot of social justice work (mostly consent and capacity matters), where the vast majority of the work they do is pro bono or Legal Aid certificates. They also didn't expect their articling students to work crazy hours, hit billable targets, etc. - they really did consider it more of a learning experience. I kind of thought to myself, "They're not going to generate income as a result of me being there. I get to do interesting work. They're willing to pay me something, which means they see me as having value." On the other hand, I once responded to an articling ad where the principal indicted in a phone call that the position wasn't paid, but there was the potential for hire back. When I spoke to their current articling student, she indicated that she was expected to work from 8:30am - 6:30 pm, she had a billable hour target, and that most of the firm's clients were businesses (i.e. cash clients). This just seemed exploitative. The kicker was that this was an employment law firm.
  35. 7 points
    No particular wisdom to share, I’ve just never heard a NY lawyer say they believe Canadian lawyers are more competent or experienced on average at any given rank. It would be so out of character I’d probably spit out my morning coffee even if it were late at night.
  36. 7 points
    I for some reason am leaning to UVic. Saving 40k is nice, but a 1-hour commute is a huge hassle. I would look into affordable rent options at UVic - no idea what prices are like, but what if you share and look for a very modest place? Or live in university housing? Are you sure housing will cost 40k? Are you factoring the 1-hour commute into your savings? It sounds like you see UVic as a better fit, and it is a chance to live somewhere a bit different without being too far away from your target employment market or your family and support system. I don’t think the distance from Victoria to Vancouver is a huge deal in terms of the job search and I don’t think it should even be on the con side for UVic. I get the temptation of living at home and saving money and I understand why people do that. BUT I am a big fan of young adults living independently. I am a big fan of law students in particular living independently. The lessons you will learn are worth 40k and then some. I also think that living with your parents an hour from school will negatively impact your law school experience a lot more than you realize. I don’t think you should make this decision based on the living at home issue. If that was not available to you, what would you decide? That’s where you should go.
  37. 7 points
    I will offer a bit of advice as someone who has been practicing for several years now. I say this, understanding that many students graduate with ridiculous amounts of debt. For prospective students, minimize that as much as you can. Please give serious thought as to what type of practice you want to have; where you want to live; cost of living; ability to buy a home; commuting time; what type of work/life balance you are hoping to have, etc. Don't allow salary prospects to overwhelm every other factor.
  38. 7 points
    I have to say, as a practicing lawyer, it's quite enjoyable to come home from my 15-hour work day, turn off notifications on my phone, pour a glass of wine, and watch 0Ls argue on the internet about which law building has the nicest looking tables and chairs as though it's something that matters.
  39. 7 points
    Summer before law school I got a job up in the wilderness. I brought a big collection of classic novels and read through a bunch of them when I wasn't working. I still feel like that was the best use of my time that summer, and regretted nothing.
  40. 7 points
    I think we've beaten up on IrishStew enough. God knows I made a few premature and somewhat ignorant assertions before I knew what I was talking about, too. Anyone who's willing to take a step back and self-correct is fine in my books. Also, missed in the clamor, above, was the OP accepting the recommendation that she would need to figure out some of her own priorities. That's also a good sign. I think when people here are interested in getting feedback and then absorbing it we should encourage that, rather than enjoy the next pile-on for its own sake. In that spirit, here are a couple of thoughts this discussion has generated. The OP genuinely does have more experience, already, in self-employment than many law students and even lawyers. The experiences she is describing as a translator are not terribly unlike self-employment in law, but with one huge caveat. People don't tend to have tutoring or translation emergencies. You schedule a client, you do your job, then you do something else. Law is very rarely like that. There may be fields of law that are more conducive to that sort of practice (wills and estates comes to mind) but there aren't many. So here's the bottom line. If you're thinking about self-employment in law, it can come with a reasonably good income (please forget about $100/hour in your own pocket, on any kind of reliable basis) and it can come with reasonable flexibility. Certainly one of the great advantages of sole practice is that you're not going to get fired and no one is going to involuntarily retire you. If you can do the job at all (that is, attract clients and get work in the door) you'll be employed as long as you're capable of working and you want to. The real problem is what the OP described as "sense of achievement." Here's the most fundamental clash within the OP's ambitions and IrishStew's riff off them. By definition, the more important the work is that you do, the less you can turn it off when you don't want to do it anymore. I see no way around this problem - at least not in a service profession. I suppose a theorist or a philosopher can work to their own pace and do important work. But when your work is directly important to other people, you just can't turn off the clock and expect them to leave you alone until you're ready to work some more - at least not if you intend to keep your clients happy at all. You can sort of try to control how much overall work you take on. But I'm speaking for experience here, that is really really really hard to do. You're always going to worried about not having enough. You're always going to take the next client that calls you, because you don't want to say no. And the next thing you know, you're working so much you can't even remember what a real weekend feels like. That's if you're lucky. The opposite problem is possible too - you simply don't have clients anymore because they decided they'd rather stick with lawyers who take their phone calls when they call. I made my peace with this problem a long time ago. When a client gets arrested at 2am and I get called by the police to talk with the guy, I answer the phone. I like having the important job. I like knowing what I do matters. But I have accepted that it can't only matter on my schedule. That's unrealistic. Sometimes I envy people who have more "lifestyle-oriented" jobs. Looks nice, at a distance. But it isn't for me. And there aren't many of those jobs in law - even fewer of them self-employed in law. Maybe a few are possible - like I said, look at wills and estates. But this is where you are most likely going to need to pick your compromise, over and above issues regarding income. Hope that helps.
  41. 7 points
    This was really disappointing. This really could have been a great resource. There will always be some people to ruin it for everyone else. If people are still interested, I can lock the edits with a new chart and have people PM me their info, which i will then add to the list. (Or if anyone else has any ideas, i would be glad to incorporate them). I just think it is sad that we all cannot have this resource because a few people are terrible.
  42. 7 points
    Accepted this morning! CGPA: 3.63 L2: 3.80 LSAT: 156, 164 (Jan) General applicant, good luck to everyone else
  43. 6 points
    Thank you!!!! I completely agree with everything you said. I have not been accepted to UNB yet but hearing people bash people’s stats that are around the same as mine hurts. Just because my stats aren’t as high is not an indicator of my intelligence. I have a high gpa but the LSATs were hard for me. I took it three times and studied as hard as I could while being a student athlete working 20+ hours a week, going to class 15+ hours, practising 20+ hours a week and traveling every Sunday though Tuesday from August until May every year. My hard work should not be put down because I was unable to make a 160+ on standardized test. If UNB decides that then it’s fine. But it’s not for a random bitter person to decide. I am sorry you are disappointed that you haven’t been accepted yet. UNB is literally the only school I have chance of getting accepted too. Your stats are spectacular and I envy it. But you’ve been accepted to other schools and I haven’t been. It sucks not being accepted to the one school you want to go to but it also sucks not being accepted to any school. We are all trying our best. In my case coming from one of the provinces with “reserved spots” I have a law firm the has already told me they will hire me and all I have to do it get accepted and graduate. Where I’m from not a huge number of students are going to law school and not many people want to move there to work. I want to live there and work for the rest of my life. Where I’m from depends on some of these seats to guarantee that we’ll have enough lawyers working in the private and public sector. Even with those, most law firms are hiring and so is the government.
  44. 6 points
    I received the Meet & Greet email yesterday. Prior to that I was on the waitlist. I spoke with someone on admissions today and they let me know that I was actually accepted yesterday! Apparently it just takes time for the emails/updates to come out.
  45. 6 points
    Just to share with other eager applicants - I emailed the school asking about the progress of the applications, admissions and up until when we can expect to hear back. I was told that "they are in the middle of the admissions process" and that we may be "hearing back at any time" so to "regularly check our emails". I know it doesn't reveal much but we hear something, we share something
  46. 6 points
    It’s a commonly used colloquial term, get off your high horse.
  47. 6 points
    Can you set dates and adjourn matters when you are not a law student? That’s surprising to hear. I would think an 0L would not be qualified to do that and this could lead to difficulties with a boss... who should also know better and is maybe after cheap labour. This is definitely not the norm. Also not sure what is so incredible about it - there is no shortage of defence counsel willing to have unpaid people set dates for them, and most of them won’t be mean to you.
  48. 6 points
    But your salary goes up to that of about a 6th or 7th year on Bay
  49. 6 points
    Even land title statutes themselves, For example, section 53 of Alberta's version: And BC's Why does BC's act contain the word's except as agains the person making it and alberta's equivalent section not? And what does this difference mean? Well one sneaky trick you can do in BC is to secretly break a joint tenancy by doing an unregistered transfer from yourself to yourself (breaking the unity of time*) and sticking it into a safe. On title you will still appear as a joint tenant, up until the point you need to bring out that document and wave it around. It will be effective against you (the person making it) but it doesn't need to be registered. So, if you are in a dispute with a fellow property owner, and you are unscrupulous you can just forget about the document if they die (taking title via joint tenancy) but if you die before them you can leave instructions to have your transfer found.** * Does any other type of lawyer get to shout "I HAVE BROKEN THE UNITY OF TIME" on occasion? I think not. ** Why would you do this? I don't know. BUT you can do it in BC! And that is what makes property law fun.
  50. 6 points
    Right?! I've had a permanent smile since last Friday - best birthday ever!
This leaderboard is set to Toronto/GMT-04:00


  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...