Jump to content

Stark

Members
  • Content Count

    1784
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Stark last won the day on March 23

Stark had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

872 Good People

About Stark

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

3223 profile views
  1. I think the bolded sentence is what it comes down to for a lot of us. I've never been in a position to hire a student and my organization would probably never hire a student, but I think it's the unfamiliarity that makes it difficult. I think it's safe to say that most of us have heard of Oxford and Cambridge, but I also think it's fair to say that a lot (maybe even most) lawyers don't know the first thing about the other schools. I have no idea if these schools are any good. While I may view your undergrad transcript and see a decent GPA, it still doesn't tell me anything about your law school or what you learned. I think it's the unfamiliarity that makes it so easy to just trash those resumes like so many firms do. I know what a B average means from a Canadian law school. I don't have a clue what those UK grades actually correlate to and I don't know that I would be motivated enough to do the research on the school and their grading to educate myself when there's tons of resumes from Canadian grads in front of me.
  2. I would take that admissions officer as seriously as I do those who get paid to tell naive students to go abroad for law school because it'll be faster, they'll have more fun and they'll have no issues finding jobs upon their return to Canada. As for your stats, your GPA seems decent although I don't know what metric TRU uses these days to calculate GPA i.e. CGPA, best 2, last 2 etc. Also hard to give a guess without an actual LSAT mark but assuming you came in around a 157 and your GPA was calculated as 3.7, I think you'd have a good chance at admission. You should take a look at the last few Accepted threads here to see what stats successful applicants had.
  3. I assume you're trolling so I won't take this too seriously. In the event you are that misguided though, I would suggest taking the advice of the other posters - many of whom are lawyers - when they say that no law school is going to care about where you did your undergrad or how tough you think your school was.
  4. I agree with MP. Not every legal job requires insane hours. I did a brief stint as a public servant and although often very stressful, I rarely worked more than 45 hours a week. It wasn't really all that flexible but the hours weren't crazy. I'm now in-house and have a great schedule with lots of flexibility.
  5. I wonder if a possible solution is the law society disciplining these lawyers who even put themselves in these situations like the lawyer in the OP. Lawyers really should be taking SC privilege more seriously.
  6. I'm not sure what area of law you work in, but reasonable suspicion in the crim world means a very specific thing. The CBSA does not need RS before conducting a cell phone search. Their policy simply says they can't do these searches as a matter of routine, but all they need is some indication that evidence of contraventions could be found on the device. That's a lower threshold than RS, but like you said, they seem to be doing a good job at it!
  7. Look, I think we've all been talking in circles here. SC privilege is incredibly important. The purpose of the CBSA at borders is also incredibly important. Everyone knows about these cell phone searches at the borders and there are warnings everywhere. There is also information readily available as to the precautions you can currently take to protect privileged material or I suppose even evidence of contraband if you so choose. The choice as it currently stands is up to you whether you want to take SC privilege seriously or not when travelling. If the law ever does change to the point where all digital devices are fully searched including password protected apps and the cloud, the CBSA will have to have suitable policies in place to deal with situations such as privilege. Whether that's letting every lawyer through borders without a search because lawyers are special and trustworthy or coming up with some sort of a mechanism where SC privilege is protected and the CBSA can do what they need to do. Some sort of a solution to deal with this would be essential then because a travelling lawyer would have no way of protecting their privileged info short of leaving digital devices at home or not travelling. We're not at that point right now and we may never get there. Right now it's easy to protect privileged info if you really wanted to.
  8. Some brutal policies and practices followed 9-11 and I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees with you on that, but that's not what we're talking about here. There's no evidence that suggests that minorities are more likely to have their cell phones searched. In the grand scheme of things, a cell phone search isn't even that invasive in comparison to some of the other powers they have. If the CBSA is out to get minorities like you often suggest police are, then they would probably be doing something far more invasive than cell phone searches. I'm actually surprised that they're finding something on 38% of their searches. That's incredibly high! I suspected it would be like 1 or 2%. Guess there's something to this after all.
  9. I don't know if I agree with this. I think they're smart enough to recognize that not going into the cloud is a loophole and they're potentially missing a lot of evidence by demanding access to the cloud. It's not like the CBSA does not understand how technology works. I think this is just the safest practice they decided to implement that's not overly intrusive in comparison to if they decided to do a complete search which still achieves one of their primary goals of protecting the country.
  10. You do raise a good point on how they're being treated as goods based on their policy and low level court decisions. Although I think someone posted something about an appellant court affirming that interpretation. I think a phone being treated as a "good" under the Customs Act is where the law is currently at. I think where it's being justified as not being overly intrusive is that they're not going into clouds and are putting the device into airplane mode. I think this will be fascinating to see how this unfolds if and when we get a decent child porn case (I know Gibson was child porn too) that comes from one of these stops that goes to a high level. I truly think it'll be found to be reasonable based on the importance of protecting the borders. The law nerd in me thinks this is going to be really interesting because there are strong arguments both for and against this.
  11. Because that's currently how the lower courts have defined goods under the Customs Act. The CBSA policy is currently pretty conservative I think based on the uncertainty in the law, but once this gets brought to higher levels or they get formal direction from their lawyers, I wouldn't be surprised if their power here is expanded and we become more like the Americans. If the courts and the government continue to recognize the importance of protecting our borders, I wouldn't be surprised if we one day get to the point where refusing to unlock devices and give passwords results in an obstruction charge.
  12. I agree with you in so far as a reduced expectation of privacy does not mean no expectation of privacy at all. I just don't understand the argument that the status at the border right now is that we have 0 expectation of privacy at all. If there was no expectation of privacy at all, everyone would be subject to strip searches because you never know who has contraband on their person, everyone's cars would be completely stripped down without cause, everyone's bank records would be accessed to see what you're spending money on etc etc. Now the CBSA can do any of those things with the requisite threshold of belief, but none of those are automatic. That's exactly what a reduced expectation of privacy looks like.
  13. Big difference between a courthouse and the border crossing to enter Canada.
  14. I tend to agree with this. I’m not sure if there’s a huge difference between physical goods being searched and cell phones being searched. Just about everything that could be on a cell phone could be in a travellers backpack/carry on/suitcase in hard copy. Hell, we allow the CBSA to go through our mail and I’ve never heard of people complain of that but that’s a pretty invasive search and they do these daily without warrants. I also agree with the second point. If we ever went to a system where the CBSA needed RPG to search a device, there would be no practical way to make that happen without extended detention. Travellers would also be subject to extensive questioning that could look similar to an interrogation. I don’t like that one bit.
×
×
  • Create New...