Jump to content

Hegdis

Moderators
  • Content Count

    8626
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    470

Everything posted by Hegdis

  1. Interesting post here re voiding home insurance even if it’s a legal grow op https://www.cwilson.com/legalizing-cannabis-and-risk-stirring-the-insurance-pot/
  2. My understanding is it is part of the legislated mandatory disclosure in the realtor documents you sign.
  3. So here’s a fun thing I heard about the other day - Entirely word of mouth: apparently if you grow your own plants and then try to sell your home, you have to declare it as the site of a grow op (even a very small one). And some banks will refuse to finance you on that basis. Anyone else encountered this, or have any thoughts? I thought it was likely going to be an unpleasant discovery for many many homeowners down the road when they try to move - if it’s true. [The obvious point that no one should ever rely on anything they read here as legal advice applies to this thread; discussion purposes only.]
  4. You can’t make a wrong choice. That said, go with A. Based on what you have posted it has the edge.
  5. Yeah, sure. That’s the obvious interpretation of my post, because I specifically said NO EXCEPTIONS EVAR.
  6. This is what it boils down to: law is jurisdictional. Anyone who seriously suggests to me that they are competent to practice criminal law after graduating from a school where they did not learn about the Charter or about Canadian jurisprudence or about Canadian criminal procedure or about the Rules of Evidence in a Canadian courtroom deserves to get laughed out of my office. ...except they won’t. Because they won’t get an interview. I want some one qualified for the job. Not some one who spent three years learning the law of another country and then wrote a single exam for the NCA on Canadian criminal law. The competition - literally any graduate of a Canadian law school - has them beat from the start. That is just reality.
  7. I guarantee you that your criminal law education was very different.
  8. I am going to say that while the law societies have taken steps to screen foreign lawyers who want to practise in Canada by creating the NCA exams, these exams are not “equivalent” to three years in a Canadian law school. So students going and learning the law of some other country for three years and then writing a handful of exams at the end of it should not delude themselves that they are competitive in terms of being educated on Canadian law (a major consideration for any employer). In my view, the NCA should be about foreign lawyers - people who bring actual experience-based skill sets as practising counsel - coming to Canada for whatever reason: family, work opportunity, etc. That the NCA is now routinely used as a sort of workaround from subpar students who want to backdoor into the Canadian market because they didn’t have the dedication or brains to get the grades/LSAT to get into a Canadian law school is a bad thing. It is not a coincidence that the weakest (and periodically ridiculous) applications I have received from students are predominantly sent in by foreign law school students. Two things: 1. YES there are exceptions. They are exceptional. 2. Access categories at Canadian law schools are an excellent net to catch people who would normally have made the cut but for whatever excellent reason.
  9. My Grandma gave me a framed copy of The Serenity Prayer. You know, the one favoured by people in twelve step programs. (My other Grandma got me a bottle of scotch, so it balanced out.)
  10. Do not discount working while in school. Consider that a solid plus. Your engagement in politics is fine but it will be a blip. The biggest thing to focus on is LSAT/GPA, with few exceptions.
  11. Be aware that in Canada there are several things that can be accurately described as “conditional release”. If you are running across a conditional discharge, a community sentence order (often called a conditional sentence order), or bail conditions for pretrial release, these are all different things.
  12. LSUC is Ontario, not BC: are you asking about both? I have been a principal to a student and didn’t receive any calls - but that’s probably because I filled out a gajillion pages of paperwork, all signed and witnessed, at regular (required) intervals throughout. Edit: just realized you meant prelaw jobs. I have no idea.
  13. Just a quick note that after an hour you cannot edit your posts. There is no delete button.
  14. Very cool. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-travel-winnipeg-1.5077243
  15. Or the kid may already be on this site. My best advice in terms of supporting your kid - no matter where he or she is in the current arc - is to listen, engage with them, don’t judge or advise them, and keep their stories to yourself (lawyers need to be discreet so don’t entertain your dinner guests with stories about their clients or mistakes).
  16. Search “0L summer”. This topic comes up several times a year.
  17. Spliced the offshoot discussion here -
  18. Yes. The usual rule is to go formal with Ms/Mr (never “Mrs”) until they sign off with their first name, OR address you by your first name. While this is usually how correspondence progresses by the first or second email, don’t skip that step. Senior person initiates informality, always.
  19. This does happen from time to time. Often it is due to a language or comprehension issue. I can’t tell you what the committee will say or do, but I would try to contact your instructors and ask them for a candid assessment of what the issue is. Put hurt feelings aside and approach it as professional feedback. If you can take steps - tutoring maybe - to address the issue, that can only help.
  20. I have been approached by a couple firms looking for some one with trial experience - these were personal injury places. And I’m now a mid/senior call with 10+ years under my belt. That my only experience is in crim didn’t seem to matter.
  21. This is an automated response to a topic that appears to be requesting legal advice. Please refer to the following post regarding such requests:
  22. MP, you do see what I am getting at: sometimes the nature of the information is so highly confidential that it’s a serious problem if it’s accessed. I know a few border guards. Many are consummate professionals. Some are indiscreet morons. And then there’s the spectrum in between. I don’t think they should all have access to this kind of info without some level of process in place to protect sensitive information. That’s all I am getting at.
  23. There’s a thought. How would a law society complaint play out on “my lawyer gave up the password to a phone containing my protected information so I am suing them and the CBSA”?
×
×
  • Create New...