Jump to content

BlockedQuebecois

Members
  • Content Count

    6384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Everything posted by BlockedQuebecois

  1. Admin law is a waste of a course, in my opinion. You’ll learn more by reading three cases in their entirety (Baker, Dunsmuir, and Vavilov) than you will from a semester of attending class, unless you have a very good professor. Agree re: Bus As, it’s really not complicated or hard to pick up.
  2. ... Okay, so you're not getting a distance degree. Looks like @msk2012's stating the obvious was indeed necessary.
  3. Bus org and admin used to be nationally mandatory courses, but the national requirement was changed in 2018. Now students still have to understand principles of administrative law, but don't need an actual course in it – the only mandatory courses across all law schools are contracts, criminal, torts, property, and constitutional law.
  4. I'm not sure what you're talking about. The policy is very clear that two thirds of a QLD must be completed via in-person person instruction. If you're getting an LLB in the UK via distance education, your degree won't satisfy the NCA requirements. You will be required to complete two years of studies that satisfy the requirements. If you're getting an LLB in the UK by actually, you know, being in the UK, then it will satisfy the requirements, because you're not getting a distance degree.
  5. I never said it was, and you know that. Although, to be honest, there's a good argument to be made that academic freedom actually is carte blanche for homophobia/racism/transphobia in an academic capacity (and OP is very clearly talking about the professor's role in an academic capacity). See, for e.g. Jordan Peterson's continued employment at the University of Toronto, J Michael Bailey's continued employment at Northwestern University, etc.
  6. @Cookies20000 look, you’re going to do what you’re going to do. You’ve been given the answer about how to proceed, and you’ve been given commentary on how people will perceive you, both positive and negative. Without posting the fact pattern, nobody here is going to be able to tell you whether or not you’re in the right here. You’re also not going to get any more useful responses here – people have told you that you may be viewed as immature and insecure if you handle it the way you want to. And I’ll be honest and say that the way you’ve presented your side here doesn’t lead me to give you the benefit of the doubt. It reads to me like you’re overly sensitive, editorializing, and don’t understand the basic premise of academic freedom. It also suggests you have a personal vendetta with this professor. You may very well be right and the fact pattern may very well be inappropriate, but your posts gives me the sense that it’s likely borderline and you’re blowing it up Others will likely disagree with me, and think that you deserve the benefit of the doubt and you’re probably in the right. That might be true. But short of sharing the fact pattern, verbatim, nobody is going to know which is true. You're clearly set on your path and think you’re in the right, so just buck up and do it already. The internet isn’t going to validate you, and you don’t need to justify yourself to it.
  7. [Emphasis added] For the love of god, don’t do this as a student at any size law firm.
  8. At this point, I would consider enrolling in the LPP in Ontario. Getting called should be your priority
  9. The LSA requires you to file a report when you terminate articles, I imagine said report includes a reason for dismissal. And while it sounds nice to say the law societies should be more involved in terminating articles, I don't think students would actually want that. At the bare minimum, cracking down on articling principals would lead to fewer articling principals, which would harm students far more than the principals. But an obvious and concerning knock-on effect would be that it's likely not that hard to make out a claim of incompetence against many articling students. If principals are suddenly required to truly justify the reason for terminating, many will keep a clear log of the articling students failures. If that happens, what's to stop the law societies from coming in, seeing that the student is incompetent, and wiping clear the months of service they've already completed? So while it's easy to say the law societies should be more involved in this kind of thing, it's easy to see how further involvement could harm students quite significantly.
  10. For what it’s worth, I appreciated the relationship advice 😛
  11. https://nca.legal/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/PolicyManual2020.pdf
  12. Well, two things. First off, to the extent that you're right, the observation that bay street firms rarely practice one-off, low stakes, low value litigation is hardly unique to Aboriginal law. In general, Bay Street firms either participate in high stakes litigation, or low stakes litigation for clients of the firm. Second off, I think you're really underestimating the stakes and value of a lot of Aboriginal law issues. Delgamuukw involved logging rights over 58,000 square km of land, and thus the monetary value of the litigation was quite high. Notable counsel of record for the trial level decision were: Blakes for party intervenors, William & Donald Gladstone Lawson Lundel for Alcan Fasken as Amici Curiae Really, it boils down to this: bay street firms tend to practice high-stakes litigation. As such, they'll often be on the high-stakes Aboriginal law files. As with all areas of litigation, you'll also see a lot of high quality boutique firms on those files. You won't see them on the bulk of Aboriginal law files in the country, just like you won't see them on the bulk of any files in the country, because it's simply not worth it to hire a big firm to litigate a $5,000 claim. The same logic applies on the solicitor side – they'll often be involved, on both sides, in the big, headline making deals surrounding Indigenous groups (pipelines, for example), but they're much less likely to be on lower stakes files, unless they're GC for the First Nation or company negotiating the deal. I should also note that even though a lot of these firms are "bay street" firms, a lot of the really high end work is focused in the west (especially because BC doesn't have any treaties). Delgamuukw and Tsilqhot'in were both BC cases, and it looks like the litigation was run out of the BC offices of the major firms. In my experience, and @Jaggers can possibly comment better on this, a lot of the Ontario work is more routine.
  13. I don't think this is all that accurate. In Tsilqhot'in, for instance, BLG was on for the province of BC, Gowling was agent for essentially all of the FN groups, and Fasken represented business groups. In Delgamuukw, Gowling Lafleur Henderson was on for Delgamuukw, Blakes was on for other FN groups, Lawson Lundel was on for Alcan, and Fasken was on for Skeena Cellulose. In Kapp, Weirfoulds was on for the defendants, Gowling was agents for a bunch of the provinces and FN groups, Blakes was counsel for a FN group, and Fasken was on for the fisheries association. Of course, there's no way to tell how involved agents were in the process, but even just looking at counsel, we can see that they represent FN interests and corporate interests at roughly the same rate, at least on the high profile cases that make it to the SCC.
  14. The fact that people are seriously considering paying off their law school debt over the course of 15 years is both astounding and terrifying to me. I have a plan in place to pay off my debt within three years of completing articling. I'm more comfortable than most with debt, and may very well extend my plan in order to make other purchases and/or investments, but the idea of carrying that debt for 12 additional years is insane to me. Additionally, I think a lot of people in this generation have grown accustomed to historically low prime interest rates. A return to even a moderate rates of 5% would mean that a debtor is paying $84,000 in interest over the course of 15 years, and sustained rates in the 10% range, as was common from 1975 through 1991, would mean a debtor is paying $186,000 in interest over the same time frame.
  15. @Jaggers beat me to the punch, but many of the big bay street firms have Aboriginal law groups focused on the interaction between First Nations, the Government, and large corporations (which, in Canada, are largely in the natural resource industries). On the solicitor side, they'll be working on consultation and accommodation issues, environmental permitting, and negotiations with stakeholders (including IBAs and other agreements). On the litigation side, you'll see major firms on most of the high profile, high value cases in Canada, so they'll be dealing with treaty rights, aboriginal title, and judicial review of permitting decisions. In my experience, the distinction between Indigenous law and Aboriginal law is largely academic. Scholars are (rightly) focusing on defining and reviving Indigenous legal traditions, whereas in litigation lawyers are generally arguing for incremental inclusion of Indigenous law into the Canadian legal system (think of the adoption of Indigenous conceptions of land use into Canadian law via Tsilqhot'in). With that said, it's hard to imagine being general counsel for a First Nation (as many large firms are) and not practicing Indigenous law in some sense of the word.
  16. Aren’t you a 0L? My best advice is to not plan your courses years in advance.
  17. My understanding is that the Competition Bureau enforces the Competition Act and associated statutes via the Competition Tribunal or the courts/other tribunals (depending on the issue). I would imagine that they handle most judicial review cases stemming from the cases they bring. The Bureau also has fairly extensive ADR options. The exception to the above are criminal charges under the Competition Act, which are referred out to the PPSC. Essentially, the Competition Bureau is set up similarly to the OSC.
  18. I'll just say that I haven't heard of anything out of either of those schools that makes me believe their political climates are any worse or any better than every other law school in Canada. I certainly don't think anyone should base their decision regarding which school to attend on this issue.
  19. Yeah, the political climate at most law schools is pretty toxic, as it is with most universities in Canada. That's what happens when progressivism adopts the idea that dissenting viewpoints are so deeply offensive that they must be silenced at all costs while conservatism adopts a special snowflake victimhood persona. To the extent that political climate is a concern for students looking for reasons to go to or not to go to a specific law school, I expect it would be a wash across the board.
  20. Sorry, what am I supposed to be finding annoying? I haven’t found anything in this thread annoying, and certainly haven’t found any of the opinions I disagree with annoying. They’re people’s subjective opinions, I just think they’re wrong. Not sure why I would get worked up about people being wrong in the internet 🤷‍♂️ Relevant xkcd for you, though: https://xkcd.com/386/
  21. No, I didn't tell you because it's not relevant to the point. My point was not that I think you're wrong for not finding Bay Street work to be meaningful or fulfilling – lots of people don't, and they're more than entitled to feel that way. My point is that viewing your own values as objectively correct is harmful, because it stunts your personal growth and leads to bitterness. That said, I do find Bay Street work compelling and fulfilling. In the interest of brevity, here are the first three things I could think of that I find enjoyable about the work, although I'm sure that if I sat and thought about it for longer I would be able to think of more. First off, it satisfies my desire for an intellectually challenging work environment in which I am constantly attempting to solve novel problems. Lots of people don't want that kind of work, and prefer to do monotonous and easy tasks for a living. That's fair, but it's not for me. Second, I've made meaningful and measurable impacts on the lives of several individuals, whether that be by saving their business or saving their career. I find that to be emotionally fulfilling and satisfying. Finally, I've gotten to work in a variety of fields, which means I've constantly learned new things. I spent one summer working on an O&G file and learning all about environmental assessments. I spent another summer working on digital privacy files. I didn't know anything about either field ahead of time, but I learned a ton and then moved on. Learning is one of my great pleasures in life, and I enjoy working in a field where I get to do that. In a hypothetical world where all lawyers were paid the same rate and I could pick any practice area, I'd probably still practice on Bay, although I'd likely choose a very narrow practice area that's not mainstream. I simply find it more compelling than criminal law, personal injury, wills and estates, etc. That's not a slight against those areas – I totally understand why people find other areas of law meaningful and fulfilling. They're just not for me. So again, you're more than welcome to continue being bitter and trashing people's values and life decisions pseudononymously on the internet. The fact that you "love" seeing people get "butthurt" certainly suggests you find it enjoyable. But I think you'd probably be happier, overall, if you learned that other people's values, while different from your own, are no less valid. Take it or leave it
  22. That seems to be more because we have all of three people on this forum with significant Bay Street experience, and you’ll note that the most senior has talked about why he values his job in the past. Lots of people on Bay Street are perfectly happy with their jobs, and they’ll tell you. Lots of them aren’t, and they’ll tell you too. Same goes for other positions – we get plenty of posts from junior lawyers working at shitty firms who are miserable with their lot in life. We also get plenty from people who love their roles. TL;DR: Different strokes for different folks, I’ll never understand why people feel the need to trash other people’s life goals.
  23. I have a lot of patience for dissenting opinions or even opinions I find downright ludicrous, but one I always find difficult to stomach is the idea that life has objectively meaningful or important tasks. People have varying values, and that variance will often mean that people find different tasks meaningful and important. Essentially no values are objectively good or bad, and acting like there are objective answers is harmful (mainly to yourself, but it’s also annoying for those who have to read the drivel that comes out of such thought processes). Basically every field of law can be described in a negative way and a positive way. Crowns are either willing advocates for a system that disproportionately incarcerates and harms indigenous peoples, or an important quasi-judicial player in the justice system that protects society from chaos. Defence attorneys are either vital protectors of fundamental freedoms and human liberty, or guns for hire ensuring that rapists get off scot free. Personal injury lawyers are either ambulance chasers, or a guide through a complex legal system designed to make sure that injured people are made whole for the negligence of others. Or to take a comment from your post history, DOJ lawyers are either in diametric opposition to the interests of First Nations, or they’re individuals working within the system to try to take meaningful steps towards reconciliation. The truth, of course, is that all of those descriptions are simultaneously correct and incorrect, depending on your values. I think it’s fairly clear from your post history that you think of your values as being objectively correct, and view those who have different values as being worthy of disdain. I would encourage you to try to broaden your horizons a bit. Try to see that other people have equally valid and justifiable values, and even that people who have similar values to you may pursue fulfillment in different ways. It will likely make you a better person, and at the very least it will probably stop you from being so bitter that you feel the need to mock what internet strangers find meaningful and important in their lives.
  24. Competition law is pretty niche, and I don’t think we have any active posters who practice it. You may be better served looking for competition lawyers at big firms with similar backgrounds and asking to connect with them via LinkedIn
×
×
  • Create New...