Here's why the case should be studied.  The federal government, the Quebec government, the Court of Sessions of the Peace, selected French and English daily press, and some political press, colluded to frame people they knew to be innocent in order to intern them because they were political opponents of the ruling party.  A couple of them died in the Canadian concentration camps as a result.  That adds homicide.  Those guilty of framing them should be exposed, even at this late date.  A crime is a crime, and government is not above the law.

No, it's not family lore.  It's Canadian lore.

If you don't have an answer to any part of the questions, you are free to ignore the questions. It's out of personal interest.  It's also Canadian history, Canadian government, and it looks potentially as though a serious violation of law, legal procedure, and basic human rights took place.  The culprits, meaning the "governments" in question, were never pegged on it, and I think they should be, even at this late date.  Not to  peg them sets a bad precedent. It appears that, for the purposes of the preliminary hearing, the Crown prosecutor only presented the court with a typed list of 68 exhibits and a series of typed excerpts from these exhibits.  No originals were shown.  The excuse was apparently that it would take too long to “photograph” them.  That is, it would take too long to copy them with the “Photostat” machine (not the photocopier, but the Photostat).  Even if this is a preliminary hearing, in 1940, wouldn't it be necessary to produce the originals or certified “Photostats” of the exhibits when you are accusing people of violating the Defence of Canada Regulations; and in the margins, also treason, and moreover the accused were interned, some for as much as 5 years, on the basis of these typewritten so-called “exhibits”.

I mean they can leave. Salaries outside of private practice have become very competitive. I initially made more money by leaving. Although I won’t continue to enjoy the lockstep raises, I don’t think the money is enough to be a compelling reason to stay. 

Jaggers and I have different experiences and live in different jurisdiction, and I have no doubt that they have seen this if they say so. But. I was president and vice president of a labour union for over a decade. Not only is it not true that we tried to push out older workers to make room for younger ones, but we actively—and successfully —fought attempts by others to do so to our members. 

yeah, it's really hard to judge chances without an LSAT

Top 5 reasons NOT TO go to my school: University of Alberta This was really helpful on the old forums so I am reviving it. I will start with Alberta’s (may be out of date, someone else please chime in!): Let’s see if we can think of Top 5 Reasons NOT TO go to my school for UAlberta. University of Alberta 1.    Location, location, location. Edmonton is in a frozen industrial wasteland. It is extremely cold during 8 months of the year like -40 and lower with windchill cold. There is not much in Edmonton other than warehouses and industrial views. Views of flare stacks burning. Travelling anywhere is a huge hassle as again not much around. Even the Sport Chek downtown closed up shop and left reflecting Deadmonton’s downtown (high crime and deserted). HBO’s The Last of Us was filmed in downtown Edmonton and rumour is they didn’t even have to use CGI or props. 2.    Building and Facilities. First year classrooms have no windows and the vibe is that of the TV show Fallout or Silo. The building is a literal bomb shelter with thick concrete. I recommend staying in the law building 1L classrooms if WW3 ever starts. The library is old and access to online databases and pretty much anything digital is extremely limited. They have very little subscription access compared to other schools due to funding issues. Don’t believe me, then try using HOLLIS at Harvard Library and see the difference in access. Anyway, the library system is severely lacking at U of A in terms of online and database access. Online textbooks and course materials anyone? One word to describe the law building: Brutalistic. 3.    Practical Experience and Clinicals. In short U of A has no clinics. No, SLS is not for credit and not Faculty of Law associated. There are no for credit clinics period. There are a few internship courses and they are extremely competitive so unless you’re getting As it’s not going to happen. Moots are equally competitive and the same few favorites get most of the opportunities. If you’re interested in business, or corporate law or big law type stuff or tech etc., then there is literally nothing for you at U of A as far as experiential learning or clinics. 4.    Career Services. There is a 1L OCI which places at the few small and medium firms in Edmonton, and that’s about it. There is nothing in 2L and minimal articling positions afterwards. The career services office had high turnover and the career advice from the former career services director for articling was to “ask your friends if they know anything”. The job board website is also useless and at one point didn’t even work for alumni. Expect zero career support or alumni outreach from U of A. One of the activities the former coordinator offered was "adult coloring books". 5.    Professors and Classes. Some tenured profs are unapproachable and overly academic. You are just a number and the 1L classes are big, plus all the NCAs. Profs have no qualms about giving out C-s, Ds, and Required to Withdraws like candy. The curve is brutal around a forced B- average for 1L. Some profs even refused to supervise a paper summer course or write a generic reference letter. The practitioners are local and underwhelming. If you are looking for niche fields in corporate, business, tech, or innovative classes, there's isn't really much on offer. I think they once had a Military Law course but probably don't anymore. And forget about AI or Space Law. There are a few Harvard LLM (like 2?) and SJD grads but I can only imagine they picked Edmonton due to the low cost of living and because U of A was the only one offering.