Exactly this. OP; rethink your original point. If everyone in the applicant pool benefits from the same formula, and Ryerson has a fixed number of seats (which they do, of course), then this formula says nothing about how easy it is to get into Ryerson.
What it does say is that it rewards those who have inconsistent greatness (say, 2 years of 4.0 and 2 years of 3.0), in comparison to those with consistent okay-ness (say, 4 straight years of 3.6). Candidate 1 would have a 4.0 per RU, and Candidate 2 would have (obviously) a 3.6.
I wouldn't say that makes it easy. It's just another slightly different admissions formula that's now floating out there. To the extent that different schools benefit people with different profiles, I like to think this benefits everyone in the end.*
* Thus repeating the original fallacy, now that I think about it.
A friend of mine works in some business side role at a big tech company’s Toronto office. He pulls in between $100 and 200k, works 9 to 5, no weekends, significantly less stress than my job, not to mention all the tech company perks.
Honestly, you're such an incredible genius you would be better off going to the states for law school, given that they are more academically rigorous and better in absolutely every way possible and everyone shits on Canadian schools anyways. In fact, let me point you to https://www.top-law-schools.com/, they are much more worthy of your time. Hopefully one day you remember us plebs...
Everyone's B20 is calculated the same way. It is advantageous though if your academic record is especially inconsistent. Ryerson's admissions process is fairly holistic though, so you'll need more than 20 strong courses to get in.