UCalgary by far; it's not even close. Calgary by far, it's not even close city wise. I can go into many details but the short version is that Deadmonton is in the middle of nowhere, industrial warehouse like, crime ridden (more so now than ever), and the legal market is a few medium firms and a few small firms and that's about it. Unless you have "connections", family relations, or straight As, you probably won't find articling in Edmonton or even Alberta. There are some demographics that fit the diversity categories which some big firms recruit for, but for the average student it's all uphill. Let's just say the supply greatly exceeds the demand and it's a total crapshoot starting with 1L OCIs. You could luck out because you only got one interview and name drop a few people you played rugby with, or have 7 interviews and never get an offer because someone else always knew someone else. Edmonton is small town. U of A also has a lot of students, and a lot of NCAs (yes they will be in your classes), and all those people are trying to go for the same articling spots. Government employment is also very poor and non existent unless you want to be a prosecutor (compared to Ontario or BC). Many people go to U of A either because they have family in Edmonton, it's cheaper, or they didn't get in anywhere else. As for the so called clinics and experiential training; there is none. SLS is mostly criminal with not much else happening, and the rest of the very few internships and even the moots are very competitive and ranked on grades pretty much. U of A also grades very harshly to about a B- average and people easily get C, Ds and Required to Withdraw. So unless you're getting those As, you'll be out of luck with pretty much everything that's "competitive".   U of C has more experiential and less harshly graded courses (aka pass/fail), fewer students, and let's face it Calgary is a much bigger legal market with direct ties given the location. UCalgary is more corporate and practical while U of A is more esoteric traditional academic theory. Some of the last few prof hires last few years at U of A let's just say were of the woke "anti-colonial" types and not exactly industry practice ready focused. In other words they ticked all diversity checkboxes but won't help you get a job. Career services at U of A deserves a special mention form how atrocious it is. They had big staff turnover and the principal event was colouring book wellness activities. Then once you're out of school there is zero support and they just encourage you to ask your friends if they know of any postings. Their website didn't even work after a while and is generally pretty useless. I heard good things about Calgary career services and they have a much much higher placement rates for big law and pretty much everything, with far fewer students competing. If you're thinking in terms of employment and more practical skills, 100% U of C is the correct choice, and Calgary is miles ahead of Edmonton in all areas lifestyle wise. Don't make the mistake of going to U of A just because it appears cheaper or more comfortable to stay in Edmonton. And if you can go out of province (Ontario or BC), definitely do that.  

What even... is this out of personal interest?

You do realize that you're asking people to conduct an extensive historical legal analysis that would take many hours for free and that this isn't stuff that anyone can just answer off the top of their head, right? Nobody is going to give you answers to this.

Man this looks like some family lore ngl 

Given that defendants are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and that a preliminary hearing might not lead to a trial, for example because of a lack of evidence, but in this case because the preliminary hearing was halted, could/should the court have issued a publication ban?  One of the lawyers complained bitterly that the major dailies were declaring their clients guilty, in what he called a media trial.  He brought samples of the offending newspaper articles to court and asked the court to put a stop to it. He doesn't appear to have specifically asked for a publication ban, but the court rebuffed him in a way that suggested there was nothing that he or the court could do.  Could the court have acted on its own initiative?  Could the lawyer have requested a publication ban? 

In 1940, under the Defence of Canada Regulations (War Measures Act), on what basis could warrants be issued to search and seize property, and to arrest individuals? Were the provisions of Defence of Canada Regulations sufficient, on the face of the warrant, to execute such warrant, or were more substantial elements needed behind the warrants, e.g. evidence such as documents (anti-war pamphlets, for example), affidavits of suspected wrongdoing?   Wouldn’t there have to be reasonable or probable cause? In the present case, it seems that raids took place first, across Canada, and people were arrested a few days later.  However, given that the preliminary hearing of these people wasa asborted (descrcibed in my first post above) and did not resume after the war and that the Chief Justice felt that these people were discharged of the charges, and given that the Crown laid no further charges, it seems that there was no evidence on which to base the charges.  If so, what evidence, if any, had to have been used to lay the charges under the DOCR?

In 1940, under the Defence of Canada Regulations, was it possible to legally arrest Canadians residing in provinces other than Quebec and transport them to Montreal to stand trial as a group with individuals charged in Quebec?  This actually happened.  I wonder how the Court of Sessions of the Peace in Montreal could have jurisdiction over people brought in from another province.