Page 1

March 12, 2012

Osgoode Brings Sexy Back See all the hot and steamy details inside.

Being in the Zone

Sex Survey Results

Exam-Time Library Guide

pg. 2

pgs. 6 - 8

pg. 12

page 2


“The definitive source for Osgoode news”

Meta-torial Thursday, 12:30pm.

Osgoode Hall Law School, 0014G York University 4700 Keele Street Toronto, ON M3J 1P3

Read all articles written to gather some inspiration for a theme. After finding none, head to the JCR for Steam Whistle inspiration.

Tel. 416.736.2100 x77527 Fax. 416.736.5736 E-mail. Website.

“Love is the answer, but while you are waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty good questions.” - Woody Allen Editors-in-Chief: Cassie Burt-Gerrans, Andrew Monkhouse, Jennifer O’Dell Sponsorship Manager: Rory Wasserman Business Manager: Kristina Bliakharsky Osgoode News Editor: Kyle Rees Opinions Editor: Nick Van Duyvenbode Arts & Culture Editor: Nancy Situ News Editor: Hassan Ahmad Sports Editor: Joe Marcus Staff Writers: RJ Wallia, Travis Weagant Contributors: Spencer Bailey, Martin Hui Layout Editors: Julia Vizzaccaro, Harjot Atwal, Nancy Situ, Devin Santos Photography: Harjot Atwal Website Editors: Nancy Situ, Cassie Burt-Gerrans

Articles are due at 2 p.m. on the Wednesday before date of publication. The appropriate maximum length for articles is 1200 words. Please submit articles in Microsoft Word format via e-mail attachment to obiterdicta@osgoode. Please attach photographs separately; do not include them in your Word document. The Obiter Dicta is the official student newspaper of Osgoode Hall Law School. The opinions expressed in the articles contained herein are not necessarily those of the Obiter staff. The Obiter reserves the right to refuse any submission that is judged to be libelous or defamatory, contains personal attacks, or is discriminatory on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Submissions may be edited for length and/or content. The Obiter Dicta is published weekly during the school year, and is printed by Weller Publishing Co. Ltd.

Run into Dave Shellnutt. Listen to rant about Kony viral video: “If I have to hear Africa referred to as a ‘country’ one more time, I may vomit.” Quietly wonder what his Bay Street Colleagues will think of the Kony video. Chuckle, for no good reason. Get distracted, try to play Call Me Maybe Gomez and Bieber stylz. Become uber irritated when advertisement precedes it. Wonder what the world has come to. Ponder the meaning of the Internet, why Pb is the short form for lead, and the importance of red Smarties. Play song on full blast. Annoy everyone in JCR. Emphatically not-give-a-shit. Watch a hearse pull into Osgoode back parking lot. Furrow brows in confusion. Be thankful time at Osgoode is almost done. Refocus. Refocus. ................ ...think about writing ‘end-of-the-year’ editorial. Realize it’s too soon. Wait. Wait for it. Wait for it.

Watch cursor flash. Now it’s there. Now it’s not. Now’s it there. Think of how many scenes in various movies have made this cliché. Think again: fuck you Hollywood. Stop thinking. Look at Calendar. The Ides of March. Toy with idea of writing editorial on Clooney vs. Caesar. Brutus vs. Gosling. Et tu, Ryan? Clever. Remember that movie sucked. Become sad you’re missing the Big Bad Ass Drag Show after watching Jessie Gill paint the nails of squeamish men. Become doubly excited for Dean’s Formal. Realize that the open bar will likely take more out of you than you will take out of it. Be at peace with this. Moment of zen. Remember it’s St. Paddy’s Day after Dean’s Formal. Get angry over how many people spell St. Paddy’s “St. Patty’s.” Zen ruined. Resolve to make this top priority when you become Prime Minister. Omni-bus St. Patrick’s Day Bill. Realize this isn’t going well. Look at clock: 2pm. Give up. Write Randy Newman-esk editorial. Let feeling of defeat settle in. Make defeat a reality with another order. Understand that defeat either tastes like gin or hops. Be thankful there are only two more issues to go. n

Features Being In The Zone RJ WALLIA Staff Writer So...this article has been requested a few times. To be honest, I was reluctant to write it at first. One of those reasons was that, while it has a lot to do with relationships, it actually has little to do with dating. In fact, it actually has a lot to do with the absence of dating. It’s also a topic that is going to engender a lot of angry debate. This is one of those things people feel strongly about. It’s easy to point fingers and place blame at all parties and all genders. With that said, here we go. A lot of us have been in the situation where we get to know someone and develop some sort of attraction or feelings for them. Yet when we think of acting on it, we stop ourselves due to the near impenetrable bonds of friendship that have developed since it would just make things too awkward. This is especially true after how

monday - march 12 - 2012

Start writing about all the events which happened last week. Write. Write. Write. Eraaaassseeeeee. Write. Erase. Write. Erase. Annnnndddd you’re back to square one. Slow clap yourself.

much you’ve spoken with them about how they continuously find themselves unsatisfied with their current significant other and/or dating life and wish they could find someone who fits all of their wants and needs in one package (who sounds quite a bit like you). For some, it’s even worse, as they are specifically pointed out as the “perfect person for them”...and then nothing happens. This results in a vicious cycle full of torment and agony as you listen to someone who you care for speak on and on about their relationship issues all the while not even knowing how you feel because you don’t wish to ruin the friendship you have. Melodrama aside, there are many people you know, maybe even yourself, who can speak to some degree about this situation. This leaves people who I speak to with a list of questions. The most common ones are: How can they not know? Why do I keep getting into these situations? What do I do now? How can I end this? the OBITERdicta

page 3 Answer 1: Because they’re not psychic! Despite it being painfully obvious to you, the fact is, they can’t really know how you are feeling unless you tell them. Sure, people can pick up on clues and they can try to guess, but no one is going to be 100% sure about this until you come out and say it. Hinting at it doesn’t work, probably because there is so much ambiguity in this entire situation that you literally don’t know what is innocent and what has a deeper meaning beyond what was said. We all know how hard this can be and yes, you do have a possibility of ruining the friendship, but the alternative is that you say nothing and continue down this path. What you have now is something that is just more and more agonizing. Answer 2: By being someone who is easy to talk to. Not the answer you were thinking of? Well, give it some thought. What made you being from casual acquaintance to friend zone? It’s the same path you take to being friends with someone. You meet, chat, have similar personal interests and don’t annoy the shit out of each other enough so that you can hang out. This is precisely how the strongest friendships are born and made. The only difference between this and friendzoning is that during this process, you’ve developed feelings for this person. It’s not hard to see why. Nearly all friends of whatever sexual orientation may apply, has a certain chemistry that makes the other one, at least in part, attractive. This isn’t to place blame on the person with the feelings at all, but it is important to recognize that the friend zone is an often unintended part of the whole process of making friends with people. What is different, however, is that one party doesn’t typically know how the other is feeling. Answer 3: Talk to them. Trust me, it’s easier than not doing so. Telling someone how you feel about them is, at times, the most embarrassing thing in the world. It can leave you feeling vulnerable and exposed; particularly in this situation, where you are going to let all out your unrequited feelings for someone who may have had no idea that you had been feeling this way, let alone for how long. However, this may be the best solution. Either way, they will know how you feel and will ultimately be able to talk about it. No longer will you have to continuously watch what you say, lest you let it slip out just how you truly feel about the person or how you know you can be right for them, especially since they continuously go for the wrong type of person. Yeah, this sounds as difficult as it really is. But the alternative is even worse. the OBITERdicta

Britney knows what it’s like to be in the zone. The alternative is that you do nothing. Essentially, you can let things go on as they are. Hey, it’s an understandable choice. A lot of people don’t want to face this conversation. What if the friendship ends, or you make someone feel so uncomfortable they start to pity you. Or what if the other person feels similarly? No, that never happens. You’re just going to make things worse, right? You see where this is going? You’re going to inevitably lead to the same conclusion you’ve been dreading. Because, like it or not, while your feelings may continue to grow and strengthen, without the other person knowing it, it’s one sided. So they will continue going on their usual dating path, until they probably find someone that they like and stick with, in which case your own feelings at best, stay the same, or worse fester and turn into resentment. Soon, this friendship that you couldn’t ever get rid of by talking to them about how you feel, will soon end anyway. Except they’ll never know how you felt.

this way for a while so it might seem natural to just, like ripping off a bandaid, get it over with as quickly as possible. Do yourself a favour and show your feelings some respect; take it slow. Also, this is a conversation, not a soliloquy. It’s important to let the other person speak as well, rather than you monopolizing the conversation or, worse, making assumptions about what they are going to say. Give them a chance to speak. They may have nothing to say at first so you may have to do a majority of the talking, but always keep a dialogue open. Sometimes, they may not be able to respond to you right there and then. That’s ok as well. Give them some time.

So yes, there is something worse than not talking about it. But don’t worry, I have some advice if you actually decide to have that conversation.

As with everything I’ve written, it’s far easier said than done. For those who think I couldn’t possible know how they’re probably right. For the common occurrence that being friend-zoned is, for each individual it’s as unique as the friendship they are involved in. My advice won’t work for everyone and it may not lead to the results that I suggested. However, from my experience, I do know that inaction in relationships and dating typically yields no results, hence why I promote speaking up about things. In all honesty, things may end off badly. But at least you will walk away with the experience.

The important thing to remember is to be honest. This is not a time to equivocate. Just don’t try to come off like a person who is terrifying. This is one of those things which you approach slowly and with some delicacy, but with frankness and honesty. You’ve been feeling

Oh, and the friend you are into, they’re going to appreciate that you at least were honest with them, even if they don’t feel the same way as you do. That’s ok; they don’t have to feel the same way. But just remember that despite everything, you’re still friends first. n monday - march 12 - 2012

page 4

Fake It Or Make It: Whiskey in the Jar KYLE REES Osgoode News RJ WALLIA Staff Writer RJ: In typical Fake it or Make it tradition, we’ve decided to continue on our tradition of doing things that you, as a law student, may have the opportunity to experience in your life as a lawyer. Hopefully, one day, the senior partners will call you over for a scotch tasting (or nosing if they want to be pretentious) and now, with the knowledge bestowed to you by this article written by “experts” (not experts), you will be able to properly converse with the partners as well as fully appreciate the amazingness that is whiskey. There are a few things to note about how to appropriately appreciate a good whiskey. Whiskey is a type of liquor which, amongst other things, spends its time in a barrel to get a certain unique flavour which is, in fact, quite discernible. Whiskey, being a generic name for a type of liquor, has many varieties. There’s Scotch, Rye, Canadian, Bourbon, Irish, Blended Scotch, Single Malt Scotch, Sour Mash, and the list go on. Each of these different types can tell us enough about the whiskey so we know exactly what we can expect from what we are drinking. Honestly, there are a ton of websites who will be more than happy to tell you what you should be tasting from each different brand or type; you can read all about the different earthy and fruity flavours you should be able to find. If you read these, and openly start laughing, you’re not alone. We couldn’t properly sit through a description as I tried to explain it to the group. Here’s what you should be looking for. Typically, your first experience will be the smokiness of different types of whiskey’s. Also, a very earthy and woodsy taste and smell, coming primarily from the barrel it was aged in. Also, you will be able to get some spices and other flavours, usually vanilla and things of that nature. Some scotches will have a peaty taste to them whereas certain bourbons will taste harsh but almost sweet. Essentially, there are a variety of flavours going on and depending on how refined your palette is, you may be able to discern many or none at all. The way to best enjoy any type of whiskey, particularly in a tasting, is similar to wine. Basically, hold it up and smell it and see what you can get from there. Unlike wine, there is no swirling required. Simply take a sip, try to leave it on your tongue for a while, and then swallow. The flavours that are inherent to the whiskey are activated by heat. Hence, your mouth basically brings the flavour out and can give you the aftertaste and remnants of the whiskey in order for you to experience all that is going on. You monday - march 12 - 2012

“At the end of the day, it was Jen’s boyfriend Jeff who was the whiskey tasting champion, correctly guessing all 4 flavours. We have a photo of him holding the half-empty bottles as though they are his own children.” (see above) may have seen some people at whiskey tastings rubbing a bit of the liquor into their palm and sniffing it. This is another example of body heat activating the flavours. Though, who wouldn’t rather drink it than marinate in it? With all this, we decided to continue on with our quest to taste whiskey and see if we could show you we knew what we were talking about. Unlike our vodka tasting, we don’t have a vested interest in the result. So, with that, I pass it over to Kyle to talk about the day. Kyle: So with RJ’s expertise in all things liquor in mind, we set out to do a blind tasting of four very different kinds of whiskey. We chose ones that would likely present the greatest contrast: Glenfiddich, Johnny Walker Black Label, Jameson, and Jack Daniel’s. In order to give people an idea of what they should be tasting for, I gathered a description of the flavours off the respective brewer’s websites, and brought a print-out to the tasting. That way, people could look for the ‘pear-like aroma’ of the Jameson, and the ‘burnt earth’ flavour of the Johnny Walker. So the process worked like this: everyone got a shot glass full of one kind of whiskey, and only I knew which one everyone had (which meant that I couldn’t participate in the blind guessing, but oh well). Everyone would stand around and sip (or in the case of some of the harsher ones, shoot) their shot, and talk about what they could taste, what they couldn’t, and what they thought they were drinking. When that was done, they would record their guesses for that round on the

whiteboard in the Owl’s Nest. It turns out that, unlike the vodka tasting we did last year, people are pretty good at guessing which kind of whiskey they are drinking based on the descriptions. With the exception of some confusion between Jameson and Glenfiddich, most drinkers were able to identify which beverage was in their glass. It was actually funny to watch the wave of revulsion that passed over everyone’s face when they tipped back their shot of Jack Daniel’s. It was a look that said “Ah, this brings back memories of not being able to remember anything”. I’ve included a photo montage of such faces, because words cannot do it justice. At the end of the day, it was Jen’s boyfriend Jeff who was the whiskey tasting champion, correctly guessing all 4 flavours. We have a photo of him holding the half-empty bottles as though they are his own children. So the conclusion we can draw about scotch and whiskey drinking is the following: like most things, it’s all about finding your personal preferences. The price and reviews of whiskey connoisseurs are not indicative of what you will enjoy. For me personally, I am not a fan of scotch (I understand that such an opinion may result in the revocation of my ‘man card’, but I stand by it), though I was surprised how much I enjoyed Jameson, though I was equally revolted by the others. Don Draper would be disappointed, no doubt. n the OBITERdicta

page 5

The Unreasonable Man Talks About Parliament (sort of) TRAVIS WEAGENT Staff Writer

to unanimously approve a bill’s First Reading, so that it can be debated.

They say (whoever they are) that there are two things no one should ever see being made: sausages and laws. I disagree. While I have never investigated the manufacture of sausages, I did write a column just a short while ago instructing the Osgoode community on how to make haggis, which is, as far as I can tell, equally disturbing (and equally delicious). Perhaps it’s a process best kept secret. But not everyone eats sausages.

The House then debates the substance of the bill, and votes again. This is the Second Reading. Then the House sends the bill to a Committee for consideration. This committee scours the bill clause-by-clause for conflicts with other law and makes adjustments to wording. The committee “reports” the bill, as amended, to the House. The House then votes on whether to agree with the committee’s changes. The Third Reading follows. If the House approves the bill at Third Reading, it passes to the Senate for consideration, where the entire process happens again (albeit much more quickly, since Senators rarely dare to defeat legislation from the elected House).

On the other hand, everyone’s stuck following laws, and we’re all going to be stuck applying them, so it can’t hurt to know how they’re made in some level of detail. Those who spend time with me know that I incessantly make reference to Parliament and its workings, and it informs the way that I view the law. I’m certain that there are others out there who do the same thing, while the rest of the world is fresh out of shits to give about Parliamentary procedure, and rightly so. The average Canadian layperson gets everything they need to know from their high school Civics course. (Disclaimer: if everything you know about how bills become laws comes from Schoolhouse Rock, please be advised that most of what you know about how bills become laws is wrong. The despondent singing bill in the animated segment is American.) But, as we are repeatedly reminded, the readership of this newspaper does not consist of laypeople. Law students and lawyers require a more thorough understanding of the Parliamentary process, especially given their recent proclivity for making pronouncements on my behalf regarding current legislation. So here’s a couple things you might not know about how MPs make the rules that make us money. It takes a really long time Each general election forms a new Parliament (we’re on the 41st). Each Parliament is divided into sessions. The Governor General decides when sessions begin and end, though in practice s/he does so on the advice of the Prime Minister. Each session begins with no bills on the table, at which time the government and other MPs and Senators introduce a number of items for consideration. In the current session, the government has introduced 31 bills in the House of Commons, representing its legislative priorities. Before it can pass the House of Commons, a bill must be approved by majority vote four times. Historically, in the British House of Commons, there was a time when bills could not be Xeroxed for all MPs, so the Speaker of the House would read them aloud, giving rise to current terminology: most votes on bills are called “readings”. It is customary for the House the OBITERdicta

The entire process can take months. For example, the government tabled Bill C-10 on September 20, 2011. It passed the House on December 5. Because of Parliament’s winter break, the Senate did not adopt Bill C-10 until March 1, and it did so after making amendments, which the House will have to adopt all over again for the bill to go to the Governor General for Royal Assent. In other words, Legal and Lit took their sweet time putting together a statement about Bill C-10, and now the only reason it’s going to be released before the bill comes to a final vote is because of some uppity Senators. Think about that. There’s a whole bunch of rules about how to make rules Parliament operates, in many ways, like a court. The Speaker presides over sittings, and performs the functions of a judge. The Speaker rules on disputes over procedure and practice, and can discipline members for breaches of decorum. When making his rulings, the Speaker often refers to rulings of past Speakers. The House and Senate are also responsible for making their own rules of procedure. The House’s rules are called the Standing Orders, and they contain instructions about when the House sits, what it can consider, and who can speak. These rules deal with, among other things, how many different things a particular bill can address. The Standing Orders restrict a bill to one general topic. However, this rule has been construed broadly. Case in point: you guessed it, Bill C-10. Weighing in at 112 pages, the current version of the Safe Streets and Communities Act is rather hefty. The bill’s full title alone is a mouthful: An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and

Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts. The bill generally pertains to public safety, but incorporates nine bills from the previous Parliament into one gargantuan “omnibus bill”. Some time ago, Stephanie Marple graced these pages with a very fair assessment of each part of Bill C-10. If you’re an average Canadian, certain parts probably bothered you more than others or interested you less than others. Unfortunately, mashing all those different ideas into one bill forces Canadians into one of two choices: accepting measures they don’t like because they support other parts of the bill, or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The government is using Parliamentary procedure to say that anyone for or against Bill C-10 is either for or against “safe streets”, a lazy talking point straight from the keyboard of some young, wide-eyed staffer. If you want to be angry about Bill C-10, be angry about that. As far as I can tell, coming down for or against the entirety of Bill C-10 because of its contents is just playing the government’s game. Of course, dear reader, I’m sure you’ve realized by now that this column was not entirely about educating my colleagues in matters of Parliamentary procedure, but was also a jab at Legal and Lit’s well-meaning attempt to put words in my mouth. Crime policy is a partisan issue, and the government of the day is entitled to use Parliament as they wish to pass legislation. Abusing the procedures of that institution as a means to force Canadians to have a simple opinion about a complex issue goes beyond partisanship. I strongly suspect that such attempted manipulation would garner a much greater show of unanimity, if one were inclined to compile a petition about it. Incidentally, two such petitions were tabled in the House on November 29 of last year. Perhaps Legal and Lit could pick up the pace next time. But that’s just me, and what the hell do I know? n

Scotia Professional Plan You have unique needs and goals. I can help you. • • • •

Law/MBA: $110,000; Law: $100,000 Free bank account and free gold Visa card No interest paid monthly Same interest rate after graduating Simon Kang Business Account Manager, Professional & Franchise Banking

CenterPoint Mall – 6416 Yonge Street, North York, Ontario M2M 3X4 Direct: (416) 590-7939 ext. 4300 Fax: (416) 590-7490 E-mail:

monday - march 12 - 2012

page 6

Sex Survey: The Results Are In JO DELL Co-Editor in Bringing Sexy Back You raunchy, sex-deprived, perverted students, you. In February, we asked Osgoode to participate in the Obiter’s annual sex survey. You did not disappoint. We had a total of 170 responses and for some inexplicable reason 90 of you decided to start the survey and then not complete it. Kudos. There’s some joke about commitment here, but I don’t care enough to think it through. Let’s just cut to the chase, eh? We asked you about penis size. Cliché? Appropriate? Overdone? Whatever. Some sample answers: Does Penis Size Matter? “What about clitoris size? Or areola size? Or sphincter for that matter... Please don’t tell me that this is some kind of cock-focused survey that starts out seeming really ‘diverse’ by giving me a trans option in the first question... sigh...” Bang on

person. Bang on. Hope you read the rest of the survey and realized we weren’t totally penisobsessed (just a little penis-obsessed).

“When someone mistakes it for a snake and tries suck the venom out of it, you know its just the right size.” RIGHT? “Yes. Almost as much as vagina size.”

Slow clap, friend.

Slow clap.

“Let the record reflect that I am well endowed.” Oh,


The overall response: yes, with caveats of all shapes and sizes. Yawn. *** Next: apparently this building is full of glass, brick and seminal fluid. BOOYAH. That’s actually a huge lie. When asked if any of you had had a ‘sexual tryst’ here in the IKB most of you were quick to rhyme off where you would, but the vast majority had strong reservations about actually following through with those fantasies. Fair says I. I did write a column last year about PDF (public displays of fucking), but I in no way, shape or form advocate that around these parts. Some sample answers: Is there anywhere in Osgoode where you have had a sexual tryst? “In the XX row of the stacks”

“MDC, it would be nice to get screwed in there in a way unrelated to the price of books.” “Does it count as a tryst if you’re alone?” “I have to watch enough SNAIL PDAs as it is, don’t

monday - march 12 - 2012

encourage law students to get in on the act.” “What kind of question is this!? I am a lawabiding citizen. Why else would I be a lawyer?”

*** The femme flower. The petals of womanhood. The squit-tastic jizz gobbler!! The vagina is something a bit elusive to women and men alike (and of course, as some of you indicated, gay men have zero interest in ever figuring it out. Touché). In any case, there is nothing, nothing that proves our collective miseducation better than asking folks where the Gräfenberg Spot is. I think these answers speak for themselves: Where is the female g-spot located? Female answers:

“In a magical land of fairies, leprechauns and unicorns. I’m pretty sure it’s the pot of gold at the end of the double rainbow.” “I’m only concerned with the male G spot.” “Good question...when you find out, please print the answer in the Obiter.”

original question -we actually toned that shit down! The most common response to this was a mixture of “ “?????” “Eeeewwww, gross.” “WTF” For those of who did answer, McLachlin was the resounding winner, which means y’all are either into the POWER of the CJC or into neoconservative sex or both. Meh, whatever floats your boat. Other answers included: “Binnie. He’s got some strong dissents.” “You just ruined a word that I have to use for the rest of my professional life.” “I’ve heard that Justice ‘Learned Hand’ knows what he’s doing...” “Justice Fish. He’s all ratio! I hope I get called to his bar! Robes before Hoes!” “Madam Justice Marie Deschamps, but she looks like she’s in to CrossFit, so then it would be (for my own safety) Madam Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella.”

“I don’t care.” “Up and to the left? I’m a girl and have no clue.”

Male answers: “Near the H-spot. Far away from the W-spot.” “Deep in the darkest depths of the mines of Moria. Watch out for trolls who say it cannot be found.” “Where else...the elbow.” “It doesn’t matter exactly where - I just know it’s somewhere between my finger when it’s straight and my finger when it’s curled.” “I’ve heard it’s on Feminist Friday.” “I’m sure its somewhere, but not my problem... Maybe that’s why my relationships don’t last and I’ve been blaming law school these past 3yrs.”

To the last dude: yah, that’s likely why your relationships don’t last. That and the fact that you’re likely a giant wiener (not the good kind either). Just a hunch. *** The next question brought out the prudes in a lot of you: Which Supreme Court judge would you let dissent on you? Com’on! You know that’s not even the

You guys brought your A game when we asked: What should be the official position of the legal profession? the OBITERdicta

page 7

n (and Out and In and Out ...) I have no witty commentary to add to the below: “The Bay Street Special: where you masturbate alone in your office crying.” “Missionary. The whole profession is lacking imagination.” “Doggy style, because, like the legal profession, from some angles it could look like we are totally screwing you in the ass, but really, we’re just helping you out.” :...asleep facedown in a textbook with highlighter in hand?” “Tortious Twister (it against the law yet).”



“It doesn’t matter as long as someone is getting screwed.”

“Professor Forbes. He gets right down to business - none of the “theory” and annoying discussions, he just explains it straight up, tells us what we have to do, then he leaves!” “Mandel. But he would come equipped with plenty of charts and discuss theoretical concepts about the elements of sex. What is the Mens Rea of Doggy Style?” “Professor Pilkington - can you imagine the amount of slides she could generate on this topic.” “Whoever made this survey because they’re a huge horn dog talking about 60+ year old judges”

your sexual

Yah, tell us. We’re nosy editors. We spend hours down in the basement of Osgoode and don’t get out much. We live vicariously through YOU. Hahahah! Kidding. Anyways, the two winners: doggy style and girl on top. Don’t know what that says about all of us, but I’m pleased as punch that the top answer wasn’t missionary. Some others: “It’s been so long I don’t even know anymore”

“Tied to the four corners of my bed, and banged senseless.” “Anything involving clown make-up, Thousand Island dressing and an air canister.”

Being a school and all, we asked you what lovely, capable (hot?) prof you’d could see teaching us all about the p in the v, the p in the b and the birds and the bees. This was absolutely, hundo-p the most ridiculous of all the answers we received. They were straight up narsty. Clearly, with exams looming y’all have built up some sexual tension. Stellar. Here are some of the more PG answers: If sex-ed was taught at Osgoode, who would teach it and why?

“Ben Berger, because he’d tell us what ‘tastes like a B’” “McCamus, revolution.”


the OBITERdicta





No. It’s their own business: 30% To a certain extent. If they’ve been with more people than I can count on my fingers and toes I might be bothered by it: 58% Yes. It’s very important for me to know: 12%

Have you ever lied to a partner about being tested for STIs? No - I am always completely honest about my current testing status: 84% Yes - I may have bent the truth to get the deal done occasionally: 6% I’ve never lied about it, but may have avoided disclosure: 10%

What do you think premature ejaculation?




*** What’s favourite position?

Does the number of people a potential sexual partner has slept with matter to you?

1 min or less: 21% 3 mins or less: 43% Anything less than 5 minutes: 36%


1 min or less: 25% 3 mins or less: 25% Anything less than 5 minutes: 50%

Transgender: 3 mins or less: 100% How much relationship history do you think should be disclosed to a new partner?

Everything. Total honesty is necessary when starting a new relationship: 15% Only what you feel comfortable sharing: 76% Nothing. Old flames & flings can only come back to haunt you: 9%

Have you ever had more than a twosome?

“It usually changes every 10 minutes, it’s hard to say.”

Yes: 23% No: 40% Never had, but would like to try! 37%

“Crouching tiger hidden penis”

Would you ever watch porn with your partner?

Well, Osgoode, give yourself a pat on the back – we’re not as boring as we many of the outside world would have assumed! I should probably end this with some sort of sexual/law school pun, but I think that skit in Mock Trial ruined those for at least the next six months. Below are some of the stats from the survey. Till next February! Do you believe in love at first sight?

Yes: 29% No: 48% Not sure, but if it happened to Romeo and Juliet, I guess it could happen to me: 23%

No – porn has no place in my bedroom: 10% Maybe...if the mood struck: 31% Hell yes! And maybe even act it out afterwards! 45% We don’t watch porn – we make it: 13%

Have you ever had sexual interactions with someone who was in a relationship?

Yes: 48% No: 43% Yes – but I didn’t know they were at the time: 9%

 monday - march 12 - 2012

page 8 Continued from previous page. What do you prefer when it comes to hair below the belt? Female: Just as natured intended it: 25% Bare – or at least barely there: 45% A landing strip: 30%

Male answers:

Just as natured intended it: 12% Bare – or at least barely there: 53% A landing strip: 35%


Just as natured intended it: 0% Bare – or at least barely there: 100% A landing strip: 0%

Whose responsibility is it to provide birth control? Female: The person initiating sex: 5% The person who could get pregnant: 3% Both partners: 92%


The person initiating sex: 9% The person who could get pregnant: 15% Both partners: 75%


The person initiating sex: 0% The person who could get pregnant: 0% Both partners: 100%

Are you in love right now?

Yes, and I’m so happy: 49% Yes, but the other person has no idea: 7% No, but I’m cool with it: 32% No. FML. 12% n

Top Places to Have Sex at Osgoode ANONYMOUS Contributor

broom closets so you can get two fantasies out of the way in one go.

So a lot of people have been asking themselves “what is the best place to have sex at Osgoode”? Or, well, maybe nobody has, but they likely are after having read the title of this article or the sex survey. Here is a list of the top places to have sex at Osgoode:

Disadvantages: Glass on all the doors, other than the broom closets, no locks on those.

(1) Unisex washroom on the main floor (aka room number 1501) Advantages: Right in the middle of Osgoode while still offering a large space with locking door. Nobody thinks they can use it so it is relatively clean, you know, for a washroom. Disadvantages: No leverage. BYOB (Bring your own blanket) (2)The Law Journal office: “If the light is on and you can’t see anyone, people are gettin’ it on!” Advantages:Although it has glass on the door like most offices, the line of sight is such that you can stay out of it while being in the office.

(4)3rd floor corridors above the moot court Advantages: Relive all of those mock trial days. Nobody ever goes there. Disadvantages: All of the junk left behind by years of mock trials. The women’s caucus office judges you... (5)Stairway behind the Goodmans Caf Advantages: Nobody uses the stairways, partially because they don’t have door handles (is that safe?). If you can get inside, you can get some much needed privacy on campus. Disadvantages: Other people can get inside also. Very dusty, bring your own swiffer. (6)Osgoode Room 1006: Back half of the Moot court.

Disadvantages: Many people have the key. You have to be a member of the law journal to get a key.

Advantages: When the partition is up it is quite isolated having no windows. Carpeting is nice as compared to most others listed. It is known for being suspiciously unlocked.

(3)ADR rooms

Disadvantages: People try to study in there sometimes.

Advantages:Nobody thinks that the ADR rooms are open so people don’t go there. Also, it has

(7)Staff only basement room (room 040 as well as 0007E and 0007B) Advantages: The only bar is the staff only sign, there is no lock. There is a shower in the men’s washroom for post-coitus clean up. Also tiny hiding holes which can also be explored. Disadvantages: No lock on the door, easy for others to get in also (8)The Owl’s Nest Advantages: The Osgoode Chambers common room has a lot of advantages like a locked door, a full bathroom with shower, couches and even a fridge. Heating is a plus. This means it makes the list even though it is not technically in Osgoode. Disadvantages: One of you has to live in residence to get a key for access. Many people have access, although it is not used too often. (9)The Hart House Building Advantages: We hear an awesome building. Unlike the others on this list actually locked and inaccessible to students. But the conquest would be legen-----dary. Disadvantages: Likely illegal to get into. n

monday - march 12 - 2012

the OBITERdicta

page 9

Opinions Osgoode’s Love Life NICK VAN DUYVENBODE Opinion’s Editor I was planning on writing my 2nd part to my last week’s article on the curriculum reform, but with the Sex Survey issue I thought I’d shelve that for another week and have something a little more interesting. I think like many people, I’ll eagerly flip to the Love and Sex survey at page 6 to get the dirty (pun intended), on what’s going on in this school. I enjoy the annual Obiter survey as it speaks to my current impressions vs. my prelaw school impressions of the personal side of being in law school. When entering law school, I was warned of its intensity and propensity to drive pre-law school couples apart and drive those mooting, factum and case comments partners into the arms of each other. I wasn’t too worried this was going to happen to me, though I did have the alluring Dave Shellnutt as my case comment partner in S&C! But kidding aside, I did have morbid curiosity similar to that of watching a car wreck, to see how the whole hooking-up and dating in law school thing would play out in the general Osgoode crowd. While there have been hook-ups, new relationships, and legendary ugly bar spats, overall, I feel it’s been a pretty quiet three years. Some people may disagree with me on that. Very important qualification: I say this, compared to my undergraduate days of long ago. Oh, now, those were the days of real scandal. I don’t think we’re a particularly tame group; rather I think we’re highly protective of our personal lives and reputation which may affect our future legal career. Did law school teach us this quality? Did we just adopt it en masse at law school, or was this always part of the personality of the typically admitted student to Osgoode? The institution did chose us presumably based in part on our ability to conform to law school norms. And our mailable type A personalities undoubtedly created this further vortex of severe importance being placed upon utter discreetness, only to be interrupted by our own self-annihilating pressure release valves that rear their ugly head amidst numerous bar nights.

action in the halls of Osgoode, with plenty of people referring to the atrocious PDA action being undertaken by resident SNAILS in Osgoode. You know what I’m talking about; those leather chairs have seen plenty of action.

the freedom and acceptance of such practices. This is somewhat perplexing when you think about lawyers having spent decades challenging laws of sexual morals and norms, often uncovering discriminatory practices that are intimately connected. While we may not live the sexual revolution, lawyers are often arguably the instruments of societal and political desire to challenge outmoded self-regulating ideas concerning sex and love.

What I haven’t seen are many couples that have sustained an open and healthy presence of a relationship while at Osgoode. It’s hard to pin point exactly what this means, but I think generally people would have a hard time to count more than 5 couples they know at Osgoode,that have an open (read non-secretive) functioning relationship. We’re generally far more attuned to secret undercover relationship operations and secret hook-ups.

When it comes to our own backyard, I’d be interested in seeing sex and love being more reflected at Osgoode, as a challenging progressive presence. I would stagger a guess we’d be a lot happier if we lowered our expectations of the perceived “high stakes” game that we associate with our own sex and love lives. However, it will take a lot of people to start moving towards a “no one cares”, let’s be open and honest policy, to really start seeing a cultural shift at Osgoode.

While sounding perhaps highly unhealthy, this structure of very, very low key relationships and sexual interactions doesn’t really create a very progressive community. Because of the fear of reputation being imputed, we spend far too much time hiding rather than celebrating the relationships that are formed at law school and are part of our beings as professional, albeit not dead, students of law. Further, the repeat cycle of secret one night stands doesn’t exactly embody sexually liberated individuals in the sense that we still view these as threats to our identity, and it surely doesn’t flow into very respectful discussion amongst students about

I don’t expect or want a litany of PDA, or kiss-ins, or anything more scandalous; however, it would be a refreshing feeling to actually see that Osgoode had a little more romance in its step, and of course, a little more acknowledgment to being free to openly live out our own sex and love lives. n

advance with confidence Share our vision of what’s possible. At Gowlings, we help make your ambitions your realities. You’ll know where you’re going, and you’ll have the resources to get there ahead of the pack. To learn more about our student program, go to

expect teamwork resources flexibility expect mentoring respect growth





waterloo region





There’s also plenty of distain for any PDA the OBITERdicta

monday - march 12 - 2012

page 10

The Goods on Bill C-11: The Reintroduction of the Copyright Modernization Act (Part 2) MARTIN HUI Contributor This is the second section of a two part article, split over two editions of the Obiter Dicta. I have aimed to impartially analyze some of the more contentious provisions of Bill C-11, focussing on arguments made by two “camps” – content owners (companies and individuals) and consumers. The views of these groups may overlap (individuals creating content inevitably consume content) and there are no doubt many more stakeholders at play. On September 29, 2011 the federal government reintroduced Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act, calling it “common sense legislation [that] will help protect and create jobs, promote home-grown creativity and innovation, and attract new investment to Canada.”1 It passed second reading in the House of Commons in mid-February and has now been sent to committee for Parliamentary hearings that will run until the end of March. Last week, I introduced the Bill and provided descriptions of provisions that have had near widespread approval, along with a discussion of the more contentious digital lock provisions. This week, I will discuss provisions targeting the “enablers” of copyright infringement and the changes to the statutory damages regime. I will also cover two additional amendments that some believe will be proposed during the Parliamentary hearings taking place right now (website blocking and internet termination). Provisions Already Proposed 1. TARGETING “ENABLERS” OF INFRINGEMENT – ss. 27(2.3) & s.41.26 In its current form, Bill C-11 would explicitly make it an act of infringement to provide a service that enables others to infringe copyrights. This is achieved through the creation of a new civil liability targeting those who “wilfully and knowingly enable online piracy” (the “enabler provision”).2. Canada would be one of the first countries in the world to recognize such claims. This provision would help copyright holders and the government shutdown websites that facilitate piracy. Bill C-11 also makes it clear, however, that search engines and ISPs would be exempt from such liability in their capacity as communication intermediaries. Search engines would be able to make copies of protected material if it was necessary for its technical functioning.3 While ISPs themselves would not be liable, they would be required to participate in a “notice and notice” regime to identify subscribers that infringe copyrighted materials. The content owner initiates

monday - march 12 - 2012

the process by providing the ISP with the alleged infringer’s internet protocol (IP) address. The ISP would then be required to match the IP address to their subscriber, give “notice” to that individual about the infringement claim and provide the content owner with “notice” that they had forwarded the message.4 Content Owners Industry organizations argue Canada has one of the highest peer-to-peer piracy rates in the world due in large part to the country’s reputation as a “pirate haven” with lax intellectual property laws.5 It is estimated that piracy costs creative industries billions of dollars and threatens thousands of jobs.6 Stricter laws against services that enable copyright infringement would better serve to protect their rights. Critics’ fears that the laws would hinder the development of innovative digital services are unfounded, as the courts would consider six factors in s. 27(2.4) of the Copyright Act before determining that a person had infringed copyrights. The person would need to have “expressly or implicitly” promoted the services as one that could infringe copyrights and have knowledge that the service had enabled significant infringement. Courts would consider whether the service had other legitimate uses, the person had the ability to limit infringement, and the person received any benefits flowing from the enabling of infringement. Lastly the economic viability of the operation without the enabling activities would be taken into account.7 With these factors taken together, it would be unlikely that “mainstream sites such as YouTube could be caught.”8 Some content owners argue that the “notice and notice” regime that ISPs will be required to join in not strong enough and that there are almost no consequences for the internet provider. All the major ISPs in Canada have voluntarily participated in such a system for nearly ten years, yet the growth in online piracy during this time demonstrates its ineffectiveness.9 Consumers Some critics of the legislation believe that proposed changes in Bill C-11 are unnecessary and that copyright holders have simply done a poor job of utilizing existing laws to prosecute alleged enablers of copyright infringement.10 Moreover, the creation of a civil remedy could extend to new online services that rely on usergenerated content. Given the broad judicial discretion afforded by the six factors in the enabler provision, the perceived legal risks for new digital services reduces the incentive to start-up or oper-

ate in Canada. Innovative streaming music services like Spotify or Pandora, which do not operate in this country (due in large part to the “uneconomic” licencing rates demanded by Canadian music rights societies), would have more reasons to justify their decision to stay away.11 In fact, a study by management consulting firm Booz and Co. has confirmed that in the United States, increasing potential liability for such services would have a significant negative effect on angel investment and venture capital.12 As an example, Professor Geist has illustrated13 how Viacom’s claims of copyright infringement by YouTube could satisfy the six discretionary factors (although Barry Sookman, Osgoode Hall professor, has reiterated that pleadings are not necessarily a reflection of Canadian law14). The federal government15 and consumer advocates16 have claimed that the “notice and notice” regime for ISPs currently in place is effective. The costs associated with identifying IP addresses and sending notices is significant enough to place pressure on ISPs to educate their customers about copyright infringement and assist content owners in preventing piracy. 2. STATUTORY DAMAGES – ss.38.1(1) Currently, the Copyright Act does not differentiate between commercial and non-commercial infringement. Statutory damages range from $500 to $20,000 for each work that is infringed, leading to the possibility of damage awards in the millions of dollars for individuals who illegally download digital works for personal use. Bill C-11 would reduce the liability of non-commercial infringement to $100 to $5,000 per legal proceeding, including all infringements that took place prior to the lawsuit. There would be no change to the laws related to commercial infringement.17 Content Owners Some industry organizations are unsatisfied with the distinction between commercial and non-commercial infringement, as the reduction in maximum award diminishes the economic viability of suing individual copyright infringers. It also fails to fully compensate the content owner for the harms that have occurred.18 Consumers Limiting the statutory damages to a maximum amount per legal proceeding would ensure that consumers do not face “proportionate penalties for minor infringements of copyright.”19 Others believe that the $5,000 maximum is still an overestimation of the actual damages incurred by content owners, citing settlement amounts of $1,000 to $3,000 in the

the OBITERdicta

page 11 lawsuits between Voltage Pictures and internet users in the United States that downloaded an illegal copy of “The Hurt Locker.”20 Proposed Amendments The following provisions have been touted by consumer advocates as “SOPA-like” amendments that industry associations are attempting to have added to Bill C-11.

1. nsf/eng/home 2. 3. Blakes Bulletin, Sunny Handa and Sheldon Burshtein, October 2011, Amendments to the Copyright Act: Another Attempt 4. 5. 6.

1. BLOCKING WEBSITES This provision would permit content owners to file an injunction requiring Canadian ISPs to block websites alleged to facilitate or promote piracy.21 The European Union, through Article 8(3) of the EU Copyright Directive, has already had these powers for over a decade.22 Content Owners This would be a big win for copyright holders in Canada, giving them a powerful tool in their catand-mouse fight against pirate websites. Consumers Consumer advocates argue that this could remove access to significant portions of the internet and is one step closer towards state-sponsored internet censoring.

7. 8. html 9. Geist, Why Copyright Reform Is Not the Cure for What Ails the Music Industry, Nova Scotia Music Week Keynote Address, November 5, 2011, http://www. 10. Geist, Why Copyright Reform Is Not the Cure for What Ails the Music Industry, Nova Scotia Music Week Keynote Address, November 5, 2011 http://www. 11. 12. The Impact of U.S. Internet Copyright Regulations on Early-Stage Investment: A Quantitative Study, Booz & Company Inc., 2011, San Francisco 13.

view/6264/125/ 14. 15. 16. view/5703/125/ 17. 18. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1532:bill-c11-a-backward-step-for-music-creators 19. 20. locker_lawsuit_targets_24583_bittorrent_users.html 21. C-32 Amendment Proposals, Grant Dexter, Chair, Canadian Independent Music Association, March 1, 2011 22. 23. C-32 Amendment Proposals, Grant Dexter, Chair, Canadian Independent Music Association, March 1, 2011 24. view/6275/125/ 25. Blakes Bulletin, Sunny Handa and Sheldon Burshtein, October 2011, Amendments to the Copyright Act: Another Attempt

2. TERMINATION POLICY This policy would require ISPs implement a “graduated response” to their subscribers’ infringement of copyrighted material, with the idea that internet service would be terminated after a predetermined number offenses.23 Content Owners The federal government has indicated that it is not considering this option at this time. However, if adopted, it would be a strong incentive for internet users to cease infringing on such materials. Consumers The main criticisms of this proposal are it may apply to internet users without “due process or even proof of infringement.”24 Without judicial review, terminating one’s internet access could be seen as an unduly harsh and unfair measure. The Copyright Act has not been amended in any substantial way since 1997.25 There is a clear need for reform to ensure that it reflects the changing needs of all stakeholders, both now and in the future. The debate about Bill C-11 centres around how those changes should manifest, both in form and function. I encourage the Osgoode community to take time to learn about the issues, make a personal assessment and contact your local Member of Parliament to have your voice heard. n

the OBITERdicta

At our firm, group dynamics lead to dynamic groups. On January 1, 2012, Macleod Dixon joined Norton Rose Canada creating an energy and mining powerhouse within Norton Rose Group. 2900 lawyers 43 offices 5 continents 1 vision NROR1119_obiter_dicta_2012.indd 4

monday - march 12 - 2012 12/5/2011 3:52:40 PM

page 12

The Exam-Time Library Guide Part 1 SPENCER BAILEY Contributor So, March Madness has begun, and I assure you it has nothing to do with NCAA basketball. Exam time is coming, and a big part of law school exam season is library marathons. We are lucky at Osgoode to now have a first-class library, with lots of natural light streaming in, beautiful views of the Osgoode woodlot, power outlets a-plenty, and a helpful (though controversial) limited access policy during exams to save some seats. However, I like to think of myself as a library connoisseur, and also get a strange attachment to Facebook during the exam rush. As a result, I find it helpful to move around the city and explore different libraries, especially ones where I cannot access the internet. I intend to give you an idea of some great libraries around town that you should consider checking out if you ever want a change of scenery. Scott Library - York Keele Campus Rating: 0.5 uncracked textbooks out of 4 Though the first years won’t know it, the fifth floor reading room of this behemoth was a bit of a private club for Osgoode students last year, with the password changing weekly, and students secretly inputting it when other non-law students lingered around the entrance. It would not be uncommon for the place to fill up during mid-day

breaks, making the long trek up the broken escalators or spiraling steps to this reserved space a complete waste of time. If you got a seat, you were left with a fairly good view, power selection and adequate lighting. Of course, no such space is reserved for Osgoode students anymore, and the likelihood of getting a seat in this library around exam time is very low. You would be better off snuggling up with some books between stacks than hunting around for a spot at a table, or a seat someone hasn’t “saved” for a friend with their jacket, The only real upside of Scott is its lax food policy. You can bring in food, as long as it is not classified as “messy” by the display boards around the library. I don’t know about you, but my idea of a good time is not sitting down to do some Tax reading with a Big Mac or foot-long. Unless you are a fan of an academia-gastronomy mix, this one is a pass. Bora Laskin - U of T 2 uncracked textbooks out of 4 Bora Laskin is the official library for U of T’s Law Students. It is a stone’s throw from Museum station, right off of Queen’s Park road. This building unfortunately fell victim to being built in one of the periods of human history when architecture ranged from functional to ugly. It appears to have been last renovated sometime in the 70s. Much

like Osgoode, it has a two-floor design, and though some natural light gets in, it does not reach as far into the core of the library. The number of plugs that are readily available suggests that the power system was designed at a time when few laptops existed, though there is plenty of table space. Like Osgoode, during exam times it will fill up quickly. Also, you might expect a dirty look or two when you bring out your Osgoode course pack. Of course, the big benefit from studying at Bora Laskin is that it is downtown. For all the Downtown, Annex, and St. Clair dwellers, there is nothing like having a short jaunt to get yourself to the library and down to work. As well, as long as you don’t have someone else’s password, it is wonderful to not be able to access the internet. If you do need some information for your studies, you can always turn to the plentiful law stacks around you. You might even find some resources that are not available at Osgoode, so bring some change if you would like to use the photocopier there. In short, Bora Laskin is really not a bad choice if you are downtown and want to do some studying. It is also worth mentioning that they have a great painting of Pierre Trudeau at the library’s entrance. Fine art aside though, it should not be the go-to for Osgoode students away from home, and in the coming weeks, I hope to give you a sample of some of the other more interesting places around town that will really help you get your study on. n

At Davies we measure our achievements by one simple standard: your success. If you have a record of outstanding achievement and are interested in joining our team, visit us at or contact Frances Mahil at


monday - march 12 - 2012

the OBITERdicta

Issue 19 - March 12 2012  

Issue 19 of the Obiter Dicta.