Vol 43 No 7

QUID NOVI

Vol 43 No 7 30 Nov 2021

NCDH 305 - 3644 Peel Montréal, Québec H2A 1X1

quid.law@mcgill.ca @quidnovi.mcgill

McGill University Faculty of Law Faculté de droit de l’Université McGill

43 07

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF RÉDACTRICE EN CHEF Sara Pesko ART DIRECTOR DIRECTRICE ARTISTIQUE Hanna Rioseco LAYOUT EDITOR ÉDITRICE DE MISE EN PAGE Souang Wu COPY EDITORS SECRÉTAIRES DE RÉDACTION Catherine Laperrière Kayla Maria Rolland Kim Baronet Zack Goobie COLOUMNISTS CHRONIQUEURES ET CHRONIQUEUSES Darien Bahry Me Katarina Daniels Vidish K Parikh Special thanks to Prairie Koo for designing the layout. ~ The Quid Novi is published weekly by the students of the Faculty of Law at McGill University. Production is made possible through the direct support of students.

All contents copyright © 2021 Quid Novi.

Les opinions exprimées sont propres aux auteurs et ne réflètent pas nécessairement celles de l’équipe du Quid Novi. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views of the McGill Law Students’ Association or of McGill University.

Envoyez vos commentaires ou articles avant jeudi 17h00 à quid.law@mcgill.ca.

Toute contribution doit indiquer le nom de l’auteur, son année d’étude ainsi qu’un titre et un sous -titre pour l’article. Les images doivent être soumises séparément. L’article ne sera publié qu’à la discrétion du comité de rédaction, qui basera sa décision sur la politique de rédaction disponible sur notre Facebook @quidnovi.mcgill.

1

1 QUID NOVI

CETTE SEMAINE...

INSIGHTS

COMMUNAUTÉ

4 | THE PEOPLE ARE WHAT 2 | MEET THE TEAM MAKES LAW SCHOOL A DYNAMIC EXPERIENCE Reflections on Law School and the Place of Past Experiences

4 | ENTRE DROIT À LA DIGNITÉ

Sara Pesko, Editor-in-Chief

3 | FROM THE GELBER AI, Legal Research Tools, and Why YOU Should Work at the Gelber

ET LIBERTÉ D’EXPRESSION: JUSQU’OU PEUT ALLER L’HUMOUR? Retombées de la saga Mike Ward et Jérémy Gabriel

5 | THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

6 | CONNOR MCDAVID

7 | BOURSE PAUL-ANDRÉ

Un atout maltraité

8 | TWO APPROACHES TO MERCY Justice Between Equity and Retribution

43 07

Vol 43 No 7 30 Nov 2021

EVENTS 11 | THE HONOURABLE ROSA-

LIE SILBERMAN ABELLA - A LIFE OF FIRSTS Come Celebrate the Life of Rosie!

PAUL MARTIN SR SCHOLARSHIP 2022-2023 From the Canadian Institute for Advanced Legal Studies CRÉPEAU 2022-2023 From the Canadian Institute for Advanced Legal Studies

12 | MEET THE TEAM Souang Wu, Layout Editor 13 | WGCC GCU FACULTY SCHOLARSHIP 2021 Women General Counsel Canada

1

Vol 43 ● No 7

MEET THE TEAM Sara Pesko | 4L Editor-in-Chief

Quel était ton cours préféré avant de commencer à la faculté de droit?

I don’t think I can narrow it down to one course but Bioethics, Technology and Society, and Practices of Knowledge were definitely highlights of my time at McMaster.

Was law school a dream come true or a happy accident? Do you want to be a lawyer?

I hoped that by 4L I would have the answers to some of these questions… let’s go with happy accident.

Qu’aimes-tu faire quand tu n’étudies pas ?

You’ll usually find me hanging out with friends or family in my free time. I also like wasting copious amounts of time on interior design blogs.

As-tu un quartier préféré à Montréal?

Old Montreal holds a special place in my heart.

Où aimerais-tu travailler dans cinq ans?

I’m really not sure but I hope that I’ll find myself in an environment that continues to challenge me to grow and learn each day.

QUID NOVI • 30 NOV 2021

Where are you from / where have you lived?

I was born in Belgrade, Serbia and immigrated to Sherbrooke, Québec at a young age. I’ve since spent most of my life living in Hamilton, Ontario and of course more recently, Montréal.

What drew you to the Quid?

I really liked the idea of a student-run publication that stays up to date on what is happening at the Faculty and provides all students with a platform to be heard.

Over the past few years, I have had the opportunity to read some really interesting submissions that later transpired into real-life conversations. This has put me in touch with individuals across different cohorts which likely would not have happened otherwise.

What did you do before McGill Law? I completed an Honours Bachelor of Arts and Science at McMaster University. Gone are the days when I’d be learning about quantum mechanics in the morning and Nietzsche in the afternoon.

2

FROM THE GELBER AI, Legal Research Tools, and Why YOU Should Work at the Gelber Me Katarina Daniels| Liaison Librarian

You may recall that in my last column I wrote briefly about vLex, a legal database used primarily – at least at McGill – for foreign and comparative legal research. I noted that both the CAIJ and McGill subscribed to vLex, but that our subscriptions look very different. For now, the CAIJ’s only subscription is to the Irwin Law content.

By contrast, McGill’s subscription includes their standard Canadian and US law content, case law, legislation, and doctrine from Latin America and Europe, primary law material from India, and hundreds of thousands of global secondary sources, excluding, however, the Irwin Law collection. At the end of my column, I recommended that you get in touch with my colleagues for a more complete run-through of vLex. Today, I thought I would take some time to explain why this is a particularly good idea.

Soon after my last column was published, vLex won a LegalTech Breakthrough Award for Virtual Legal Assistant of the Year. Their virtual assistant, Vincent, which I referenced in my last column, does some pretty neat things, including analysing legal documents that you have uploaded and automatically launching a search to find case law, legislation, or doctrine related to your documents. It can read a memo and highlight bad case law you’ve accidentally included. And it can do all this in multiple languages.

Tools like this are indeed changing the very nature of legal research. The role of librarians like myself will be to ensure that you, as future lawyers, know not only how to leverage these tools, but also how to identify anything the tools may be missing and to understand what biases are inherent in tools like this – essentially, teach you how to best evaluate information.

As of now, neither McGill nor the CAIJ has subscribed to Vincent. But that does not mean you should be ignoring vLex. While we are all really used to using CanLII, Lexis, and Westlaw for Canadian legal research, the reality is that vLex also has strong Canadian content. In addition, in some trendy areas of practice like privacy law, case law and legislation from other jurisdictions could be very relevant. The comprehensiveness of vLex and its ability to provide cross-jurisdictional search results is unique and could prove extremely helpful not only during your studies at the Faculty, but also later in practice. Mastering vLex now while you can use it for free is a smart move, and it will be that much easier to understand what Vincent brings to the table when you finally get access to it. I should note that at least a couple of law societies

in Canada have subscribed to vLex and Vincent, giving lawyers in those jurisdictions free access to them.

For those of you curious about testing a tool like Vincent, Casetext’s CARA works in a similar way, but for US law only. A couple of years ago, I negotiated free access to Casetext for McGill Law students and faculty. There is no institutional license; rather, you will need to set up an individual account. If you are interested in setting up a Casetext account, feel free to email me.

Come work with us!

Did all this talk about AI and legal research and databases resonate with you? Do you do a little dance every time your carefully crafted search query yields the most on-point precedents? Are you the go-to legal research guru of your class? If so, consider applying for a paid position as a Student Reference Assistant!

Deadline to apply is THIS FRIDAY, December 3rd.

For details, see the posting on MyFuture, here.

Questions ?

N’hésitez pas à nous contacter si la bibliothèque peut mieux vous soutenir dans vos études. Pour céduler des consultations, ou si vous avez des questions de référence, veuillez contacter: Sonia : sonia.smith@mcgill.ca Ana : ana.rogers-butterworth@mcgill.ca.

Nos assistant.e.s de recherche : law.library@mcgill.ca And that’s all from the Gelber!

3

Vol 43 ● No 7

THE PEOPLE ARE WHAT MAKES LAW SCHOOL A DYNAMIC EXPERIENCE Reflections on Law School and the Place of Past Experiences Vidish Parikh | 2L

This week, I was thinking back to my first week of law school and how excited I was to have the opportunity to study the law. While I couldn’t have predicted that my learning experience would start online, I was ready to try something new.

I found comfort in knowing that I would be learning about a subject I had never studied before. After a four-year degree in Economic Policy where math and statistical analysis became routine, a change of pace was all I needed.

So, rewinding to September 2020, my first thought was: “Wow, will Zoom Law School really work?” My second thought was: “Wow, everyone seems so intelligent, what am I even doing here?” I felt like I had something to prove – I needed to show I belonged within this community.

That mindset likely contributed to how intimidated I felt – and admittedly, often still feel – when speaking to my fellow peers.

I share this reflection because I believe that many of us have had these feelings to varying degrees. We see the excellence of those around us, and it leads to “imposter” syndrome which, while it can have its benefits for it pushes us to be our best selves, can also be damaging to our own self and to others.

Nevertheless, if we channel this “imposter” syndrome well and learn to embrace that it is acceptable to not know something, we will grow. Our environment gives us this opportunity and challenge: to be willing to listen to others and admit when we don’t know something. Our natural inquisitiveness is valuable.

QUID NOVI • 30 NOV 2021

The more I speak to those around me, the more I realize an important truth: the people make law school a very enriching and fulfilling experience. The diversity of backgrounds adds perspective to our studies, especially to a subject often deeply

rooted in privilege and colonialist logic. So, while whatever we studied before law school has now likely formally ended, we are not precluded from using the knowledge and toolkit we developed in our previous studies. The law implicates a range of disciplines; there is a place for Economic Analysis in the law and for every other discipline. So, past experiences of any form can be valuable to current ones, as law students, future lawyers, academics, and so on. A fundamental understanding of business and accounting principles can and will make someone a more informed tax lawyer or even business lawyer, for instance.

In the opposite vein, do not forcefully limit yourself to your past. Sometimes we are so comfortable with what we already know that we resist learning things we have never done. Take that course in art history or that chemistry elective, you will learn something that you can add to your toolkit and translate to your future work (soft skills are underrated, and no amount of substantive legal knowledge can, or will, replace your soft skills).

Above all, don’t forget why you came to law school in the first place. Go re-read your personal statement. Seriously, do it. It will help put your present in perspective. Maybe your reasons and interests have entirely changed! Perhaps they are the same! Despite what anyone says, do not pigeonhole yourself into a specialty or career just because someone tells you it is glamorous. You have something to contribute, wherever you choose to go. Be open enough to know that this might mean law-adjacent or non-law opportunities as well.

For now, be a generalist so that you can learn broadly from those around you and absorb knowledge. It is likely why you wanted to come here in the first place; to learn from others.

Entre droit à la dignité et liberté d’expression : jusqu’où peut aller l’humour?

Retombées de la saga Mike Ward et Jérémy Gabriel Mme Mey Chiali, étudiante à la Faculté de droit de l’Université McGill, en collaboration avec Me Gabrielle Champigny, résume le dénouement de la saga Mike Ward et Jérémy Gabriel, juste à temps pour répondre aux questions de vos proches durant le temps des fêtes! À lire sur le Blogue du CRL. Le Blogue du CRL du Jeune Barreau de Montréal est dédié à la diffusion de contenu juridique pour les avocates et avocats du Québec.

4

5

Vol 43 ● No 7

CONNOR McDAVID Un atout maltraité Darien Bahry| 3L

QUID NOVI • 30 NOV 2021

Cette saison, nous avons pu voir deux buts exceptionnels de la part du meilleur attaquant de la LNH. Bien évidemment, je parle de Connor McDavid, l’ancien premier choix en 2015, qui est devenu une véritable force incontrôlable dans la ligue présentement. Le centre canadien, qui joue actuellement pour les Oilers d’Edmonton, une des meilleures équipes de la LNH en ce moment, a eu une saison historique l’année passée, amassant 105 points en 56 matchs et il a continué à produire à une cadence fulgurante cette saison. En effet, McDavid a déjà récolté 32 points en 18 matchs, y compris deux buts extraordinaires. Si vous ne les avez pas déjà vus, McDavid a complétement embarrassé au moins quatre joueurs des Rangers de New York, ainsi que les Jets de Winnipeg il y a environ une semaine.

Il est de loin le joueur le plus rapide et le plus dynamique dans la ligue, avec un tir puissant, un coup de patin incroyable et un sens de hockey qui se rivalise avec celui de Wayne Gretzky. Cependant, les opinions au sujet de Connor McDavid ne font pas l’unanimité, particulièrement en ce qui concerne la façon dont il se fait traiter par les arbitres et sa manière de répondre à cette situation.

Il est bien connu dans le monde du hockey que souvent les vedettes de la ligue ne reçoivent pas les punitions qu’elles méritent. Je pense à McDavid qui se fait retenir ou trébucher chaque match, ou bien Auston Matthews et, plus tôt dans sa carrière, Sidney Crosby. La LNH n’est pas comme les autres ligues professionnelles en Amérique du Nord où les joueurs vedettes sont mieux traités. À titre d’exemple, Lebron James ou James Harden sont souvent les bénéficiaires de fautes qui ne sont pas méritées, et les quart-arrières dans la NFL sont bien protégés, à un tel point qu’il est presque devenu une faute de les frapper.

La LNH n’a pas adopté cette approche de protection de leurs joueurs vedettes.

En effet, McDavid n’est que 57e dans la LNH lorsqu’il s’agit de causer des punitions, avec seulement cinq. À l’in6

verse des autres ligues, qui favorisent et protègent leurs joueurs vedettes, l’ancien entraineur de la LNH John Tortorella a abordé la situation de Connor McDavid, dans laquelle l’attaquant canadien s’est plaint du fait qu’il méritait plus de punitions, disant que McDavid devrait se taire (shut up). D’ailleurs, Tortorella a dit que McDavid ne devrait pas en parler. Ce point de vue vient de la culture dépassée de la LNH dans laquelle les joueurs ne devraient pas s’exprimer sur des enjeux reliés au hockey ou ailleurs dans le monde, au lieu de cela les joueurs devraient se concentrer sur eux-mêmes et persévérer à travers ces problèmes.

Bien que vouloir persévérer malgré les épreuves qui nous entravent soit une attitude admirable, il faut également que les arbitres protègent ces athlètes et respectent le livre de règlements, c’està-dire donner une punition lorsqu’il y a une punition. Sinon, le livre de règlement ne sert à rien.

Par ailleurs, l’enjeu des joueurs vedettes et le traitement qu’ils reçoivent ont des impacts sur la santé des joueurs et le business de la ligue. Par exemple, McDavid a été blessé en 2019 après que Mark Giordano l’a fait trébucher et, en raison de cela, McDavid a failli rater le début de la saison suivante. Effectivement, le genou de McDavid a été brutalement blessé et la LNH a certainement dû penser à une saison sans son meilleur atout. De plus, il y a quelques années maintenant, Crosby a été la cible d’un coup à la tête qui l’a forcée à rater plusieurs matchs pendant ses meilleures années, et la LNH ne pouvait pas s’en prévaloir à des fins commerciales. Pour ces deux joueurs, ces deux blessures représentent des cas extrêmes, mais il y a chaque match une situation dans laquelle McDavid ou Crosby, ou bien un autre joueur vedette de la ligue, est la victime d’une punition potentielle ou un jeu dangereux, sans qu’il y ait une punition. Pour la santé de ces joueurs, il faut que la ligue emploie des arbitres qui distribuent les punitions sur la base

de l’existence ou non d’une punition, et non sur la base de la gestion du jeu ou d’une peur irrationnelle de favoriser un jouer aux dépens des autres. D’ailleurs, les joueurs ne veulent certainement pas perdre leurs meilleures années à cause d’une blessure qui aurait pu être empêché par un match bien arbitré. Du point de vue de la LNH, ce serait une bonne idée de veiller à ce que les joueurs soient bien protégés, puisque ces joueurs sont ses meilleurs atouts. En fait, les gens viennent souvent aux matchs pour justement voir les meilleurs joueurs, ce qui augmente la demande pour les billets, augmentant ainsi le prix des billets et les revenus de la ligue. Donc, en ce qui concerne le côté d’affaires, protéger les meilleurs joueurs a du sens.

Pourtant, il n’est pas clair pour l’instant ce que la LNH fera par rapport à cette situation troublante. McDavid, en blague, a expliqué qu’il ferait mieux de se taire sur le sujet, quoiqu’il ait raison de s’en plaindre, car le meilleur joueur de la ligue, le joueur le plus rapide et le joueur qui se fait retenir le plus souvent n’a causé aucune punition pendant les séries éliminatoires de 2021, en plus des statistiques mentionnés ci-dessus. Cependant, si on regarde dans le passé, on s’apercevra que la ligue s’est ajustée à ce genre de situation afin de remédier au problème des coups à la tête, particulièrement à l’égard de Crosby lorsqu’il avait subi une blessure à la tête qui l’avait mis à l’écart pendant longtemps. La LNH a effectivement instauré des règlements plus sévères par rapport à ce genre de placage dans le but de les éliminer de la ligue, ce qui a, en partie, fonctionner, mais il a fallu que l’ancien meilleur joueur de la lige soit blessé avant que les changements nécessaires soient faits. Néanmoins, j’ai de la misère à croire que la LNH irait aussi loin que la NBA ou la NFL afin de protéger les meilleurs joueurs. La LNH et la culture de hockey sont, après tout, assez arriérées.

Espérons qu’il ne faudra pas une autre histoire comme celle de Crosby avant que la LNH prenne la bonne décision.

7

Vol 43 ● No 7

TWO APPROACHES TO MERCY Justice Between Equity and Retribution Nicolas Kamran | 2L

The following article presents two brief, disjointed approaches to mercy within legal justice.

The first section presents Aristotle’s epieikeia as a means to marry understanding, compassion, and flexibility with legally required punishment.

The second section discusses how we may reconcile the lex talionis with mercy.

PART I – When Mercy Seasons Justice: Aristotle’s Epieikeia

QUID NOVI • 30 NOV 2021

“I was treated like I just shot the president.”1 When the State Attorney General described his conviction as a “victory for the people of California,”2 Jerry Dewayne Williams felt more like John Wilkes Booth. The summer prior, he had stolen a slice of pepperoni pizza. Under California’s “three-strikes” law, the 27-year-old would be sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

Williams’ lawyer, Arnold Jerry Dewayne Williams Lester, rightly mentioned received a 25-year sentence that his client would “be for stealing a slice of pizza. facing the same sentence (Image source) as if he’d raped a woman, molested a child or done a carjacking.”3 In prison, he even shared a cell with a murderer whose sentence was shorter than his own.4 Over time, Williams’ story garnered significant media attention. The “pizza thief” became a symbol for those seeking to illustrate how inflexible “Tough on Crime” policy may lead to shockingly excessive punishment.5 1 See Jack Leonard, “Pizza thief walks the line”, Los Angeles Times (10 February 2010), online.

2 See The Associated Press, “25 Years for a Slice of Pizza”, The New York Times (5 March 1995), online.

3 See ibid.

4 See supra note 1.

5 See Nick O’Malley, “A slice of pizza and a one-way and a one-way ticket to the big house: the three-strike law”, The Sunday Dispatch (24 May 2014), online; Matt Taibbi, “Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Shame of Three Strikes Laws”, Rolling Stone (11 April 2013), online; Phil Reeves, “Life for pizza theft enrages lawyers”, The Independent (22 October 2011), online.

8

However, Williams never served his 25-year sentence. A judge granted him lenience nearly 5 years after his conviction, invoking the interests of justice to reduce his punishment. When the statute failed to distinguish molesting a child from stealing pizza, the judge succeeded. Jerry Dewayne Williams now walks free.6 This story may be interpreted in two ways: (1) The first perspective places the judge as a merciful figure. Within the power imbalance between judge and accused, the former saw room for compassion. They refused a strict application of the law, favouring a moral understanding of the case’s merits. Williams’ disproportionately harsh punishment appealed to the judge’s sense of fairness, requiring them to reduce the sentence.

(2) The second perspective places the judge as a conduit for legal justice. If “[t]he business of penal law is to do justice,”7 a disproportionate sentence is merely unjust.

As such, correcting it is only required by the interests of justice, not by a judge’s merciful inclination. Williams owes his “second opportunity” to Common Law sentencing principles, not “the grace of God.”8 In effect, both perspectives result in Jerry Dewayne Williams leaving prison. In theory, they may be paradoxical. It is hardly obvious why mercy, and not justice, would compel a judge to impose a proportionate sentence. If anything, mercy is dangerous. Requiring a judge to distance themselves from their legal requirements may spell irresponsibility, or worse, injustice.9 It is justice, and not mercy, that requires a judge to reduce Williams’ sentence.

In his book Forgiveness and Mercy, the late Arizona State University Professor and lifelong retributivist Jeffrie G. Murphy famously conceptualized the “Mercy Paradox” like this: If we simply use the term “mercy” to refer to certain of the demands of justice (e.g., the demand for individuation), then mercy ceases to be autonomous virtue and instead becomes a part of (is reducible to a part of) justice.

It thus becomes obligatory, and all the talk about gifts, acts of grace, supererogation, and compassion becomes See supra note 1.

See David Conter, “Eagleton, Judge Posner, and Shylock v. Antonio” (1990) 35:4 McGill LJ 905 at 919.

8 See supra note 1.

9 See Jeffrie G Murphy, “Forgiveness, Mercy, and the Retributive Emotions” (1988) 7:2 Crim Just Ethics 3 at 11 [Murphy].

6 7

quite beside the point. If, on the other hand, mercy is totally different from justice and actually requires (or permits) that justice sometimes be set aside, it then counsels injustice. In short, mercy is either a vice (injustice) or redundant (a part of justice).10 Engaging with this paradox means dealing with how Aristotle conceived equity in the Rhetoric and his Nicomachean Ethics.

Aristotle’s starting point is what may be called the “universality problem”: Where a statute is universal in application, particular cases may yield unjust results.11 Williams received a grossly disproportionate sentence because the “three strikes law” failed to distinguish pizza theft from rape.

When applied to a broad array of social circumstances, a statute’s rigid requirements may fit poorly on a given case.12 This is often true for mandatory minimum sentence provisions, as illustrated by Williams or by Curtis Wilkerson, a man still serving a life sentence for stealing socks.13 The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) echoed this sentiment in R v Lloyd, explaining how such provisions “will almost inevitably include an acceptable reasonable hypothetical for which [they] will be found unconstitutional.”14 Aristotle urges those with “the law on their side” to adjust their judgement to a situation’s particular facts, to avoid blindly applying the law when doing so would yield an unjust result.15 Similarly, the SCC suggested providing “judicial discretion to allow for a lesser sentence” in mandatory minimum cases.16 Whether it be Athens or Alma, avoiding unfair results requires judges to adjust their decisions to a case’s complexities. Aristotle names this correction equity, or epieikeia: When the law speaks universally, then, and a case arises on it which is not covered by the universal statement, then it is right, where the legislator fails us and has erred by oversimplicity, to correct the omission. […] And this is the nature of the equitable, a correction of law where it is defective owing to its universality.17 At a glance, Aristotle’s epieikeia has little to do with mercy or leniency. If equity allows a judge to “correct the omission” for situations falling beyond “the universal statement,” it must also justify harsher punishment.18 However, as American philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum notes, recorded Ibid at 9.

See Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, translated by WD Ross (Kitchener: Batoche Books, 1999) at 89 [Nichomachean Ethics].

12 See Malcolm Bull, On Mercy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019) at 98 [Bull].

13 See “A voice for the forsaken”, The Economist (11 June 2009), online.

14 See R v Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13 at para 35.

15 See Nicomachean Ethics, supra note 11; Andrew Brien “Mercy Within Legal Justice” (1998) 24:1 Soc Theory & Prac 83 at 90 [Brien].

16 See supra note 14 at para 36.

17 See Nichomachean Ethics, supra note 11.

18 See John Tasioulas, “Mercy” (Paper delivered at the Meeting of the Aristotelian Society of the University of London, London, 13 January 2003), (2003) 103 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 101 at 101.

10 11

legal practices in Athens show how Aristotle’s epieikeia inclines to leniency.

In effect, standard ancient Greek punishment was already as severe as possible. As such, any departure from legally required justice was lenient in comparison.

Orators frequently relied on the expression ta dikaia (“what is just”), emphasizing how written statutes Aristotle, the Ancient Greek were to be interpreted as a philosopher (Image source) mere collection of imperfect guidelines. Only equity could fulfil the law’s promise of justice. Orators systematically called for judgements tailored to a case’s complexities, assuming that bringing such elements into the open would push a judge towards leniency.19 Rooted in understanding, Aristotle explains how “[e]quity bids us to be merciful to the weakness of human nature.”20 Telling the “the whole story”21 disposes people to treat wrongdoers with “gentleness,”22 the equitable judge sees how individualizing circumstances may reduce a person’s moral blameworthiness. The equitable judge is no thoughtless rule-follower. They have the “law on their side” but choose to “take less than their share.”23 Aristotle’s epieikeia provides a useful answer to the “Mercy Paradox.” As presented in the Nicomachean Ethics, “it seems strange if the equitable, being something different from the just, is still praiseworthy.” 24 However, Aristotle explains how equity is “neither absolutely identical with, nor generically different” 25 from justice. We need not choose between justice and equity, for equity is internal to what justice demands. That said, equity is not “redundant.” It is remedial. Equity involves a “rectification of legal justice” where the latter fails due to its universality. 26 Moreover, it expects a sympathetic disposition from all those who have “the law on their side.” Aristotle builds on this point in the Rhetoric: equity “goes beyond the written law,” neutralizing the code’s defects through a “gentle” demeanour. 27 Equity does not stray from legal justice, it completes it.

Martha C Nussbaum, “Equity and Mercy” (1993) 22:2 Phil & Pub Affairs 83 at 95–6 [Nussbaum].

20 Aristotle, Rhetoric, ed by WD Ross, translated by W Rhys Roberts (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1984) at 60 [Rhetoric].

21 See ibid.

22 See Nussbaum, supra note 19 at 97.

23 See Rhetoric, supra note 20.

24 See Nicomachean Ethics, supra 11 at 88.

25 See ibid.

26 See Bull, supra note 12 at 99.

27 See Rhetoric, supra note 20 at 59.

19

9

Vol 43 ● No 7 PART II – A Measured Legacy: Lex Talionis and the Criminal Law Gjakmarrja is a form of retaliatory “honour killing” set out by the Kanun, a 15th century collection of traditional Albanian laws and social obligations. Hakmarrja, or revenge, requires the victim or their closest male relative to murder any man who deeply offends them.

Over time, blood feuds have swept up generations in a People involved in blood feuds violent cycle.28 In Albania’s sometimes hide in kullës, fortipost-communist era (1992-), fied towers in northern Albania. they have claimed some 12 (Image source) 000 lives.29 Nearly all result from land disputes.30 In 2015, a disagreement over who owned a stream in Kukës nearly resulted in the death of six men. Less than a year later, a mayor in the same city shot and killed two people over a drunken quarrel.31 Skepticism about the criminal justice system fuels gjakmarrja. A 2016 report noted how 80% of citizens having See “Country Policy and Information Note: Albania: Blood Feuds” (February 2020) at 12, online (pdf): UK Home Office <https://www. gov.uk/government/publications/albania-country-policy-and-information-notes> [Blood Feuds]; Ayse Betul Celik & Alma Shkreli, “An Analysis of Reconciliatory Mediation in Northern Albania: The Role of Customary Mediators” (2010) 62:6 Eur-Asia Studies 885 at 886. See generally Christof Heyns, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Addendum: Follow-up to country recommendations: Albania, UNHRCOR, 23rd Sess, UN Doc A/HRC/23/47/Add.4 (2013).

29 See Jack Davies, “A European gun culture deadlier than America’s”, Politico (18 January 2016), online: <www.politico.eu/article/the-european-nation-with-a-deadlier-gun-culture-than-the-us-albania/> (Gjin Marku, chairman of the Committee of Nationwide Reconciliation, estimates that 12,000 people have died in Albania’s blood feuds since 1991); Elton Smole, “Albania’s Ancient Blood Feuds Trap Entire Generations”, The Fair Observer (17 July 2020), online: <www.fairobserver.com/culture/ elton-smole-albania-blood-feuds-gjakmarrja-honor-killing-human-rightsnews-15441/> [Ancient Blood Feuds]. Contra Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board, Albania: Statistics on blood feuds; state protection and support services available to those affected by blood feuds, including whether individuals have been prosecuted for blood feud-related crimes (2010-2015), (Ottawa: Research Directorate, 2015) (According to sources, some NGOs in Albania exaggerate the number of blood feud-related victims for their own gain); Clare Richardson, “Albanian ‘Blood Feuds’ Force Families into Isolation”, Reuters (10 December 2013)- I looked for a link and this article appears to be no longer available, so it may be deleted if not fully necessary as it can no longer be referred to.

30 See Ancient Blood Feuds, supra note 29 at 16.

31 See ibid at 18.

QUID NOVI • 30 NOV 2021

28

10

committed Kanun-related crimes distrusted the courts.32 Suspecting bribery and corruption among judicial actors, some citizens see hakmarrja as justice. Violent action from wronged to wrongdoer is viscerally satisfying and procedurally simple. As one citizen noted: “The first best thing is the rule of law… But when the law fails, the Kanun is the other path.”33 Pettiness, unrestrained by the rule of law, is potentially lethal.

The Kanun’s justice meets murder with murder. It inclines towards retribution: an offense is repaid with equal punishment. In this sense, gjakmarrja conceptually mirrors the Hammurabi Code’s lex talionis: If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.34

The Hammurabi Code.

Revised in Exodus 21, the Old Testament similarly states: 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.35 Harsh justice abounds the Old Testament. Like the Kanun, Deuteronomy calls for swift and brutal retribution: 11 But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: 12 Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.

13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.36 Read literally, Old Testament justice is cruel. Obeying the law means throwing stones and slicing hands, when necessary. Righting a wrong may require merciless murder.37 In this sense, the See Republic of Albania, Committee of Nationwide Reconciliation, Statistics of 2 year expedition of reconciliation 2014-2016, (Tirana: National Assembly of Reconciliation Missionaries, 2016) at 3.

33 See Ancient Blood Feuds, supra note 29.

34 See “The Code of Hammourabi” (last visited 26 November 2021), online: Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School’s Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy 35 See The Bible (King James Version) at Exodus 21:23–5.

36 See ibid at Deuteronomy 19:12–3.

37 See ibid at Leviticus 20:10, 20:13, 22:23–24, 24:16.

32

Old Testament’s historical consequences should resemble the Kanun’s. However, they do not. The Torah’s lex talionis leaves behind a measured legacy, briefly analyzed in three points: 1) The Torah’s lex talionis prevents disproportionate punishment.

In itself, equivalence limits retaliatory acts to the original harm’s severity. Jerry Dewayne Williams faced 25 years in prison for stealing a pizza. He might have preferred the Torah to California’s Penal Code. Even if fueled by vengeance, proportionality restrains how a community responds to crime. Historically, the lex talionis replaced unchecked revenge with measured punishment.38 2) The Torah’s lex talionis excludes innocent parties. Unlike the Kanun or certain Hammurabi provisions, the Old Testament forbade all blood revenge against the wrongdoer’s innocent family and community.39 The Mishnah and Gemara’s oral traditions also reveal how Talmudic law set high evidentiary standards, tempering justice with mercy while recognizing the offender’s human dignity.40 3) The Torah’s lex talionis is metaphysical. An “eye for an eye” is more theoretical restitution than ocular mutilation. As legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart remarked in his work Punishment and Responsibility, precisely equal punishment is often impossible or fallacious. Quoting Blackstone, he remarked how “[t]here are very many crimes, that will in no shape admit of these penalties, without manifest absurdity or wickedness.

Theft cannot be punished with theft, defamation by defamation, forgery by forgery, adultery by adultery…”41 Conceptually, lex talionis’ governing purpose is the balanced pursuit of justice. It commands precise and appropriate restitution for wrongdoing, but it is no outright law. As such, money often exchanged hands to compensate for injury, even when the Torah’s literal interpretation called for the hands themselves.42 Retribution and proportionality are core penological goals in most criminal justice systems.43 The lex talionis’legacy transcends revenge.

See Morris J Fish, “An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality as a Moral Principle of Punishment” (2008) 28:1 Oxford J Leg Stud 57 at 61 [Fish]; David A Hoekema, “Punishment, the Criminal Law, and Christian Social Ethics” (1986) 5:2 Crim Just Ethics 31 at 33 [Hoekema].

39 See Fish, supra note 38.

40 See Hoekema, supra note 38; supra note 35 at Exodus 22:9, Numbers 15:32-5, Leviticus 5:1, Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15-7. See generally Maimonides, Mishneh Torah.

41 See HLA Hart, Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1968) at 161.

42 See Fish, supra note 38 at 61; David Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (New York: Ktav Publishing House Inc, 1969) at 105–107; GR Driver & John C Miles, Legal Commentary on the Babylonian Laws (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1952) at 501–2.

43 See generally Nicola Lacey, State Punishment: Political Principles and Community Values (London, UK: Routledge); RA Duff, “Retrieving Retributivism” in MD White, ed, Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011) 3. For the Canadian legislative context, see Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 718. For a SCC treatment of retribution and proportionality, see R v M (CA), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 500 at paras 77–82.

38

The Honourable Rosalie Silberman Abella – A Life of Firsts Come Celebrate the Life of Rosie!

In May 2022, the uOttawa Public Law Centre, Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, Human Rights Research and Education Centre and Advocates Society, will be holding a two-day conference to celebrate the incredible life and achievements of the Honourable Rosalie Silberman Abella. The conference, entitled A Life of Firsts, will examine her work both before and during her time on the Supreme Court of Canada.

As of now, the conference will be on line and in person at the Delta Ottawa on May 12-13, with a reception the night of May 11 and a dinner on May 12, but of course that is subject to health regulations in place next year. Alternatives will be considered if an in-person event is not possible.

Registration is open here. Tickets are also available separately for the May 12 dinner. *************

Célébrons ensemble la vie de Rosie !

En mai 2022, le Centre de droit public de l’Université d’Ottawa, l’Institut canadien d’administration de la justice, le Centre de recherche et d’éducation sur les droits de la personne et la Société des plaideurs tiendront une conférence de deux jours afin de célébrer la vie et les incroyables réalisations de l’honorable Rosalie Silberman Abella. La conférence, intitulée Une vie d’avant-garde, posera le regard sur le travail qu’elle a effectué avant et pendant son mandat à la Cour suprême du Canada.

Pour l’instant, il est prévu que la conférence se déroule en ligne et en personne à l’hôtel Delta à Ottawa les 12 et 13 mai. Une réception aura lieu le soir du 11 mai, suivie d’un souper le 12 mai.

Bien évidemment, le tout dépend des règlements sanitaires en vigueur l’année prochaine. Nous envisagerons des alternatives si un événement en personne s’avère impossible.

Vous pouvez déjà vous inscrire en cliquant sur le lien suivant. Des billets pour le souper du 12 mai sont également disponibles séparément.

11

Vol 43 ● No 7

MEET THE TEAM Souang Wu| 1L Layout Editor

Quel était ton cours préféré avant de commencer à la faculté de droit?

Mes cours préférés étaient les cours de philosophie et de biologie. On peut dire que j’aime comprendre et analyser les différentes structures de nos vies.

Was law school a dream come true or a happy accident? Do you want to be a lawyer?

Law school was both a dream come true and a happy accident since I realized I wanted to pursue a legal career only last year. I do not necessarily want to be a lawyer, but I am keeping an open mind for the moment.

Qu’aimes-tu faire quand tu n’étudies pas ?

Where are you from / where have you lived?

I was born in Montreal, but I am now living in Candiac, a city on the Southshore of Montreal.

Quand je n’étudie pas, j’aime peindre, pratiquer la photographie, cuisiner, écouter des émissions, courir, passer du bon temps avec amis et famille, et pagayer avec mon équipe de bateau dragon.

What drew you to the Quid?

As-tu un quartier préféré à Montréal?

What drew me to the Quid was its layout editing position because I wanted to learn a different set of skills while getting my mind off my studies.

Je n’ai pas de quartier préféré à Montréal, mais je dois avouer que le Plateau est très charmant.

What did you do before McGill Law?

QUID NOVI • 30 NOV 2021

I studied in Health Science at Champlain College Saint-Lambert, an anglophone cegep. I graduated in December 2020 and worked until the summer at two part-time jobs.

12

Où aimerais-tu travailler dans cinq ans?

Je ne me suis pas encore attardée sur cette question et je n’ai pas toujours pas une vision claire de ma direction. Je vais simplement profiter de chaque moment de mes études et aller où mon cœur me mène.

WGCC GCU Faculty Scholarship 2021 | Submission Guidelines WGCC Women General Counsel Canada is pleased to open the call for submissions to our annual $1000 scholarship for 1st year students enrolled in a Canadian JD or LLB programme who demonstrates leadership skills and behaviours at a Canadian University.

Scholarship Overview Name: GCU Faculty Scholarship, WGCC Women General Counsel Canada Type: Students enrolled in an LLB or JD program at a Canadian university Year: 1st year Amount: $1,000 Program Load: Full-Time General Information: 1 award of $1,000 Applicants must: 1.Be enrolled and in good standing in first year in an LLB or JD program at a Canadian university; 2.Demonstrate leadership skills and behaviour; and 3.Consent to the use of their name, educational institution, likeness and submission in WGCC and GCU communications relating to the scholarship Applying for the Scholarship: An applicant can apply for a scholarship by: 1. Preparing a letter of request essay of no more than 500 words in accordance with the guidelines set out below; 2. Attaching one to two letter(s) of reference from a former employer, volunteer coordinator, coach, and/or community member (as applicable) attesting to the leadership behaviours, as described below, exhibited by the Applicant: and 3. Attaching evidence of current registration at a Canadian university law school Deadline and How to apply: December 17th at 5 p.m. EST. Please CLICK HERE to apply.

13

Vol 43 ● No 7

Award Announcement Date: Annually at the WGCC Annual General Meeting Scholarship Paid Out: January 31 About the Donor: WGCC Women General Counsel Canada is a member-led organization established by women in general counsel and legal executive roles working together to grow, connect, and contribute. WGCC currently has over 350 members across Canada, with active chapters in British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada.

WGCC’s Mission is to help women in general counsel and legal executive roles succeed, recognizing the uniqueness of our positions, by: • • • •

WORKING TOGETHER – Championing and encouraging each other, to enhance our networks and maximize our opportunities GROWING – Inspiring and fueling our continued growth and development as authentic, courageous, and effective leaders CONNECTING – Uplifting and empowering the next generation of women in legal executive roles CONTRIBUTING – Building and advocating for a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive society, including within the in-house legal community.

WGCC created GCU (General Counsel University) as a leadership learning program to enhance the executive performance of women general co unsel and legal executives. Its course curriculum is based on the critical competencies and leadership skills/behaviours required by high-performing general counsel to enhance their C-suite contribution and advance the business.

WGCC set up this scholarship in recognition of the contribution of its Faculty to GCU.

QUID NOVI • 30 NOV 2021

Essay Guidelines

14

•

Applicants must submit with their application a personal essay demonstrating their leadership skills and behaviours of ‘driving results’ to enhance the success of women: 1. how they have overcome tough circumstances or setbacks to achieve great results; or 2. how, while working on a team, they championed women to achieve great results together despite obstacles or challenges,

•

“Driving results” means having a track record of setting and achieving high goals; pursuing everything with energy and drive; being tenacious and resourceful when confronted with obstacles; setting priorities and pushing self and others to achieve success.

15