Issuu

QUID NOVI

Vol 44 No 4 1 Nov 2022

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

44 4

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF RÉDACTEUR EN CHEF Zack Goobie ART DIRECTOR DIRECTRICE ARTISTIQUE Hanna Rioseco LAYOUT EDITOR ÉDITEUR DE MISE EN PAGE Ezequiel Indriago Perez COPY EDITORS SECRÉTAIRES DE RÉDACTION Roxanda Mirzac Marie-Eve Ouellet Thomas Power COLUMNISTS CHRONIQUEURES ET CHRONIQUEUSES Darien Bahry, Meg Beattie, Kanil Chaoui, Pablo Mhanna-Sandoval, Alanna Molzahn, Marc-Elder Piard CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE COLLABORATEURS ET COLLABORATRICES Nicolas Kamran, Misty Meanor, Béatrice M. Rutayisire, Adam Waitzer 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 © 2022 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.

QUID NOVI

CETTE SEMAINE...

44 4

Vol 44 No 4 1 Nov 2022

INSIGHTS

COMMUNAUTÉ

2 | FROM THE GELBER

8 | BLAST(S) FROM THE PAST 9 | INTERNATIONAL CLERK-

3 | MEET THE TEAM Darien Bahry, Columnist

11 | THE OPIUM OF THE ELITES Deconstructing MedLaw

Witchcraft and the Law!

4 | WHO CLEANS UP AFTER

DINNER? The Supreme Court of Canada decides

5 | FULFILING YOUR SPORTS

CRAVING WITHOUT BREAKING THE BANK

Dean Lecky & MedLaw

14 | WHICH ICONIC 1L CASE

ARE YOU?

EVENTS SHIP 2023-2024 McGill Center for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism

10 | CONCOURS DE RÉDACTION POUR LES ÉDUIANTS EN DROIT L’Institut d’insolvabilite du Canada

16 | MISTY FOR YOU:

STUDENTS ARE FRIENDS, NOT FOOD

5 | UNE ÉQUIPE DE LA NBA À MONTRÉAL, EST-CE TROP DEMANDER? 6 | THE VOICE HEARD 7 | COINCÉ À L’ANGLE DES RUES PARALLÈLES 7 | FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

ON THE RISING PRICE OF GROCERIES

13 | LE PREMIER ÉCHEC DE LA COUPE LONGUEUIL La performance de Quinn Ewers contre Oklahoma State et ce qu’on pourra tous en tirer

Vol 44 ● No 4

FROM THE GELBER Witchcraft and the Law!

Béatrice M. Rutayisire | 3L

Hello McGill law students! As you know, it’s now “spooky season”, and to partake in the festivities, the Nahum Gelber library has set up a new exhibit that might pique your interest: Witchcraft and the law! Inspired by a paper written by a former student Reference Assistant, the exhibit features an exposition of different texts and writings dating back as early as the 16th century to demonstrate how witches have been conceptualized and regulated within the British empire. You will likely not be surprised to learn that while witchcraft has at times been a source of bemusement and wonder, it has also been the basis for false allegations and persecutions of those deemed deviant, particularly women. To highlight this history, the exhibit features books and newspaper articles from throughout the years to track its appearance and withdrawal from the law. Below are just a few tidbits that await… Women, Witchcraft and the Patriarchy

QUID NOVI • 1 NOV 2022

One of the earliest pieces of writing on the subject was the [wait for it] “Disputatio perjucunda, qua anonymus probare nititur, mulieres homines non esse: Cui opposita est Simonis Gedicci Defensio sexus muliebris, quâ singula anonymi argumenta, distinctis thesibus proposita, viriliter enervantur.” The English translation of the book title is “A Paradox on Women, Wherein it is Sought to Prove That They Do Not Belong to the Human Species”, which is a text attributed to Valen Acidalius who lived from 1567 and 1595. Acidalius, also known as Valtin Havekenthal, was a German critic and poet, known for publishing controversial poetry and texts. The essential premise was that if Jesus and the Holy Spirit were not divine as some claimed, then by the same logic, women were not human (it doesn’t make sense to me either, I’m just the messenger). It is reported that the text was meant to be a satire of Socinianism – a sect of Christianity that held a number of heretical beliefs according to the Catholic church – however, its intention did not seem to land well. Rather than taking it for the absurd premise that it was, it was instead “used as a serious text to pour ridicule on women” and contributed to their persecution as witches in the coming centuries. Though the treatise has been mass produced due to its historical and cultural significance, there are few rare copies of the book in existence. Our exhibit features a 1644 Latin edition held by the Rare Books collection for your viewing pleasure. 2

Speaking of persecuted women, have you heard of La Corriveau? Many might know of the Salem Witch Trials in modern-day Oregon; however, the Canadian history of witchcraft is less well documented, so witch tales are few and far between. For non-Quebecois readers, La Corriveau is a Quebec folkloric tale about a woman named Marie-Josephte Corriveau who lived in New France from 1733 to 1763. She is alleged to have had multiple husbands, killing each one of them in gruesome ways, until she was condemned and sentenced to death by a British martial court. Legends have inflated the figure to up to five or six husbands, but realistically, it might have only been two and it is not confirmed that she was responsible for either of their deaths. Unfortunately, after her trial, she was ultimately hung in a horrific cagelike structure and left hanging for a couple of weeks so that her execution would serve as an example to passersby. Nearly a century later, the cage was rediscovered with a few bones still intact, sparking a multitude of literary works, plays, films, and art portraying her fate. Despite the inconsistencies surrounding Marie-Josephte Corriveau as a historical figure, La Corriveau, the legend, has been depicted as a range of characters, including an evil spirit, an antihero, a feminist symbol, and a wrongly accused innocent woman. So impressive was the injustice, that in 1990, the Young Barristers Association of Montreal put on a mock appeal for Marie-Josepthe Corriveau, using two practicing lawyers to advance arguments for the prosecution and defense based on the common law as it stood in 1763. A panel of judges unanimously overturned the conviction, finding that it was based entirely on circumstantial evidence that did not meet the burden of proof. To learn more about the story, you’ll find newspaper clippings detailing the case and its outcome in the exhibit amongst the old books. Is witchcraft even legal? Finally, you may or may not have known that at one point not so long ago, the Criminal Code included a witchcraft provision that was only repealed in 2018. Like many older Canadian laws, the law surrounding witchcraft was inherited from the British common law. Though the prohibition on witchcraft was legislated into the Criminal Code in 1892, it had already been incorporated into the Canadian common law by a judge a few years earlier in the 1890 case of R v Milford, [1890] OJ No 43, 20 OR 306.

Although by this point, most British society did not believe in witchcraft as their forefathers did, the provision was included to prohibit pretending to use witchcraft, and then after a 1953 amendment, was modified to prohibit fraudulently claiming to practice witchcraft. Though the initial concern was about preventing evil practices, with time, it shifted to limiting fraudulent behaviour that hid behind the façade of mysticism like fortune telling, palm reading, etc. Though it did not get much use throughout the years, there have been recent cases invoking the witchcraft provision within the 21st century, and we’ve included a few clippings in the exhibit for your amusement. Ultimately, it was being operationalized to address harms that could just as easily have been considered regular fraud. Accordingly, in 2018, the provision was finally revoked, putting an end to the era of criminalized witchcraft. These are just a few of the themes canvassed in this month’s exhibit, so I encourage you to pass by one of these days and check it out for more! If any of the topics interest you further, there are also books set aside for you to learn more on the subject. Happy reading!

MEET THE TEAM Columnist

Darien Bahry|4L

Where are you from / where have you lived? I am from Edmonton, Alberta, and have lived in Montréal for the past 3 and a half years. I also spent some time in Ottawa and Trois-Pistoles. What drew you to the Quid? The opportunity to write about sports and engage in faculty life as a 1L was very enticing, but as I went along, it was the conversations at coffeehouse in 1L with other students who had read my articles on McDavid or the Oilers that really pushed me to stay. What did you do before McGill Law? I studied history at the best university in Canada: the University of Alberta. Quel était ton cours préféré avant de commencer à la faculté de droit? J’ai suivi un cours de basketball pendant mon bac, c’était vraiment le fun. Sinon, j’ai suivi un cours d’histoire des drogues qui était à la fois intéressant, mais aussi vraiment pertinent. Was law school a dream come true or a happy accident? Do you want to be a lawyer? I wanted to go to law school so it was a pleasant surprise when I got accepted. I want to be a lawyer, though I think transitioning into the business or sports world after is also an option later in life. Qu’aimes-tu faire quand tu n’étudies pas ? J’adore jouer aux sports, que ce soit le hockey, le basket, ou le soccer, même si je ne suis pas très bon. J’aime également lire et regarder les matchs de hockey ou de football collégial. As-tu un quartier préféré à Montréal? It’s not a neighborhood per se, but I love the hill on Peel Street. There’s just something about walking up that hill and getting to class drenched in sweat and wheezing that charms me about it. Où aimerais-tu travailler dans cinq ans? Mon emploi de rêve serait de travailler pour une ligue sportive, peu importe mon rôle.

Vol 44 ● No 4

WHO CLEANS UP AFTER DINNER? The Supreme Court of Canada Decides. Adam Waitzer| 3L

Who, as between a person who prepares dinner (the “cookor”) and the person or persons who eat that dinner (the “eator”), should be responsible for doing the dishes? This question has long troubled judges and lawyers alike. And it is precisely this question which our court must decide today.

QUID NOVI • 1 NOV 2022

I find it worthwhile to begin by tracing the historical development of this area of the law. Our starting point is of course the Roman law doctrine of qui percoquat, non mundat – or, more colloquially, “whoever cooks, doesn’t clean”. English courts of common law adhered rigidly to this principle for decades. Over time, however, the courts of equity developed a powerful exception to this principle. Under the doctrin of magna pulmentum, an eator could seek equitable relief from a cookor who had created an unconscionably large mess in the course of preparing dinner. The doctrine also established a corresponding duty to mitigate, which required that cookors take reasonable steps to minimize total clean-up after dinner. The availability of magna pulmentum as an equitable remedy persisted after the fusion of law and equity through the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875. And yet the scope of its application remains stubbornly difficult to define. In a trilogy of cases from the 1920s, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council set out a bright-line test which simply compared the total amount of dishes to the number of eators. This test provided a relatively effective means of resolving clean-up disputes for several decades. But the advent of the dishwasher toppled this line of jurisprudence. After the 1983 Super Bowl, a defendant sought to invoke magna pulmentum to escape liability for the clean-up associated with a tray of fully loaded nachos. The Plaintiff’s arguments were 4

twofold. First, that he had fulfilled his duty to mitigate by practicing the “clean as you go” technique while cooking. And second, that the overall mess was reasonable considering that the choice of nachos obviated the need for any plates or cutlery. Yet the defendant argued that this was hardly a real benefit, since these items could be swiftly loaded into the bottom rack. Defendant also led overwhelming evidence, including inter alia a crusty sheet pan, a fine mesh sieve used to drain the black beans, and a jalapeno-soaked cutting board. In a unanimous decision, this court held for the defendant. Citing the immense impact of the dishwasher, Justice Beetz abandoned the brightline test in favour of a flexible balancing test which accords greater weight to pots and pans than to plates and cutlery. From an evidentiary perspective, the burden of proof rests on the eator. Where proven, however, the use of a food processor, box grater, or garlic press has the effect of reversing the burden of proof onto the cookor. This analytical framework continues to prevail in Canadian courts today. But the Nachos framework has given rise to both doctrinal and practical problems. From a doctrinal perspective, the Nachos framework is too unpredictable, complicated, and confusing. Practically, the Nachos framework’s after-the-fact rationalization of a mess does not encourage cookors to take preventative steps to address inefficient kitchen practices. A new framework is thus required. This framework is intended to focus the court’s inquiry on the issues that matter and encourage cookors and eators to cooperate in achieving reasonably prompt clean-up. Responsibility for clean-up is eminently variable and should always be decided

contextually. Nevertheless, there are three factors that should guide courts in determining responsibility for clean-up: 1. The nature of the meal in question and the process followed in making it. Prior jurisprudence effectively required that a reviewing court undertake two discrete analyses: one for the nature of the meal and a separate one for the cookor’s “clean as you go” efforts. We suggest a more organic exercise. Courts should consider the meal together with the cookor’s mitigation efforts and decide whether the result falls within a range of reasonable outcomes. 2. The importance of the meal both to the cookor and eator. The greater the significance of the meal to the party in question, the more likely they are to be responsible for the clean-up. For instance, does the meal provide the eator with a significant source of leftovers? Or is it better characterized as a product of the cookor’s private culinary hobby? 3. The legitimate expectations of the eator. If the eator holds a legitimate expectation that a certain amount of mess will be created based on regular practices, they will generally avoid responsibility for any mess that grossly exceeds that expectation. Equity will always intervene to protect an eator who reasonably expected a prewashed spring mix from the oppression of a dirty salad spinner. This list of contextual factors is neither exhaustive nor inelastic. Its purpose is to help courts arrive at just outcomes in each case rather than limit their imaginations. Fair clean-ups are possible. Our courts should not shy away from their responsibility in achieving them.

FULFILLING YOUR SPORTS CRAVING WITHOUT BREAKING THE BANK Zack Goobie| Editor-In-Chief

The year is 2022, #JustInflation is in full swing1, McGill continues to raise tuition despite school being on Zoom for over a year, and the Bank of Canada has increased interest rates again. For many students, sporting events might not be at the top of mind. For other students sports might be your favourite mental health break. I consider myself in the latter camp. I write to you today to give you some tips on attending sporting events in Montreal without breaking the bank. I’ll start with the expensive ticket. A billet to see the Montreal Canadiens can easily cost $200 plus for a nosebleed seat depending on the night and which team is in town. To enjoy one of hockey’s best barns and atmospheres you need not spend more than $50. The Habs have a University Nights program which allows McGill students to sit in the upper bowl for $49 and that includes a beverage, for every Monday and Tuesday night games. When beer sells for over $13 at the Centre Bell it makes your stub even more valuable. I recently went to see the CH play the Wild. Getting to see Kaprizov and Fleury is, in my opinion, well worth the price of admission. Also, the LSA is organizing a Habs night with MSELA on November 15th against the New Jersey Devils for $40, another great opportunity to see the NHL for a reduced rate. The second ticket I present to you is not a stable in Montreal. The Toronto Raptors rolled into town in October and Montreal showed up with a sold-out crowd. I could write why I think this city could sustain an NBA team, but I will leave that to my more articulate colleague, Kamil. This game was only $45 per seat in the lower 300s. Seeing Jayson Tatum and Gary Trent Jr. duke it out on the court really made it feel like a regular season game despite only being pre-season. The key to success for this game: sign-up for the presale. When I first heard that the Raps were coming to town, I knew I had to be there, so I searched for a presale list and signed up right away. My stubs were selling for over three times their face value the day of the game.

This is in no way an endorsement of Pierre Poilievre, but I believe you should give credit where credit is due, #JustInflation is an ingenious political saying.

The third league that I will bring to your attention is, in my opinion, very overlooked in Montreal. Les Alouettes, Montreal’s Canadian Football League (CFL) team, are a great game to see on a nice fall afternoon. I was able to secure tickets for $30 a seat and enjoyed a great game with my girlfriend (thanks for coming Morgan) without any special tricks. The Alouettes are just generally a more reasonable ticket than other professional sports in the city. I think the NFL’s presence in Canada is evidence of how much our country is Americanized, much to the chagrin of François Legault. The game was back and forth with the Ottawa Redblacks ultimately winning 24-18. Do not overlook the athleticism of CFL athletes. A very entertaining game, I was more than happy with the quality of football. The fourth way to see high quality sports is to watch McGill varsity athletes. Despite university athletics in Canada not getting the same airtime as our southern neighbours, U Sports players are highly skilled individuals. For instance, the McGill Men’s hockey team is comprised mostly of players who played in the Canadian Hockey League before stepping foot in the McConnell Arena. Most McGill sports are under $20 for students, and you can show your school pride at the same time. Finally, I wish to present to you the Gametime app. With this download, you can get last minute tickets to sporting events (and entertainment) for a reduced price.

UNE ÉQUIPE DE LA NBA À MONTRÉAL, EST-CE TROP DEMANDER? Kamil Chaoui| 1L

Récemment, je suis allé voir les Raptors de Toronto jouer contre les Celtics de Boston au Centre Bell, dans ma ville natale. Ce match de présaison, dont tous les tickets se sont vendus en quelques minutes 1, nous a offert tous les éléments typiques du show-business à l’américaine. Des commentateurs extravagants aux danseurs et acrobates pendant les temps morts, en passant par les diverses célébrités saluant la caméra

Réjean Tremblay, «La NBA à Montréal, ça va prendre le CH », Le Journal de Montréal (20 octobre 2022), en ligne : https://www.journaldemontreal. com/2022/10/20/la-nba-a-montreal-ca-va-prendre-le-ch.

Vol 44 ● No 4 et les hot dogs à 9 dollars, rien ne manquait. L’ambiance électrique durant la totalité du match, la joie des Montréalais tendant les bras pour recevoir les t-shirts lancés par la mascotte et le lourd silence durant les dernières secondes du quatrième quart-temps m’ont fait, je l’avoue, quelque peu rêver. En rentrant chez moi, encore emballé par ce spectacle, une question ne me quittait pas l’esprit : pourquoi pas nous? Pourquoi ne pas avoir nos propres maillots, nos propres slogans, notre propre équipe? Cette idée peut paraître ridicule pour certains, mais je suis sûr que nous avons tous les ingrédients nécessaires pour y parvenir. Montréal n’est pas dépourvu de jeunes talents et plusieurs sont actuellement dans la NBA : Chris Boucher, Bennedict Mathurin ou Luguentz Dort (pour ne citer qu’eux) en sont de bons exemples. Les amateurs montréalais de basketball comme moi sentent un intérêt croissant pour ce sport, comme le prouvent les terrains extérieurs qui ne désemplissent pas ou les estrades pleines lors des matchs universitaires. La clientèle est donc là. Par exemple, Milwaukee, qui a son équipe, compte une population de 600 000 habitants, contre 1,8 million pour Montréal. Bien évidemment, des éléments importants font obstacle à mes rêveries, comme le prix d’une équipe (estimé à 2,5 milliards 2 de dollars en moyenne) et une occasion d’achat. On ne peut donc qu’attendre une poignée de milliardaires québécois déterminés à importer la NBA à Montréal. Quoi de mieux, d’ailleurs, que des avocats sortant de McGill pour accompagner une telle transaction mêlant différentes traditions juridiques? Même si tout cela n’est que des hypothèses et d’aspirations, il ne faut jamais dire jamais. Peut-être que nous verrons de notre vivant la première équipe de la NBA avec un surnom francophone. Je propose les « Harfangs de Montréal ».

THE Pablo VOICE HEARD Mhanna-Sandoval|1L At the time of writing, Many students will convene At the Medical Malpractice Party thrown for Halloween. On the night of the twenty-seventh Students of medicine and law Are putting on costumes For one last hurrah. Perhaps one more drink All trying not to think About midterms and memos and tests Preferring to make song requests. But when the music fades And friends walk home The voice from the night Will come to you alone. “Have you,” shall it ask, “Submitted your memo? Have you done your readings for tomorrow? “Do you think that others Are having such a hard time Learning of contracts, torts, and crime? You will wish to respond, “Away! Leave me, foul voice.” But foolish you’d be to think That hearing it is a choice.

QUID NOVI • 1 NOV 2022

For over the next few months, long past Halloween, When returning from Chancellor Day Hall You are likely to hear the voice once more And its taunting, chilling call. But know this. This voice is not new, Heard by students from before. It has been defeated countless times And will be defeated many more. 2

Mike Ozanian, «The NBA’s Most Valuable Teams 2021-22 : New York Knicks Lead A Trio Now Worth Over $5 Billion Each», Forbes (18 octobre 2021), en ligne : https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2021/10/18/ the-nbas-most-valuable-teams-2021-22-new-york-knicks-lead-a-trio-nowworth-over-5-billion-each/?sh=1bfe8cafd32c

*****

Good news, right? While it is a relief to know prices

COINCÉ À L’ANGLE won’t increase for the time being, some are understandably skeptical. Those who are haven’t forgotten DES RUES PARALLÈLES when Loblaws conspired with other grocery chains to Anonymous

Un visage décharné, un corps squelettique, Des mains abimées, une peau aride, Miné par ses échecs, frustré par ses pertes, Coincé à l’angle des rues parallèles, Happé par la gueule de la géhenne, Sombrant dans un abysse de ténèbres, Submergé par des flots de douleur, De choisir il est obligé : Flotter sinon couler. Sourire sinon pleurer. Gémir sinon hurler. Flotter sinon sombrer. Au loin sa voix grave retentit : <Ô cruels écueils qui m’écœurent, Voyez dans mon cœur la douleur, Le gout du fiel qui délétère, Lentement mais surement, Malicieusement et insidieusement, Toute emprise de la joie sur ma vie Pour ne laisser que haine, courroux et mépris Une frustration dont la dépression est l’amie Une indifférence qui au fond tue l’envie Envie de qui? Envie de quoi? Envie de fou, envie de roi. Mais soudain il pleut, il tonne et tout résonne. Et sa voix? Emportée par la nature qui bouillonne. Et du reste c’est une bonne chose Je n’avais nul envie d’être dans sa chute entrainé, cet être déchu qui au fond n’est que mon reflet.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: ON THE RISING PRICE OF GROCERIES Anonymous

A spectre is haunting Canada, and god do I wish it was the spectre of communism. Instead, it’s the spectre of a looming economic crisis. As inflation continues to rise and we brace for a recession, food insecurity rates are rising. Food banks are seeing a record spike in demand. Luckily, our favourite Canadian billionaire, Galen Weston, has announced a price freeze for all No Name products.

artificially increase the price of bread for 14 years. Loblaws was also named in the Paradise Papers, which revealed that the supermarket giant had registered offshore holding companies in Barbados and Bermuda. Finally, rival grocery chain Metro revealed that it is industry practice to freeze prices at this time of year, which demonstrates the announcement was a mere PR stunt.

It is no coincidence that the announcement comes hot on the heels of an NDP motion to investigate whether grocers are profiteering. In his letter to customers, Weston tells us that although “[they’ve] challenged (and will continue to challenge) any unfair price increases, the truth is most are reasonable.” As NDP leader Jagmeet Singh noted, however, increasing prices to offset increased costs would result in the same profit. Yet, profits are rising for the three major grocery chains (Loblaws saw a 40% profit increase in its first quarter). This is best explained by corporate greed, which under capitalism, remains unchecked. The moral of the story, of course, is not to trust corporations when they claim to act in your interests – take these announcements with a grain of salt, because more often than not, they are PR stunts to distract from the harm they are causing. Because, ultimately, they will always be seeking a higher profit margin. The other moral, which is less evident, is that a liberal democracy will not be effective in holding corporations truly accountable. Singh is calling for an “excess profits tax” on major grocery chains, and while that might help, the true problem is an economic system that allows for the commodification of basic needs (i.e., food, water, housing). Wages are also stagnant, so as the cost of living increases due to inflation, more people are struggling to make ends meet. Is it possible to decommodify the necessities of life? Further, how can we escape oligopolies, especially when they pertain to food? A radical shift in thinking and in how we construct our societies is needed. As Frederick Douglass said, “power concedes nothing without a demand”; thus, it is imperative that we keep demanding. In my lifetime, I would love to see the abolition of a minimum wage in favour of a liveable wage. We can also put pressure on political figures to support increasing taxes for the 1%, and the the reallocation of those funds into social programs. Over the coming years, I would love to see more social movements spring up in response to growing food insecurity and income inequality – after all, we have nothing to lose but our chains. 7

Vol 44 ● No 4

BLAST FROM THE PAST

QUID NOVI • 1 NOV 2022

Take a Look at Dean Leckey’s Quid Article from 1998 when he was a 1L

BLAST FROM THE PAST Check out this MedLaw Debate from 1995. What was your MedLaw Experience Like? Let us know!!

SUBMIT TO THE

QUID NOVI

EMAIL SUBMISSIONS BY 5PM EACH THURSDAY quid.law@mcgill.ca

Vol 44 ● No 4

Panel des juges

Concours 2022-2023 de rédaction pour les étudiants en droit Un concours pour les étudiants à temps plein de premier cycle des facultés de droit du Canada Le concours de rédaction pour les

étudiants en droit de l’IIC permet aux étudiants de premier cycle de différentes facultés de droit d’explorer et de découvrir les multiples facettes de l’insolvabilité et de la restructuration d’entreprises par la recherche et la rédaction.

L’institut d’insolvabilité du Canada L’IIC est le principal organisme d’insolvabilité du secteur privé au Canada. L’Institut est un organisme sans but lucratif qui se consacre à la reconnaissance et à la promotion de l’excellence et du leadership éclairé dans le domaine des politiques et des pratiques d’insolvabilité et de restructuration commerciales au Canada. Les membres les plus anciens et expérimentés du milieu canadien de l’insolvabilité font partie de l’Institut. Le nombre de membres se limite à 135 praticiens en insolvabilité (syndics, avocats et professionnels de la restructuration), auxquels se joignent des représentants d’organismes de réglementation et de compensation, des institutions financières majeures ainsi que des membres influents du milieu universitaire.

Lauréates et lauréats de 2021-2022

PRÉSIDENT SHAYNE KUKULOWICZ Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Toronto, ON

Membres

JEFFREY LEE MLT Aikins Saskatoon, SK

MICHEL MARLEAU Ernst & Young Inc. Montreal, QC

19e anniversaire du concours de rédaction de l’IIC pour les étudiants en droit Notre programme 2022-2023 marque la 19e année du concours de rédaction de l’IIC pour les étudiants en droit. Il a été conçu pour appuyer les études universitaires et récompenser les étudiants en insolvabilité et restructuration commerciales. Ce programme offre aux étudiants de premier cycle la possibilité de faire de la recherche sur des sujets liés à l’insolvabilité et de formuler des propositions susceptibles de générer des réformes auprès des communautés juridiques et d’affaires auxquelles ils sont sur le point de s’intégrer.

Admissibilité • Ce concours est ouvert à tous les étudiants de 1er cycle inscrits à temps plein à un programme de droit dans une université canadienne. Les inscriptions peuvent être soumises en français ou en anglais.

Daniel Alievsky, Western University, a été reconnu pour sa contribution lors de la conférence annuelle nationale de l’IIC 2022 à Kelowna, C.-B. « Reverse Vesting Orders: Did We Forget About Creditor Democracy? »

• Chaque étudiant a droit à une seule inscription. Il n’y a pas de limite au nombre d’inscriptions qui peuvent être soumises par une université, mais chaque composition doit comporter la signature d’un membre de la faculté de droit. • Chaque composition doit comporter au plus 3 000 mots (sans compter les notes de bas de page) et être dactylographiée. Les compositions peuvent être coécrites.

Troisième prix, 2 500 $ :

• La composition doit porter sur la restructuration dans un contexte d’insolvabilité.

DAVID BISH Torys LLP Toronto, ON

Deuxième prix, 5 000 $ :

Kimia Jalilvand et Gregory Scott, Thomson Rivers University, « From Discretion to Compliance: How UNDRIPA Mandates Indigenous Participation in CCAA Proceedings »

• Les compositions doivent être soumises électroniquement à la directrice exécutive à l’adresse de courriel indiquée sur le formulaire d’inscription, au plus tard à la date limite.

QUID NOVI • 1 NOV 2022

Premier prix, 7 500 $ :

Chelsea Angel, Western University, « In the Aftermath of Quadriga: The Valuation and Priority of Cryptocurrency Claims under the BIA »

LANCE WILLIAMS McCarthy Tétrault LLP Vancouver, BC

JENNIFER STAM Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Toronto, ON

Prix de 2022-2023

Les premier, deuxième et troisième prix seront respectivement de 7 500 $, 5 000 $ et 2 500 $. Les rédactions peuvent également être sélectionnées pour publication dans le Journal of the Insolvency Institute of Canada, avec les articles soumis par des experts du domaine. Le premier prix sera remis à la lauréate ou au lauréat lors de la conférence annuelle de l’IIC qui se tiendra du 19 au 23 octobre 2023 à Ottawa. La lauréate ou le lauréat du premier prix, ainsi que le responsable de la faculté seront les invités de l’IIC à la conférence, qui prendra en charge leurs droits d’inscription (y compris l’hébergement). Leurs frais de déplacement seront remboursés. Dans l’éventualité où des coauteurs se méritent la première place, la répartition du prix et du remboursement des frais de voyage sera à l’entière discrétion des lauréates et lauréats.

Tous les documents fournis aux membres du panel sont confidentiels et n’indiquent ni le nom de l’auteur ni son affiliation universitaire afin d’assurer l’impartialité du processus d’évaluation et de sélection du travail de rédaction gagnant.

Envoyez votre candidature d’ici au 15 juin 2023 ! 1er, 2e et 3e prix de 7 500 $, 5 000 $ et 2 500 $

CRAIG MUNRO FTI Consulting Canada Vancouver, BC

MICA ARLETTE Pricewaterhouse Coopers Canada Toronto, ON

THE OPIUM OF THE ELITES Deconstructing MedLaw Nicolas Kamran| 3L

Fall 2022 has seen a return to tradition at the McGill Faculty of Law. In the Atrium alone, students have been fortunate to hold physical copies of the Quid, peruse kiosks at Clubs Day, and engage in measured debauchery during Coffeehouse—all experiences my cohort painfully longed for in years prior. One such experience returned last week in the form of Medical Malpractice: The MedLaw Halloween Party. The Facebook event description went like this: Trick or Tequila? After 3 long years, the Law Students’ Association and the Medicine Students’ Society at McGill are teaming up to bring back our staple Halloween event, Medical Malpractice!!! This spook-tacular party will be held at Le Rouge Bar, starting at 9PM and lasting until 3AM Come dressed in your most fab-boo-lous Halloween costumes and get ready for a fang-tastic night

🦇

🦇🧟

Des billets sont disponibles pour les étudiants en droit de McGill, les étudiants en médecine et les invités. Dry tickets ($10) include entrance and wet tickets ($15) include entrance and 4 free shot coupons (coupons will be distributed at the door). With our all-time low prices, this deal is eerie-sistible!

🧟

they are going or interested in doing so, 94 of whom seem to be “Friends” of mine. Eerie-sistible indeed. If this fall is a return to tradition, it is only fair that I play my part. Editor-in-chief Anna McAllister has poignantly demonstrated in her “Blast from the Past” pieces how prior editions of the Quid were sites of polemic and apology—though less so in recent years. From what I can tell, there are three reasons for this decline. Firstly, student discourse has mainly moved online. Veterans of the 2022 student strike (or boycott, for one esteemed reader of the Quid) will remember how pages like “McGill Law General” and “McGill Law Memes” filled up with hot takes, jokes, and disagreement around that time. Much of what was said there would have likely found its way into the Quid a decade ago. Secondly, though McGill Law’s student population is famously quick to criticize, most of what I hear is principled and kind. Controversy, for its own sake, does not seem to carry much appeal to our community. No one has time for this. Thirdly, being a contrarian is just not worth it. Whatever naïve glory one receives in seeing their name in print is outweighed by the awkward pain of being called out by the same people one sees every day in class. Frankly, most people I see taking pride in being “edgy” are just being mean to minority groups. Our storied tradition of the polemical Quid Novi takedown is on its way out, and I will not interrupt its extinction.

In a place where inviting a sitting Supreme Court justice barely fills up the Moot Court, the MedLaw event sold out in two days. At the time of writing, 447 people All these factors, coupled with my have indicated on Facebook that rather cautious disposition, make

me hesitant to lambast anything in this column. I prefer silence to idle screaming into the void. But I prefer careful expression to silence—and I really cannot help myself: MedLaw is a strange match made in elitist hell. Let us first narrow the critique. I do not aim any of my ire towards those who attended the party. It always warms my heart to see my friends seek joy in the company of others, provided they do so with kindness and respect. Nor do I take issue with the LSA. One can hardly blame a group of hard-working student volunteers for wanting to organise fun events for their peers. This is not to say that student government is beyond reproach, but I really do acknowledge that being an LSA Exec is a thankless and valuable job. You pour in hundreds of hours over a year doing crucial administrative tasks, and your mistakes are constantly open to public scrutiny from people who barely know you. This is the essence of democratic accountability, of course, though nearly no member of our student government had their position submitted to a vote. I tend to think that low turnout for LSA positions has much to do with that thanklessness—unpaid, uncredited, unappreciated, and thus unappealing. Anyone who volunteers their time in service of their peers has my admiration for doing so. MedLaw is not so much harmful as it is problematic. In other words, I do not see the association causing any serious damage to anyone (more on this later). It just strikes me as a strange, questionable phenomenon. It requires 11

Vol 44 ● No 4

deconstruction more than demolition, though I am also partial to the latter. Let us then pose the central question: why MedLaw? What is it exactly that brings the McGill Faculties of Medicine and Law together? What warrants the association? Could it be a similar field of study? The “D” stands for the same thing in “JD” and “MD”, after all. But I doubt this has anything to do with it. There is a much clearer nexus between law and public policy, philosophy, and history than with medicine. Similarly, medicine has much more to do with biology, anatomy, and pharmacology than law. I will leave it to the reader to assess the time needed for our next “LawPhil” event to sell out—or whether it would be wise for a JD to raise their hand in the fabled “Is anybody here a doctor?” situation.

QUID NOVI • 1 NOV 2022

Could it be mere geographical proximity? It is true that both the Faculties of Law and Medicine stand perched above the rest of the University. But I doubt this accident of geography is particularly meaningful to students, lest we organise our next party with the Faculty of Education. I hear “Éducaloi” is already taken.

The implied association between law and med school is one of status, and MedLaw is a victory lap for those atop the status game. A sizeable portion of political science students are torturing themselves right now trying to put together a strong enough application for law school—the same can be said for those anatomy students and med school. They are acing their exams, working for professors, investing themselves in their communities, and doing their very best impression of a well-balanced human being just to make it. Many have been singularly focused on this goal since high school, and some much earlier. I vividly remember hearing my friends complain, as young as 11 years old, that their parents were riding them too hard about med school, and how they wished that they could fully express their interests in other domains. There was a joke about the stressed-out kid who goes to his mother and says, “Mommy, I do not think I want to be a doctor or a lawyer anymore. Do you still love me?” Tearfully, the mother replies, “Oh sweetheart, you know that I will love you no matter what doctorate you pursue!” Gallows humour for the privately schooled.

Could it be genuine interest in medical malpractice? I will not But for all the complaints and insult your intelligence any longer. frustration, the kid who told me that joke made it to med school. MedLaw is an exercise in elite And he was thrilled about it. On recognition. It says quietly what his Facebook post announcing no one dares to say out loud: his admission, he wrote “Dreams “We who have made it to the really do come true.” The face top of the educational-profes- eventually grows into the mask. sional class deserve to celebrate our success together. We are M e d L a w u l t i m a t e l y p o i n t s each other’s equivalents across towards the broader problem of academic domains. People look meritocratic hubris. Critiques at us differently when we say the going beyond this would reprewords “McGill Law” or “McGill sent even more of an overreMed.” Bringing a “law/med action than this article in its student” home to one’s parents present state, which is saying is a prideful proud moment. We a lot. Briefly stated, if such a worked hard for this. We won. Go party is harmful, this is only to ahead, celebrate.” the extent of what it says about 12

the attitudes the “winners” should display toward those less “successful” than themselves. Let me explain. University admissions in the era of mass global inequality have taken on uniquely high stakes. Purely aristocratic models of status are becoming extinct and formally discriminatory measures repealed. More than ever, the question of who gets in where determines status and success, and youth are caught in perpetual dynamics of sorting and striving. The dynamic is absorbing, in purportedly meritocratic institutions those who stand up top can look down and say, “I worked hard for this. My success was my own doing, and their failure their own.” Two things can be true: Though it can rightly be said that university admissions depend on factors going well beyond “talent and hard work,” I know that all who have made it to McGill Law have worked hard to get here. It is so very tempting to celebrate after striving for so long. But this striving and celebration obscures a sordid truth: No matter how much adversity we have faced, our talents and gifts are not entirely of our own doing, and we have the immensely good fortune of living in a society that seeks out and rewards the talents we do happen to possess. The impression of being a deserving elite is mistaken, and the arbitrariness of our success is obscured by years of competition. The line between gloating and gratitude is tenuous but real. In suggesting that exclusivity and status are worth celebrating, MedLaw parties express the former. If we wish to articulate the latter, one’s status as a McGill Law student must be held with gratitude and humility. The choice is yours, comrades.

LE PREMIER ÉCHEC DE LA COUPE LONGUEUIL La performance de Quinn Ewers contre Oklahoma State et ce qu’on pourra tous en tirer Darien Bahry| 4L

Avec sa merveilleuse coupe Longueuil et sa barbe, le jeune Texan, Quinn Ewers, avait pratiquement le statut d’un dieu à Austin et partout au Texas. gé de 19 ans, le quart-arrière partant des Longhorns de l’Université du Texas, possiblement l’équipe la plus célèbre et connue dans le monde du football collégial aux États-Unis, était déjà une légende dans l’état avant d’aller vers l’Ohio pour commencer sa carrière avec les Buckeyes d’Ohio State. Cependant, le jeune homme avait toujours voulu revenir au Texas et vivre le rêve de son enfance, à savoir jouer pour les Longhorns. Bien que cette histoire ait bien commencé, elle a récemment pris une mauvaise tournure avec une défaite décevante et peut être perçue comme une leçon, ou bien un microcosme de nos expériences quotidiennes. Pour en revenir au début, sans trop s’attarder à des détails, Quinn Ewers était un espoir de 5 étoiles pendant l’école secondaire, ce qui veut dire qu’il était extrêmement bon et qu’il pouvait essentiellement choisir pour quelle équipe il voulait jouer au collège. Il a choisi Ohio State, comme je l’ai mentionné, mais est parti pour Texas après une année. Il est rapidement devenu le quart-arrière partant, malgré la présence de Hudson Card, un « sophomore » et le quart-arrière partant de l’année passée. Avec d’immenses attentes pesant sur ses épaules, Ewers a admirablement entamé cette saison avec une victoire de 52-10 contre ULM. Ce fut, toutefois, face au Crimson Tide d’Alabama que la légende de Quinn Ewers a vite pris d’envergure, et ce, après seulement un quart du match. En effet, le jeune avait lancé pour 134 verges en un quart et il semblait que Texas (qui ne figurait pas à ce moment-là dans le classement des meilleures équipes du NCAA) allait vaincre la meilleure équipe de la nation. Cela ne s’est pas produit, car Ewers a été blessé et Texas a enfin perdu 20-19 face à Alabama. Pourtant, les partisans des Longhorns étaient déjà en train de couronner Ewers comme le roi de l’état : les médias et les analystes du football n’arrêtaient pas de mettre de l’avant le récit selon lequel, si Ewers ne s’était pas fait blesser, alors Texas aurait certainement donné une raclée à Bama et gagné le match. Texas, avec Ewers à la barre de l’équipe, était potentiellement une des meilleures équipes du football universitaire. Et cet engouement ne s’est pas arrêté après qu’Ewers soit revenu de sa blessure. Contre OU (Oklahoma University), la rivale historique et détestée de l’Université du Texas, Ewers et les Longhorns ont démoli les Sooners d’OU par une marge de victoire historique. 49-0. Ewers a lancé pour 289 verges et 4 touchés lors de la victoire historique du Red River Shootout, le nom sous lequel ce match est souvent connu. Ensuite, Ewers et Texas ont battu Iowa State, une

équipe qui a dernièrement su causer des ennuis pour Texas, 24-21 et Ewers a, de nouveau, bien joué. Avec un engouement autour de l’équipe et du quart-arrière qui rivalisait celui du temps de Vince Young, Texas est allé à Stillwater, Oklahoma, pour affronter l’équipe d’Oklahoma State University. Largement les favoris du match, Texas a mal joué, avec une défaite de 41-34 contre la onzième meilleure équipe des États-Unis. Encore pire, Texas menait pendant presque tout le match et n’a fait que 3 points pendant la deuxième partie du match. D’ailleurs, Ewers a complété seulement 38,8% de ses passes pour 319 verges (une fiche assez respectable), mais a lancé 3 interceptions. Il s’agissait, en toute vraisemblance, de la première fois où Ewers avait l’air mortel – il n’était pas une machine incapable de prendre une mauvaise décision ou faire un mauvais jeu comme auparavant. Suivant son mauvais match, les partisans des Longhorns ont été vocalement mécontents face à sa performance et ont critiqué intensivement le jeune quart-arrière, remettant même en question si Ewers devait toujours être leur quart-arrière partant. Quoique se rapportant à un jeune de 19 ans au sommet du sport collégial aux États-Unis, cette histoire nous est pertinente pour plusieurs raisons. D’abord, elle montre l’importance de la patience, surtout envers les jeunes et les jeunes professionnels. Par exemple, au début d’une carrière, une personne peut se voir donner beaucoup de responsabilités et se montrer capable de l’assumer sans trop de problèmes. Cependant, il se peut que la personne rencontre, plus tard, des défis et ait des ennuis pour les surmonter. C’est souvent en faisant face aux défis, et parfois en échouant, qu’on apprend à réussir. L’échec d’Ewers ne définira pas sa carrière, c’est plutôt la façon dont il réagira qui exercera une influence sur la suite de celle-ci, s’il travaille plus fort pour reconnaitre les raisons pour lesquelles il n’a pas su bien jouer contre Oklahoma State. Par ailleurs, l’exemple d’Ewers démontre que nos attentes envers les autres, même si elles sont exigeantes, doivent être réalistes et flexibles. On devrait être capable de s’apercevoir qu’on a possiblement mis trop de pression sur les épaules de quelqu’un et s’ajuster en conséquence. Bref, comme tout dans la vie, ça prend parfois du temps avant de réaliser notre potentiel. Personne n’est parfait au début et pour s’améliorer, il faut souvent passer au travers de tribulations. Nous n’échouons que lorsque nous n’essayons pas de nous améliorer.

Vol 44 ● No 4

WHICH ICONIC 1L CASE ARE YOU? la performance de Quinn Ewers contre Oklahoma State et ce qu’on pourra tous en tirer Meg Beattie| 3L

Donoghue v Stevenson (a long time ago a lady ate a snail and made it every lawyer’s problem, forever) Issue: How can I go above and beyond today? Holding: You could always try taking a day off. Ratio: Much like Donoghue, you are the kind of student found at law schools everywhere; you’re a high achiever, at least a little competitive, and you have big dreams to leave a lasting impact on the legal world (which you probably will). Just make sure you don’t get so caught up in your detailed 10-year plan that you forget about your neighbours, and by that I mean please share your course summaries because we all know they’re the best. Miller v Jackson (Lord Denning tells us all how important cricket is, and we have no choice but to believe him) Issue: Why is it when there are group projects I’m always the one doing most of the work? Holding: Respectfully, you’re a little intimidating. Ratio: I have a suspicion you’ve known you wanted to be a lawyer for some time, and like a good game of cricket, you’re not going to be stopped by any person, for any reason. You like a bit of fun, but you’re probably kind of a sore loser (luckily for you, you don’t lose that much). I’ll allow that you’re charming, but I still hope I never end up working for you. No offence.

QUID NOVI • 1 NOV 2022

R v Oakes (this is where the Oakes test comes from. That’s really all you need to know) Issue: Do I have to pick just one issue? I can’t care about them all? Holding: Follow your heart. Ratio: If there’s anyone who’s going to actually solve even one of the many, many problems with this profession, it’s you. Sure, you ask a lot of questions in class, so we never finish early and sometimes get off track, but without idealists like you I can’t imagine how depressing it would be around here. You’re a nice person, a great study buddy, and… honestly I’m looking for something else inspiring to say, but that’s your domain, so I’ll leave it to you.

Leonard v Pepsico (there’s no such thing as a free jet) Issue: Can I do everything wrong and still be right? Holding: Probably not, but there’s always a chance… Ratio: Look, it’s not always about grades, and it’s not always about “success.” Sometimes it’s about fun! You get that, I know, because just like this absolute gem of a case you are full of great ideas and short cuts to the top. Sure, things don’t always work out, but that’s not to say there’s no value in creativity and taking the road less-travelled. You’re doing you, and you’re not one to be fazed by setbacks. Still, I don’t think it would kill you to work a little harder now and again. Axa Assurances c Groupe de Sécurité Garda (a security guard sets his building on fire) Issue: How many wrongs make a right? Holding: Oh no. Ratio: Whoa. WHOA. You have gotten this result because, like this case, you give off the energy of a person with the best of intentions, but who is not above setting a building on fire. I can’t even pretend to understand what all that’s about… all I know is that in your presence I am both alarmed and bewildered. I don’t know how you got here, how or why you’re still here, or what you plan to do next, but I look forward to reading about you in the news someday. Amalgamated Investment and Property v John Walker & Sons Ltd (some lady stamps a piece of paper and a property value plummets) Issue: Has a seemingly-random administrative decision ruined my life? Holding: If it’s the b-curve, then yes. Yes it has. Ratio: I don’t know what to tell you. You win some, you lose some, and sometimes you really, really lose. I have to believe your life isn’t as much of a disaster as you made it seem with your answers but man, things do not seem to be going well! But cheer up— you’ve made it this far despite a global pandemic and Zoom school and who knows what else, and there’s still time for a comeback. And if not, well, there’s always good Scotch to ease your sorrows.

Vol 44 ● No 4

MISTY FOR YOU: STUDENTS ARE FRIENDS, NOT FOOD Law School Advice You Can Count On Misty Meanor| Not a lawyer

This is hard to overcome, but if Anna Sorokin did it, and I did it, so can you. Just take an acting class. Once you’ve solved that problem, follow this three-point plan:

I graduated from one of Canada’s top law schools with really good grades. Now, I’m using my knowledge to help struggling law students make it in this competitive world. Readers, I am simply overwhelmed by the reception my column has received. I am so humbled to have been welcomed back into the McGill Law community with open arms. My last article on introductions was particularly well-reviewed. One student described it as “shocking” and “impressive that they let you publish such laughable advice.” And I agree! A touch of humour really helps the message stick. My inbox has been flooded with requests for assistance, but one question really caught my eye:

QUID NOVI • 1 NOV 2022

Dear Misty, I am a 1L and this is embarrassing to admit, but after 2 months I have not made a single friend at law school. I’m pretty outgoing and make a point to know everyone’s name before even meeting them (to show them I care), so I’m kind of at a loss here. Help! This submission wasn’t technically anonymous, but for the sake of my client’s reputation, I will keep it as such. While this question is hard for me to relate to, the subject matter is so distressing I wanted to assist as quickly as I could.

1. Become the Note Taker. Share notes with whoever asks. These people do the Lord’s work and they can’t not be liked. Don’t worry if your notes suck. When people ask for notes, they never read them anyway. 2. Join an overly specific club. There are many to choose from. Yes, the forms are annoying and time-consuming, but if you include phrases like “I would love the opportunity to have excellent mentors” and “I’m passionate about human rights” and especially “I am comfortable writing in French,” you’re a shoo-in. Let the other members do the talking – they’ll be so excited to have a new person to rant at that they won’t even notice you don’t know what you’re talking about. 3. Throw a party and invite EVERYONE. Someone has to show up, right? For extra certainty, say it’s your birthday even if it’s not. If you follow my advice, I guarantee you will make a friend. And if you don’t, who cares! The less lawyer-y you are, the better people will probably like you anyway. Hope this helps. Misty xx

First, you need to recognize that law students aren’t normal people. My editor suggested I preface this with a trigger warning, but I think I need to give it to you straight: turning every argument into a logic contest isn’t normal human behaviour. And nor is bragging “Are medlaw events just smart-people about staying in the library until 3 a.m., nor comparmatch-making?” ing every grade, nor boasting about how much you drank at the party last Thursday. So if you’re having difficulty making friends because lawjournal.mcgill.ca/podcasts you find your colleagues insufferable, you’re probably just too normal.

OVERHEARD

QUID NOVI • 1 NOV 2022

Vol 44 ● No 4