Thursday afternoon was the first time I stood up in front of a court. This exercise that was a part of my Legal Research, Writing and Advocacy course, although worth relatively little in terms of marks.

I learned a number of things. I actually got nervous (which has not happened to me in public speaking in over six years). In my first 10-20 seconds, I was incredibly jittery and this did not come off well. I also learned that I need to have better control of my facial expressions. It’s bad to look pissed off when a judge asks you a question (even if you are, in fact, pissed off).

The exercise was generally a lot of fun and is something I would certainly do again. There’s a competition (not for marks) coming up in a about a month which I’m looking forward to participating in. This one’s not for marks, so there’s a bit less pressure.

A career in litigation? We shall see…

Happy new year and new decade to all. Sorry for the lack of updates in over a month, but I was in exam mode and then vacation mode. I’m back to more or less regular mode now, so here’s a post. Enjoy!

It is a well known fact that women make less money than men for doing the same job. The estimates vary, but the general consensus is that women make around 71-75 cents for every dollar pulled in by a man. This raises interesting social questions and many equity concerns, but here’s is one that is not often thought about: if a woman gets injured and cannot work, should her compensation for lost income under tort law be assessed at the man’s wage? the woman’s wage? the average wage? or by some other criteria? In other words, do we build gender discrimination into damage awards for injuries?

The courts have wrestled with this issue for a while, and a relatively recent ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal seems to give some guidance on the issue. In short, the thrust behind Walker v. Ritchie (a 2003 case) says that it’s appropriate to use gender-neutral statistics if evidence can be provided that that field is moving toward wage parity. Of course there is some issue with that because what the court is saying, implicitly, is that if there is no visible trend toward parity in a given industry, courts should continue to perpetuate the economic inequality. Of course not to do so would be arguably unfair to the defendant as the courts would make him/her/it (in the case of a corporation) responsible for more damage than was actually caused.

There’s an interesting article on this that I would suggest reading for anyone interested in the issue: “Damages for Lost Earning Capacity: Women and Children Last!” – 1992 71 Canadian Bar Review 445.

I read about William Kamkwamba, the boy who built a windmill in a rural area of Malawi that was eventually able to power several houses and a water irrigation system in his village. It is an incredibly inspirational story that I urge everyone to read.

What really got me thinking though were some of the comments of the Toronto Star readers. Among the praise, vitirol, and accusations of the whole thing being fake, there are a couple of issues that need to be discussed.

“And….just why exactly is a story about someone in Africa a lead story in a Toronto newspaper? Has multiculturalism confused us that much that we cannot distinguish between Malawi and Toronto?”
- granted this was written by someone who calls him(her?)self “Canada for Canadians”. I didn’t even realize there was such a movement afoot. This is dangerous close-mindedness. Reminds me of “Germany for the Germans” (that led to the Holocaust) and “Russia for the Russians” (that led to beatings of Jews and people from the former USSR republics in the late 90′s and early 2000′s). Aside from that, the comment is itself idiotic: Toronto Star has a “World” section for a reason. Some people are actually interested about what happens outside of Toronto.

“Good to see people taking some initiative in life to make things better for themselves and the people around them. I had the same idea a year ago and ran it across my colleagues. It was immediately shot down because of the noise pollution laws. I think it’s an excuse to protect the utility companies. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/06/10/ontario-wind-turbines.html”
- I would like to know how much of this is true and if anyone can chime in, please do. I understand NIMBYs to some degree (I wouldn’t want a wind turbine howling outside my window all day and night), but I’d like to know how much of the bylaws are there to protect a government monopoly.

“Compare this amibitous young man with our average (not all, average) Candadian teenager. He was driven to do something better for himself and his community. Canadian teenagers are no longer driven, parents give them everything they want (not just need anymore, want) so there is no reason for them to be ambitious. Parents actually complain when their children are given homework! Instead of encouraging our children to learn, earn and become productive, we are encouraging them to be lazy and entitled.”
-I take some issue with this comment. It is true that necessity breeds invention, but so does laziness. We in Canada are lucky to have a lot more than they do in Malawi, but this does not mean that we stop inventing. Our invention and innovation happens on a different level (the two university-aged guys who started RIM are a good example. Across the border, two similar types of guys started Google).
As for homework, if you looked at grade-school homework recently, you would see that a lot of it is mindless busywork (i.e. the “guess and check” crap that grade school math teachers love to assign). It takes hours and teaches precisely nothing. It’s good to assign homework, but school-aged kids also need time and energy to think and to create. By assigning mindless busywork, we are not creating inventors, we’re creating drones, and that is something to complain about. I’d rather see kids get no homework and spend their time entertaining themselves (and maybe creating something in the process) than spend time doing mindless busywork.
Of course not all homework is busywork, but I remember going through school and I’m seeing my sister go through it now, and almost half of all homework by time is stuff that teaches absolutely nothing and could be eliminated with no detriment to education.

I had to repost this, it is just oh so cool. (WARNING: Toxic amounts of  geekiness lie ahead). Find the original and all the comments here, courtesy of LawIsCool. I will say right now that this was not my work and I had nothing to do with it, except having a lot of fun reading it.

Also, I am done two of my six exams. So far, so good (I think…I hope).

I am currently sitting in the law library, surrounded by volumes and volumes of very official-looking books (having words like “law reports” and “legal digests” in their titles) going as far back as the 15th century. I am now realizing the key to success in law school (and probably law practice): learning how to deal with loads and loads of information being bombarded from all sides.

In preparation for exams (which start next week!), I have created a summary of what I learned in every course. These summaries range from 30 to 50 pages per course and there are six courses. I don’t think I have ever dealt with this much information that was not cannot be dumped into a spreadsheet or database. And yet I have to have all this information in mind when I write the exam.

I’ve been told that law school (especially first year) would be hard. I believe I was misinformed. Law school is not hard. The material is relatively simple to anyone who can make a reasonable argument and then see its counterargument. What makes law school “hard” is that volume of material can be overwhelming. The trick is to stay on top of it and organize it in a way that makes sense.

That and to make your own summaries.

It looks like I haven’t written anything for a while, so I’m just popping in to say that I’m still alive. I’ve participated in a handful of competitions and visited a Bay St. law firm for some training for the Business Clinic.

In general, school is getting quite crazy now because exams are in less than three weeks. During this time, I probably won’t be here all that much.

Good luck with exams to all the students out there!

I’m in the middle of doing an assignment, so this will be a short post.

Did you know that a mushroom is a vegetable? So decided a court in Re Ontario Mushroom Co. Ltd. and Learie after a court ruled that mushroom plant workers are not entitled to minimum wage because they worked on cultivation of vegetables.

Did you know that a horse is a type of cattle? It is according to the Criminal Code of Canada: ““cattle” means neat cattle or an animal of the bovine species by whatever technical or familiar name it is known, and includes any horse, mule, ass, pig, sheep or goat” (R.S., 1985, c. C-46 s. 2);

That’s all I remember for now, I may post more as I come across them. If you know a crazy statute or a nonsensical interpretation, post it in the comments.

It’s 7:00am. You crawl out of bed, groggy, stretch and then stumble your way downstairs to brew a pot of Columbia’s finest. It was hot last night, so you slept naked to stay cool. Thinking nothing of it, you walk into the kitchen completely nude to make said coffee, only to see a woman and her son walking across your yard on their way to school. The woman freaks upon seeing you naked inside your own house, and has you arrested for indecent exposure.

Such was the fate of one Eric Williamson last week, a victim of the law gone wild. Williamson is alleged by the local police to have “wanted to be seen naked” for his nude-brew escapade. While the safety of brewing and drinking coffee at the same time while naked may be debatable, there is no disputing that doing so while inside your own home is an entirely plausible endeavour. Ultimately, the concept of private property implies that what transpires on that property is protected from condemnation so long as the actions are not adversely affecting others’ well being.

This case raises obvious flags, even for a fledgling Law 1 student such as myself. Williamson’s personal conduct may be questionable on normative grounds, but not as a legal matter. The woman and her child — it will undoubtedly be argued in Williamson’s defense — forfeited any right to allege “indecent exposure” by entering onto Williamson’s property, by peering through Williamson’s windows and by then going so far as to allege they were then offended as such by the conduct they witnessed therein.

Interestingly, the Williamson case follows with one of the first cases presented to Law 1′s here at Windsor Law. In R. v. Clark, a man was convicted of indecent exposure for being spotted masturbating in his own living room by neighbour’s over 100m away. The accused was charged under ss. 173(1)(a) and 173(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.  Section 173(1) makes it an offence to wilfully do an indecent act (a) “in a public place in the presence of one or more persons”, or (b) “in any place, with intent thereby to insult or offend any person”.

The question thus becomes: since when is a man’s private kitchen considered a public space? At what point did Williamson’s actions (merely standing nude in his own kitchen) supersede as the legal issue the woman’s imposition of her ‘peeping’ on Mr. Williamson? Is Mr. Williamson not entitled to the privacy of his own home? Should not the woman and her son have immediately looked the other way upon seeing Mr. Williamson and continued walking to school out of respect for Mr. Williamson’s privacy?

In a critique of this case, Michele Catalano at PajamasMedia offers an interesting hypothetical role reversal of the Williamson case. Her article is a great read and is recommended for insights superior to my own. As Catalano surmises, “The sanctity of our house is the last bastion many of us have.” If we cannot do something as harmless as brew coffee in the nude without the fear of being peeped on by a nosy neighbour, is there any realm of privacy left untouched by the law of the land?

Catalano goes further, suggesting an endemic bias against men for situations involving indecency. She suggests the following role reversal, “What if the tables were turned? What if Williamson were a woman and a man walked by the house instead of a woman? What if that man happened to look into the window, staring long enough to see that the woman inside was naked? Would he call the cops to say he was flashed? Probably not, because he would end up in handcuffs for being a peeping Tom. A woman looks in on a naked man and thinks he is committing a crime. A man looks in on a naked woman and she thinks he is committing a crime. Weird how that works.”

Indeed Catalano’s hypothetical presents the law with confounding and plainly hypocritical standards by which men are often held. Certainly there could be statistics to suggest men are more prone to offensive indecent acts, but is not the law supposed to rule without prejudice to such statistics? This is not to suggest the ignorance of precedent, which is completely different and entirely applicable in specific cases. But if Williamson here is considered guilty to be proven innocent, the burden of reverse onus must be proven as such. In this case, there is no such grounds.

The law is running wild. The lesson here is to put your boxers on before you hit “Brew”. Otherwise you just might be feeling the cold sting of handcuffs instead of the warm jolt of caffeine.

– Robert Onley –

My colleague Eric Grigg, a fellow UWO Law student, has recently written about what he feels are courses that will “mitigate…unfamiliarity of the first term in first year”. He recommends courses in British History, Canadian Government, basic Business, and some basic philosophy (particularly logic). Read his blog post for more information.

I more or less agree with Eric’s suggestions, with one caveat: don’t rely too much on what you learn in undergrad. I have a minor in political science and my knowledge of the workings of Canadian government took me through to the end of first week of law school. My business knowledge (business was my specialization in undergrad) has so far taken me nowhere. This is not because I wasn’t paying attention in class but because law school is different from anything you have ever done in undergrad.

Does it help to have a basic understanding of how our political and business systems work before coming to law school? Most likely. Is it a requirement? I would say no. A person coming from the physical sciences can do just as well as someone who majored in legal studies in undergrad. In fact, a science major will likely come in with no preconceived notions about law, a blank slate if you will, which may well work in her favour.

My opinions are biased however. Outside of English history and philosophy, I studied what Eric is recommending in quite a bit of detail. I’d like to hear an opinion from someone who didn’t. If you are such a person, leave me and/or Eric a comment.

Ownership of a newborn domestic animal goes to the owner of its
mother…unless that animal is a swan.

“legal fictions” (assumptions and models used by courts) started
because people were bribing court officials to make up facts.

Sheriff is a derivation of the words “shire-reeve”. Reeve is itself a
derivation of the word “graffe”, a German word meaning Count. So a
sherrif is really a count, a Respresentave of the King in a given
county.

Tires are an integral part of a car. A car is worthless without them.
An engine however, is an easily removable part of a car, so it’s perfectly
fine to sell a car without it’s engine.

A contract occurs when and where acceptance is communicated. So if you
accept an offer over the phone, make sure you ask where the other
person is or else your contract may end up being governed by Ghanian
law. And don’t get me started on email.

It is apparently possible to strangle someone while you’re blacked out.
Supreme Court of Canada said, in a polite way, that this is bull…

Judges have an indirect say in setting their salary.

Your spouse is always your biggest creditor. You have written
agreements with the rest of your creditors, so why not your spouse.
Moral: never get married without a pre-nup.

Throwing lit firecrackers into crowded markets gets you in deep doo-doo.

If you’re protesting, make sure you don’t do anything illegal while
you’re at it. If your protesting costs the target company a contract
and it could be that it was due to your illegal actions, you’re on the
hook for a huge amount of money. That’s how one protester paid
several hundred thousand dollars for walking on the grass.