Legal education in crisis: healing and humanizing Canadian law schools /

Western law schools are suffering from an identity and moral crisis. Many of the legal profession's problems can be traced to the law school environment, where students are taught to reason and practice in ways that are often at odds with their own personalities and values and even with generally accepted psychologically healthy practices. The idealism, ethic of care, and personal moral compasses of many students become eroded and even lost in the present legal education system. Formalism, rationalism, elitism, and big business values have become paramount. In such a moment of historical crisis, there exists the opportunity to create a new legal education story. This paper is a conceptual study of both my own Canadian legal education and the general legal education experience. It examines core problems and critiques of the existing Western legal education organizational and pedagogical paradigm to which Canadian law schools adhere. New approaches with the potential to enrich, humanize, and heal the Canadian law school experience are explored. Ultimately, the paper proposes a legal education system that is more interdisciplinary, theoretically and practically integrated, emotionally intelligent, technologically connected, morally accountable, spiritual, and humane. Specific pedagogical and curricular strategies are suggested, and recommendations for the future are offered. The dehumanizing aspects of the law school experience in Canada have rarely been studied. It is hoped that this thesis will fill a gap in the research and provide some insight into an issue that is of both academic and public importance, since the well-being of law students and lawyers affects the interests of their clients, the general public, and the integrity and future of the entire legal system.

The law of the sea: the United States, Canada and the deep seabed

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting a return of the arms and military stores furnished to the respective states, under the provisions of the law of one thousand eight hundred and twelve.

At head of title: [107].

Fitness to stand trial : how discourses of rationality, reasonableness and culpability inform the law and psychiatry to create standards of normal

The objective of this thesis is to demonstrate the importance of the concepts of rationality, reasonableness, culpability and autonomy that inform and support our conception of both the person and the punishable subject. A critical discourse analysis tracing these concepts through both the law and psychological tools used to evaluate the fitness of a person reveals that these concepts and their implied values are inconsistently applied to the mentally disordered who come into conflict with the law. I argue that the result of this inconsistency compromises a person's autonomy which is a contradiction to this concept as a foundational principle of the law. Ultimately, this thesis does not provide a solution to be employed in policy making, but its analysis leaves open possibilities for further exploration into the ways legal and social justice can be reconciled.

Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting a return of the arms and military stores furnished to the respective states, under the provisions of the law of one thousand eight hundred and twelve

At head of title: [107]. 15th Congress, 1st session, 1817-1818. House. February 20, 1818. Read, and ordered to lie upon the table.

Photograph - Mother in Law, Baby and Raymond

A photograph of an elderly woman holding a baby and a small child sitting next to her. The note on the reverse of the photograph reads, "Mother-in-law 84 years old, Baby and Raymond".

Annual Meeting September 1, 1892 and By-Law No.13

The meeting includes a written report of the Statement of Affairs (May 24, 1892), Profit and Loss. There is also another by-law included in the meeting notes, no.13, which focuses on an amount of $27,000 owed to creditor George Barnes.

Directors Meeting November 28, 1896 and By-Law No. 14 & 15

The meeting included an election of officers which resulted as follows: John Reid, President; Geo Barnes, Vice President; Geo. Barnes, Man-Director; J. Evans, Secretary. There are also two more by-laws (14 and 15) signed by both G. Barnes and J. Evans.

Annual Meeting September 1, 1898 and By-Law no.16

The meeting includes by-law no. 16 which makes payable a "dividend on the capital stock of the Ontario Grape Growing and Wine Manufacturing Co. for the year ending May 31st 1898".

Barnes Wines, Limited By-Law no. 82

A by-law "to fix the remuneration and expense allowances of directors". It reads "Be it enacted as a By-law of Barnes Wines Limited: 1. That each Director of the Company be paid the sum of Seventy-five ($75,00) Dollars annually in respect of general services rendered by the Director in his capacity as Director, such remuneration to accrue from the date of his election or appointment as a Director. 2. That each Director shall be paid and allowed travelling and other expenses properly incurred in connection with the affairs of the Company. 3. That this provision shall be and remain in force and effect in the fiscal years of the Company, 1971 to 1973 both inclusive. Enacted this 8th day of February, 1971."

Barnes Wines, Limited By-Law Index

A list of company by-laws starting July 1873 through April 1973.

Barnes Wines, Limited By-Law no. 75

By-Law no. 75 begins "A by-law to govern the affairs of the company and repealing the by-laws of the company passed heretofore relating to the administration of the affairs of the company".

Barnes Wines, LImited By-Law no. 81

The by-law reads: "A by-law to amend by-law no. 79 of the company by restricting the distribution of monies set aside for profit sharing to officers and employees regularly employed at the company's plant. Be it therefore enacted as a by-law of Barnes Wines, Limited as follows: That Schedule 'A' to By-Law no. 79 of the Company enacted on the 2nd day of February, 1953, be and the same is hereby amended by adding after the word "Company" in the last line of paragraph I thereof, the following: 'regularly employed at the Company's plant,' Enacted this 9th day of February, 1966. Witness the Corporate Seal of the Company. Unanimously confirmed by all the Shareholders of the Company at a Special General Meeting of the Shareholders of the Company held on the 21st day of February, 1966."

Barnes Wines, Limited By-Law No. 84

The By-Law reads: "A By-Law to change the Qualification of a director of the Corporation. Be it enacted and is hereby enacted as a By-law of Barnes Wines, Limited that: - Whereas it is deemed expedient to change the qualifications of a Director of the Corporation; Be it therefore enacted as a By-law of Barnes Wines, Limited, as follows: That By-law no. 75 of the Corporation be and the same is hereby amended by striking out Paragraph 4 thereof. Enacted this 9th day of April, 1973. Witness the Corporate seal of the Corporation."