RSS FeedThe Life and Times of Ivan C. Rand
From Volume III, Issue II of Amicus Curiae, Western Law’s Student Paper
Canada was a different place before Trudeaumania swept the nation, and the man we know as Ivan Rand, founding Dean of this law school and former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, was a product of his times. It would be easy to dismiss Dean Rand as an intolerant bigot, but as William Kaplan explained to an audience at Western Law on Nov. 11, [2009,] Rand was complicated character.
“Canadian judicial biography has been, with a few exceptions, mostly uncritical and largely celebratory, written by unabashed admirers,” Kaplan writes in his new book, Canadian Maverick – The Life and Times of Ivan C. Rand. “To my great surprise, this book turned out to be different.”
Ivan Rand was born and raised in the Maritimes and graduated from Harvard Law in 1912. It was his exposure to the American Bill of Rights that, according to Kaplan, differentiated Rand from other Canadian lawyers. And it’s Justice Rand’s decisions as a Justice of the Supreme Court that make his legal legacy so difficult to reconcile with his private views, which have been largely hidden until now.
By 1951, the court in Noble v. Alley assessed a restrictive covenant against selling property in the Grand Bend area to Jews, blacks, or those with “coloured race or blood.” It was Justice Rand who interrupted oral submissions by the respondent saying,“If Albert Einstein and Arthur Rubinstein purchased cottages there, the property values would increase, and the association should be honoured to have them as neighbours.”
Despite his position on restrictive covenants in this case, he was a member of two restrictive clubs that excluded Jews. He defended the right of Communists to hold elected positions, and famously opposed the internment of Japanese citizens, all the while refusing to meet his sister’s Acadian husband for 30 years because of his background.
“It’s this hypocrisy – because he did know better – that ultimately leads me to conclude: first-rate mind, third rate temperament,” said Kaplan, noting that the most influential judges are rarely collegial consensus builders. “Not such a bad combination.”
What, if anything, changed during his lifetime?
Kaplan suggests that Rand’s exposure to Jews in the Palestine Mandate may have led him to develop a more favourable impression of Jews. Rand was impressed by the largely secular, often highly educated and industrious, and was sometimes even disdainful of the religious establishment of the Holy Land. He believed that rational law could resolve all human conflict, and was a social engineer at heart.
Robert Mackay, one of Rand’s colleagues at Western who would eventually succeed him as Dean, recalls Rand’s rants against Jews and people with ethnic names that ended with a vowel: “Rand would declare he had enough of them.”
Yet he continued to donate to Hebrew University in Jerusalem for the rest of his life. A forest in Israel was named after him, and he would tour the country receiving awards.
So what is Rand’s legacy for this school?
Kaplan tellingly notes, “Almost all of his great civil libertarian decisions reversed the actions of state authorities in Quebec.” Mackay explained, “Rand had to decide who he hated more – the French-Canadian Roman Catholics, or Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
Rand believed that ethics could not be taught – either you had them or you didn’t. Western is now known as a pioneer in legal ethics education.
The Ivan Rand window in the Moot Court Room looms menacingly above all those who dare try their hand at advocacy. Rand himself believed that mock trials courts were entertaining, but not educational. He preferred his old 1909 Harvard law texts for the students.
Rand felt that women were good as solicitors but did not have the fortitude for criminal law, a notion that would not bode well for our classes in which women outnumber men , the legal aid clinic, or our struggling criminal law program.
Dean Rand defied utilitarian economics by taking surplus budgets and returning them to the university, much to the chagrin of his staff. He abandoned the administration of the law school only months after its opening to attend to a coal crisis in Cape Breton.
Yet the students loved him.
The Rand formula, where workers pay union dues irrespective of membership, is still one of the hallmark characteristics of Canadian labour law. One of Rand’s recommendations (which was never adopted) was that unions be recognized as legal entities that could sue and be sued [directly, and not through agents]. Another was abolishing picketing altogether.
Overall, Kaplan describes Rand’s own hand at labour relations as nothing less than “disastrous,” with nearly every stakeholder and political party expressing strong criticism. “Reforming labour law,” Kaplan said, “is best done incrementally.”
As our own Dean Holloway acknowledges, “it’s difficult to write fairly about Ivan Rand… What emerges is a picture of a principled man, who thought deeply about the best way to enhance the standards of this profession.”
Kaplan suggests that what makes Rand impressive is his ability to draw bright lines between his public and private life, especially when on the Court. And for a man whose vision in many ways may have been ahead of his time, perhaps that is the most we can ask for.
My Fourth Year of Law School
From the October 2009 issue of Amicus Curiae
Many law students find law school to be so painful that few can understand or relate when I say I actually enjoy the ordeal. They would probably understand even less if I told them that I enjoy it so much that I actually subjected myself to an extra semester of it voluntarily, and not for an LLM.
This is the story of my 2L summer.
I had the opportunity to work for a local law firm during my first year and through my first summer. I had a pleasant enough experience, but I learned all that I could as a law student in that context. For my next summer I decided to do something different.
Most of my time this summer was dedicated to consulting and writing projects. My work projects took me to several locations, including Calgary and B.C. While on the West Coast, I also managed to catch a federal political convention.
Some of my friends outside of law already joke that I do law school on the side. I figured I could probably pick up some legal experience this summer while I was running around. I checked out some summer law abroad programs, and registered for ABA-approved courses at UofT, Bar Ilan in Israel, and Universidad Autonoma de Guadalajara in Mexico.
Before you get any smart ideas, keep in mind that Western doesn’t accept summer transfer credits, even though many other Canadian law schools do. I’m not saying that they should, but if they did I would have graduated before my January term even began. Yes, it was a pretty intense summer.
The trip to Israel had some personal reasons behind it, in addition to my other activities. During my last trip there about 10 years ago I stayed in (primarily Arab) East Jerusalem and the Territories. I enjoyed a rather privileged lifestyle in the primarily Jewish West Jerusalem, staying in Golan resorts overlooking the Galilee, driving through the Negev desert, floating
in the Dead Sea, and swimming on the beaches of Tel Aviv. The tensions within a very complicated country were highlighted with a visit to the assassination site of Yitzak Rabin.
My last summer destination was Mexico. After an unexpected stop in Monterrey when someone decided to have a baby mid-flight, I arrived at my destination in Guadalajara. I soaked up a lot of local culture during my stay including assorted local crafts, Mexican ballet (sans any sign of tutus), Lucha Libra wrestling, and horseback riding along Lake Chapala.
But it seems that politics and law is inescapable no matter where you go. Prime Minister Harper, President Obama, and President Calderon were in town for the North American Leaders’ Summit. Calderon was even staying a few doors down from me at my five-star hotel. One of the major issues on the agenda for them was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was becoming increasingly contentious to citizens of all countries during the current economic turbulence.
So what exactly did I study while I was running around the world? Most law abroad programs focus on international legal issues, for obvious reasons, so there were courses on the International Criminal Court, environmental law, international economics and NAFTA, cyberspace law and human rights. But I also got some specialized training in Jewish law, holocaust law, and national security issues that I probably would not get anywhere else.
Some of the faculty I studied with included world-renowned rabbis, someone who worked on the Rome Statute through an NGO, and even the infamous Kenneth Starr from the Clinton-Lewinsky case. Starr held a special session to discuss his role in Proposition 8, the same-sex bill that was shot down in California last year.
There is one key lesson unrelated to my summer courses that I would like to impart and share with others. In the summer of your second year you will typically be applying for your articling position. I was extremely fortunate that it worked out for me, but I would not recommend taking your interview call on a Tel Aviv beach, actually doing the interview on a Mexican cell phone, and skipping the law firm reception entirely to tour a Spanish cathedral.
You’ll have a hard time making an impression and competing with candidates who actually bothered to be in the country to interview in person.
And no matter how many excuses you make, or how many times you show them this article, they’re just not going to buy that someone voluntarily subjected themselves to additional law school that they won’t get credit for.
Real Media Don’t Die, We Multiply
If you’ve been alive and on the Internet in the past year you would have read the obituaries – print newspapers are dead. Or dying, so they claim.
Some are even claiming the recession with determine the outcome of print, who are expected to see a major decline in 2009. Even law reviews are seeing the transition to exclusive virtual publication. And print legal researchers may be an endangered species.
One of the best April Fool’s gags this year was The Guardian‘s story on how they had moved to Twitter – exclusively.
But others claim that traditional media is not dying, it’s simply changing. Parker Mason, a PR friend of mine in TO said,
Did the invention of the printing press kill off the spoken word? No. It just meant that hand-lettered books were no longer necessary, and it gave more people access to literature and information.
Did the invention of radio kill off the written word? Again, no.
Did television indeed kill the radio star? No, but it might have forced some radio stars to adapt to become more television-friendly. And it also created a whole knew breed of radio stars.
Did the internet kill television? Again, no. If you’re like me, you might not use an actual television set but you probably still enjoy watching television shows on your computer or portable device.
Print media is likely to be around regardless. What papers will do is probably enhance their online presence, and many Canadian papers are already seeing an explosion of comments and interactivity on their sites. Dany Horovitz of Law is Cool also writes for the National Post’s Executive Blog, an exclusively digital publication.
Legal media is probably not much different, despite our affinity in this industry for paper. With over 4,500 hits a day on this site (and growing), we’re competing directly with legal print media for numbers. But not necessarily readership, because ours is global; or even for content, given our unique format and different focus on students specifically.
Smart newspapers will make this transition seamlessly. Smarter ones will partner with existing online media outlets.
The University of Western Ontario’s law school paper, Nexus, did post here for some time through their former editor-in-chief, Alex Dimson. The paper has gone through some changes and is now named Amicus Curiae, and we’re pleased to announce that the new paper will posting selective articles on Law is Cool as well.
Check out Ahmed Farahat’s excellent interview with Justice Binnie. Kamila Pizon of Amicus Curiae will also be posting shortly on the transition from LL.B. to J.D.
The synergies between print and virtual media are natural but often overlooked. We benefit from well-researched, carefully edited pieces, and they have an opportunity to speak to a larger audience.
Trained journalists also benefit from going online, and bring their writing skills with them.
For example, we’ve just taken on Digal Haio, a 2L at Osgoode. I first met Digal years ago during outreach activities in politics, where she was working for the Somali Press, an important voice for a vibrant and dynamic community with unique challenges of marginalization, discrimination, and racism. We’ve always had a strong mandate on this site for social justice and empowerment, and her contributions will definitely be valued.
At one time I also worked as a reporter in a print-based newspaper as a side job.
But the conversation goes the other way as well. I recently did an interview with Charles Adler on his nationally-syndicated radio show. The topic of conversation? My blog post on Animal Spirits, something everyone is worrying about in the midst of the G20 and economic troubles. I did another interview yesterday with Luigi Bennetton for Lawyers Weekly on web collaboration and wikis.
The Internet is an excellent place journalists to find topics of interest among the public, and find resources and experts for their pieces.
Law firms and lawyers have never underestimated the need for media presence, for client development or even basic advocacy. At some point they’ll have to start including online media, because that’s where most of the content will be. The University of Western Ontario law school recently started posting videos and downloadable audio files for our distinguished speakers, a move that will likely increase their profile generally in the legal community.
The growth of online media does not necessarily mean the demise of print. It just harkens change, one of the inevitabilities in life. Those embracing this change will not only flourish, but will find their media experiences enriched as a result.
Please note most of us are entering our exam period, and regular postings will be on hold.
Amicus Curiae sits down with Justice Binnie of the Supreme Court of Canada
Ahmed Farahat of UWO’s new law paper interviews Justice Ian Binnie. From the February issue of Amicus.
If I can start by asking you: when did you first decide to embark on a career in law?
I think when I was in college. I arrived at it by a process of elimination. I could see all sorts of jobs that I was congenitally incapable of doing. I did a lot of debating in my undergraduate years, and becoming a barrister seemed like fun.
I noticed in your biography on the Supreme Court’s website that you did your LL.B. in Cambridge. Why did you get your law degree from the UK?
At the time I went, Ontario accepted entry to the British bar to go straight to the Bar Admission Course. So I thought: here is an opportunity to see another part of the world and get an educational qualification that is recognized in Ontario. Unfortunately, when I was away they changed the rules and when I came back, they said well, now you have to get an LL.B. from an Ontario law school. Seemed like a good idea at the beginning.
How was the Cambridge experience different from the one you had here at the University of Toronto?
The experience in the UK is totally different from University of Toronto. In the UK, they studied medieval English, Roman law, and all kinds of topics that were absolutely of no practical importance whatsoever. Toronto, when I got there, was experiencing quite a golden age with Bora Laskin and many interesting professors. So there was eventually no duplication at all between the three years I spent at Cambridge and the two years I spent at Toronto. And there is no doubt that Toronto’s education was of a higher order. The English system has law as an undergraduate degree, so you go straight from high school to law, whereas in Canada, students already completed their undergraduate degree. In England, there was no real reason to go into law other than escaping history and literature and all the other courses you performed poorly in during high school.
