Somehow there’s still two more years of law school. I don’t know about you, but I am pretty sure at this point my brain physically cannot contain any more information. I’ve started to forget my food preferences. They have been deemed unnecessary information and ejected.
Nonetheless, we’ve got another four semesters. And from now on we won’t be shepherded from one class to the next in a cozy little group. Section 1 and 2 will be forced to intermingle as we all chart our own way through our degree. If you’ve taken a look at the course selection, you know the daunting task that lies ahead. To aid you (maybe), compiled here is a non-exhaustive pro/con list gathered from an eclectic mix of upper years about their respective classes.
Some notes on the list below:
- WL is waist list number for the 2011-2012 year (the latest available data), after lottery and before Add/Drop began, which means these numbers are almost entirely irrelevant because we’ve been assured that there’s lots of movement on the waiting lists.
- Max enrol(lment) is liable to go up next year, according to the administration, because we will have larger classrooms at our disposal.
- Noted also is the evaluation scheme of a class: paper, exam, etc.
See also:
- http://www.law.utoronto.ca/academic-programs/course-calendar
- http://www.law.utoronto.ca/academic-programs/academic-handbook/syllabus/course-enrolments-in-previous-years
Aboriginal Peoples and Canadian Law
Max enrol: 40; – papers or take home exam
Pro: you’ll do well if you just agree with everything the professor says (Wilkins)
Con: he speaks pretty fast and you may miss a lot of important-sounding stuff, but there is a set of lecture notes going around from years past and if you can get your hands on that, he really just follows those lectures word for word
Advanced advocacy:
WL: (0)
Pro: “you talk about actual problems that you might encounter in practise – though civil litigation people will benefit more” similar to Advanced LRW, you get to work on assignments that will be similar to what you will be doing on a daily basis as a lawyer (statement of claims, examination for discovery, factums, etc.)”; also “various guest lecturers (Judges, etc.)”
Con: “40 people in what should be a seminar class”. “No specific instructions or guidance”
Advanced Constitutional Law: Security and Remedial Issues
Max Enrol: 40; WL: (4) – paper class
Pro: “very interesting topics taught by a crim and constitutional law superstar” (Roach)
Con: “ridiculous” amounts of reading material
Advanced Contracts: The Law of Contractual Interpretation (Geoff Hall – McCarthys)
Max enrol: 30; WL: (12) – paper or exam
Pro: prof facilitates lots of interesting class discussion, “great for litigators”;
Con: lecturing compromised by amount of discussion; “you don’t learn law so much as you learn cases”
Advanced Legal Research Analysis and Writing
Max enrol: 25; WL: depends on prof – papers and assignment
Pro: “it’s alright. It can be helpful even for people who have a background/undergrad in writing- helps you to be concise”
“it’s a must. Fish is awesome – letter it” “Especially helpful for potential litigator wannabes”
Con: you’re writing for the sake of writing. “there’s one whole class on the McGill citation guide”
Advanced torts with Alexi Wood, practitioner
Max enrol: 25; WL: (3) – participation and factum
Pro: “amazing”; Assignments include a factum and teaching a class (fun!)
Con: it’s an 830, and there’s participation marks. Potentially deadly combo.
No exam
ADR: (2 practitioners)
Max enrol: 25; WL: (3) – paper course
Pro: “role playing exercises are fun”
Con: “not sure if its practical if you’re not becoming a mediator”
Art of the Deal (3 Goodmans lawyers)
Max enrol: 20; WL: (18) – 2 short papers, presentation & participation
Pro: Not much work;
Con: not much learning
Bankruptcy Law (Jane Dietrich – FMC lawyer)
Max enrol: 50; WL: (19) – open book final exam
Pro: Surprisingly important and interesting area of business law, very comprehensive slide decks; Con: New teacher, TONS of readings
Bus Org:
Max enrol: 75 per prof; WL: (23) for Iacobucci’s section – exam class
Pro: “very practical for corporate, Iacobucci is awesome, though he assumes you have some knowledge – “Discussions are geared towards those with a business/economics background (Iacobucci)”. MacIntosh is better if you don’t know what ‘securities’ means exactly. Or at all.
“With MacIntosh’s class it is possible to ride the Curve of Glory without doing a single reading. Save the money and don’t even buy the casebook.”
Con: “material can be boring” and it’s now compulsory. No one likes to be forced to do things.
Canadian Income Tax Law
Max enrol: 75; WL: (14) [note this was when Alarie taught it] – open book exam
Pro: “Shafer teaches the course as clearly as it is likely possible with tax. And it can be more interesting than a topic like tax would imply.”
Con: “It’s still tax.” There are some people I know for whom that would not be a bad thing though. Tax club party any one?
Canadian Migration Law
Max enrol: 25 – paper course
Pro: you get to go on a field trip
Con: you have to report back to the class about it
Corporate Income Tax (Dean Kraus and John Lorito – Stikeman lawyers)
Pro: super useful material for practice of corporate law, great and engaging lecturers, very few readings; Con: incredibly complex material that will make for a bitch of an exam
Citizenship Immigration and Globalization
Max enrol 40; – paper
Pro: “tends to be a lot of exchange students in this course, which promotes a lively comparative discussion”
Con: “Shachar’s non-stop smiling”; “a little too theoretical for my taste (take Canadian Migration Law instead – more practical with some discussion of controversial issues; or if you want to keep with the theoretical, take Citizenship Inside and Out instead)
Corporate tax:
Max enrol: 55; – open book exam
Pro: very little reading
Con: very complex, “most challenging course in law school”
Copyright (Drassinhower)
Max enrol: 50; open book final exam
Pro: “Lighter than the usual load of readings” “Drassinhower keeps things entertaining even at 8:30 in the morning. Plus cases include Popeye, pornography, and promotional sweepstakes.”
Con: “a lot of abstract discourse, not a good course if you don’t like to listen to your classmates talk about things that don’t make sense for half the class”
“It was a morning class this year which isn’t for everyone. Also Drassinhower is on sabbatical next year so you would have to wait until 2014-2015 to take it with him.”
Digital Content and the Creative Economy
Max enrol: 24 – final paper and participation
Pro: “The practitioners teaching the course usually take everyone out for drinks after the last class of term.”
Con: “Readings were long at times and the seminar-style of class made it necessary to at least attempt reading.”
Entertainment Law
Max enrol: 40; WL: (1) – paper
Pro: Different interesting practitioners explain the various aspects of entertainment law. “Often it becomes “Story Time with [Insert Practitioner’s Name]””
Con: “You may not really know much more law when leaving the course than when you arrived. Consider this looking at how much you paid in tuition.”
Environmental Law
Max enrol: 40 – paper course
Pro: “can be extended into a second semester practicum”
Con: “kind of science-y”
Evidence:
Max Enrol: 75; WL: (9) – Exam
Pro: “Hamish Stewart is the man. Period.” Although someone else said, “???”
Con: Have to letter it. Alternately – “lectures can be unfocused and rush”
Evidence Law (practitioners)
Max enrol: 76 – Exam
Pro: you really only ever need to know one case for each topic – whichever one is said to be ‘the principled approach’
Con: “you spend a lot of time reading cases that are of no use to you”; “the practitioners have been known to be somewhat generous with their C’s”
Family law
Max Enrol: 75; WL: (0) [Note this was when Brenda Cossman taught it] – exam or 3 papers
Pro: great prof (Rogerson); “Good class to take if you are interested in taking trusts”; “This shit is practical to know for life – take the class if you can”
Con: 4 hours class/week; “most readings I’ve had in my 2 years at law school”; “the exam will probably be rough” + “tough” subject matter
Financial Crimes
Max Enrol: 25; WL: (0) – research paper, and a commentary
Pro: you can do well in the course without ever having to attend class + cool guest speakers if you actually attend
Con: “Ken Jull is your Ed Morgan equivalent of upper year classes”…not sure what this means but it doesn’t sound good.
Health law
Max enrol: 50 – exam and participation
Pro: potentially great course, very interesting topics.
Con: teacher is on the path to greatness. There are lots of broad questions, and with 20 percent participation and a big class that can be frustrating.
International humanitarian law: the law of armed conflict
Max Enrol: 25; WL: (5) – paper
Pro: “really interesting and topical”; alternately, “it’s okay”
Con: “Prof Orange spends longer than she needs to on some topics”; “cut down the readings a lot, almost not enough to contribute”
International Taxation (Scott Wilkie (Blakes), Robert Raizenne (Osler)
Max enrol: 30; WL: (0) – 24 hour take home
Pro: satisfies international requirement;
Con: brutal profs, brutal textbook, most boring class ever
Internet and Telecommunications Law
Pro: “None. Skip this class even if it seems interesting in the course description.”
Con: “It’s a dry class. So unless the CRTC fascinates you immensely then it is really best to avoid.”
Intensive Course
Pro: Week and half of classes, and you’ve finished a course
Con: “If you are doing the intensive for the sake of getting a credit but have little interest in the content of the course then it is a pain in the ass writing the paper.”
IP law
Pro/Con: Drassinhower is really interesting, but he is on sabbatical next year. Also he “spends like 90% of the time on copyright”
Ariel Katz better for if you actually want to do IP because he gives a broader overview than Drassinhower, but he is less…engaging.
Labour and Employment Law (with Langille)
Max enrol: 76; – essay and open book exam
Pro: “You get to learn it from one of Canada’s top labour law scholars”
Con: A lot of reading.
Litigation and social change
Max enrol: 25 – research paper and presentation
Pro: Complete freedom to pursue a social justice topic of your choice.
Con: “If you don’t have an idea you’re passionate about, the course largely lacks direction”
Media and Defamation Law (Bruser and Schabas)
– 2 papers and participation, presentation
Pro: “2 top practitioners teach the class, and you get to hear them banter”; “expect good stories and 2 old men making fun of each other”
Con: “lots of reading (but it’s also a lot of news),”; that being said, “if you are going to follow the discussions you actually have to do all the readings”
Negotiation
Max Enrol: 30 per section; WL: (20) or (64) – participation and Journal
Pro: “It’s two credits where you do no law but learn practical skills that are good for practicing law (and life in general).”
Con: Usually you have to letter the class but sometimes possible to get in without.
Pension law
Pro: “It’s a paper course, and you don’t have to read the book. “
Con: “Pension law jokes and anecdotes are not funny.”
Privacy law
Max enrol: 42; – papers and participation
Pro: Interesting
Con: Lot of work
Public International Law (with Macklem)
Max enrol: 65 – open book exam
Pro: A couple of very relaxing movie days; Sometimes, you’ll find yourself thinking ‘wow this course material is really relevant to what is happening in Palestine right now, and I really love when I can see the real life application of something so theoretical!’
Con: Macklem’s soft and soothing voice will have you straining your ears to catch what he’s saying, or sometimes even falling asleep
Secured Transactions
Max enrol: 76; – open book exam
Pro: “Duggan annually tops with the Prof Rankings with good reason, makes difficult and dry subject clear and understandable,”
Con: “very, very dry”
Tax
Pro: “wikitax posts are the easiest 20% of your grade you’ll ever obtain in law school + HOT PROF” (Alarie)
Con: “more stressful than a 1L exam to study for,”; “make sure you have a good upper year map”
Tax and policy workshop: course but you meet 8 times over the course of the year
Trial Advocacy
Max enrol: 60; WL: (38) – final trial and weekly workshop activities
Pro: “my favourite course – among other things, you’re done before exams, you get to cross-examine real police officers!”
Con: a lot of work. “You have to embarrass yourself every week, especially now that they make you do video review of your weekly performance”
Trusts (with Oosterhoff)
Max Enrol: 75; WL: (48) [note this was when Duggan taught the class]
Pro: “Oosterhoff covers all the textbook material in great detail in class, including the notes sections that professors often assign but gloss over or don’t discuss at all”
Con: “Heavy reading load + loves using latin terms for everything”
US Constitutional
– paper
P: really interesting material, good prof (Schneiderman); though some don’t like his style
C: lot of assignments (4+24 hr take home)
Upper Year Moot
Pro: “It’s something different from reading cases and attending courses”. Plus, “you don’t have to do too much to get the Pass.”
Con: “The Faculty insists on providing info sessions about research and mooting well before most people reach the research and mooting stage. What could be beneficial just takes up time and is forgotten.”
Wills and Estate Planning (Laura West – Faskens lawyer)
Max enrol: 30; WL: (20) – paper
Pro: interesting and useful material that everyone should know about, excellent lecturer, not much work (just two assignments totaling 6500 words, based on class readings);
Con: really easy and therefore you don’t feel like you’re learning much
