Candidates must fill in correctly the heading on the front of each booklet and envelope provided. Failure to do so may result in the answers not being read.

Please indicate your section on the front of the envelope

THIS EXAMINATION PAPER MUST BE PLACED IN THE ENVELOPE WITH YOUR BOOKLETS AT THE END OF THE EXAMINATION.

• This examination is Aopen book@.

C Please write on every other line of the examination booklets.

C If you find ambiguity in a question, say so in your answer and make any reasonable assumption consistent with the facts given.

C If for any reason you cannot proceed, raise your hand and an invigilator will assist you.

C This examination is worth a total of 50 marks.

C This 5-page examination paper consists of 7 questions.

Running the Interview Gauntlet

Roberta had her heart set on articling at the law firm of Grock & Co. As she listened to the question posed by Francis Lowse, a partner with the firm, she felt her cheeks flush with anger. ANot again@, she thought, AI can=t believe I=m hearing this.@

Ever since she started law school she had been struggling with the problem of how she would maintain her identity in a Bay Street uniform. She thought she had finally worked it out. Having cultivated her own distinctive look while in law school B micro-mini skirts with brightly coloured stockings B she simply shifted to suits with short skirts and B voilá B she was ready to face the firms. Now, into her fifth interview, with a partner named Lowse of the venerable firm of Grock & Co. she was not so sure. AWhy do they have to make such a big deal out of my electric paisley tights?@ she wondered.

She mustered her courage. AYes, I have been told that I look like that Sally McTeal woman on the TV,@ she heard herself answer Lowse=s question with a forced calm, Abut I do not wear short skirts to deal with feelings of inadequacy.@ When the interview was over, she felt certain she would not get the position with Grock & Co.. She went to meet a friend from her section, Stanley, for lunch.

ARoberta,@ he said sympathetically, AI know where you=re coming from B but don=t blame it all on these folks, for they know not what they say. It=s that TV show that puts these ideas into their heads -- gives them the wrong idea about why women lawyers dress the way they do. Of course, no one forces them to buy into such bankrupt stereotypes. I think lawyers like that and the people that make that show should both have to answer for the abuse you=re getting. I have an idea. Let=s go and talk to Mike. He and I have just founded the new Student Legal Assistant Program, or ASLAP@ for short.@

ASounds like a great case to raise the profile of SLAP,@ said Mike enthusiastically, Ajust what we=ve been looking for. If memory serves, that show is co-produced by Wolf TV out of Buffalo and the Vancouver Broadcasting Corporation. And the timing is excellent. I read in the paper the other day that they=re due to film a part of the season finale in Toronto next Thursday afternoon at King and Bay. Not far, in fact, from the offices of Grock & Co.@

After some legal research and brainstorming, Roberta and SLAP come up with some innovative legal theories for their potential case against the prospective defendants. They figure that they can allege breach of contract and misrepresentation against Lowse and Grock & Co. on the basis that students accepting the offer to interview with the firm rely on representations in the student brochure including: "..at Grock & Co. we disdain stereotypes, and look for the essence of excellence in each student we interviewY"; and " Y everyone interviewed at Grock & Co. is given substantial time to ensure that important decisions by us and you are based upon hard data and sound judgments, and not superficialities and appearancesY". And they figure that they can allege that Wolf TV and VCB have defamed young lawyers by perpetuating sterotypes and encouraging the view that those who dress daringly or unconventionally are unstable and unreliable, and that Roberta=s interview at Grock & Co. proved that her reputation had suffered. With the help of SLAP, Roberta commences an action against Francis Lowse, Grock & Co., Wolf TV and the VBC.

Is there a sound basis for Lowse and Grock & Co. to object to being joined with Wolf TV and the VBC in one action? (10 minutes - 5 marks)

Roberta had interviewed at one small criminal law firm, Myss, Dee & Meaner. The interviewer, Mike, a man who looked to be about Roberta=s age, had been wearing a Meavis and Mutthead tie and he had confided to Roberta, ALook, between you and me, I had a lot of trouble when I first started out. All the firms had a thing about my ties. I didn=t get an articling job until almost six months after I graduated.@ When Roberta recounts this story to her friends at SLAP, one of them suggests that they commence claim similar to Roberta=s, with Roberta as the plaintiff and a number of the leading Bay Street firms as defendants, and then seek certification of it as a class action.

What do you think would be the main concerns of the court in certifying such a claim as a class action? Do you think the court would grant certification? (16 minutes - 8 marks)

Roberta happens to be a member of an advocacy group called ASmart Women Against Stupid Television@ (SwvST). Last year, SWvST brought a complaint before the CRTC(the government authority that regulates television broadcasters). SwvST complained that by broadcasting Sally McTeel, the VBC incited hatred against women. The CRTC who heard the matter proceeded by conducting telephone interviews with each of the parties. Based on this hearing the officer concluded that the show did not incite hatred against women as was alleged by the complainants and no action was taken.The VBC objects to Roberta making such allegations against it in her civil action.

How would the VBC pursue its objection and is it likely to be successful? (16 minutes -8 marks)

Assume that the VBC is unsuccessful in pursuing the objections described in Question 3 and that SWvST wants to intervene in Roberta=s action.

Can SwvST intervene? On what grounds and for what purpose? (12 minutes - 6 marks)

SLAP has been contacted by a student legal aid society at Zale University Law School, which is also suing Wolf TV regarding the McTeal show, seeking some information from SLAP=s files. Earlier in Roberta=s action SLAP brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the broadcasting of the McTeal show. Affidavits were exchanged between the parties, the affiants were cross-examined and documents were produced on the cross-examinations. After evaluating this material SLAP decided to abandon the motion and none of the materials were filed with the court. These are the materials sought by the Zale society.

Is SLAP free to provide this material to the Zale society? Would your answer be different if the request came from a Toronto newpaper reporter who is doing a story on the McTeal show? (16 minutes - 8 marks)

Roberta receives Grock & Co.=s Affidavit of Documents. One of the documents listed in Schedule B is entitled AWhat not to ask: A guide to partners interviewing articling students in the 90s@. The law firm has refused to produce this document, arguing that it is privileged. When asked the document=s purpose, the lawyer for Grock & Co. responded that it was originally produced for the purpose informing lawyers how to conduct interviews so as to best assess potential articling students, but later substantially revised for the purpose of avoiding liability for asking improper questions.

On what basis could Roberta seek production of the document and, based on the relevant case law, would she likely succeed? (14 minutes; 7 marks)

In its statement of defence Wolf TV denies that it is involved with the McTeal show, alleging that the co-producer (with VBC) is Dingo Productions Inc. Wolf TV brings a motion for summary judgment to be dismissed from the action on this basis. In support of the motion it files the affidavit of its president swearing to the above. In response SLAP files the affidavit of the president of the Toronto TV station that broadcasts the show in which she swears that the show is co-produced by Wolf TV and VBC and that the station purchases the program from Wolf TV.

(16 minutes - 8 marks)

Copyright 1999 Janet Walker