New Books at the Law Library – 22/06/27

LAW LIBRARY reference room (level 2): KE1639 .F86 2022
James B. Musgrove et al, eds., Fundamentals of Canadian Competition Law, 4th ed. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2022).

LAW LIBRARY reference room (level 2): KE9312 .G68 2022
Eric V. Gottardi, Qualifying and Challenging Expert Evidence (Toronto: Emond Publishing, 2022).

LAW LIBRARY reference room (level 2): KE8457 .C43 2022
Gerald Chan & Susan Magotiaux, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications Limited, 2022).

LAW LIBRARY reference room (level 2): KE9312 .S24 2022
Roger E Salhany & Edward W Claxton, 9th ed. (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications Limited, 2022).

Closed for Canada Day – Friday, July 1

Law Library will be CLOSED for Canada Day – Friday, July 1

Happy Canada Day!

2022 Employee Recognition Award winners announced

Left to right: David Van, Dr. Susan E. Parker, Candice Bjur, Kristen Wong


UBC Library is pleased to announce that Kristen Wong, Candice Bjur, and David Van are the 2022 recipients of UBC Library Awards. Each year, the Library Awards Program shines a light on those employees who have demonstrated exceptional creativity, innovation, leadership, excellence and a dedication to customer service through their work.  

The awards were presented during the 2022 UBC Library Summer Recognition Awards Ceremony, held on Monday, June 22, 2022.

Congratulations to Kristen, Candice and David, and thank you to everyone who participated by submitting nominations. 

Employee Excellence Award – Kristen Wong

Kristen Wong (Program Services Assistant, Community Engagement) is the winner of the 2022 UBC Library Employee Excellence Award, which recognizes a Library employee who consistently demonstrates their commitment to making an impact on the Library and making it a better workplace for all, through living our values and behaviors. Their kindness, compassion and respect for those above and below make them eagerly sought after as project team members or leaders.

Kristen is an open, friendly, insightful and hard-working employee at UBC Library. She is often praised for her positive energy and consistent attention to detail, always willing to go the extra kilometer to help others and to ensure smooth operations at the library.

Unsung Hero Awards – David Van and Candice Bjur

David Van (Collections Management Assistant, Technical Services) and Candice Bjur (Archives Clerk, University Archives) are the winners of the 2022 UBC Library Unsung Hero Award, which recognizes a Library employee or team who keep the library branches running, delivering its services, collections and operations. Their efforts help UBC Library to effectively deliver the stellar service that users have come to expect.

David has been praised for his steady oversight in book preparations, leadership to students and being a role model for maintaining best standards in materials processing. His unsung work was critical in ensuring that materials reached various library locations and library users during the COVID-19 outbreak through the Materials pick-up service.

Candice is recognized for her leadership, her willingness to take on additional roles, her fearlessness in learning new and challenging technology, and her collegiality. She stepped in to support her colleagues and fill a need during a challenging, transitional time, learning new skills and taking on the running of a key program at RMO for 6 months while maintaining her regular responsibilities.

Exploring Open Collections: Alma Mater Society Image Collection: Part I

If you are a UBC student or alum, there’s something you won’t want to miss: the Alma Mater Society Image Collection. This two-part series will explore the historical photographs from the Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia Vancouver.

Included in this collection, developed and maintained by the Alma Mater Society (or AMS, the student society of UBC Vancouver), are digitized photographs from the earliest days of the University until the present day. They present a view of student life including images of the AMS Executive, Student Council, student protests, other student activities over the past century and images of the Student Union Building (SUB) and other buildings students helped pay for on campus.

When McGill University College of British Columbia (MUCBC), an institution providing post-secondary education in BC, opened in 1907, the AMS (MUCBC) was founded. The AMS (MUCBC) paved the way for the establishment of the Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia Vancouver (UBC AMS) in 1915.

The composition of UBC AMS Council has gradually changed throughout these decades. Let’s take the 1918-1919 AMS Council as an example. The 1918-1919 AMS Council was comprised of nine members, including (1) President, (2) Literary Department President, (3) Assistant Secretary & Arts Men’s Undergrad Society President, (4) Women’s Undergrad Society President, (5) Vice-President & Women’s Athletic Assoc. President, (6) Secretary, (7) Ubyssey Editor in Chief, (8) Science Men’s Undergrad Society President and (9) Treasurer & Men’s Athletic Assoc. President.

As the student enrollment and organizations increased, the number of Student Council members increased to twenty-five in 1966-1967 and forty-three in 2017-2018. The newly added members include Law Students’ Association Representative, Nursing Undergrad Society Representative, Graduate Students Representative, Student Senate Caucus Representative, etc.

1918-1919 Student Council Composite, 1919

1918-1919 Student Council Composite, 1919

1966-1967 Student Council Composite, 1967

1966-1967 Student Council Composite, 1967

2017-2018 Student Council Composite, 2018

2017-2018 Student Council Composite, 2018

If you wish to explore more student council composites of other academic years, please visit the AMS Image Collection to conduct keyword searches:”composite”&collection=ams


Apart from student council composites and professional portraits, the AMS Image Collection consists of interesting photographs of AMS Presidents and executives.

AMS President and executives were so creative that they took mugshots of themselves.

[2000-2001 AMS President], 2000

[2000-2001 AMS President], 2000

[2000-2001 AMS executive], 2000

[2000-2001 AMS executive], 2000

AMS VP External Affairs was in a diving pose and AMS President was shrugging over a parking ticket at a parking lot.

[AMS executive], 2009

[AMS executive], 2009

[AMS President], 2009

[AMS President], 2009

Here is a series of AMS VP Administration with three different facial expressions.

[2001-2002 AMS executive], 2001

[2001-2002 AMS executive], 2001

[2001-2002 AMS executive], 2001

[2001-2002 AMS executive], 2001

[2001-2002 AMS executive], 2001

[2001-2002 AMS executive], 2001

Another series of AMS executives playing four different sports – baseball, hockey, volleyball, and tennis.

[1997-1998 AMS executive], 1997

[1997-1998 AMS executive], 1997

[1997-1998 AMS executive], 1997

[1997-1998 AMS executive], 1997

[1997-1998 AMS executive], 1997

[1997-1998 AMS executive], 1997

[1997-1998 AMS executive], 1997

[1997-1998 AMS executive], 1997

AMS President, VP Finance, VP Admin, VP External Affairs and VP Academic dressed in old-fashioned clothing.

[2002-2003 AMS President and executives], 2002

[2002-2003 AMS President and executives], 2002

If you wish to explore more photographs of AMS Presidents and executives, please visit the AMS Image Collection to conduct keyword searches:”AMS%20President”OR title:”AMS%20Executive”&collection=ams

[1997-1998 AMS President], 1997

[1997-1998 AMS President], 1997


UBC AMS. (2020). List of Council Members.

UBC, the UEL, and How They Got That Way

Anybody who has ever attended or worked at the University of British Columbia’s Vancouver campus knows that it is not actually part of the City of Vancouver – despite the fact that its mailing address clearly states “Vancouver”.  Together with the University Hill neighbourhood and Pacific Spirit Regional Park, it actually forms an “unincorporated area” – part of Electoral Area A within the Metro Vancouver Regional District.

Electoral Area A, commonly known as the “University Endowment Lands” or UEL, is subject to several overlapping jurisdictions: Metro Vancouver, the provincial government, Musqueam First Nation, and of course UBC itself.  However, there is nothing that can be considered an elected local government, answerable to people who live and/or work there.  The resulting governance situation can be confusing for students, residents, and businesses alike.

However, this was not always the case.  In fact, it is likely that few people know the historical circumstances that led to this situation.  Those circumstances centred, as so many things do in Vancouver, on money, real estate, and politics – and the issue was decided by the votes of only a few hundred local residents.

Vancouver as originally incorporated in 1886 included only the areas immediately south of Burrard Inlet and around False Creek.  Its southern and western boundaries were what are now 16th Avenue and Alma Street, respectively.  The lands beyond those boundaries – still covered in old-growth or second-growth forest except for scattered farms and homesteads – remained unorganized.

In 1892 the District Municipality of South Vancouver was established, extending west of Boundary Road (Burnaby) and south of Vancouver.  It was also defined as enclosing the land “along the low water mark” of the North Arm of the Fraser River and the south shore of English Bay, including Point Grey itself.

In 1908 South Vancouver was divided roughly in half, at what is now Cambie Street.  The western part was incorporated as the Municipality of Point Grey, and included “all of that portion of the said present Municipality of South Vancouver lying west of the line of division”.

In 1910 a provincial University Site Commission selected the western end of Point Grey as the site for the proposed University of British Columbia.  In response, the government reserved 175 acres from their extensive Crown land holdings in that area of the Municipality of Point Grey for UBC’s future home.  The Province also reserved about two million acres in the interior of British Columbia as a source of financial support for the university.  Proceeds from the sale of these lands were to be used to fund its construction and maintenance.  However, it was soon discovered that the reserved lands did not have enough value to ever provide significant revenue.  The government eventually exchanged the original endowment for about 3000 acres adjacent to the Point Grey site.  Both the university site and the surrounding University Endowment Lands were Crown land owned by the Province, but still located within the municipal boundaries of Point Grey.

Map of Point Grey showing proposed streets on future UBC campus site

Vancouver Map and Blueprint Co. Ltd. (1910). [Map of Point Grey showing proposed streets on future UBC campus site – cropped]. UBC Rare Books and Special Collections.

From an early date the Municipality had high hopes for the development of the Point Grey lands.  A map dated 1910 shows a proposed network of roads extending westward to the end of Point Grey, culminating in a park or “Village Green” near the site of today’s Rose Garden.  Beginning in 1909 the town had campaigned for the University Site Commission to consider the area for the site of UBC’s campus.  A petition that year asked municipal council to borrow up to $375,000 to build roads and other infrastructure to serve the lands around the point if the Commission chose that area (Vancouver Sun, 19 January 1929).

Construction of the campus began in 1914, but was suspended at the outbreak of the First World War, and further delayed by financial shortfalls and government inaction.  UBC opened its doors in 1915 at the “Fairview campus” near Vancouver General Hospital.  It took a 1922 student publicity campaign, culminating with the “Great Trek” parade and the presentation of a petition with 56,000 signatures, to convince the provincial government to renew construction at Point Grey.

The following year, the Province began planning the development of the UEL for sale as residential properties.  Lots had to be surveyed; roads, sewers, and other infrastructure had to be built.  The question of how to pay for this work soon became a source of tension between the Province and the Municipality of Point Grey.

During the 1923 Point Grey municipal elections, George A. Walkem of the UBC Department of Mechanical Engineering ran for the position of reeve (equivalent to mayor).  Walkem’s position was that the Province “should develop the grounds … and on completion turn the entire site over to the municipality, debt free”.  He cited the development of Shaughnessy by the CPR, which turned over the high-end neighbourhood to Point Grey upon completion, as a precedent (Vancouver Sun, 5 January 1923).  Walkem insisted that once the University was established at Point Grey the surrounding lands would increase in value, so that their sale would pay off any debt incurred from developing the area (Vancouver World, 10 January 1923).  Walkem would go on to win election and serve as reeve for two years.

In a meeting with Point Grey municipal council on November 19, 1923, Provincial Engineer E.A. Cleveland outlined the provincial government’s own plans.  According to Cleveland, about 100 acres had already been cleared and made ready for the necessary improvements.  He told the council that this initial offering was “an experiment on the part of the government”.  If it was successful, further tracts within the UEL would opened up in a similar manner.

Sample of clippings regarding University lands, November 1923

Scrapbook #16, p. 31 (November 1923). [Newspaper clippings from Vancouver “World”, “Province”, and “Sun” regarding development of University lands]. UBC Scrapbook Collection. University of British Columbia Archives.

Contrary to what Reeve Walkem had suggested, Cleveland explained that the cost of those improvements would ultimately be borne by the buyers of the building lots through their property taxes.  However, the immediate financing of that work had to be addressed.  It was eventually agreed that the provincial government would continue development of the site and finance all improvements.  Point Grey would take them over upon completion and reimburse the Province for the work, issuing bonds to raise the money.  The Municipality could then assess a local improvement tax on those properties to retire the bonds.

However, the Province insisted that assessments on the built lots not be raised for an extended period.  The government’s concern was that the UEL lots were likely to be of higher value than other properties.  Assessed at a higher rate, they would carry a disproportionate share of costs of other municipal improvements, and so be less attractive to buyers.  Point Grey council, however, did not want this limitation imposed, arguing that “the provincial government should not expect an artificially-low tax assessment for its buyers when such a privilege was not open to the ordinary ratepayer” (Vancouver World, 20 November 1923).

Apart from toney Shaughnessy, the neighbourhoods known today as Kerrisdale, Marpole, and West Point Grey, and a few farms, most of the Municipality consisted of undeveloped land which generated no tax revenue.  With such a narrow tax base, the council did not want to be made responsible for new local infrastructure that it could not pay for.  The provincial government also saw this, and suspected that Point Grey would eventually treat the UEL area as a “cash cow” supporting the entire municipality.

By the spring of 1924 the assessment question still threatened to block a final agreement.  Minister of Lands T.D. Pattullo was quoted in the Vancouver Sun on April 12 saying “that the new subdivision cannot pay for all its own improvements and also be saddled with the cost of improvements in other parts of the municipality is [a position] that we cannot very well recede from…”.  He then hinted at a possible consequence of not reaching an agreement:

Our only alternative would be to establish a new municipality, which, of course, we do not wish to do.

The suggestion that UBC and the lands surrounding it could be carved off from Point Grey caught the imagination of at least one editorial writer at the Sun:

To permit the formation of a Greater Vancouver without embarrassment and hindrance, Government and University holdings in Point Grey should be created into a separate municipality to be known as University Municipality….
It would take years to develop this tract of land under Point Grey government, because Point Grey is an expansive municipality with troubles of its own.
Separated from Point Grey, this tract could be developed by the University and the Government in a manner that would yield most profits from this area which will be a future important residential section of Vancouver. (Editorial, Vancouver Sun, April 16, 1924)

View of University Boulevard after paving and landscaping

Frank, Leonard (26 March 1929). [View of University Boulevard after paving and landscaping]. UBC Archives image UBC 1.1/117

Negotiations dragged on through the spring and summer.  In August Pattullo issued a statement reiterating the government’s stance, and repeated his threat to remove the University and the UEL from Point Grey if no agreement could be reached.

By this time the improvement work was nearing completion.  On 108 acres, containing the first 100 lots to be sold, about 26 miles of pipe for water, sewers, and drains had been laid, with connections up to the property lines of every lot.  Contracts for paving 2 ½ miles of road and 1 ½ miles of sidewalk were about to be awarded, and that work would be done within six weeks.  According to Pattullo, immediately upon completion of the paving, those 100 lots would be put on the market so that “purchasers may have their homes built by the time the University opens its new home” the next year (Vancouver Sun, August 19, 1924).

Minister Pattullo and Provincial Engineer Cleveland met with Point Grey council on August 29 in an attempt to reach a final decision.  When newspapers reported on the meeting the next day, it was obvious that while the assessment question had been side-stepped, the main issue – that the UEL properties could not be exploited to support improvements elsewhere in Point Grey – had been settled in favour of the Province.  Both sides publicly agreed that neither the Province nor the eventual purchasers of the improved UEL lots would assume any of the Municipality’s current financial obligations.  Whatever taxes or fees might come from from the UEL properties, regardless of their assessment, would not go towards those old debts.  The neighbourhood would be responsible only for its own improvements and for its share of the general cost of Point Grey’s municipal administration.

However, conflict re-emerged when the government introduced the Point Grey and District Lot 140 Agreement Act to the legislature in December.  The proposed act called for Point Grey to take over the administration of the entire UEL – some 3000 acres – rather than just the land currently being readied for sale.  Also, the Province would have the power to put on the market any additional amount of land without municipal consent.  Finally, the legislation included a clause that empowered the government to take those lands (officially known as “a portion of District Lot 140, Group 1, New Westminster District”) out of Point Grey entirely if the Municipality objected to the government’s terms.

Sample of clippings regarding removing University lands from Point Grey, March 1925

Scrapbook #16, p. 134 (March 1925). [Newspaper clippings from Vancouver “Province” and “Sun” regarding removal of University lands from Point Grey]. UBC Scrapbook Collection. University of British Columbia Archives.

Point Grey council saw these as unilateral changes to the deal they thought they had reached with the Province.  They feared that the immediate transfer of such a large area would be a burden to Point Grey ratepayers.  Council insisted that they would only take control of the 108 acres initially intended for sale, with the rest to remain as Crown lands until they were similarly ready for the real estate market.  Based on their conversations with the Provincial Engineer the previous year, they had assumed the plan was intended as an “experiment” to test public demand for those properties, and that further negotiations would be necessary to decide how to dispose of the remaining lands.

There was no provision for Point Grey residents to approve this deal through election or referendum.  Feelings ran so high, however, that a referendum was scheduled for March 28, 1925.  The question was put to voters: were they for or against the transfer of the UEL from the Crown to municipal administration on the government’s terms?  Minister Pattullo and the British Columbia government stood firm: vote yes, or the Municipality of Point Grey would lose the University, the UEL, and ironically the geographical Point Grey itself.

The government’s threats had no effect, as the proposal was rejected in a landslide vote of 860-264.  It was one of eleven measures submitted for approval that day, all of which were rejected – it is possible that the voters of Point Grey were simply of a mind to say “no” to everything.  However, regarding the University lands question it is almost certain that the heavy-handed approach of the provincial government played a role as well.

The government lost no time in responding: Minister Pattullo made it clear that the Province would take the UEL out of Point Grey.  However, they would administer it as an unorganized territory.

While it was never said outright, the decision not to immediately set up a new municipality was likely due to the immediate need to upgrade the area’s water supply.  According to Minister of Public Works W.H. Sutherland:

The [water] pressure at the University is now so low that it affords no fire protection at all….  We have to pay an abnormally high rate on our insurance.  We … shall probably have to put in a storage tank, acquire fire fighting apparatus including pumps, and organize a volunteer fire brigade among the students and employees.  We can not afford to have a disastrous fire in the new University buildings. (Vancouver Evening Sun, March 30, 1925)

This was a time-sensitive priority, for the sake of the University facilities still under construction as well as for the building lots that were due to go on sale on May 1.  It was likely simpler for the Province to deal with this directly, without any additional political distractions.

The idea of a new municipality still had some public support:

“Students Wish to Establish Town in Wesbrook’s Memory…”

[S]tudents who have been wishing to find some way of commemorating the memory of the late Dr. Francis Fairchild Wesbrook will now likely turn their attention to a plan asking the provincial members to form a new municipality called Wesbrook, B.C….
Already several members of the Alumni Association have expressed their willingness to support the movement…. (Evening Sun, March 30, 1925)

“Rejection of Pt. Grey Pact With Gov’t May Result in Novel Municipality Being Formed”

A university municipality with undergraduate mayor and undergraduate councilmen may result from the Point Grey voting Saturday, the ratepayers of that municipality having turned down the University Lands Agreement submitted by the government….
[It would give] students a chance to obtain practical insight into civic administration…. (Vancouver Star, March 30, 1925)

Map of proposed development of UEL lands, 1926 (UBC Archives image 1.1/569-2)

BC Department of Lands (1926). University Endowment Lands … Plan showing General Arrangement of Blocks and Roads [map]. UBC Archives image 1.1/569-2.

Some commentary was more satirical in nature:

The New Municipality

… No man will be allowed to vote unless he holds the degree of Bachelor of Arts.  Votes of money by-laws will be confined to Masters of Arts.  Men who hold two or more degrees may vote two or more times, but in no case will absent-minded professors be allowed to vote for last year’s candidates at next year’s election….
All newcomers into the municipality will be considered as freshmen ratepayers, and must be initiated, before casting a ballot.  Those who object will be taken to the westerly boundary and shoved off into the saltchuck….
Whenever there is a surplus in the treasury the professor of mathematics who happens to be treasurer that year will be requested to go through his books carefully and find out how the mistake occurred.  If there has been no mistake and there really is money on hand, the shock will probably kill all the members of the council, and a beautiful experiment will come to an untimely end. (The Province, March 30, 1925)

Official confirmation of the Province’s intentions came in a letter from Pattullo to Point Grey council on April 8, which read, in part, “I beg to inform you that it is the intention to withdraw the University lands from the confines of the Municipality of Point Grey”.  A provincial order-in-council would later set the new boundaries at Camosun Street, 16th Avenue, and Blanca Street.

Responses from council were low-key and tinged with regret, but the general feeling was that it was all the government’s doing and it was out of their hands.  “I regret that the Government has taken this course,” councillor T. B. Bate was quoted in the Morning Sun on April 9. “Undoubtedly, had the Government given Point Grey anything like an equitable agreement, I feel sure that the residents of Point Grey would, without the slightest hesitation, have taken over this area, and that it would have been in the best interests of all parties concerned. But the agreement, as it stood, was absolutely detrimental to the interests of taxpayers”.

University Endowment Lands Plan of Unit No. 1

BC Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resources (1923). University Endowment Lands Plan of Unit No. 1. UBC Archives image UBC 1.1/569-3

Ironically, considering that it was the selection of Point Grey as the site of UBC’s permanent campus that spurred the residential development of the area, the University administration had little involvement in this dispute.  No recorded public statement regarding the matter was ever made by President Leonard Klinck, or (apart from George Walkem during his 1923 election campaign) by any other University official.

Also, almost no discussion of the matter was noted in the minutes of the UBC Board of Governors – the governing body responsible for property and business affairs of the University, and therefore the body presumably most directly concerned with the political status of the Point Grey lands.  One exception is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of 31 March 1924, when the Board approved sending a letter to Minister Pattullo “in regard to placing reserve on University site and adjacent lands”.  While this is vague, it might have been in connection with Pattullo’s suggestion of 12 April to create a separate municipality if no agreement could be reached.  Almost exactly a year later, on 30 March 1925 the Board approved a map submitted by Provincial Engineer Cleveland “showing the changes in the boundaries of the University site”.  Almost certainly this map was intended to show the areas to be separated from Point Grey Municipality.

Aerial view of Point Grey showing new UBC campus (right) and early development of UEL Lot No. 1 (centre)

Royal Canadian Air Force (19 September 1925). [Aerial view of Point Grey showing new UBC campus (right) and early development of UEL Lot No. 1 (centre)]. UBC Archives image UBC 106.1/197.

The UBC campus and the UEL were placed under the control of the Department of Lands, which would carry out the Province’s development plans.  Lots on the first 108-acre unit – part of today’s University Hill – were placed on the market in May.  Two years later, lots in a second subdivision of 83 acres were offered for sale.  However, by 1930 the costs of surveying and servicing University Hill had outstripped the demand.  UBC never saw any money from those sales – the revenue went towards debt retirement and general operating expenses.  Development slowed during the Depression, and the last remaining lots were not sold until well after the Second World War.

For its part, Point Grey merged with the City of Vancouver in 1929.  The University lands remained separate, and are still separate to this day.  There is no municipal government.  The University now controls most of what happens on the campus itself and the residential areas immediately surrounding it – collectively known as “University Town” – with input from the University Neighbourhoods Association.  University Hill and the “University Village” mini-mall on University Boulevard are still part of the UEL, governed by the Regional District and with services provided by the provincial government and paid for with residential and commercial taxes.  Local schools are governed by the Vancouver School Board.  Finally, as it is part of their traditional un-ceded territory, Musqueam First Nation has an increasing amount of influence on how the area is developed and governed, especially with their leləm̓ neighbourhood now nearing completion.  There is no local government, and the overlapping jurisdictions can be confusing for residents and businesses alike.

University Endowment Lands streetscape

Frank, Leonard (26 March 1929). University Endowment Lands streetscape. UBC Archives image UBC 1.1/651-2

Occasionally, the idea to form a new municipality is brought up again.  However, residents voted against it in a 1995 referendum.  Apart from a detailed proposal published in The Ubyssey student newspaper in 2011, no other serious attempt to revive the issue has been made since.  The other possibility would be a merger with the City of Vancouver.  This was proposed most recently in a 2006 Metro Vancouver planning report, but has otherwise also garnered little serious support.

The unique governance structure of the UBC-Vancouver campus remains intact.  Almost a century after the campus and the University Endowment Lands were established as a separate entity, it is assumed that it has always been this way, and will be for the foreseeable future.  Its origins – in a relatively minor political dispute decided by a small-town vote – remain largely unknown to students, staff, and residents alike.


I Know We’ll Meet Again

As we acknowledge the 80th anniversary of the forced dispersal, internment, and dispossession of Japanese Canadians from the coastal regions of British Columbia, we’re pleased to be able to share an online exhibition curated by Mya Ballin and Sasha Gaylie, both graduate students at UBC’s School of Information.

Many thanks to Mya for sharing her thoughts about the process of curating the exhibition. Mya and Sasha’s work on I Know We’ll Meet Again: Correspondence and the forced dispersal of Japanese Canadians was done as part of a summer 2021 professional experience project with RBSC and the Asian Library at UBC.

University of British Columbia Library. Rare Books and Special Collections. Joan Gillis fonds. RBSC-ARC-1786-PH-02. Teruko Mototsune, Kanako Mototsune, Haruye Mototsune, and Sumi Mototsune. Raymond, Alberta – February 8th, 1943.

This project was a labour of much care over a very brief period of time. Completed in two months, my project partner, Sasha, and I found ourselves very quickly immersed in the written selves that are contained within the letters in the Joan Gillis fonds, deeply emotionally drawn to the details that the writers felt were safe to share with Joan. When reading the letters, it’s hard not to feel like these are your old school friends, too.

We wanted to create an exhibit that not only helped to contextualize the letters and the period in which they were being written, but also to allow the letter writers’ voices to stand on their own so that folks visiting the exhibit might have a similarly emotional encounter with these young individuals through their words alone.

To this end, the exhibit has two parts:

The first part of the exhibit is a more traditional curation of the letters. We offer you the opportunity to view the collection through our eyes, providing interpretation and information that focuses on some of the key themes that emerged from our reading and experience of the letters.

The second part of the exhibit is an opportunity to explore the transcripts of some of the letters. While we have offered the ability for a guided tour through them using a subject visualization tool, it is also possible to view each transcript one by one without our analysis appearing on the screen.

We hope that presenting the materials in this manner offers different ways of engaging with the material and different opportunities to ‘meet’ its authors.

About the exhibition

I Know We’ll Meet Again: Correspondence and the forced dispersal of Japanese Canadians, focuses on a selection of letters from the Joan Gillis fonds written by young Japanese Canadians who were among the approximately 22,000 Japanese Canadians from British Columbia who were forcibly dispersed from their homes as a result of the Canadian Federal Government’s Orders in Council. The exhibition details their deep homesickness and sense of isolation from their friends and communities, the new living and labour conditions they had to endure, their continued sense of Canadian identity even as the government labeled them “alien,” the bright spots they were able to find in their present conditions, and their imaginations for the future.

Rare Books and Special Collections and University Archives to close from August 1 – November 30, 2022

Rare Books & Special Collections (RBSC) and University Archives (UA) on Level 1 of the Irving K. Barber Learning Centre will be temporarily closed from August 1 to November 30, 2022 for upgrades.

To accommodate these upgrades, there will be some changes to library services. RBSC and UA will provide some reproduction services and digital instructional support during this time. Some collections may be inaccessible until 2023.

Please contact Rare Book & Special Collections or University Archives for more information on supports available for remote research and instructional support requests.


New Books at the Law Library – 22/06/20

LAW LIBRARY level 3: KE3619 .D87 2021
André Durocher, Environmental Class Actions in Canada2nd ed. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2021)

LAW LIBRARY level 3: KE3850 .R64 2019
Eric M. Roher & Maciej Lipinski, An Educator’s Guide to the Role of the Principal (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2019)

Diversify Your Classroom Library Booklist

A Blog Post by Tiffany Tse

Illustration by David Huyck, in consultation with Sarah Park Dahlen. Please see full citation in References below.


Did you know that in 2018, only 10% or fewer books were written by or about African, Asian Pacific, Latinx, or First Nations people out of 3,134 children’s books? The statistics were compiled by the Cooperative Children’s Book Center, a team of librarians at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Education, who have been documenting books for children and teens since 1985.

Children need books that reflect their identities and experiences to feel a sense of belonging, self-worth, confidence, and to imagine a greater potential for themselves. Currently, not only do some children see few representations of themselves, but these depictions are sometimes broken, fragmented, inaccurate, or unrelatable. More literature featuring characters with accurate portrayals of various ethnicities, religions, abilities, genders, family structures, and other aspects is essential to encourage children and build empathy for others.

Dr. Rudine Sims Bishop, a well-known researcher and educator in the field of American and multicultural children’s literature, uses the analogy of “Mirrors, Windows, and Sliding Glass Doors” to express the importance of diverse books:

Educators and librarians can support children by providing and promoting more diverse books with a greater range of experiences and authentic representations. One of the ways to do that is by accessing books written by authors who share the same marginalized identity as their character (also known as #OwnVoices) or collaborated with underrepresented individuals or groups to uplift their community.

Although #OwnVoices should not be the only criteria for selecting diverse books nor should it be used for invalidating or outing authors, there is great value in supporting authors who share their own identity and experience with their characters through storytelling. Our Diversify Your Classroom Library booklist features fiction and non-fiction books written by diverse authors with characters of varying ethnicities, abilities, gender identities, sexual orientations, and socioeconomic statuses, many of which were written in #OwnVoices. We also included teacher resources to supplement your learning and teaching.

This booklist can be found with our other booklists in the Instructional Planning section of our Education Library website. We hope this is helpful and our librarians would be happy to chat more about diverse books with you. Feel free to contact us at

Further resources

We understand that #OwnVoices has become less favorable due to a push for authors and content creators to justify the representation they include in their work without safety precautions for the creators in mind. Our goal is to prioritize resources that are authored by people who belong to the communities and experiences they are writing about; within this context we utilize #OwnVoices as we stand by accurate, meaningful, and respectful representations.

Annotated Bibliography on Own Voices


Huyck, David and Sarah Park Dahlen. (2019 June 19). Diversity in Children’s Books 2018. blog. Created in consultation with Edith Campbell, Molly Beth Griffin, K. T. Horning, Debbie Reese, Ebony Elizabeth Thomas, and Madeline Tyner, with statistics compiled by the Cooperative Children’s Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison: Retrieved from

Black History in North America Booklist

A Blog Post by Tiffany Tse

In light of Black History Month in February, we have curated a booklist for Black History in North America in recognition that Black History should be known and heard throughout the year.

Black History Month originally began in the United States as Negro History Week by Carter G. Woodson, an African American historian and a founder of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History (ASNLH). The week in February was chosen to follow the Black community’s tradition of commemorating the birthdays of Frederick Douglass, an abolitionist who fought for freedom from slavery and the equal rights of women, and Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States who also fought for the end of slavery. The week-long event evolved into a month in 1976.

In Canada, the first Black History Month was celebrated in 1988 in Nova Scotia. Canada officially recognized February as Black History Month in December 1995 to celebrate the many achievements and contributions of Black Canadians to Canadian heritage and culture, since the arrival of Mathieu Da Costa, an interpreter known as the first African person in Canada back in the early 1600s. Black History Month is now an annual celebration with events taking place for people of all ages across Canada.

This booklist features teacher resources, fiction and non-fiction picture books, middle grade, and young adult books relevant to Black History in Canada and the United States. It celebrates the contributions of civil rights activists, musicians, students, and more. The list can be found under Social Studies on our UBC Education Library Booklists webpage located in the Instructional Planning section of our Education Library website.

We hope this booklist is helpful and our librarians would be happy to chat more about Black History books with you. Feel free to contact us at