We should first say that this review is in no way comprehensive. We did not take a deep dive into the blueprints of Fauteux, nor did we dig into the archives to account for the timeline. This is about our opinion; an opinion that we believe reflects the uOttawa Law masses. With that being said, let’s address the elephant in the room. Our washrooms suck. Fateux Hall, or FTX (unrelated to crypto bros) has a problem, and it’s one you would never find people talking about it over hor d’oeuvres at the numerous hoity-toity cocktail receptions students and faculty attend. But lawyers are people too, and the great equalizer is that nature calls, often at the most inconvenient times. When it does, you sure hope that there is a stall available for you, because in this building nothing is a given.

     You’re probably wondering why we’re writing a review on the washrooms. It’s such a banal topic. That is no way an offense to my friend (who shall not be named) who suggested we do a piece on this. If you feel the same way, you are not alone. This article finds itself bunched together with articles addressing hardline issues. But there is an important reason we wish to bring this up.

     It all comes down to the fact that this year uOttawa passed Osgoode in terms of national law school rankings, to being one of the top four schools in the country. Congratulations to us all! But there is a major gap in how we appear as a school on paper, and how we appear as a school in real life. Fauteux Hall was completed in 1973 and has undergone many renovations over the years. But in the 1970s, the graduating classes were below 100 people. Now, the current capacity of the school well exceeds that number three times over when one takes into consideration the fact that we have three years of common law students, civil law students, graduate students and a comparable size of admin and faculty to accommodate said students.

     We went into the Ontario Building Code itself like every other diligent law student does. Section 3.1.17.1(1)(a) states that the occupancy load be calculated based on fixed seats in a building for “assembly purposes,” of which classrooms are one. In a totally unscientific manner, we hand-
counted the number of seats drawn on the floor plans provided by the schools and we came to a staggering number of 842. This is well below the actual number because it does not include any of the seating in the library, atrium, smaller classrooms and faculty offices, which would likely bring it over 1000. There are approximately 11 men’s stalls and 18 women’s stalls in the ENTIRE building, not to mention ZERO universal washrooms. Table 3.7.4.3A would suggest that we’ve met the bare minimum allowed by law. But is that truly enough?

     It’s not just about comfort—this is about dignity and time management. The average student needs quick, reliable access to washrooms, especially during the short breaks between classes. Simply put, when you throw in the fact that we’re in an academic setting where long lectures, intense focus, and copious amounts of coffee are the norm. It’s clear that the demand for washroom facilities is not a mere luxury, but a necessity, and students’ frustrations are loud and clear.

     We interviewed a handful of students who commented that amongst the many problems that are present regarding the washrooms there were a few that stood out. Long lines and unclean environments were some of the main points of contention. Others mentioned how the washrooms are falling into disrepair or there are not enough of them to accommodate a student body of this size. As an example, during the first week of school, my friend had class on the third floor. Unfortunately for him, the washrooms to one side of the building were occupied, and the
washrooms on the other side were out of order. He then went down to the second floor, where surprise surprise, the men’s washroom was out of order. He was lucky that we have the first floor washroom, otherwise he would have had to go to the library. We do want to specify that this is not a janitorial issue, and not necessarily even the fault of a single source. We do acknowledge however, that on an administrative basis things can be improved.

     Moreover, the crisis we face with our washrooms is also a gendered issue. Multiple colleagues have also raised concerns over the lack of gender-neutral facilities and the school has also failed to provide hygiene products in women’s washrooms. If we want to shake the image of a patriarchal profession, then we should start taking it seriously and be sensitive to the needs of them. Others mentioned that compared to other buildings on campus, many of Fauteux’s washrooms did not have distress call buttons or automatic doors to accommodate those who require such functions.

     We’re planning on doing an in-depth piece on the state of Fauteux Hall as a whole for the next issue. But for now, we decided to focus on the issue at hand. We have spent a minimum of $20,000 dollars to study here and, while the washrooms are not the main issue here, they are indicative of a major trend. Tuition has increased steadily over the years to account for a variety of factors in a country which is already known for having one of the highest tuition fees for law school students. So, where are these fees going? A few of my friends and I took a look at our tuition statements and could not adequately come up with an answer to address whether or not our tuition was being used to help improve the state or size of our building. The washrooms are really a case study for something more important; we need and deserve improvements to our learning environment. We appreciate the fact that we have a great faculty, one of the best legal libraries in the country, and access to a state of the art moot hall. However, the second we leave ‘well enough’ alone is the second we dismiss the opportunity to better the lives of our student body.