David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights

Deadline: Working Group Proposals
2013-07-31
UofT law students who wish to submit proposals to lead voluntary Working Groups for the 2013-2014 year, must complete the proposals and submit them by 5:00 p.m. on July 31, 2013.

Clinic Application Deadline
2013-07-03
CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION: DAVID ASPER CENTRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (LAW391H1F) FALL 2013
CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION: HALF TERM CLINIC – WINTER 2014
University of Toronto, Faculty of Law students wishing to apply for these courses must email a 1-2 page statement of interest to Cheryl Milne, cheryl.milne@utoronto.ca by July 3, 2013. Please indicate the following:

(a) previous upper-year courses in constitutional law or human rights law or experience that you consider to be equivalent (note pre/co-requisite for half-term clinic);
(b) indicators of academic, analytical and research and writing ability, which may include grades in related classes;
(c) any experience in human rights or constitutional issues;
(d) any experience with lawyering or advocacy;
(e) why you wish to enroll in the Clinic.
Successful applicants will be notified of admission in time for course registration prior to July 10, 2013.

Exit, Voice, and Disloyalty
2013-03-14 12:30 - 14:00 (America/Toronto)
Constitutional Roundtable
Professor Heather Gerkin
Yale Law School
Abstract: Much of constitutional theory is preoccupied with a single question: what does a democracy owe its minorities? And most of the answers to this question fit naturally into the two categories Hirschman made famous: voice and exit. On both the rights side and structural side of constitutional theory, scholars worry about providing minorities with an adequate level of influence. And the solutions they propose almost inevitably offer minorities a chance at voice or exit, as if no other options existed. Professor Gerken will argue that exit and voice are not the only options available to a minority group seeking influence. That’s because much of the nation’s administrative structure looks more like Tocqueville’s democracy than Weber’s bureaucracy. In our highly decentralized and partially politicized system, minorities can wield influence over national policy by virtue of the fact that they routinely administer it. As policymaking insiders, minorities can resist federal policy from within rather than challenge it from without. Professor Gerken will explore the implications of this institutional fact and explain why constitutional theory has long neglected this important form of minority power.
Heather Gerken is the J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law at Yale Law School where she specializes in election law, constitutional law, and civil procedure. Professor Gerken is one of the country’s leading experts on voting rights and election law, the role of groups in the democratic process, and the relationship between diversity and democracy. A native of Massachusetts, Professor Gerken graduated from Princeton University, where she received her A.B. degree summa cum laude in 1991, and from the University of Michigan Law School, where she received her J.D. summa cum laude in 1994. She then served as a law clerk for Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice David H. Souter of the United States Supreme Court, before entering private practice in Washington, D.C. In 2000 Professor Gerken became an assistant professor at Harvard Law School, where she was granted tenure and won the Sachs-Freund teaching award. She joined the Yale faculty in 2006. She is currently working on a book on the trans-substantive concept of “second-order diversity” in American public law.
A light lunch will be served.
For more workshop information and a copy of the draft paper, please contact Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca
Event date: Thursday, March 14, 2013, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Room FLA, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Respecting Democratic Constitutional Change
2013-03-04 12:30 - 14:00
Craig Scott

Member of Parliament for Toronto-Danforth

This lecture will discuss the structure and philosophy of the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to the dynamics of constitutional change, including the stages necessary to move from the democratic expression of a desire for change to lawful amendment of the Constitution. Scott will discuss his legislative proposal, An Act Respecting Democratic Constitutional Change recently tabled as a bill in the House of Commons.
Craig Scott is MP for Toronto-Danforth (NDP), having been elected in March 2012 in a by-election called following the passing of Jack Layton. He is the Official Opposition Critic for Democratic and Parliamentary Reform. Prior to being elected, he was on faculty at Osgoode Hall Law School (2000-2012) and University of Toronto Faculty of Law (1989-2000).
Craig Scott, MP, Toronto-Danforth, 741 Broadview Ave, Suite 304, Toronto, ON M4K 3Y3 Tel: 4164058914; 914, Confederation Bldg, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6, Tel: 6139929381.
A light lunch will be served.
Read the Bill Here
For more workshop information, please contact kara.norrington@utoronto.ca

Event date: Monday, March 04, 2013, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Room FLA, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

2013 Morris A Gross Memorial Lecture
2013-02-27 16:00 - 17:30
The Honourable Lynn Smith
The Quest for a Charter Equality Test: Has the Longest Way Round Been the Shortest Way Home?
Watch the webcast here.
Event date: Wednesday, February 27, 2013, from 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM
Location: Rowell Room, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Lynn Smith, B.A. (University of Calgary), LL.B. (University of British Columbia), LL.D. (Hon.) (Simon Fraser University) was appointed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 1998. She served as a Justice of that Court until her retirement in September 2012. Prior to her appointment as a judge, she practised law at Shrum, Liddle and Hebenton (now McCarthy Tetrault), specializing in civil litigation. She taught law at the University of British Columbia 1981-97 in areas including Constitutional Law, Evidence, Civil Litigation, and Real Property. She has published books and articles in the fields of Charter equality rights, civil litigation and evidence, human rights, administrative law, and women’s equality. She was Dean of the U.B.C. Law Faculty 1991-97. In 2005-06, Lynn Smith was Executive Director of the National Judicial Institute, on secondment from the Court. She is a Judicial Associate of the National Judicial Institute and serves on the faculty of the Charter and Evidence Workshops as well as the New Federally-Appointed Judges Program. She has been involved in international judicial education exchanges with China, Scotland, Ghana and Viet Nam. During a Judicial Study Leave in 2009-10, she researched credibility assessment, examining the psychological and social science literature as well as the law. She published a paper on that topic, and prepared a program on credibility assessment used in National Judicial Institute seminars. Lynn Smith was the Chair of the B.C. Supreme Court Law Clerks Committee and of the Committee on Communications Technology, whose report was adopted by the Court in May, 2012. Commencing in January, 2013, she is teaching a seminar on Constitutional Litigation at the U.B.C. Faculty of Law. She is married to Jon Sigurdson, who is a Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. They have two daughters, Elin Sigurdson and Krista Sigurdson.
The Morris A. Gross Memorial Lecture was established in memory of the late Morris A. Gross by the law firm Minden Gross LLP and by members of his family, friends and professional associates. The intention of the lectureship is to, every two years, bring to the Faculty of Law a distinguished scholar or a member of the practising bar or bench for discussion with the student body and Faculty, and to deliver the bi-annual Morris A. Gross Memorial Lecture.
This event is being co-sponsored by the JOHN AND MARY YAREMKO FUND FOR MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS.
For more information, contact Cheryl Milne cheryl.milne@utoronto.ca

Social and Economic Rights - A South African Perspective
2013-02-14 12:30 - 14:00
Zak Yacoob
Former Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa
Event date: Thursday, February 14, 2013, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Room B, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Judge Yacoob has been a judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. He is married to Anu. The couple have two children. He has been blind for almost all his life. Judge Yacoob became a judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in February 1998 and retired from active service on 31 January 2013. Justice Yacoob was appointed Acting Deputy Chief Justice from 1 February 2012 to 31 May 2012. He wrote the Court’s decision in the Grootboom case involving housing rights under the South African constitution.
He attended a special school and attained a law degree at an apartheid university for Indians. In May 2010 he received an LLD honoris causa from the University of Fort Hare, South Africa. The same degree was conferred upon him by the University of KwaZulu-Natal in April 2011.
Judge Yacoob practised as an advocate for 25 years. Much of this was concerned with using the law in the struggle against apartheid and for democracy. He was a member of the underground of the African National Congress and other community organisations. He was a member of the Independent Electoral Commission and of the Independent Panel of Experts that advised the National Assembly on the drafting of the South African Constitution. Judge Yacoob has attended dozens of international conferences and workshops on topics as varied as blindness, children and democracy.
Link to the Grootboom decision.
A light lunch will be served.
For more workshop information and a copy of the Grootboom decision please contact Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca

R v Morgentaler: Reflections After 25 Years
2013-01-29 17:30 - 19:30
Panel Discussion
On January 28, 1988, 25 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s abortion law using the still new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The legal battle was long, dramatic and groundbreaking – including a police raid on a clinic, novel constitutional evidence and arguments, an extraordinary criminal jury trial, and an acquittal overturned by the Court of Appeal, followed by a week-long hearing and divided decision at the Supreme Court level. Today, the case remains one of the most significant decisions in Canadian law. This panel provides a unique opportunity to hear from participants in the case as they reflect on the historic events and the continued significance of the case today.
Panelists: Dr. Robert Scott – Appellant and Co-Accused
Morris Manning, QC – Counsel for the Appellants
Kirk Makin – Justice Reporter with the Globe and Mail
Lorraine Weinrib – Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Carolyn Egan – Expert witness at trial
(Others to be confirmed)
Moderators: Paul Schabas – Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP and co-counsel for the Appellant
Cheryl Milne – Executive Director, David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights
Read more about this event here.
Listen to an excerpt of the event from CBC Radio’s The Sunday Edition
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE RECORDING OF THE EVENT

Event date: Tuesday, January 29, 2013, from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM
Location: Bennett Lecture Hall, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Common Good, Public Reason and Constitutional Law
2013-01-24 12:30 - 14:00
Wojciech Sadurski, University of Sydney
The most feasible conception of the common good is one that refers to the legitimate motives for proposing and enacting collective authoritative decisions, which can be applied to, and complied with by, those who do not necessarily agree with the substantive merits of those decisions. Concretization of such a conception is found in the idea of public reason, elaborated upon with some sophistication by political liberals, most influentially by John Rawls. When properly modified in response to its critics (notably Ronald Dworkin), this idea resonates with a popular constitutional doctrine which calls for invalidation of laws tainted by wrong (i.e. unconstitutional) motives; thus the concept of public reason may be a useful tool in identifying which motives should be found unconstitutional. As scrutiny reliant upon the second-guessing of actual legislative motives is potentially unworkable, what is needed is an “objectified” approach to the motives. This can be detected through reasonableness analysis, perhaps supported by the device of proportionality. But there are limits to the arbitrary “manufacturing” of reasons, and the test of public reason is of value not only in the scrutiny of laws already enacted, but also as an appeal to lawmakers that only some types of arguments should be used in public discourse. While at first blush it may be seen as a prescription for hypocrisy, in fact the concept of public reason may play an important therapeutic and reflexive role: it may teach us to use only such arguments in public discourse which are respectful of fellow citizens who may disagree due to varying ideologies, religions and philosophical outlooks.
Event date: Thursday, January 24, 2013, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Solarium, Falconer Hall, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Wojciech Sadurski is Challis Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Sydney and Professor of the Centre for Europe at Warsaw University. He has taught at several institutions around the world, such as Cornell Law School and Cardozo Law School in the United States, and at universities across Europe: in Trento, Paris and Warsaw. He was Professor of Legal Theory and Philosophy of Law at the European University Institute in Florence from 1999-2009, serving as Head of Department of the Law at the EUI in 2003-2006. Specialising in philosophy of law, political theory, constitutional theory and comparative constitutional law, his most recent books include: Rights Before Courts: A Study of Constitutional Courts in Postcommunist States of Central and Eastern Europe (Springer, 2005), Equality and Legitimacy (Oxford University Press, 2008) and Constitutionalism and the Enlargement of Europe (Oxford University Press, 2012). A member of a number of governing and programme bodies of think tanks and NGOs dealing with human rights and democracy promotion, he is currently Chairman of Academic Advisory Board of the Community of Democracies. A full profile and list of publications is available at http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/staff/WojciechSadurski/index.shtml.
A light lunch will be served.
For more workshop information and a copy of the draft paper, please contact Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca

Judging Social Rights
2013-01-10 12:30 - 14:00
CONSTITUTIONAL ROUNDTABLE
and the
International Human Rights Program
present
Jeff King, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University College, London
Thursday, January 10, 2013
12:30 – 2:00
Room FLC, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law
78 Queen’s Park
Jeff King is a distinguished visitor this year at the Faculty of Law, teaching an intensive course on social rights. His discussion will focus on some of the central themes of his book, Judging Social Rights (Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law). His book offers an extended argument about why abstract social rights to housing, education, health care, and social security should be part of constitutions. He argues that judges should be able to interpret and enforce social rights, including by striking down legislation, but should act incrementally, taking small steps to expand the coverage of existing rules and principles in a controlled fashion.
Jeff King, BA Hons in Phil (Ottawa) 1996, LLB/BCL (McGill) 2002, MSt (Oxford) 2006, DPhil (Oxford) 2009, is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Laws University College London, where he teaches public law, human rights, and legal and constitutional theory. He is Co-Editor of the journal Current Legal Problems. Previously, he was a Fellow and Tutor in law at Balliol College, and CUF Lecturer for the Faculty of Law, University of Oxford (2008-2011), a Research Fellow at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Oxford (2008-2010), a Research Fellow and Tutor in public law at Keble College, Oxford (2007-08), and an attorney at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP in New York City (2003-04). His research and teaching broadly examines doctrinal, theoretical and empirical aspects of comparative public law. He has published articles on the justiciability of resource allocation, judicial restraint, complexity in adjudication, the function of constitutions, the value of legal accountability, proportionality in administrative law, odious debt in international law, and a monograph setting out the case for constitutional social rights and a theory of adjudication in respect of them.
For more workshop information and a copy of the draft paper, please contact Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca

"Riffing on the Federalist"
2012-11-28 16:00 - 17:30
Sanford Levinson
W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair
Professor of Government, School of Law
University of Texas at Austin
Event date: Wednesday, November 28, 2012, from 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM
Location: Rowell Room, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Abstract: The Federalist is, without a doubt, the best-known, most widely-read and –analyzed extended work of American political thought. (The adjective is important in order to dispose of any claims made in behalf of the Declaration of Independence or the Gettysburg Address.) There are, therefore, a host of books and lengthy articles that devote themselves to trying to figure out the ultimate meaning of one or another particularly canonical essay among the 85 separate essays that comprise The Federalist. Among the most canonical are Federalist 10, famous for its theory of “factions,” and 78, in which Hamilton defends judicial review. Other books try to discern a single unified theory of government that links together James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay in their guise as “Publius,” the public-spirited proponent of the Constitution writing to his fellow Americans and, especially, delegates to the New York ratification convention, which was, rightly, expected to be extremely close with regard to acceptance or rejection of the document. Both of these literatures are important and worth study, especially by scholars of late-18th century American thought. This book, however, is not designed to compete with them. Instead, what follows are 85 short essays—I am tempted to describe them as “riffs”—on each of the separate contributions by “Publius.” Each of this “riffs” attempts to show how the particular essay is relevant, often in surprising ways, to contemporary political discussion. The aim is not in the least to use the Federalist to offer ways of “interpreting” the United States Constitution, but, rather, to understand each essay as a defense of the institutions established by the Constitution and to put those defenses within the context of the political thought of the 18th century and to ask to what degree we accept or reject those guiding assumptions.
The Roundtable will be followed by a reception in the Faculty Common Room.
This event is co-sponsored with the Canada Research Chair in Constitutionalism, Democracy and Development.

Social Science Evidence in Charter Litigation
2012-11-09 08:30 - 2012-11-12 17:00
Developments in Thirty Years of Fact Finding
What have we learned? What could we do better?
Event date: Friday, November 09, 2012, from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM
Location: Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Opening Plenary Panel: The Challenges for Judges
Justice Robert Sharpe (Ontario Court of Appeal); Justice Susan Himel (Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Bedford v Canada); Justice Lynn Smith (Supreme Court of British Columbia – Carter v Canada)
Workshop topics include: a theory of constitutional facts; framework for reliability analysis; judging social science evidence—a feminist perspective; linking social science evidence with individual testimony; use of social science in specific cases such as Polygamy Reference, Gosselin, R v Bryan, Canada v PHS Community Services (Insite case); and more …
PROGRAM

Of Irregular Votes and Robocalls: Resolving Disputed Elections in Canada and New Zealand
2012-10-24 12:30 - 14:00
Andrew Geddis, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Otago
Abstract: This paper begins with the broader question of how a constitutional order based upon a liberal-democratic commitment to letting the people choose their lawmakers ought to respond to allegations of flaws in its election process. After all, any large-scale human undertaking is bound to fall short of perfect implementation, so why do such claims matter so much? And if such claims do matter so much, what are the various issues that need to be resolved in order that they may be properly confronted and settled? From this general discussion, the paper then turns to examine how these issues are addressed in two nations that enjoy similar historical, cultural and constitutional traditions: Canada and New Zealand. The point of this comparison is not to illustrate the breadth of all possible responses to the challenge that a disputed election poses to a liberal democratic constitutional order, but rather to demonstrate that even relatively small differences in legal doctrine can have important real-world consequences. Furthermore, it is argued that such differences as can be discerned between the two nations are attributable to the balance each has struck between the perceived need for ensuring procedural correctness and bringing closure to the election process so as to permit elected representatives to carry out their lawmaking functions. Insofar as both of these goals emerges from the model of liberal democratic constitutionalism itself, each jurisdiction’s choices illustrate that any legal response to the challenge of disputed elections is not necessarily “required” but rather the result of a conscious preference for one over the other.
Andrew Geddis completed his undergraduate work at the University of Otago, studying law and political studies. In 1996 he was awarded a Fulbright scholarship to Harvard Law School, where he completed his LLM degree. In 2000 he returned to Otago to take up a lecturing position. He was appointed an Associate Professor in 2007, a Professor in 2011.
A light lunch will be served.
For more information and a copy of the draft paper contact Nadia Gulezko: n.gulezko@utoronto.ca
Event date: Wednesday, October 24, 2012, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: FLB, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

The Disallegiant Heart: Constitutional Citizenship and the History of Marital Denaturalization
2012-10-15 12:30 - 14:00
Helen Irving, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney
Abstract: In this paper, I invite a reconceptualization of constitutional (as distinct from political) citizenship, by examining the legal practice, virtually universal between the mid-nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries, of the denaturalization of citizen women who married alien men. This practice, which emerged as a by-product of the post-revolutionary constitutional state and the ‘new Westphalian’ international order, reveals two core paradigms: allegiance and protection. Our modern idea of citizenship, I argue, is still embedded in the first, to the detriment of the second. Our concept of citizenship, and the legal regimes that accompany it, reflect a distinction between the allegiant and the disallegiant citizen, which mirrors the injurious distinction upon which marital denaturalization rested.
A light lunch will be served.
Event date: Tuesday, October 16, 2012, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Solarium, Falconer Hall, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Contact Nadia Gulezko for information and a copy of the paper: n.gulezko@utoronto.ca

Counsel and expert witness reflect on Carter v Canada
2012-09-25 12:30 - 14:00
Prof. Wayne Sumner (Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Toronto, expert witness on ethics in the Carter case) and Joseph Arvay, Q.C. (counsel for the plaintiffs in Carter and leading constitutional litigator) will reflect on the landmark British Columbia Supreme Court decision, Carter v Canada 2012 BCSC 886.
Joseph J. Arvay, QC holds law degrees from the University of Western Ontario Law School and Harvard Law School. He is called to the Bars of both British Columbia and the Yukon. Mr. Arvay has a busy civil litigation practice but with an emphasis on constitutional and administrative law matters. He has been involved in many constitutional cases of importance in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. Mr. Arvay has been involved in a number of aboriginal-rights litigation cases and is also counsel on medical malpractice cases, class actions, commercial litigation and defamation.Mr. Arvay has been counsel on a number of landmark constitutional law cases including Egan v Canada, The Little Sisters litigation, Health Services, Canada v PHS Community Services amongst many others. He is counsel on the Carter case.
Wayne Sumner is University Professor Emeritus in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto. He is the author of five books: Abortion and Moral Theory (1981); The Moral Foundation of Rights (1987); Welfare, Ethics, and Happiness (1996); The Hateful and the Obscene: Studies in the Limits of Free Expression (2004); and Assisted Death: A Study in Ethics and Law (2011). He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and recipient of the 2009 Molson Prize in Social Sciences and Humanities from the Canada Council for the Arts. He was qualified as an expert witness in the case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
A light lunch will be served.
Event date: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Room FLB, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
For more workshop information, please contact Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca

The Rule of Law as a Constitutional Essential
2012-09-19 12:30 - 14:00
Dr. Pavlos Eleftheriadis (University Lecturer & Fellow in Law, University of Oxford)

Abstract: The United Kingdom constitution endorses both parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law as constitutional principles of the highest rank. The relations between the two have been a source of great puzzles, legal and philosophical. In this paper Professor Eleftheriadis attempts to clarify some aspects of their relationship. He will argue that the rule of law is the more fundamental principle. This is because of its particular role in any theory of law. Properly understood, the value of the rule of law is not one value among many competing values. Its value is deeper because it serves as a foundation for any ordering of our collective life. In this sense it is a constitutional essential in the sense used by Rawls. Without it, our public scheme of cooperation (or in the language of classical political philosophy the “civil condition”) is either impossible or, whenever possible, illegitimate. In a well governed society the powers of parliament, courts and the government are best understood under the principle of the rule of law, where the idea of sovereignty plays only a small part.
A light lunch will be served.
Event date: Wednesday, September 19, 2012, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Room FLA, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
For more workshop information, please contact Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca

Working Group Call for Proposals
2012-08-02
The Asper Centre working groups aim to provide U of T students with an opportunity to conduct legal research and assist in advocacy on Canadian constitutional rights issues (often in partnership with an external organization).
The Asper Centre requires all potential working groups (including existing working groups) to submit a written proposal for consideration by the Asper Centre Working Groups Selection Committee (“the Committee”). The Committee will select the most competitive proposals to form the Asper Centre Working Groups for the following year.
The purpose of the proposal requirement is to enhance the student experience and to ensure that our assistance is of the highest quality and value to our partners. The proposal-based working group model facilitates oversight by the Centre’s Executive Director, allows for further engagement with faculty, and ensures consistency across working groups.
Please contact Cheryl Milne if you need additional information or ideas to form a working group.
Link to Call for Proposals with application instructions.
ASPER CENTRE OUTLOOK NEWSLETTER: If you wish to become a newsletter editor for 2012-2013, please submit an email to Cheryl Milne with an outline of your experience by the deadline for working group application (5:00 pm, August 2, 2012).

The Omnibus Crime Bill: Bill C-10
2012-01-23 12:30 - 14:00
On September 20th, 2011, federal justice minister Rob Nicholson tabled Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act. Forty five sitting days later, on December 5th, the bill passed in the House of Commons. The bill includes several reforms in our criminal justice system, including new mandatory minimum sentences and the elimination of conditional sentences for a range of offences, and a stricter approach to the youth criminal justice system. The reforms received severe criticism from civil liberties groups and from the provincial governments who will have to internalize a portion of the high costs entailed. This Asper Centre panel event aims to focus on the wisdom of the new policies in light of social science research, the practical effect of the reforms for criminal law practitioners, and the impact on young offenders.
Panel Discussion with:
Professor Anthony Doob, FRSC is a professor of criminology at the Centre for Criminology and Social Studies at the University of Toronto. He holds an A.B from Harvard University and a Ph.D. in Psychology from Stanford University. Professor Doob has published extensively in the areas of penal policy and sentencing. His research interests include juvenile justice, the development of criminal justice policy in Canada, and public perception of crime and the justice system. Currently, he is doing research on two separate topics. First, he is continuing his investigation of the manner in which the youth justice system processes young people. Secondly, in collaboration with Cheryl Webster, at the University of Ottawa, he is conducting research in the area of criminal justice punishment policies in Canada during the past half century. This past fall, Professor Doob appeared in front of the House of Commons committee reviewing Bill C-10.
Clayton Ruby, CM, LLD is one of Canada’s leading lawyers specializing in criminal, constitutional, administrative and civil rights law. Mr. Ruby received his LL.B. from the University of Toronto and his LL.M. from the University of California (Berkeley). Mr. Ruby also authored the leading resource on the law of sentencing in Canada, Sentencing, which, for the past 25 years, has been used by criminal practitioners and the Supreme Court of Canada as the leading authority on the topic. Mr. Ruby has been counsel in several high profile matters, including representing Donald Marshall Jr. at the Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall Jr. Prosecution, representing Atif Ahmad Rafay in US v Burns and Rafay, obtaining an acquittal for the wrongfully convicted Guy Paul Morin, and representing Ralph Hussey in R v Askov. In 2006, Mr. Ruby was made a Member of the Order of Canada.
Cheryl Milne is a leading children’s rights lawyer and the Executive Director of the Asper Centre. Prior to coming to the Centre, Ms Milne was a legal advocate for children with the legal clinic Justice for Children and Youth. There she led the clinic’s Charter litigation including the challenge to the corporal punishment defence in the Criminal Code [Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (2004)], the striking down of the reverse onus sections of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for adult sentencing [R. v. D.B. (2008)], and an intervention involving the right of a capable adolescent to consent to her own medical treatment ( A.C. v. Manitoba Child and Family Services (2009)]. She has represented the Asper Centre in R. v. Conway and most recently in the Polygamy Reference case. She is the Past Chair of the Ontario Bar Association’s Constitutional, Civil Liberties and Human Rights section.
Moderated by Professor Vincent Chiao, B.A. (University of Virginia), Ph.D. (Northwestern), J.D. (Harvard). Prof. Chiao researches and teaches primarily in the area of criminal law and criminal justice, with a particular interest in the philosophical examination of its doctrine and institutions. Prior to joining the faculty in 2011, he was a law clerk for the Hon. Juan R. Torruella of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and a Reginald F. Lewis Fellow at Harvard Law School.
A light lunch will be served.
Event date: Monday, January 23, 2012, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Room FLC, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law

U of T Law Faculty Members Comment on the Polygamy Reference
2012-01-17 12:30 - 14:00
The British Columbia Supreme Court released its decision in the Ref. Re. S.293 of the Criminal Code of Canada (Polygamy Reference) on November 23rd. With a length of over 280 pages, the case provides the most comprehensive judical record on the subject of polygamy ever produced. Legal arguments were presented by the Attorney General of British Columbia, the Attorney General of Canada and an Amicus Curiae appointed for the reference, along with 13 interested persons, including the David Asper Centre.
A number of academics from the Faculty of Law will weigh in on the decision, offering diverse perspectives on the constitutional arguments, international law, procedures and evidenciary issues in the case. Confirmed speakers include the following:
Brenda Cossman joined the Faculty of Law in 1999, and became a full professor in 2000. She holds degrees in law from Harvard and the University of Toronto, and an undergraduate degree from Queen’s. In 2002 and 2003, she was a Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Prior to joining the University of Toronto, she was Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University. Professor Cossman’s teaching and scholarly interests include family law, law and sexuality, and freedom of expression. Her most recent book Sexual Citizens: The Legal and Cultural Regulation of Sex and Belonging was published by Stanford University Press in 2007. Her publications include the co-authored Bad Attitudes on Trial: Pornography, Feminism and the Butler Decision (University of Toronto Press) and Censorship and the Arts (published by the Ontario Association of Art Galleries).
Mohammad Fadel is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, which he joined in January 2006. He received his B.A. in Government and Foreign Affairs (1988), a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the University of Chicago (1995) and his J.D. from the University of Virginia (1999). While at the University of Virginia School of Law, Professor Fadel was a John M. Olin Law and Economics Scholar and Articles Development Editor of the Virginia Law Review. Prior to law school, Professor Fadel completed his Ph.D in Chicago, where he wrote his dissertation on legal process in medieval Islamic law. Professor Fadel was an expert witness in the Reference.
Hamish Stewart joined the Faculty of Law in 1993 and is now a Professor of Law at the University of Toronto. Before attending law school, he studied economics (B.A., University of Toronto, 1983; Ph.D., Harvard University, 1989) and taught for a year in the economics department at Williams College. He received an LL.B. degree from the University of Toronto in 1992, clerked at the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1992-93, and was called to the Ontario Bar in 1998. Professor Stewart teaches criminal law and the law of evidence, and has published numerous papers in these areas as well as papers on the law of contract, legal theory, and economic methodology. He is the general editor of Evidence: A Canadian Casebook, 2d ed. (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2006), an associate editor of the Dominion Law Reports and Canadian Criminal Cases, and book review editor of the University of Toronto Law Journal.
Lorraine E. Weinrib was appointed to the Faculty of Law and the Department of Political Science in 1988. Previously, she worked in the Crown Law Office – Civil, Ministry of the Attorney General (Ontario), holding the position of Deputy Director of Constitutional Law and Policy at the time of her departure. Her work included legal advice and policy development on constitutional issues, as well as extensive litigation, frequently in the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1993, Professor Weinrib was Visiting Professor (Fulbright Fellowship) at the University of Michigan Law School; in 1994 at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Halbert Academic Exchange); and in 2001 and 2002 at the Tel Aviv Faculty of Law. She holds law degrees from Yale and Toronto, and an undergraduate degree from York University. Professor Weinrib teaches the first year constitutional law course as well as advanced courses on the Charter, constitutional litigation, and comparative constitutional law. Her writing, in which she advocates the institutional coherence of the Charter, includes articles on the interpretation of sections 1 and 33, the theoretical dimension of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Charter jurisprudence, the process leading up to the 1982 amendments to the Constitution, and studies of leading cases, e.g., Morgentaler (abortion), Ford (override), Keegstra (hate promotion) and Rodriguez (assisted suicide). She has also written on the topic of women in the legal profession.
Carol Rogerson is a professor at the Faculty of Law, where she began teaching in 1983. She served as Associate Dean of the Faculty from 1991 to 1993. She holds degrees in law from Harvard and Toronto, a master’s degree in English from Toronto, and an undergraduate degree from the University of Alberta. Professor Rogerson’s teaching and research interests encompass constitutional and family law. She is editor of Competing Visions of Constitutionalism: The Meech Lake Accord (with K. Swinton) and one of the co-authors of Canadian Constitutional Law. She is also the author of numerous law review articles in both the constitutional and family law areas and has frequently worked with governments on issues of family law reform. In 1985 she was honoured with a University of Toronto Teaching Award.
Rebecca Cook, A.B. (Barnard), M.A. (Tufts), M.P.A. (Harvard), J.D. (Georgetown), LL.M. (Columbia), J.S.D. (Columbia), called to the Bar of Washington, D.C., is Professor and Faculty Chair in International Human Rights, and Co-Director of the International Programme on Reproductive and Sexual Health Law in the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto. She also holds positions in the Faculty of Medicine and the Joint Centre for Bioethics at the University of Toronto. She is ethical and legal issues co-editor of the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and serves on the editorial advisory boards of Human Rights Quarterly and Reproductive Health Matters. She has written with B.M. Dickens and M.F. Fathalla, Reproductive Health and Human Rights: Integrating Medicine, Ethics and Law (Oxford, 2003) (translated into Chinese, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, case studies translated into Arabic). She is also the author of Gender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives, with Simone Cusack, published by University of Pennsylvania Press in 2009. She was an expert witness in the Polygamy Reference.
David Schneiderman, B.A (McGill) 1980, LL.B. (Windsor) 1983, LL.M. (Queen’s) 1993, is Professor of Law and Political Science. He was called to the Bar of British Columbia in 1984 where he practised law and then served as Research Director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in Toronto from 1986-89. He was Executive Director of the Centre for Constitutional Studies, an interdisciplinary research institute, at the University of Alberta from 1989-99. Professor Schneiderman has authored numerous articles on Canadian federalism, the Charter of Rights, Canadian constitutional history, and constitutionalism and globalization. He has authored Constitutionalizing Economic Globalization: Investment Rules and Democracy’s Promise (Cambridge University Press, 2008) and co-authored The Last Word: Media Coverage of the Supreme Court of Canada with Florian Sauvageau and David Taras (UBC Press, 2006).
Moderator: Cheryl Milne, Executive Director of the Asper Centre, was called to the Ontario Bar in 1987 and completed an MSW at the University of Toronto in 1991. Prior to coming to the Centre, Ms Milne was a legal advocate for children with the legal clinic Justice for Children and Youth. There she led the clinic’s Charter litigation including the challenge to the corporal punishment defence in the Criminal Code [Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (2004)], the striking down of the reverse onus sections of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for adult sentencing [R v D.B. (2008)], and an intervention involving the right of a capable adolescent to consent to her own medical treatment [A.C. v Manitoba Child and Family Services (2009)]. She has represented the Asper Centre in R v Conway and most recently in the Polygamy Reference case. She is the Past Chair of the Ontario Bar Association’s Constitutional, Civil Liberties and Human Rights section and teaches a clinical course in constitutional advocacy at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, and Social Work & the Law at Ryerson University. Ms Milne is also the director of the combined JD and MSW program at the Faculty of Law.
Event date: Tuesday, January 17, 2012, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Bennett Lecture Hall, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law

Lawyers and the Media – In the Public Interest
2011-11-23 12:30 - 14:00
The media often shows intense interest in the court cases that shape social policy in Canada. Constitutional and human rights related cases such as the recent Insite decision (Canada (Attorney General) v PHS Community Services Society), the Polygamy Reference Case, Bedford v Canada (prostitution challenge), as well as a number of national security cases have been reported on, debated and championed by journalists and commentators in all forms of media across Canada. What is the role that lawyers play in the public debate of the issues in the cases? To what extent do the media influence the outcomes, if at all? How can the media’s interpretation of decisions affect public perception?
A significant concern for lawyers acting in such public interest cases is how to effectively communicate their client’s issues to the media, or whether to do so at all. What do you do when a reporter calls? What are the professional responsibilities of lawyers to their clients, as officers of the court and to the administration of justice when talking to reporters? How is it different if you act for the government? How can lawyers effectively work with the media in the public interest?
Panel:
Julian Falconer, Partner, Falconer Charney LLP
Urszula Kaczmarczyk, Senior General Counsel, Immigration Law Division, Department of Justice
Tracey Tyler, Legal Affairs Reporter, The Toronto Star
Professor David Schneiderman, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Moderator: Paul Schabas, Partner, Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP
This program has been accredited by the Law Society for 1.0 Professionalism Hours and 1.5 New Member CPD Hours.
A light lunch will be served.

Event date: Wednesday, November 23, 2011, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Room FLB, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Catholic Schools and Gay Students Associations
2011-11-09 12:30 - 14:00
CONSTITUTIONAL ROUNDTABLE
Co-sponsored by Out in Law
Speakers: R. Douglas Elliott, Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, Robert Keel
Monday, November 28, 2011
12:30 – 2:00
Bennett Lecture Hall, Flavelle House
78 Queen’s Park
Recently, gay students within Ontario’s Catholic school system have encountered problems that raise legal and constitutional concerns. When students at a high school in the Dufferin-Peel school board district in Mississauga tried to start a gay-straight alliance (GSA) in their high school, their principal prohibited it. At the nearby Halton Catholic District School Board, trustees removed the term “sexual orientation” from a draft text of the board’s anti-discrimination policy. After intense public pressure, they returned “sexual orientation” to the policy, but they still refuse to allow GSAs. What options are available to gay students under these circumstances? Do the students have rights to form these clubs? Do they have other options to make their lives easier as do their peers in non-Catholic public schools? Do the Catholics schools have any responsibilities to these students as gay students or can they take the positions they have taken without repercussions? What is the legal framework for the Catholic school boards’ position? What arguments support this position? What arguments support the gay students’ claims?
Bob Keel is a senior founding Partner of Keel Cottrelle LLP. Bob is qualified in both Ontario and New York State. Bob has appeared before all levels of the Courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as numerous administrative tribunals. At present, his practice is primarily focused on Education Law, including First Nations Governance issues. In particular, Bob has acted on a number of constitutional and human rights cases involving the Charter and/or Human Rights Code. Bob is also presently acting for a number of Catholic District School Boards with respect to the Ministry of Education’s Equity Initiative and, in particular, the issue of Gay and Lesbian Clubs and/or Associations. Bob has spoken at more than 100 conferences and has published more than 100 papers or articles. In addition, Bob is the President of Edu-Law Consulting Services Limited, which provides Conflict Resolution programs for the education sector. Bob is the Executive Editor of the Keel Cottrelle LLP Education Law Newsletter, Human Resources Newsletter, and Public Sector Procurement Law Newsletter. He is also the author of Student Rights and Responsibilities: Attendance and Discipline (1998), the co author of An Educator’s Guide to Managing Sexual Misconduct in Schools (2003), An Educator’s Guide to Parental Harassment (2005) and An Educator’s Guide to the Health and Safety of Students, (2010).
Douglas Elliott is a founding partner in the law firm of Roy Elliott O’Connor LLP. As one of Canada’s leading human rights lawyers, he has helped to win many important cases for Canada’s LGBT communities, including Vriend v Alberta, M. v H., Halpern v Canada, Hislop v Canada and the Reference Re Same Sex Marriage. In the case of Marc Hall v. Durham Catholic School Board, Douglas represented the Coalition in Support of Marc Hall, a diverse group that included, among others, Egale, Canadian Auto Workers and Catholics for Choice. In 2010 Douglas became the first lawyer to be honoured with the Law Society Medal for advancing LGBT rights.
Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, Director, Equality program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). As Director of CCLA’s Equality Program, Noa works on such issues as protections for migrants and refugees; healthcare; LGBTQ rights; race and gender issues; mental health and prisons; and generally the rights of persons who are marginalized or disadvantaged. Noa has also served as CCLA’s Freedom of Expression Project Director, and dealt extensively with free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. In the effort to promote and protect rights and freedoms in Canada, Noa has been involved with numerous CCLA interventions in the courts – including the Supreme Court of Canada, and has made submissions to various governmental, legislative and public bodies. She has also addressed various groups and has spoken out frequently in the media. In addition, Noa is an integral member of CCLET’s public education project, engaging students at schools and faculties of education in discussions on the challenges of civil liberties.
A light lunch will be served.

Free Brown Bag Lunch Discussion
2011-11-04 12:20 - 13:50
Reference re. Assisted Human Reproduction Act
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the Reference re. the Assisted Human Reproduction Act this past spring, striking down some sections and leaving others intact on constitutional grounds. What does this mean for future practice and regulation in this area? What are the regulatory implications for other areas of law that have federal and provincial impacts? What does this mean for reproductive and privacy rights in Canada? How can Canada regulate this area in the global picture? What are the ethical and policy issues in the context of AHR and how can federal and provincial governments adequately deal with them?
Join us for a free lunchtime discussion with Preston Manning, Carolyn Bennett, Peter Hogg
and Alison Motluk moderated by Steve Paikin, anchor and senior editor
The Agenda with Steve Paikin
Friday, November 4, 2011
12:20-1:50 p.m.
Bennett Lecture Hall, Flavelle House
Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
(bring your own lunch)

Reference Re Assisted Human Reproduction Act
2011-11-04 - 2011-11-05
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision
November 4-5, 2011
Bennett Lecture Hall
Faculty of Law
University of Toronto
78 Queen’s Park Cres, Toronto, ON
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the Reference re. the Assisted Human Reproduction Act this past spring, striking down some sections and leaving others intact on constitutional grounds. What does this mean for future practice and regulation in this area? What are the regulatory implications for other areas of law that have federal and provincial impacts? What does this mean for reproductive and privacy rights in Canada? How can Canada regulate this area in the global picture?
Keynote presentations to include a dialogue between Preston Manning and Carolyn Bennett, moderated by Steve Paikin, anchor and senior editor, The Agenda with Steve Paikin, and viewing of the CBC documentary, Offspring, with producer Barry Stevens.
Speakers include Peter Hogg, Bernard Dickens, Colleen Flood, Marilyn Pilkington, Carol Rogerson, Trudo Lemmens, Joseph Arvay, Dr. Clifford Librach, Ian Lee, Marie-Claude Premont, Glenn Rivard, Francoise Baylis and Karen Busby, among others.
Topics covered will include:
General overview of the case
Quebec’s arguments for the challenge
Use of the criminal law power
International perspectives
Moral dimensions of AHR; why is AHR practice different from general medical practice
AHRA and reproductive rights; rights of children
Implications for the current federal regulatory state
Current legal landscape and it practical implications for lawyers, medical practitioners and families.
Registration Fee: $200.00 (reduced rates for students, government and NGOs -click on REGISTRATION below for details).
PROGRAM FLYER
CONFERENCE AGENDA
REGISTRATION IS NOW CLOSED

Call for Papers Deadline
2011-10-25
Call for Conference Papers
Charter Litigation and the Use of Social Science Evidence:
After thirty years what have we learned? What could we do better?
University of Toronto, St. George Campus – March 23& 24, 2012
The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights invites papers for its upcoming conference. This multi-disciplinary event will create opportunities for dialogue between social scientists, academics, students, and litigators on the use of social science evidence in Charter litigation.
The Centre invites papers that stimulate and develop an ongoing dialogue on the approaches to the use of social science evidence. The goal is to foster inter-disciplinary understanding and collaboration in addressing social science evidence in Charter litigation. Key themes include:
• Analysis and evaluation of the categories of social science evidence in Charter litigation
• The processes of gathering and presenting social science evidence in Charter litigation
• Historical perspectives
• The tensions between the disciplines of social science and law as arise in the context of litigation
• The persuasive value of social science evidence, its limits, and its admissibility
Other conference themes may include such issues as the ethics of building the social science case; choosing and preparing expert witnesses; social science evidence as a vehicle for legal change; and judicial approaches to hearing and analyzing social science evidence. In particular, the conference is designed to stimulate a dialogue that highlights the approaches of various disciplines to the use of social science evidence in order to develop an inter-disciplinary understanding and collaboration.
The papers will be utilized as the central theme on various inter-disciplinary panels across the two-day conference and selected conference papers will be considered for publication as part of a special journal issue or as chapters in a book to be published with a reputable academic publisher.
The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights is a centre within the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law devoted to advocacy, research and education in the areas of constitutional rights in Canada. For more information about the Centre go to www.aspercentre.ca.
For those interested in participating, please send an abstract (max: 250 words) of your intended paper to: Cheryl Milne at cheryl.milne@utoronto.ca
Deadline for Submissions: October 25, 2011

The Canadian Judicial Appointment Process
2011-09-15 12:30 - 14:00
Constitutional Roundtable
presents
The Canadian Judicial Appointment Process:
Where Are We? Where Are We Going?
Peter H. Russell, University Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
Jacob Ziegel, University of Toronto Faculty of Law
12:30 – 2:00
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Classroom A – Flavelle House
78 Queen’s Park
Peter H. Russell has published widely in the fields of constitutional, aboriginal and judicial politics. Recent focus has been on minority government and constitutional conventions relating to parliamentary democracy. Recent publications include, Recognizing Aboriginal Title: The Mabo Case and Indigenous Resistance to English-Settler Colonialism (2005); Appointing Judges in an Age of Judicial Power (2006); Two Cheers for Minority Government (2008); Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis (2009).
Jacob Ziegel, LLB (Hons.)(London), LL.M., Ph.D., LL.D. (London). Professor Ziegel grew up largely in England and received his legal education there. He is a member of the English and Ontario bars. His first teaching post was at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon where he taught from 1962-1966. He then taught at McGill University and the Osgoode Hall Law School before joining the University of Toronto law school in 1975. There he remained until his retirement in 1993. He has remained very active since his retirement, both in teaching and in pursuing his interests as editor in chief of the Canadian Business Law Journal and convenor of the Annual Workshop of Commercial and Consumer Law held annually usually at the UoT law school, and in legal research and writing. Professor Ziegel’s primary interests are in commercial and consumer law and insolvency law, both international and domestic, with strong secondary interests in business organizations law and the judicial administration of justice. Professor Ziegel holds the LSUC’s medal of honour and an honorary LL.D. degree from the University of Victoria.
A light lunch will be provided.

Volunteer Information Session
2011-09-12 12:30 - 14:00
Event date: Monday, September 12, 2011, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Bennett Lecture Hall
All U of T law students wishing to participate in this year’s working groups must come to this information session. The possible working groups include the following:
Response to Proposed Crime Bills: Students will be researching the legal issues arising from the proposed crime legislation being put forward by the federal government. Of concern are provisions relating to mandatory minimum sentences as well as detention. Faculty consultant is Kent Roach. Student leader is Arina Joanisse.
Asper Centre Outlook: Assist our 3 student editors create content for the Centre’s twice yearly newsletter. Student editors are Esther Oh, Emily Shepard and Rebekah Lauks.
Equality Rights and Assisted Human Reproduction: Work with our partner organization, LEAF (Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund) to analyze the equality rights issues arising out of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act and other relevant provincial legislation. The Asper Centre is also organizing a conference November 4-5 with the Health Law Group on this issue. Student leader is Tatiana Lazdins.
Bill C-4 Amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: We are considering a response to the federal government’s proposed amendments to this legislation. A student leader has not yet been chosen.

Working Group Call for Proposals
2011-08-05
The Asper Centre working groups aim to provide U of T students with an opportunity to conduct legal research and assist in advocacy on Canadian constitutional rights issues (often in partnership with an external organization).
The Asper Centre requires all potential working groups (including existing working groups) to submit a written proposal for consideration by the Asper Centre Working Groups Selection Committee (“the Committee”). The Committee will select the most competitive proposals to form the Asper Centre Working Groups for the following year.
The purpose of the proposal requirement is to enhance the student experience and to ensure that our assistance is of the highest quality and value to our partners. The proposal-based working group model facilitates oversight by the Centre’s Executive Director, allows for further engagement with faculty, and ensures consistency across working groups.
Please contact Cheryl Milne if you need additional information or ideas to form a working group.

(2011)

G20: Lessons Learned, Messages Lost
2011-06-23 18:30 - 20:30
Event date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, at 6:30 PM
Location: Bennett Lecture Hall, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law
CLICK HERE FOR THE LIVE WEBCAST

Clinic Application Deadline
2011-06-20
CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION: DAVID ASPER CENTRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (LAW391H1F)
University of Toronto, Faculty of Law students wishing to apply for this course must email a 1-2 page statement of interest to Cheryl Milne, cheryl.milne@utoronto.ca by June 20, 2011. Please indicate the following:
(a) previous upper-year courses in constitutional law or human rights law or experience that you consider to be equivalent;
(b) indicators of academic, analytical and research and writing ability, which may include grades in related classes;
(c) any experience in human rights or constitutional issues;
(d) any experience with lawyering or advocacy;
(e) why you wish to enroll in the Clinic.
Successful applicants will be notified of admission in time for course registration commencing on July 7, 2011.

Clinical Legal Education Information Session
2011-04-05 12:30 - 14:30
Event date: Tuesday, April 05, 2011, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Room FLB, Flavelle House
Meet the Program Directors and find out how to apply for the Asper Clinic as well as the International Human Rights Program clinic and Downtown Legal Services for the next academic year. A light lunch will be provided.

Morris A. Gross Memorial Lecture
2011-04-01 16:30 - 18:30
Marlys Edwardh

Friday, April 1, 2011
4:30 p.m. (Reception to follow)
Bennett Lecture Hall
Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Reflecting on a distinguished career in law involving some of the most significant court cases in the country, Marlys Edwardh will address the challenges of funding important test case litigation. Her lecture caps off the afternoon’s symposium organized by the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights – Funding the Charter Challenge – and will challenge us to be creative and optimistic in advocating for social justice.

Marlys Edwardh, C.M. practises with Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP in criminal, constitutional and administrative/regulatory law, with an emphasis on civil and human rights and national security litigation. She has been counsel in many leading constitutional cases and high-profile criminal matters. Ms. Edwardh has also served as a Director, Secretary, Treasurer and Second Vice President of the Advocates’ Society, a Director of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, a Director of and subsequently Special Advisor to the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, and a Director and currently Vice President of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. She appears regularly before all levels of court in Ontario, the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada. Notable cases include R. v. Swain, R. v. Parks, United States v. Burns, Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, R. v. Truscott, R. v. Grant, and R. v. Conway. She has also served as counsel to and before several Commissions of Inquiry, including the Marshall inquiry, the Krever inquiry, and most recently the Arar inquiry. Ms. Edwardh’s commitment to social justice and her contributions to the profession have been widely recognized. She has received numerous awards and honours, including the Law Society of Upper Canada Medal, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association G. Arthur Martin Criminal Justice Award, the Vox Libera award from Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Women’s Law Association President’s Award, the Toronto Lawyers’ Association Award of Distinction, Professional Recognition Awards from the Midwifery Education Programme and the Canadian Muslim Network, and the inaugural Dianne Martin Medal for Social Justice Through Law. Marlys Edwardh is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and in 2010 was appointed a Member of the Order of Canada.
The Morris A. Gross Memorial Lecture was established in memory of the late Morris A. Gross by the law firm, Minden Gross LLP and by members of his family, friends and professional associates. The intention of the lectureship is to, every two years, bring to the Faculty of Law a distinguished scholar or a member of the practising bar or bench for discussion with the student body and Faculty.
Reception to follow in the Rowell Room.
