David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights

Clinical Course Deadline 2010
2010-06-14
Monday, June 14, 2010, at 4:00 PM
Deadline for upper year students to submit their application for the fall 2010 term of the Asper Centre Clinical Legal Education Course.

Who Belongs? Rights, Benefits, Obligations and Immigration Status
2010-09-24 - 2010-09-25
The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights is co-sponsor, with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, of a two day conference at the Faculty of Law on September 24th and 25th, 2010.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is undertaking a research project on the status of immigrant in Canadian society. Immigration status – whether it be citizenship, permanent resident status, visitor status, temporary workers status, “no status” – plays an important role in how rights, benefits and obligations are allocated. Rules regarding voting rights, access to social services, employment and property ownership often make distinctions on the basis of immigration status. What are the consequences of such distinctions? Are they appropriate?
The aim of the project is to explore the consequences of the differential access to rights and benefits on the basis of immigration status. Particularly, the following questions will be explored: What is the current situation with respect to immigration status distinctions made in different sectors such as voting rights, employment, professional affiliations, membership on boards, investment rules and access to social services? How has the concept of citizenship evolved through the years and internationally? How does it relate to First Nations’ concepts of citizenship? How should we conceptualize distinctions on the basis of immigration status in light of mobility and equality rights? Is discrimination on the basis of immigration status a proxy for racial discrimination? What is the experience of Human Rights Commissions on this issue? How does the temporary foreign workers program operate within our immigration law framework? Is it compatible with the values that sustain it? What impact do current bilateral treaties on the recognition of education credentials have on the treatment of immigrants in Canada? What should be the government’s position with respect to illegal immigrants‘ access to health, education or other social services? Should we revisit the restrictions on the right to vote, on employment rules in civil service, on participation on management boards?

Is none still too many?
2010-10-05 12:30 - 14:00 (America/Toronto)
Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Constitutional Roundtable
presents
James Hathaway, University of Michigan Law School
Audrey Macklin, University of Toronto Faculty of Law
Lorne Waldman, Lorne Waldman and Associates
Is None Still Too Many? Asylum Seekers on Boats, Then and Now, Here and There
12:30 – 2:00
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Classroom C – Flavelle House – 78 Queen’s Park
James C. Hathaway, the William Hearn Professor and Dean of the Melbourne Law School, is a leading authority on international refugee law whose work is regularly cited by the most senior courts of the common law world. He is also Senior Visiting Research Associate at Oxford University’s Refugee Studies Programme, and President of the Cuenca Colloquium on International Refugee Law. Hathaway was previously the James E. and Sarah A. Degan Professor and founding Director of the Program in Refugee and Asylum Law at the University of Michigan, USA (1998-2008), Professor of Law and Associate Dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School, Canada (1984-1998), Counsel on Special Legal Assistance for the Disadvantaged to the Government of Canada (1983-1984), and Professeur adjoint de droit at the Université de Moncton, Canada (1980-1983). He has been appointed a visiting professor at the Universities of Cairo, California, Macerata, and Tokyo and has provided training on refugee law to academic, non-governmental, and official audiences around the world. Hathaway’s publications include more than sixty journal articles, a leading treatise on the refugee definition (The Law of Refugee Status, 1991), an interdisciplinary study of models for refugee law reform (Reconceiving International Refugee Law, 1997) and, most recently, The Rights of Refugees under International Law (2005) – the first comprehensive analysis of the human rights of refugees set by the UN Refugee Convention, all linked to key international human rights norms and applied to the world’s most difficult protection challenges. He serves as Counsel on International Protection to both the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants and Asylum Access, a non-profit organization committed to delivering innovative legal aid to refugees in the global South. Hathaway also sits on the editorial boards of the Journal of Refugee Studies and the Immigration and Nationality Law Reports and directs the Refugee Caselaw Site (www.refugeecaselaw.org), a website that collects, indexes, and publishes leading judgments on refugee law.
Audrey Macklin is a professor at the Faculty of Law. She holds law degrees from Yale and Toronto, and a bachelor of science degree from Alberta. After graduating from Toronto, she served as law clerk to Mme Justice Bertha Wilson at the Supreme Court of Canada. She was appointed to the faculty of Dalhousie Law School in 1991, promoted to Associate Professor 1998, moved to the University of Toronto in 2000, and became a full professor in 2009. While teaching at Dalhousie, she also served as a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Professor Macklin’s teaching areas include criminal law, administrative law, and immigration and refugee law. Her research and writing interests include transnational migration, citizenship, forced migration, feminist and cultural analysis, and human rights. She has published on these subjects in journals such as Refuge and Canadian Woman Studies, and in collections of essays such as The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Bill and Engendering Forced Migration.
Lorne Waldman LL.B. (Osgoode), LL.M (Toronto) practices exclusively in the area of immigration and refugee law, and has done so since 1979. Mr. Waldman has appeared very frequently at all levels of the courts in Canada, including the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal where he has argued many of the leading cases in immigration and refugee law. Mr. Waldman successfully acted as co counsel for Maher Arar at the public inquiry into the circumstances behind his deportation from the United States to Syria where he was subjected to brutal torture. The Public Inquiry concluded that there was absolutely no evidence that Mr. Arar was involved in any illegal activities. He acted for the Canadian Bar Association at the recent Supreme Court hearings in the case of Charkaoui where the Supreme Court struck down the Security Certificates. He has also appeared for the CBA as one of the spokesperson on national security issues at hearings into the Review of the Anti Terrorism Legislation and assisted in the writing of the CBA briefs on the Anti Terrorism Legislation to the Parliamentary And Senate Committees. Mr. Waldman has appeared as a witness before the House of Commons and Senate on issues of immigration and refugee law frequently and is a frequent commentator on immigration and refugee issues in the media. He is the author and editor of Immigration Law and Practice, a two volume, loose leaf service published by Butterworth’s Canada in 1992, and two other works: The Definition of Convention Refugee published by Butterworths in 2001 and Canadian Immigration and Refugee Practice, first published in October of 2005 by Butterworths. It is published annually with updates to case digests and commentary. In August, 2007 he was awarded the Louis St Laurent award by the CBA for his contribution to the legal profession.

G20 Workshop
2010-10-06 12:30 - 14:00
Project G20 Inaugural Panel:
Protecting Rights in the Aftermath of the G20 Summit in Toronto
Project G20, a student-led working group of the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, invites the legal community and the public at large to attend its inaugural panel entitled “Protecting Rights in the Aftermath of the G20 Summit in Toronto.”
On June 26-27, 2010 Toronto hosted the summit for the Group of 20 (“G20”) nations. Anticipating the large scale protests that would precede and coincide with the summit, the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto coordinated to establish a substantial security infrastructure and perimeter around the summit site. As many started gathering in Toronto prior to the weekend summit, complaints about improper police conduct became increasingly frequent. On June 26, as many as 10,000 people gathered in protest. While the vast majority demonstrated peacefully, a small group of black-clad individuals broke away from the main crowd, vandalizing stores and banks in the downtown core and setting fire to abandoned police vehicles. For the remainder of the weekend, the police adopted aggressive measures to control the demonstrations that subsequently lead to the arrest of more than 1,000 people, the largest mass arrest in Canadian history.
This inaugural panel will address the many allegations of breaches to Charter rights during the G20 week and add perspective to the debate about the proper balance between society’s fundamental freedoms and the state’s security interests.
For more information, please contact asper.projectg20@gmail.com
Panel Discussion with:
Cara Zwibel is Director of the Fundamental Freedoms Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. She is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School and received her Master’s in Law from New York University where she was an Arthur T. Vanderbilt Scholar. Cara was a judicial clerk to the Honourable Ian Binnie at the Supreme Court of Canada and subsequently worked at a large national law firm practicing in the areas of public law, health law and commercial litigation. She has co-authored published articles on the rule of law in the Supreme Court of Canada and on Charter advocacy.
Professor Kent Roach is Prichard-Wilson Chair of Law and Public Policy at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, with cross-appointments in criminology and political science, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. He is a graduate of the University of Toronto and of Yale, and a former law clerk to
Justice Bertha Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Irina Ceric is a staff lawyer at Parkdale Community Legal Services and a PhD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. A long-time community activist, she currently works primarily with the Law Union of Ontario’s Movement Defence Committee and the Global Balkans Network.
The panel will be moderated by Professor David Schneiderman.

Event date: Wednesday, October 06, 2010, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Room FLB, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Acts of Attrition
2010-10-12 12:30 - 14:00
Mary Eberts, S.J.D. Candidate, University of Toronto Faculty of Law
October 12, 2010

Proportionality
2010-10-21 12:30 - 14:00
Speaker: Aharon Barak, President of the Supreme Court of Israel (Emeritus)
This essay focuses on proportionality stricto sensu as a consequential test of balancing. The basic balancing rule establishes a general criterion for deciding between the marginal benefit to the public good and the marginal limit to human rights. Based on the Israeli constitutional jurisprudence, this essay supports the adoption of a principled balancing approach that translates the basic balancing rule into a series of principled balancing tests, taking into account the importance of the rights and the type of restriction. This approach provides better guidance to the balancer (legislator, administrator, judge), restricts wide discretion in balancing, and makes the act of balancing more transparent, more structured, and more foreseeable. The advantages of proportionality stricto sensu with its three levels of abstraction are several. It stresses the need to always look for a justification of a limit on human rights; it structures the mind of the balancer; it is transparent; it creates a proper dialog between the political brunches and the judiciary, and it adds to the objectivity of judicial discretion. Proportionality stricto sensu however has it critics: some claim that it attempts to balance incommensurable items; others that balancing is irrational. The answer to the critics is that it is a common base for comparison, namely the social marginal importance and that the balancing rules—basic, principled, concrete—supply a rational basis for balancing. A democracy must entrust the judiciary—the unelected independent judiciary—to be the final decision-maker—subject to constitutional amendments—about proper ends that cannot be achieved because they are not proportionality stricto sensu.
Aharon Barak, born in Lithuania in 1936, is married and the father of four. He studied law, economics and international relations at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Barak received an MA in law in 1958, and a doctorate in 1963. He was appointed Associate Professor of Law at the Hebrew University in 1968 and became Dean of that Faculty in 1974. From 1975-8, he occupied the position of Attorney General of Israel, an appointed and independent position in the Ministry of Justice overseeing the justice system. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of Israel in 1978 and became its President in 1995. His retirement from the Court took place in September 2006 when he reached the age of mandatory retirement. He has received a number of prizes and honours, including the Kaplan Prize for excellence in science and research and the Israel Prize in legal sciences as well as numerous honorary degrees. He is the author of a number of books in Hebrew and in English as well as numerous articles on a wide variety of legal topics. His publications in English include Judicial Discretion, Purposive Interpretation in Law and The Judge in a Democracy, from Princeton University Press.
A light lunch will be served.
For more workshop information, please contact Professor Lorraine Weinrib at l.weinrib@utoronto.ca or Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca.

2010

The Decriminalization of Prostitution in Ontario: Perspectives on Bedford v. Canada
2010-10-25 12:30 - 14:00
In the recent landmark case Bedford v. Canada, Justice Himmel of the Ontario Superior Court held that three provisions of the Criminal Code that criminalize facets of prostitution—living on the avails of prostitution, keeping a common bawdy house and communicating in a public place for the purpose of engaging in prostitution—infringe the core values protected by section 7 of the Charter, and that this infringement is not saved by section 1 as a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The Federal Government has indicated that it will appeal the decision, which was stayed for 30 days pending further submissions from the Crown.
A distinguished panel, which will include Professor Alan Young (counsel for the applicants in the case), Professor Brenda Cossman, and Professor Hamish Stewart, will discuss the Superior Court decision and what it means for the future of prostitution laws in Canada. Read an abridged version of the decision here or the complete decision here.

Event date: Monday, October 25, 2010, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Room FLC, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Symposium: The Role of Interveners in Public Interest Litigation
2010-11-06 08:30 - 17:00
Friday, November 6th, 2010
Sign in and Registration: 8:30 a.m.
Public interest litigation can have a significant impact on public policy in Canada. Although Charter and other public interest litigation is most often commenced by individual claimants who are challenging laws that affect them individually, the test case litigant is often supported or opposed by powerful interveners such as governments and advocacy organizations representing groups in society seeking to be heard on the significant human rights issues of the day. The role that all of these interveners play in court and in the public discourse surrounding these cases is the subject of this one day symposium.
The symposium’s outstanding faculty of professionals and academics include leading jurists and representatives of government interveners, public interest groups and the private bar. International panelists will explore the roles that interveners take in jurisdictions outside of Canada. The symposium will also highlight new research on the impact of interveners at the Supreme Court of Canada conducted by the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law.
Speakers Include: Hon. Justice Dennis O’Connor, Hon. Frank Iacobucci, Hon. Justice Stephen Goudge, Frank Addario, Nathalie Des Rosiers, R. Douglas Elliott, Clive Baldwin, Michael Fordham, Q.C, Paul Collins (author Friends of the Court), Michal Fairburn, among others
Webcast
Program
Conference Papers
Symposium Participants

Workshop: The Interrogation Trilogy
2010-11-10 12:30 - 14:00
In three cases released on October 8, 2010, the Supreme Court added the third story in what the Court described as the “interrogation trilogy” (R. v. Oickle, R. v. Singh and R. v. Sinclair). Oickle spoke to the types of techniques that officers can legally use to persuade someone to confess, including the use of an “infallible” lie detector test. Singh permitted repeated questioning after the accused asserted his right to silence. Now, Sinclair and the other 2 decisions released together hold that a person’s s.10(b) right to counsel under the Charter does not mean that the accused has the right to have counsel present during police questioning or to consult more than once, unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances that might warrant additional legal advice.
Panel Discussion with:
Professor Hamish Stewart is an Associate Professor of Law at the U of T, where he has taught criminal law, evidence, and several other subjects since 1993. Before attending law school, he studied economics, receiving his B.A. from the University of Toronto in 1983 and his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1989, and he taught for a year in the economics department at Williams College in Massachusetts. He received his 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. From 1998 to 2007, he was an Associate Editor of the Canadian Criminal Cases and the Dominion Law Reports. Professor Stewart is the principal author of Sexual Offences in Canadian Law (Canada Law Book, 2004), the General Editor of Evidence: A Canadian Casebook, 2d ed. (Emond Montgomery, 2006), and the author of more than 40 scholarly papers in criminal law, evidence, legal theory, and economics.
John Norris is a practicing lawyer in Toronto. He received a B.A. (Honours Philosophy) from Carleton University in 1982 and an M.A. (Philosophy) from the University of Western Ontario in 1984. He received his LL.B. from the University of Toronto in 1991 and was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1993. Since then he has maintained a trial and appellate practice in the areas of criminal, constitutional and national security law. He is an adjunct member of the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, where he has taught Advanced Criminal Law, Evidence Law, Advanced Evidence and Legal Ethics, and of Osgoode Hall Law School, where he teaches in the part-time LL.M. Program in Criminal Law. He is the author of several scholarly articles, an Assistant Editor of the Canadian Rights Reporter and a regular contributor to continuing legal education programs. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. In 2008, he was appointed by the Minister of Justice to the roster of Special Advocates for security certificate proceedings under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He was counsel for the Criminal Lawyers Association in R. v. Oickle.
John McInnes is a lawyer at the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney-General, Crown Law Office – Criminal and an Adjunct Professor in the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law. He received a B.A. from the University of Toronto in 1992 and an LL.B. from the University of British Columbia in 1995. He articled at the Crown Law Office – Criminal in 1995-1996. From 1997 to 2000 he practised as defence counsel. In 2000, Mr. McInnes returned to the Crown Law Office – Criminal as Crown counsel. He regularly appears at all levels of Court in trial and appellate matters. He is currently a member of both the Justice Prosecutions Group and the Criminal Appeal Group within the Crown Law Office – Criminal. Mr. McInnes has also published several articles on criminal law topics and is a frequent participant in continuing education programs for criminal defence lawyers and Crown counsel. Currently, Mr. McInnes also teaches the introductory criminal procedure course at the University Faculty of Law. Mr. McInnes was counsel for the AG Ontario in R. v. Sinclair.
Alexi Wood is an associate at McCarthy Tetrault LLP. She maintains a general litigation practice, focusing on civil litigation, including medical malpractice and commercial cases. Her interests also include criminal and constitutional cases. She was the Director of the Public Safety Project at the Canadian Civil Liberties Assocationa. She also interned for the UN’s High Commission for Human Rights in Switzerland, and later was selected as a delegate in a US State Department mission to Bolivia, where she gave presentations to the US Embassy, local officials and the Bolivian Supreme Court on international law and domestic violence. Ms. Wood has hosted and produced a legal issues cable television show as well as published articles and delivered numerous lectures on a wide range of topics, including balancing civil liberties and human rights, violence against women, and international law. Ms. Wood obtained her JD from the University of Cincinnati College of Law, where she was a Human Rights Fellow. She was called to the Ontario bar in 2007. She acted as co-counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in R. v. Sinclair.
The panel will be moderated by Cheryl Milne, Executive Director of the Asper Centre.
A light lunch will be served.

Event date: Wednesday, November 10, 2010, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Room FLA, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law

Symposium on U.N. Security Council Resolution 1267
2010-11-19 09:00 - 12:30
The Asper Centre with the International Human Rights Program
and Canadian Civil Liberties Association
present
Symposium on the Impact of Targeted Anti-terrorist Sanctions on
Charter and International Human Rights
Program:
9:00 a.m. Welcome: Renu Mandhane, International Human Rights Program
Key Note Speaker: Judge Kimberly Prost, UN Ombudsperson for Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions
9:45 – 11:00 Litigation Strategies
Speakers: Paul Champ – Counsel for Abdelrazik
Ben Wizner – Counsel for American Civil Liberties Union
Jeremy McBride – Barrister, Chair of Interights, U.K.
Moderator: Cheryl Milne, David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights
11:00 Break
11:15 – 12:30 International Law and the Charter
Speakers: Professor David Dyzenhaus – Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Professor Kent Roach – Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Michelle Gallant – Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba
Moderator: Nathalie Des Rosiers, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Closing Remarks: Sukanya Pillay, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Click here for live webcast on November 19, 2010
Program Flyer

Event date: Friday, November 19, 2010, from 9:00 AM to 12:30 PM
Location: Bennet Lecture Hall, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Reference re. Constitutionality of s.293 of the Criminal Code of Canada
2010-11-22 14:30 - 17:00
The hearing in the Court reference on the constitutionality of the polygamy prohibition in the Criminal Code of Canada commences in the British Columbia Supreme Court.

Event date: Monday, November 22, 2010, at 2:28 PM
Location: British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver, British Columbia

Becoming Supreme: How Federalism Fosters Judicial Power
2010-11-29 12:30 - 14:00
Barry Friedman
New York University Law School
One of the longstanding, beguiling questions among scholars in several disciplines is how judicial power gains traction. Why do those setting up governments create an independent judiciary, why or how does judicial review get a foothold, and most important, what is the fount of judiciall supremacy? Theories abound, each problematic in some way. By looking at the answer to this question in the context of the Supreme Court of the United States, we demonstrate the vital role a federal system can play in both the rise and maintenance of judicial supremacy. In a unitary (non-federal) system, a judiciary possessing the power of judicial review necessarily will find itself frequently at odds with – and rarely helpful to – the governing regime. By contrast, in a federal system, the judiciary can provide vital support to the central government in suppressing outlier conduct. We describe the process by which this central insight accounts initially for “vertical” supremacy, the supremacy of the Supreme Court over state and local governments and ultimately transforms itself into “horizontal” supremacy the binding effect of judicial pronouncements over the coordinate branches of the national government. This project is theoretical and historical both: it identifies the mechanisms for the transformation from vertical to horizontal supremacy, and recounts how this occurred in the United States. While the historical detail is unique to the United States, the model has the potential to explain the rise and maintenance of judicial supremacy in many countries across the globe.
Professor Friedman is one of the country’s leading authorities on constitutional law and the federal courts. He is a prolific scholar, working at the intersections of law, politics and history. Friedman teaches a wide variety of courses including Constitutional Law, Federal Courts, and Criminal Procedure. He writes extensively about judicial review, constitutional law and theory, federal jurisdiction and judicial behavior. His scholarship appears regularly in the nation’s top law and peer-edited reviews. He is the author of widely-recognized The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution (Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2009), which examines the history of the relationship between popular opinion and the Supreme Court, from 1776 to the present. Along with his co-author Stephen Burbank, Friedman co-edited and contributed to Judicial Independence at the Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Approach, which questions common assumptions about the nature of judicial independence and how it can be protected. The book has been cited and relied upon countless times by scholars and policymakers alike. Professor Friedman is a frequent contributor to the nation’s leading journals, both on-line and print. His work has appeared in The New York Times, Salon, The Los Angeles Times, Politico and The New Republic, among others. Professor Friedman graduated from the University of Chicago and received his law degree magna cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center. He clerked for the Honorable Phyllis A. Kravitch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and also worked as a litigation associate at Davis, Polk & Wardwell in Washington D.C. He was a professor at Vanderbilt Law School before joining the NYU faculty in 2000. In 1995 he won the Clarence Darrow Award from the ACLU of Tennessee for his work in defense of civil liberties.
A light lunch will be served

Event date: Monday, November 29, 2010, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM

Location: Faculty Common Room, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law

Freedom of expression and the G20 — from the summit to today
2011-01-17 12:30 - 14:00
A screening of selections from Adam Letalik’s documentary Toronto G20 Exposed followed by a panel discussion on Charter rights, particularly focused on the impact on freedom of expression. The panel will feature criminal lawyer John Norris on G20-related bail conditions, Prof. David Schneiderman on Charter issues pertaining to the summit weekend including the Public Works Protection Act, and Adam Letalik on his film and G20 experience. For more information, please contact asper.projectg20@gmail.com
Panel Discussion with:
Adam Letalik is a documentary filmmaker for the website UnderOccupation.com. Adam is an independent financial investor, specializing in gold and silver. In 2008, he graduated from The University of British Columbia with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and a Minor in Economics and is currently independently studying the Austrian School of Economics online at the Mises Institute. In recent years, Adam has been a political activist.
Professor David Schneiderman 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). He is founding editor of the quarterly Constitutional Forum Constitutionnel and founding editor-in-chief of the journal Review of Constitutional Studies.
John Norris is a practicing lawyer in Toronto. He received a B.A. (Honours Philosophy) from Carleton University in 1982 and an M.A. (Philosophy) from the University of Western Ontario in 1984. He received his LL.B. from the University of Toronto in 1991 and was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1993. Since then he has maintained a trial and appellate practice in the areas of criminal, constitutional and national security law. He is an adjunct member of the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, where he has taught Advanced Criminal Law, Evidence Law, Advanced Evidence and Legal Ethics, and of Osgoode Hall Law School, where he teaches in the part-time LL.M. Program in Criminal Law. He is the author of several scholarly articles, an Assistant Editor of the Canadian Rights Reporter and a regular contributor to continuing legal education programs. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. In 2008, he was appointed by the Minister of Justice to the roster of Special Advocates for security certificate proceedings under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Event date: Monday, January 17, 2011, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Location: Room FLB, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Constitutional Roundtable
2011-02-03 16:00 - 17:30
Is Coalition Government in Britain here to stay?
Professor Robert Hazell
University College London

Thursday, February 3, 2011
4:00-5:30 p.m.
Bennett Lecture Hall, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law

Prof Robert Hazell is Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, the UK’s leading research centre on constitutional reform. He was originally a barrister and then a senior civil servant, and still works closely with Whitehall. In 2009 he produced a report on minority Parliaments and the challenges they would present for Westminster and Whitehall, including the lessons to be learnt from Canada and New Zealand. That prompted the UK Cabinet Office to publish guidance on the key constitutional conventions before the 2010 general election. The guidance has since been consolidated in a new Cabinet Manual published in December. Prof Hazell advised on the new Cabinet Manual, and is now conducting a study of how the new coalition government works.

In a lecture co-sponsored by the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, Faculty of Law and the Department of Political Science, Professor Hazell will explain the background to the new coalition government in the UK, and explore its prospects. He will focus in particular on its plans for constitutional reform: fixed term parliaments, the 2011 referendum on the voting system, reducing the size of the House of Commons, electing the House of Lords. He will conclude with reflections on whether coalition government might become the norm in future in the UK.
The lecture will be followed by a reception in the Rowell room with The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson.

Symposium: Funding the Charter Challenge
2011-04-01 13:00 - 17:30
Event date: Friday, April 01, 2011, from 1:00 PM to 5:30 PM
Location: Bennet Lecture Hall, Flavelle House, Faculty of Law, Universtity of Toronto
Legal experts in practice and the academy provide information and commentary on the availability of funding for some of the most significant litigation in the country. How can you obtain advanced costs? Are class actions feasible in Charter claims? What are the reasonable and ethical limits of pro bono? Does the legal aid system adequately fund complex cases?
Schedule

1:00 Cost Strategies for Litigants
Panel: Joseph Arvay, Q.C., Arvay Finlay Barristers
Douglas Elliott, Roy Elliott O’Connor LLP
David McKillop, Legal Aid Ontario
2:30 Break

2:45 Access to Justice, Professionalism and Ethics
Panel: Prof. Janet Mosher, Osgoode Hall Law School
Prof. Chris Tollefson, Univ. of Victoria
Prof. Jasminka Kalajdzic, Univ. of Windsor
4:15 Break
4:30 Morris A. Gross Memorial Lecture
Speaker: Marlys Edwardh, C.M.
The lecture will be followed by a reception in the Rowell Room.
Link to webcast

This program has been accredited by the Law Society for 1 hour toward
the annual Professionalism Requirement.

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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)

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.

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

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

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

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).
