BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights - ECPv6.15.20//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://aspercentre.ca
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Toronto
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20100314T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20101107T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20110313T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20111106T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20120311T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20121104T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20130310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20131103T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20140309T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20141102T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20150308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20151101T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20160313T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20161106T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20170312T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20171105T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20180311T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20181104T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20190310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20191103T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20200308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20201101T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20210314T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20211107T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20220313T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20221106T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20230312T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20231105T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20240310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20241103T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20111025
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20111026
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T150307Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T150307Z
UID:916-1319500800-1319587199@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Call for Papers Deadline
DESCRIPTION:Call for Conference Papers \nCharter Litigation and the Use of Social Science Evidence: \nAfter thirty years what have we learned? What could we do better? \nUniversity of Toronto\, St. George Campus – March 23& 24\, 2012 \nThe 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. \nThe 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: \n• Analysis and evaluation of the categories of social science evidence in Charter litigation\n• The processes of gathering and presenting social science evidence in Charter litigation\n• Historical perspectives\n• The tensions between the disciplines of social science and law as arise in the context of litigation\n• The persuasive value of social science evidence\, its limits\, and its admissibility \nOther 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. \nThe 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. \nThe 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. \nFor those interested in participating\, please send an abstract (max: 250 words) of your intended paper to: Cheryl Milne at cheryl.milne@utoronto.ca \nDeadline for Submissions: October 25\, 2011
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/call-for-papers-deadline/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20120117T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20120117T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T145728Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T145728Z
UID:904-1326803400-1326808800@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:U of T Law Faculty Members Comment on the Polygamy Reference
DESCRIPTION: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. \nA 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: \nBrenda 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). \nMohammad 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. \nHamish 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. \nLorraine 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. \nCarol 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. \nRebecca 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. \nDavid 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). \nModerator: 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. \nEvent date: Tuesday\, January 17\, 2012\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\nLocation: Bennett Lecture Hall\, Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/u-of-t-law-faculty-members-comment-on-the-polygamy-reference/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20120123T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20120123T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T145510Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T145510Z
UID:902-1327321800-1327327200@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:The Omnibus Crime Bill: Bill C-10
DESCRIPTION: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. \nPanel Discussion with:\nProfessor 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. \nClayton 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. \nCheryl 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. \nModerated 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. \nA light lunch will be served. \nEvent date: Monday\, January 23\, 2012\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\nLocation: Room FLC\, Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/the-omnibus-crime-bill-bill-c-10/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20120802
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20120803
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T145249Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T145249Z
UID:899-1343865600-1343951999@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Working Group Call for Proposals
DESCRIPTION: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). \nThe 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. \nThe 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. \nPlease contact Cheryl Milne if you need additional information or ideas to form a working group. \nLink to Call for Proposals with application instructions. \nASPER 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).
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/working-group-call-for-proposals-2/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20120919T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20120919T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T145028Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T145028Z
UID:897-1348057800-1348063200@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:The Rule of Law as a Constitutional Essential
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Pavlos Eleftheriadis (University Lecturer & Fellow in Law\, University of Oxford) \n\nAbstract: 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. \nA light lunch will be served. \nEvent date: Wednesday\, September 19\, 2012\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\nLocation: Room FLA\, Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto \nFor more workshop information\, please contact Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/the-rule-of-law-as-a-constitutional-essential/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20120925T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20120925T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T144855Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T144855Z
UID:894-1348576200-1348581600@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Counsel and expert witness reflect on Carter v Canada
DESCRIPTION: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. \nJoseph 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. \nWayne 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. \nA light lunch will be served. \nEvent date: Tuesday\, September 25\, 2012\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\nLocation: Room FLB\, Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto \nFor more workshop information\, please contact Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/counsel-and-expert-witness-reflect-on-carter-v-canada/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20121015T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20121015T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T144713Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T144713Z
UID:891-1350304200-1350309600@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:The Disallegiant Heart: Constitutional Citizenship and the History of Marital Denaturalization
DESCRIPTION:Helen Irving\, Professor\, Faculty of Law\, University of Sydney \nAbstract: 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. \nA light lunch will be served. \nEvent date: Tuesday\, October 16\, 2012\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\nLocation: Solarium\, Falconer Hall\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto \nContact Nadia Gulezko for information and a copy of the paper: n.gulezko@utoronto.ca
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/the-disallegiant-heart-constitutional-citizenship-and-the-history-of-marital-denaturalization/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20121024T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20121024T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T144544Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T144544Z
UID:889-1351081800-1351087200@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Of Irregular Votes and Robocalls: Resolving Disputed Elections in Canada and New Zealand
DESCRIPTION:Andrew Geddis\, Professor\, Faculty of Law\, University of Otago \nAbstract: 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. \nAndrew 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. \nA light lunch will be served. \nFor more information and a copy of the draft paper contact Nadia Gulezko: n.gulezko@utoronto.ca \nEvent date: Wednesday\, October 24\, 2012\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\nLocation: FLB\, Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/of-irregular-votes-and-robocalls-resolving-disputed-elections-in-canada-and-new-zealand/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20121109T083000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20121112T170000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T144414Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T144414Z
UID:886-1352449800-1352739600@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Social Science Evidence in Charter Litigation
DESCRIPTION:Developments in Thirty Years of Fact Finding\nWhat have we learned? What could we do better? \nEvent date: Friday\, November 09\, 2012\, from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM\nLocation: Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto \nOpening Plenary Panel: The Challenges for Judges \nJustice 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) \nWorkshop 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 … \nPROGRAM
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/social-science-evidence-in-charter-litigation/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20121128T160000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20121128T173000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T143857Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T143857Z
UID:884-1354118400-1354123800@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:"Riffing on the Federalist"
DESCRIPTION:Sanford Levinson\nW. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood\, Jr. Centennial Chair \nProfessor of Government\, School of Law \nUniversity of Texas at Austin \nEvent date: Wednesday\, November 28\, 2012\, from 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM\nLocation: Rowell Room\, Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto \nAbstract: 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. \nThe Roundtable will be followed by a reception in the Faculty Common Room. \nThis event is co-sponsored with the Canada Research Chair in Constitutionalism\, Democracy and Development.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/riffing-on-the-federalist/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20130124T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20130124T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T143138Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T143223Z
UID:879-1359030600-1359036000@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Common Good\, Public Reason and Constitutional Law
DESCRIPTION:Wojciech Sadurski\, University of Sydney\nThe 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. \nEvent date: Thursday\, January 24\, 2013\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\nLocation: Solarium\, Falconer Hall\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto \nWojciech 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. \nA light lunch will be served. \nFor more workshop information and a copy of the draft paper\, please contact Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/common-good-public-reason-and-constitutional-law/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20130214T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20130214T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T142743Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T142743Z
UID:875-1360845000-1360850400@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Social and Economic Rights - A South African Perspective
DESCRIPTION:Zak Yacoob\nFormer Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa\nEvent date: Thursday\, February 14\, 2013\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\nLocation: Room B\, Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto \nJudge 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. \nHe 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. \nJudge 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. \nLink to the Grootboom decision. \nA light lunch will be served. \nFor more workshop information and a copy of the Grootboom decision please contact Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/social-and-economic-rights-a-south-african-perspective/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20130227T160000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20130227T173000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T142544Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T142544Z
UID:873-1361980800-1361986200@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:2013 Morris A Gross Memorial Lecture
DESCRIPTION:The Honourable Lynn Smith\nThe Quest for a Charter Equality Test: Has the Longest Way Round Been the Shortest Way Home? \nWatch the webcast here. \nEvent date: Wednesday\, February 27\, 2013\, from 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM\nLocation: Rowell Room\, Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto \nLynn 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. \nThe 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. \nThis event is being co-sponsored by the JOHN AND MARY YAREMKO FUND FOR MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS. \nFor more information\, contact Cheryl Milne cheryl.milne@utoronto.ca
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/2013-morris-a-gross-memorial-lecture/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20130304T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20130304T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T142340Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T142340Z
UID:871-1362400200-1362405600@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Respecting Democratic Constitutional Change
DESCRIPTION:Craig Scott \n\nMember of Parliament for Toronto-Danforth\n \n\nThis 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. \nCraig 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). \nCraig Scott\, MP\, Toronto-Danforth\, 741 Broadview Ave\, Suite 304\, Toronto\, ON M4K 3Y3 Tel: 4164058914; 914\, Confederation Bldg\, Ottawa\, ON K1A 0A6\, Tel: 6139929381. \nA light lunch will be served. \nRead the Bill Here  \nFor more workshop information\, please contact kara.norrington@utoronto.ca \n  \nEvent date: Monday\, March 04\, 2013\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\nLocation: Room FLA\, Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/respecting-democratic-constitutional-change/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20131101T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20131101T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T165227Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T165227Z
UID:1015-1383309000-1383314400@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:The Indigenous as Alien
DESCRIPTION:Constitutional Roundtable\nHarney Program in Ethnic\, Immigration and Pluralism Studies &\nCanada Research Chair in Citizenship and Multiculturalism \n present \nLeti Volpp\nUC Berkeley School of Law \nThe Indigenous as Alien \nImmigration law\, as it is taught\, studied\, and researched in the United States\, imagines away the fact of preexisting indigenous populations.  To show how this takes place\, this Essay examines the way immigration law narrates space\, time\, and membership.  But despite this disappearance from the field\, Indians have figured in U.S. immigration law\, and thus\, the Essay describes the neglected legal history of the treatment of American Indians under U.S. immigration and citizenship law.  The paper then returns to explain why Indians have disappeared from U.S. immigration law through an investigation of the relationship between We the People\, the “settler contract\,” and the “nation of immigrants.” \nLeti Volpp is the Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law in Access to Justice at the UC Berkeley School of Law\, where she teaches courses on immigration and citizenship.  Her most recent publications include “Imaginings of Space in Immigration Law\,” in Law\, Culture and the Humanities (2012)\, the edited symposium issue “Denaturalizing Citizenship: A Symposium on Linda Bosniak’s The Citizen and the Alien and Ayelet Shachar’s The Birthright Lottery\,” in Issues in Legal Scholarship (2011)\, and “Framing Cultural Difference: Immigrant Women and Discourses of Tradition\,” in Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies(2011). Forthcoming work includes “Civility and the Alien\,” in Civility\, Legality and the Limits of Justice (Austin Sarat\, ed.\, Cambridge University Press\, forthcoming). \n\n\n\n\nEvent date: Friday\, November 01\, 2013\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\n\n\n\n\nLocation: Room 108N\, North House\, Munk School of Global Affairs\, 1 Devonshire Place
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/the-indigenous-as-alien/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20141118T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20141118T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T134624Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170721T160844Z
UID:836-1416313800-1416319200@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Wishful Thinking: The Supreme Court of Canada Looks at Canadian Democracy in the Charter Era
DESCRIPTION:Mary Eberts\nConstitutional Litigator-in-Residence David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights\nUniversity of Toronto \nModerator:\nYasmin Dawood\nUniversity of Toronto Faculty of Law \nNOTE DATE CHANGE: Tuesday\, November 18th 2014\n12:30 – 2:00\nSolarium (room FA2)\, Falconer Hall\n84 Queen’s Park \nMARY EBERTS received her legal education at Western and the Harvard Law School\, and is a member of the Bar of Ontario. She joined a Bay St. law firm after several years of teaching at the Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto\, and was a partner at that firm until opening a small firm specializing in Charter and public law litigation. From this base in Toronto\, she has appeared as counsel to parties and interveners in the Supreme Court of Canada\, Courts of Appeal and Superior Courts in Ontario and other provinces\, the Federal Court and Court of Appeal\, and before administrative tribunals and inquests in Ontario and other provinces. She was active in securing the present language of section 15 of the Charter\, and was one of the founders of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). Since 1991\, she has been litigation counsel to the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC). Mary held the Gordon Henderson Chair in Human Rights at the University of Ottawa in 2004-2005 and the Ariel Sallows Chair in Human Rights at the College of Law\, University of Saskachewan in 2011 and 2012\, where she taught courses in test case litigation. Recognition of her work includes the Law Society Medal\, the Governor-General’s Award in Honour of the Persons’ Case\, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal and several honourary degrees. \n  \nA light lunch will be provided. \n  \nFor more workshop information\, please contact Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/wishful-thinking-the-supreme-court-of-canada-looks-at-canadian-democracy-in-the-charter-era/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20150205T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20150205T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T134246Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T162717Z
UID:831-1423139400-1423144800@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Constitutional Roundtable- Richard Stacey
DESCRIPTION:  \nConstitutional Roundtable \npresents \n Richard Stacey\, Faculty of Law University of Toronto \n12:30 – 2:00 p.m. \nThursday\, February 5\, 2015 \nRoom 101\, Victoria College \nConstitutional Law in the Absence of Constitution: Power in the Revolutionary Interregnum \nIn early February 2011\, the Egyptian armed forces assumed executive control of Egypt and suspended the 1971 Constitution. A group of academics was mandated to propose amendments to the Constitution which\, once approved by referendum on 19 March\, became Egypt’s ‘interim’ Constitution. A process for the drafting and adoption of a new constitution was initiated\, and the 2012 Constitution was adopted by referendum in December 2012. The armed forces again assumed executive control in July 2013 and suspended the 2012 Constitution\, with another new constitution approved at referendum in January 2014. During both periods of military control\, it remains unclear what replaced the suspended Constitution as the country’s foundational legal instrument. The Egyptian case is an example of constitutional interregnum\, where political authority is exercised in the apparent absence of any formal constitutional foundation for political authority. This paper focuses on these periods of constitutional interregnum\, exploring through a number of contemporary and historical cases how the gap left by the suspension of a constitution during a period of constitutional replacement is filled. The paper argues that even without a formal written constitution\, a governing body’s authority and the lawfulness of its conduct depends on adherence to supra-constitutional principles derived from the commitment to constitutional democracy itself. Because a democratic constitution claims to speak for the whole people\, the law in force during the constitutional interregnum and which governs the drafting of a new constitution must\, at least\, treat all and each of the people as equals and affirm a democratic right to representation in the drafting process. Any meaningful claim to be exercising authority in the name of the people – a claim to the authority of popular sovereignty – implies a commitment to a set of principles capable of constraining and directing the groups or individuals who exercise authority. These principles provide a constitutional foundation for government and for the legal system during the interregnum\, ensuring both a benchmark for lawful government and legal continuity. \nRichard Stacey served as Director of Research at the Center for Constitutional Transitions at NYU Law until joining the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto. He holds a PhD from New York University’s Institute for Law and Society and bachelors degrees in political theory and law from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg\, South Africa. He served as law clerk to Justice Kate O’Regan and Justice Bess Nkabinde at the Constitutional Court of South Africa\, and has taught courses in political theory\, constitutional law\, administrative law and human rights at the University of Witwatersrand\, the University of Cape Town and the City University of New York Law School. In 2009 he was a research consultant during Kenya’s constitutional review process and has remained involved in constitutional transitions around the world\, providing technical advice through the Center for Constitutional Transitions in Tunisia\, Libya\, and Egypt. His work has appeared in a number of journals of law and political theory\, the multi-author reference work Constitutional Law of South Africa (of which he acts as co-editor)\, and in books on constitutional design\, land reform\, and women’s rights. \nA light lunch will be provided.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/constitutional-law-in-the-absence-of-constitution-power-in-the-revolutionary-interregnum/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20151014T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20151014T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20170621T133220Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T133220Z
UID:816-1444825800-1444831200@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Constitutional Roundtable - Cristina Rodriguez
DESCRIPTION:Constitutional Roundtable \npresents \nCristina Rodriguez\, Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law at 
Yale Law School \n12:30 – 2:00 p.m. \nWednesday\, October 14\, 2015 \nLocation: Victoria College\, Room VC 115 \nThe Power to Enforce the Law: Presidential Power and American Immigration Policy \nIn November 2014\, President Obama announced his intention to dramatically reshape immigration law through administrative channels. Together with relief policies announced in 2012\, his initiatives would shield over half the population of unauthorized immigrants from removal and enable them to work in the United States. These events have drawn renewed attention to the President’s power to shape immigration law. They also have reignited a longstanding controversy about whether constitutional limits exist on a central source of executive authority: the power to enforce the law. \nIn using the Obama relief policies to explore these dynamics\, we make two central claims. First\, it is futile to try to constrain the enforcement power by tying it to a search for congressional enforcement priorities. Congress has no discernible priorities when it comes to a very wide swath of enforcement activity—a reality especially true for immigration law today. The immigration code has evolved over time into a highly reticulated statute through the work of numerous Congresses and political coalitions. The modern structure of immigration law also effectively delegates vast screening authority to the President. Interlocking historical\, political\, and legislative developments have opened a tremendous gap between the law on the books and the law on the ground. Under these conditions\, there can be no meaningful search for congressionally preferred screening criteria. Far from reflecting a faithful agent framework\, then\, immigration enforcement more closely resembles a two-principals model of policymaking—one in which the Executive can and should help construct the domain of regulation through its independent judgments about how and when to enforce the law. \nSecond\, when exploring limits on the enforcement power\, we should focus not on who benefits from enforcement discretion but on how the Executive institutionalizes its discretion. The Obama relief initiatives are innovative: they bind the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to a more rule-like decision-making process\, constrain the judgments of line-level officials by subjecting them to centralized supervision\, and render the exercise of enforcement discretion far more transparent to the public than is customary. These efforts to better organize the enforcement bureaucracy ultimately advance core rule of law values without undermining deterrence or legal compliance\, as some critics have worried. Moreover\, while our focus on discretion’s institutionalization requires contextualized judgments that may rarely translate into clear doctrinal rules to govern the enforcement power\, we believe it is generally unnecessary and unwise to use constitutional law to limit the President’s authority over how to organize the enforcement bureaucracy. \nCristina M. Rodríguez was appointed Professor of Law at Yale Law School in January 2013. From 2011-2013\, she served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice\, and from 2004-2012 she was on the faculty at the NYU School of Law. Professor Rodriguez also has been a non-resident fellow at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington\, D.C.\, a term member on the Council on Foreign Relations\, and the Henry L. Stimson Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Before entering academia\, she clerked for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Professor Rodriguez’s fields of research and teaching include immigration law; constitutional law and theory; administrative law and process; language rights and language policy; and citizenship theory. Originally from San Antonio\, Texas\, she earned a B.A. in History from Yale College in 1995\, a Master of Letters in Modern History in 1998 from Oxford University\, where she was a Rhodes Scholar\, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 2000.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/constitutional-roundtable-cristina-rodriguez/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20180307T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20180307T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20180209T184910Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20180227T152119Z
UID:3438-1520425800-1520431200@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Asper Centre Immigration & Refugee Law student working group presents Senator Ratna Omidvar
DESCRIPTION:The Asper Centre’s Immigration & Refugee Law Student Working Group is honoured to host Senator Ratna Omidvar for a lunchtime seminar on Wednesday March 7\, 2018 at 12h30. All students are welcome and encouraged to attend. Senator Omidvar will share her personal story of coming to Canada from India\, and she will discuss issues related to inclusion and diversity in Canada\, immigration and refugee law and policy\, the Charter and progressive law reform. She will then take questions from the audience. This will be a great opportunity to get some insight from her inspiring career. \nLight lunch will be provided \nEmail tal.schreier@utoronto.ca for further information. \nAbout Senator Omidvar: \n \nThe Honourable Ratna Omidvar\, C.M.\, O.Ont.\nSenator for Ontario\, The Senate of Canada \nRatna Omidvar is an internationally recognized voice on migration\, diversity and inclusion. In April 2016\, Prime Minister Trudeau appointed Ms. Omidvar to the Senate of Canada as an independent Senator representing Ontario. As a member of the Senate’s Independent Senators Group she holds a leadership position as the Scroll Manager. \nSenator Omidvar is the founding Executive Director and currently a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Global Diversity Exchange (GDX)\, Ted Rogers School of Management\, Ryerson University. GDX is a think-and-do tank on diversity\, migration and inclusion that connects local experience and ideas with global networks. Previously\, Senator Omidvar was the President of Maytree\, where she played a lead role in local\, national and international efforts to promote the integration of immigrants. \nSenator Omidvar is the current Co-Chair of the Global Future Council on Migration hosted by the World Economic Forum and serves as a Councillor on the World Refugee Council. She is also a director at the Environics Institute\, and Samara Canada. Senator Omidvar is the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council’s Chair Emerita and was formerly the Chair of Lifeline Syria. \nSenator Omidvar is co-author of Flight and Freedom: Stories of Escape to Canada (2015)\, an Open Book Toronto best book of 2015 and one of the Toronto Star‘s top five good reads from Word on the Street. She is also a contributor to The Harper Factor (2016) and co-editor of Five Good Ideas: Practical Strategies for Non-Profit Success (2011). Senator Omidvar received an Honorary Degree\, Doctor of Laws\, York University in 2012. \nSenator Omidvar was appointed to the Order of Ontario in 2005 and became a Member of the Order of Canada in 2011\, with both honours recognizing her advocacy work on behalf of immigrants and devotion to reducing inequality in Canada. In 2014\, she received the Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany in recognition of her contribution to the advancement of German-Canadian relations.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/asper-centre-immigration-refugee-law-student-working-group-presents-senator-ratna-omidvar/
LOCATION:J140 Jackman Law Building\, 78 Queen's Park Cres\, Toronto\, Ontario\, M5S 2C5\, Canada
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20181017T170000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20181017T190000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20180711T162400Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181030T150254Z
UID:3981-1539795600-1539802800@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Asper Centre's 10th Anniversary Celebration
DESCRIPTION:View the event photo gallery\nRead our “Celebrating 10 Years” Magazine\nRead the Asper Centre’s 2017 – 2018 annual report\nWatch the video of the event on YouTube\nIt’s been a full decade since the Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights opened its doors! \nTo celebrate 10 years of dedicated advocacy\, education and research\, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Thomas Cromwell will moderate a conversation between Mary Eberts and Joseph Arvay\, two of our former Constitutional Litigators-in-Residence \non October 17\, 2018 at 5:00pm \nReception to follow \nThe Honourable Thomas Albert Cromwell\, C.C. received law degrees from Queen’s and Oxford\, practised law in Kingston and Toronto and taught law at Dalhousie University. During his time at Dalhousie\, he was active as a labour arbitrator and served as Vice-chair of the Nova Scotia Labour Relations Board. After serving as Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice Canada from 1992 – 1995\, he was appointed a judge of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in 1997\, serving there until his appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2008. Mr. Cromwell was the first recipient of the Canadian Bar Association’s Louis St. Laurent Award of Excellence and is an honorary fellow of Exeter College\, Oxford and of the American College of Trial Lawyers. A holder of four honorary doctorates in law\, he has also had an award established in his name at the Queen’s Faculty of Law\, The Honourable Thomas Cromwell Award for Public Service. He is the chair of the Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters\, a director of the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice and of Access Pro Bono British Columbia. He retired from the Supreme Court of Canada on September 1st\, 2016. A member of the Bars of Nova Scotia\, Ontario and British Columbia\, he now serves as senior counsel with Borden Ladner Gervais LLP in Ottawa and Vancouver. He is a recipient of the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice’s Justice Medal and of the Medal of the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law. In 2017\, was named a Companion of the Order of Canada for his “illustrious service as a Supreme Court justice\, and for his leadership in improving access to justice for all Canadians.” In 2018\, he was named by the Canadian Lawyer Magazine as of one Canada’s most influential lawyers. \n \nMary Eberts received her legal education at Western and the Harvard Law School\, and is a member of the Bar of Ontario. She joined a Bay St. law firm after several years of teaching at the Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto\, and was a partner at that firm until opening a small firm specializing in Charter and public law litigation. From this base in Toronto\, she has appeared as counsel to parties and interveners in the Supreme Court of Canada\, Courts of Appeal and Superior Courts in Ontario and other provinces\, the Federal Court and Court of Appeal\, and before administrative tribunals and inquests in Ontario and other provinces. She was active in securing the present language of section 15 of the Charter\, and was one of the founders of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). Since 1991\, she has been litigation counsel to the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC). Mary held the Gordon Henderson Chair in Human Rights at the University of Ottawa in 2004-2005 and the Ariel Sallows Chair in Human Rights at the College of Law\, University of Saskachewan in 2011 and 2012\, where she taught courses in test case litigation. Mary was the Constitutional Litigator in Residence in 2014-15 and a McMurty Fellow at Osgoode Hall Law School in 2015-16. Recognition of her work includes the Law Society Medal\, the Governor-General’s Award in Honour of the Persons’ Case\, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal and several honourary degrees. In 2017\, Mary was made an Officer of the Order of Canada. She is currently a Senior Fellow at Massey College\, University of Toronto. \nJoseph Arvay\, who co-founded the firm of Arvay Finlay Barristers in 1990 with offices in Vancouver and Victoria\, is recognized as one of this country’s most highly respected lawyers. His practice emphasizes constitutional and administrative law matters\, as well as Indigenous rights litigation.. He has been counsel in scores of important Supreme Court of Canada cases. His exceptional commitment to human rights in this country has been recognized with numerous awards and tributes. He was awarded honourary doctorates of law from both York University and the University of Victoria. In 2017 he was named an Officer of the Order of Canada as well as a Member of the Order of British Columbia. \n  \n  \n 
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/10th-anniversary-celebration/
LOCATION:Jackman Law Building\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto\, 78 Queens Park
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20200729T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20200729T133000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20200715T165043Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200805T153941Z
UID:5641-1596024000-1596029400@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:WEBINAR: COVID-19 Contact Tracing and the Canadian Constitution
DESCRIPTION:The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights & the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society were pleased to co-present  \nCOVID-19 Contact Tracing and the Canadian Constitution \n a FREE WEBINAR on Wednesday July 29\, 2020 @12:00-1:30pm \nContact tracing apps play an important role alongside human tracing in our public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to ensure that contact tracing apps infringe our Constitutional rights as little as possible\, however\, the apps must be carefully constructed and the information they collect must be safeguarded.  In a highly collaborative research paper entitled “Test\, Trace\, and Isolate: COVID-19 and the Canadian Constitution\,” a team of experts from the University of Toronto\, York University and the Ontario Tech University reviewed the benefits and limitations of using contact tracing apps to identify people who have been exposed to COVID-19.   \nIn this webinar\, the paper’s authors Lisa Austin (pictured)\, Vincent Chiao\, David Lie (pictured)\, and  Andrea Slane took part in a group discussion\, led by Asper Centre Executive Director Cheryl Milne\, about their research and conclusions including: the usefulness of contact tracing apps\, the privacy choices involved in the technical design of these apps\, which app the government has selected to use and why\, as well as the privacy impacts considered under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms\, which provides a framework for balancing competing rights and interests.  \nThe panelists will be available for questions at the end of their discussion. An electronic copy of the paper is available here.  Email tal.schreier@utoronto.ca for inquiries. \nWEBINAR RECORDING LINK \nAuthors’ BIOS \nLisa Austin BA &Sc (McMaster) 1994\, MA (Toronto) 1995\, LLM (Toronto) (1998)\, PhD (Toronto) 2005\, called to the Bar of Ontario in 2006\, is a Professor of Law and the Chair in Law and Technology at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law.  She is a co-founder of the IT3 Law at the University of Toronto\, which engages in interdisciplinary research on privacy and transparency. Professor Austin’s research and teaching interests include privacy law\, property law\, and legal theory. She is published in such journals as Legal Theory\, Law and Philosophy\, Theoretical Inquiries in Law\, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence\, and Canadian Journal of Law and Society.  Professor Austin’s privacy work has been cited numerous times by Canadian courts\, including the Supreme Court of Canada.  \nVincent Chiao\, B.A. (University of Virginia)\, Ph.D. (Northwestern)\, J.D. (Harvard)\, is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law of the University of Toronto. He 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. He is the author of Criminal Law in the Age of the Administrative State (Oxford University Press 2018). He is also responsible for overseeing the Faculty of Law’s appellate criminal law externship\, which provides selected third year JD students with the opportunity to work directly on criminal appeals\, including before the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.  \nDr. Beth Coleman is Associate Professor of Data & Cities at the Institute of Communication\, Culture\, Information and Technology and Faculty of Information\, University of Toronto\, where she directs the City as Platform lab. Working in the disciplines of Science and Technology Studies and Critical Race Theory\, her research focuses on smart technology & machine learning\, urban data\, and civic engagement. She is the author of Hello Avatar and multiple articles addressing issues of smart cities\, urban data\, augmentation & experience design\, and critical race\, among others. She has presented at leading international conferences and municipal contexts such as CHI; Sharing Cities\, Barcelona; Gender and Cities\, Geneva; Mars/Waterfront Toronto. Her research affiliations include the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society\, Harvard University; Microsoft Research; Data & Society Institute\, New York; and expert consultant for the European Commission Digital Futures. She is one of the foundational directors of Thriving Cities\, Mistletoe Singapore. Her previous academic positions include the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Waterloo.  \nDavid Lie received his BASc from the University of Toronto in 1998\, and his MS and PhD from Stanford University in 2001 and 2004 respectively. He is currently Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Toronto.  He also holds appointments in the Department of Computer Science\, the Faculty of Law and is a research lead with the Schwartz Riesman Institute for Technology and Society.  He is known for his seminal work on the XOM architecture\, which was an early precursor to modern trusted execution processor architectures such as ARM Trustzone and Intel SGX.  He was the recipient of a best paper award at SOSP for this work. David is also a recipient of the MRI Early Researcher Award\, Connaught Global Challenge Award.  He developed the PScout Android Permission mapping tool\, whose datasets have been downloaded over 10\,000 times and used in dozens of subsequent papers.  David has served on various program committees including OSDI\, Usenix Security\, IEEE Security & Privacy\, NDSS and CCS.  Currently\, his interests are focused on securing mobile platforms\, cloud computing security and bridging the divide between technology and policy.  \nMartha Shaffer is a Professor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law\, which she joined in 1990. She holds law degrees from Harvard and Toronto\, as well as an undergraduate degree from Harvard. She served as Law Clerk to the Supreme Court of Canada for Chief Justice Brian Dickson\, before becoming the Boulton Junior Fellow at the Faculty of Law\, McGill University. Professor Shaffer’s principal research and teaching interests concentrate on criminal law\, family law and equality issues.    \nDr. Andrea Slane joined Ontario Tech University’s Faculty of Social Science and Humanities in 2009 as an Associate Professor in the Legal Studies program. She is also the Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Programs\, Legal Studies. Her research focuses on privacy\, data protection\, and the variety of legal regimes that protect people from both individual and commercial wrongdoing online and over digital devices. She has a substantial body of work on the appropriate means to regulate the flow of personal information\, whether between individuals; individuals and businesses; businesses and government; business to business; or to the public. She has also conducted sociological research on the views of professionals who work with victims of online child sexual exploitation\, and is currently engaged in a new project examining senior citizens’ views toward new social support technologies such as digital assistants and social robots\, and the kinds of protections they feel they need.  \nFrançois Tanguay-Renaud is a Professor of Law and the Director of York University’s Jack & Mae Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights\, Crime and Security since 2012. He is also one of the founders and first Director of York’ University’s Juris Doctor/Master of Arts (JD/MA) combined program in law and philosophy\, the founder and main administrator of the Ontario Legal Philosophy Partnership (OLPP) and a former Associate Dean Research\, Graduate Studies\, and Institutional Relations. Professor Tanguay-Renaud holds degrees in both civil and common law from McGill University\, where he was both a Loran Scholar and a Greville-Smith Scholar. He also studied at the National University of Singapore\, and completed his graduate work (BCL\, MPhil\, DPhil) at the University of Oxford. Professor Tanguay-Renaud ‘s current academic interests span a wide range of subject areas — but notably\, criminal law\, criminal procedure\, constitutional law\, emergency law\, and public international law — viewed mostly through the lens of analytical legal theory. 
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/webinar-covid-19-contact-tracing-and-the-canadian-constitution/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20231010T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20231010T140000
DTSTAMP:20260430T235909
CREATED:20230913T165506Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231004T113733Z
UID:8142-1696941000-1696946400@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Constitutional Roundtable with Professor Michael Beenstock
DESCRIPTION:The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights’ Constitutional Roundtables are an annual series of lunchtime discussion forums that provide an opportunity to consider developments in Canadian constitutional theory and practice. The Constitutional Roundtable series promotes scholarship and aims to make a meaningful contribution to intellectual discourse about Canadian and comparative constitutional law. \nProfessor Michael Beenstock (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) will present the following paper (click on title for paper): \nThe ‘Battle between the Branches’: Positive and Normative Theories of Judicial Review \n“My paper is related to the debate in legal philosophy between the legal positivists (and Dworkin)\, who are in favor of judicial review and the political constitutionalists\, who are against it. I use formal methods from game theory and statistical theory to study the tension between the legislature and the judiciary\, when the latter is empowered with judicial review. In the positive theory the legislature and the judiciary are adversarial; the judiciary may be more or less activist\, and the legislature may engage in override\, politicize appointments to the judiciary\, or simply ignore rulings of the supreme court. The positive theory predicts that the outcome of the battle between the branches is Pareto inefficient in terms of infringement of the constitution and the public benefit from legislation. \nUnder the normative theory the legislature and the judiciary cooperate. As expected\, the outcome is Pareto superior. The normative theory provides a structural basis for enhancing the efficiency of judicial review. It also sets a benchmark for comparing efficiency under political constitutionalism with the best possible outcome under judicial review. \nWhereas the positive theory characterizes the world as it is. The normative theory refers to an ideal world. In a follow-up paper I plan to study efficiency under political constitutionalism and to compare it with efficiency according to the positive and normative theories of judicial review. \nBy using formal methods and clearly stated axioms\, such as rationality\, the robustness of these comparisons is transparent axiomatically and methodologically. Legal philosophers who disagree should be able to pin-point the source of their disagreement.” \nMichael Beenstock is a Professor of Economics at the Hebrew University where he teaches graduate econometrics. Although his main concern is with economics\, he has strayed into other disciplines such as epidemiology\, psychology\, climate science and criminology.  As a result of the constitutional crisis in Israel\, Prof Beenstock has also recently strayed into judicial review. Apart from his theoretical paper on positive and normative theories of judicial review\, he is currently engaged in testing its empirical predictions using data from the Comparative Constitutions Project (University of Chicago). \nSome of Prof Beenstock’s recent books are: Heredity\, Family and Inequality: A Critique of Social Science\, MIT Press\, 2012\, Econometric Analysis of Nonstationary Spatial Panel Data\, with D. Felsenstein\, Springer\, 2019\, Recurrence Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Nova Science Publishers\, Hauppauge\, NY\, 2021\, Zero Interest Policy and the New Abnormal: a Critique\, Oxford University Press\, 2022. Some of Prof Beenstock’s papers related to jurisprudence are: The Productivity of Judges in the Courts of Israel\, Israel Law Review\, 35: 249-65\, 2001\, with Y. Haitovsky\, Does the Appointment of Judges Increase the Output of the Judiciary?\, International Review of Law and Economics\, 24: 351-69\, 2004\, and\, with J. Guetzkow\, Plea Bargaining and the Miscarriage of Justice”. Journal of Quantitative Criminology\, 2021. \nOpen to the public. No registration required. Light lunch provided. \nEmail tal.schreier@utoronto.ca for information.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/constitutional-roundtable-with-professor-michael-beenstock-hebrew-university-of-jerusalem/
LOCATION:Flavelle FL219 – John Willis Classroom
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR