BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights - ECPv6.15.20//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
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
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20111123T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20111123T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T145852Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T145908Z
UID:907-1322051400-1322056800@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Lawyers and the Media – In the Public Interest
DESCRIPTION: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?\nA 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? \nPanel:\nJulian Falconer\, Partner\, Falconer Charney LLP\nUrszula Kaczmarczyk\, Senior General Counsel\, Immigration Law Division\, Department of Justice\nTracey Tyler\, Legal Affairs Reporter\, The Toronto Star\nProfessor David Schneiderman\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto\nModerator: Paul Schabas\, Partner\, Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP \nThis program has been accredited by the Law Society for 1.0 Professionalism Hours and 1.5 New Member CPD Hours. \nA light lunch will be served. \n  \nEvent date: Wednesday\, November 23\, 2011\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\nLocation: Room FLB\, Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/lawyers-and-the-media-in-the-public-interest/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20120117T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20120117T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
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:20260419T173159
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:20260419T173159
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:20260419T173159
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:20260419T173159
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:20260419T173159
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:20260419T173159
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:20260419T173159
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:20260419T173159
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:20130110T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20130110T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T143617Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T143617Z
UID:882-1357821000-1357826400@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Judging Social Rights
DESCRIPTION:CONSTITUTIONAL ROUNDTABLE \nand the \nInternational Human Rights Program \npresent \nJeff King\, Senior Lecturer\, Faculty of Law\, University College\, London\nThursday\, January 10\, 2013\n12:30 – 2:00\nRoom FLC\, Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law\n78 Queen’s Park \nJeff King is a distinguished visitor this year at the Faculty of Law\, teaching an intensive course on social rights. His discussion will focus on some of the central themes of his book\, Judging Social Rights (Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law). His book offers an extended argument about why abstract social rights to housing\, education\, health care\, and social security should be part of constitutions. He argues that judges should be able to interpret and enforce social rights\, including by striking down legislation\, but should act incrementally\, taking small steps to expand the coverage of existing rules and principles in a controlled fashion. \nJeff King\, BA Hons in Phil (Ottawa) 1996\, LLB/BCL (McGill) 2002\, MSt (Oxford) 2006\, DPhil (Oxford) 2009\, is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Laws University College London\, where he teaches public law\, human rights\, and legal and constitutional theory. He is Co-Editor of the journal Current Legal Problems. Previously\, he was a Fellow and Tutor in law at Balliol College\, and CUF Lecturer for the Faculty of Law\, University of Oxford (2008-2011)\, a Research Fellow at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies\, Oxford (2008-2010)\, a Research Fellow and Tutor in public law at Keble College\, Oxford (2007-08)\, and an attorney at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP in New York City (2003-04). His research and teaching broadly examines doctrinal\, theoretical and empirical aspects of comparative public law. He has published articles on the justiciability of resource allocation\, judicial restraint\, complexity in adjudication\, the function of constitutions\, the value of legal accountability\, proportionality in administrative law\, odious debt in international law\, and a monograph setting out the case for constitutional social rights and a theory of adjudication in respect of them. \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/judging-social-rights/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20130124T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20130124T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
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:20130129T173000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20130129T193000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T142937Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T142937Z
UID:877-1359480600-1359487800@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:R v Morgentaler: Reflections After 25 Years
DESCRIPTION:Panel Discussion\nOn January 28\, 1988\, 25 years ago\, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s abortion law using the still new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The legal battle was long\, dramatic and groundbreaking – including a police raid on a clinic\, novel constitutional evidence and arguments\, an extraordinary criminal jury trial\, and an acquittal overturned by the Court of Appeal\, followed by a week-long hearing and divided decision at the Supreme Court level. Today\, the case remains one of the most significant decisions in Canadian law. This panel provides a unique opportunity to hear from participants in the case as they reflect on the historic events and the continued significance of the case today. \nPanelists: Dr. Robert Scott – Appellant and Co-Accused\nMorris Manning\, QC – Counsel for the Appellants\nKirk Makin – Justice Reporter with the Globe and Mail\nLorraine Weinrib – Professor\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto\nCarolyn Egan – Expert witness at trial\n(Others to be confirmed) \nModerators: Paul Schabas – Blake\, Cassels & Graydon LLP and co-counsel for the Appellant\nCheryl Milne – Executive Director\, David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights \nRead more about this event here. \nListen to an excerpt of the event from CBC Radio’s The Sunday Edition \nCLICK HERE TO VIEW THE RECORDING OF THE EVENT \n  \nEvent date: Tuesday\, January 29\, 2013\, from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM\nLocation: Bennett Lecture Hall\, Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/r-v-morgentaler-reflections-after-25-years/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20130214T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20130214T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
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:20260419T173159
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:20260419T173159
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:20130314T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20130314T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T141956Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T142044Z
UID:868-1363264200-1363269600@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Exit\, Voice\, and Disloyalty
DESCRIPTION:Constitutional Roundtable \nProfessor Heather Gerkin\nYale Law School \nAbstract: Much of constitutional theory is preoccupied with a single question: what does a democracy owe its minorities? And most of the answers to this question fit naturally into the two categories Hirschman made famous: voice and exit. On both the rights side and structural side of constitutional theory\, scholars worry about providing minorities with an adequate level of influence. And the solutions they propose almost inevitably offer minorities a chance at voice or exit\, as if no other options existed. Professor Gerken will argue that exit and voice are not the only options available to a minority group seeking influence. That’s because much of the nation’s administrative structure looks more like Tocqueville’s democracy than Weber’s bureaucracy. In our highly decentralized and partially politicized system\, minorities can wield influence over national policy by virtue of the fact that they routinely administer it. As policymaking insiders\, minorities can resist federal policy from within rather than challenge it from without. Professor Gerken will explore the implications of this institutional fact and explain why constitutional theory has long neglected this important form of minority power. \nHeather Gerken is the J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law at Yale Law School where she specializes in election law\, constitutional law\, and civil procedure. Professor Gerken is one of the country’s leading experts on voting rights and election law\, the role of groups in the democratic process\, and the relationship between diversity and democracy. A native of Massachusetts\, Professor Gerken graduated from Princeton University\, where she received her A.B. degree summa cum laude in 1991\, and from the University of Michigan Law School\, where she received her J.D. summa cum laude in 1994. She then served as a law clerk for Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice David H. Souter of the United States Supreme Court\, before entering private practice in Washington\, D.C. In 2000 Professor Gerken became an assistant professor at Harvard Law School\, where she was granted tenure and won the Sachs-Freund teaching award. She joined the Yale faculty in 2006. She is currently working on a book on the trans-substantive concept of “second-order diversity” in American public law. \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 \nEvent date: Thursday\, March 14\, 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/exit-voice-and-disloyalty/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20130703
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20130704
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T141717Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T141717Z
UID:866-1372809600-1372895999@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Clinic Application Deadline
DESCRIPTION:CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION: DAVID ASPER CENTRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (LAW391H1F) FALL 2013 \nCLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION: HALF TERM CLINIC – WINTER 2014 \nUniversity of Toronto\, Faculty of Law students wishing to apply for these courses must email a 1-2 page statement of interest to Cheryl Milne\, cheryl.milne@utoronto.ca by July 3\, 2013. Please indicate the following: \n  \n(a) previous upper-year courses in constitutional law or human rights law or experience that you consider to be equivalent (note pre/co-requisite for half-term clinic); \n(b) indicators of academic\, analytical and research and writing ability\, which may include grades in related classes; \n(c) any experience in human rights or constitutional issues; \n(d) any experience with lawyering or advocacy; \n(e) why you wish to enroll in the Clinic. \nSuccessful applicants will be notified of admission in time for course registration prior to July 10\, 2013.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/clinic-application-deadline/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20130731
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20130801
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T141529Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T141529Z
UID:864-1375228800-1375315199@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Deadline: Working Group Proposals
DESCRIPTION:UofT law students who wish to submit proposals to lead voluntary Working Groups for the 2013-2014 year\, must complete the proposals and submit them by 5:00 p.m. on July 31\, 2013. \n 
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/deadline-working-group-proposals/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20130930
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20131001
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T141158Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T141438Z
UID:861-1380499200-1380585599@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Deadline: Call for Papers - September 30\, 2013
DESCRIPTION:Constitutional Remedies: Are They Effective and Meaningful? \nFaculty of Law\, University of Toronto\, St. George Campus – February 28\, 2014 \nThe David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights invites papers for its upcoming conference examining in detail the remedies available in constitutional litigation. \nThe Centre invites papers that stimulate and develop an ongoing dialogue on the effectiveness of remedies. The goal is to thoroughly examine the available remedies pursuant to s.24 and s.52 of the Charter as well as remedies for the violation of Aboriginal and treaty rights under the constitution. Key themes include the following. \n· Will the promise of the Ward Charter damage claim be realized? Issues related to the quantum of damages in relation to the costs and risks of litigation; the interaction between Charter and tort claims and the role of Charter damages and class actions.\n· The role of injunctions and declarations: Would/should the Supreme Court affirm supervisory jurisdiction as it did in Doucet Boudreau if it heard the case today; are injunctions necessary or will declarations suffice including in litigation with respect to conditions of confinement and positive rights? What can be learned from comparative experiences?\n· Remedies for violations of Aboriginal and treaty rights: What are the remedies for breach of the duty to consult and are they meaningful and effective?\n· Remedies for unconstitutional legislation: Are the courts employing the soft remedies of reading down and suspended declarations of invalidity too much? \nOther conference themes may include issues such as the evidence necessary to justify a particular remedy; remedies in the criminal law context; the remedial role of costs awards; interlocutory injunctions in the constitutional context; and jurisdiction to award Charter remedies. \nThe papers will be utilized as the central themes on various panels across the one day conference and selected conference papers will be considered for publication as part of a special issue of the National Journal of Constitutional Law. Authors of papers chosen for presentation will be notified by October 31\, 2013. Final (for the conference) papers are due by January 31\, 2014. \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. \nFor those interested in participating\, please send an abstract (max: 250 words) of your intended paper with a 1-2 paragraph biography to: Cheryl Milne at cheryl.milne@utoronto.ca \nDeadline for Submissions: September 30\, 2013
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/deadline-call-for-papers-september-30-2013/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20131101T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20131101T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
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:20131108T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20131108T170000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T140858Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T140858Z
UID:859-1383915600-1383930000@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Asper Centre's Fifth Anniversary Symposium
DESCRIPTION:Event date: Friday\, November 08\, 2013\, from 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM\nLocation: Victoria Chapel\, Victoria College\, University of Toronto \nThe Asper Centre will celebrate 5 years of accomplishments with 2 panel discussions that explore the significance of the cases in which the Centre has intervened\, followed by a reception. \nPROGRAM \n1:00 – 1:15 p.m. Why We Do the Things We Do \nExecutive Director\, Cheryl Milne will discuss how and why the Centre has chosen the cases it has. \n1:15- 2:45 Looking Forward to the Future of Charter Litigation \nPanelists will look at the impact that such cases as Canada v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence\, Caron v Alberta and others\, will have in shaping future litigation. Panelists will include Joseph Arvay QC\, Michal Fairburn and Fay Faraday. \n2:45 – 4:15 Looking Back on the Last Five Years of Constitutional Remedies \nPanelists John Norris\, current Constitutional Litigator in Residence\, Christopher Bredt\, and Professor Kent Roach will reflect on the cases that in which the Asper Centre has participated including Prime Minister of Canada v Khadr\, Vancouver (City of) v Ward and Conway v The Queen. \n4:15 Keynote: Nathalie Des Rosiers\, Dean of University of Ottawa\, Faculty of Law\, Common Law Section\, and former General Counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. \nReception to follow with Dean Mayo Moran and David Asper. \n 
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/asper-centres-fifth-anniversary-symposium/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20131121T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20131121T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T165015Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T165015Z
UID:1013-1385037000-1385042400@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Ethical Basis for Excluding Unauthorized Immigrants from the Affordable Care Act
DESCRIPTION:Health Law\, Ethics & Policy Workshop Series\nDavid Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights & International Human Rights Program \npresent \nSPEAKER:  Norman Daniels\, Harvard School of Public Health \nEthical Basis for Excluding Unauthorized Immigrants from the Affordable Care Act \nCOMMENTATOR:  Audrey Macklin\, University of Toronto Faculty of Law \nThe Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) is intended to close the insurance gap in the US but the single largest group it excludes from coverage is the group of unauthorized (“undocumented” or “illegal”) immigrants\, some 12 million people. Should they have been included? After all\, in the U.S.\, even unauthorized immigrant cannot be excluded from emergency room services. Two arguments\, one based on reciprocity the other on community membership\, support a presumption for inclusion\, and the ground for exclusion do not warrant their omission. We examine these arguments after first arguing that some claims of global justice\, for example\, that national borders should be “open\,” fail an important test of feasibility on claims of justice. \nNorman Daniels is Mary B. Saltonstall Professor and Professor of Ethics and Population Health at Harvard School of Public Health. Formerly Goldthwaite Professor\, Chair of the Tufts Philosophy Department\, and Professor of Medical Ethics at Tufts Medical School. He has published over 150 articles in anthologies and journals. His books include Just Health Care (Cambridge\, 1985); Am I My Parents’ Keeper? An Essay on Justice Between the Young and the Old (Oxford\, 1988); Seeking Fair Treatment: From the AIDS Epidemic to National Health Care Reform\, Oxford\, 1995); Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice (Cambridge University Press\, 1996); (with Donald Light and Ronald Caplan) Benchmarks of Fairness for Health Care Reform (Oxford\, 1996); (with Allen Buchanan\, Dan Brock\, and Dan Wikler) From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice (Cambridge\, 2000); (with Bruce Kennedy and Ichiro Kawachi) Is Inequality Bad for Our Health? (Beacon Press\, 2000); and (with James Sabin) Setting Limits Fairly: Can We Learn to Share Medical Resources? (Oxford\, 2002; 2nd edition 2008). His Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly (CUP\, 2008) is a sequel to Just Health Care and integrates his work into a comprehensive theory of justice for health. \n\n\n\n\nEvent date: Thursday\, November 21\, 2013\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\n\n\n\n\nLocation: Alumni Hall\, Victoria College
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/ethical-basis-for-excluding-unauthorized-immigrants-from-the-affordable-care-act/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20140115T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20140115T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T164433Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T164433Z
UID:1009-1389789000-1389794400@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:"Generous" to a Fault? The Supreme Court of Canada's Approach to Section 6(1) of the Charter
DESCRIPTION:CONSTITUTIONAL ROUNDTABLE SERIES \npresents \nJohn Norris\nConstitutional Litigator in Residence\nDavid Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights \n“Generous” to a Fault?  The Supreme Court of Canada’s Approach to\nSection 6(1) of the Charter \nJohn Norris maintains a trial and appellate practice in criminal\, constitutional and national security law. He is a Special Advocate for security certificate proceedings\, and acts regularly for public interest groups on appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada. John is an adjunct member of the Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto\, and is an active contributor to continuing legal education. He is the Asper Centre’s Constitutional-Litigator-in-Residence for 2013.  John is a Director of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. He is an Assistant Editor of the Canadian Rights Reporter\, and has authored several scholarly articles.  In 2011\, John received the Catzman Award for Professionalism and Civility in the practice of law from the Advocates’ Society.  John received his LL.B. from the University of Toronto in 1991 and was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1993. \n\n\n\n\nEvent date: Wednesday\, January 15\, 2014\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\n\n\n\n\nLocation: Solarium – Falconer Hall\, 84 Queen’s Park
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/generous-to-a-fault-the-supreme-court-of-canadas-approach-to-section-61-of-the-charter/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20140129T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20140129T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T164614Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T164614Z
UID:1011-1390998600-1391004000@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Religious Diversity\, Education\, and the "Crisis" in State Neutrality
DESCRIPTION:CONSTITUTIONAL ROUNDTABLE \npresents \n Benjamin Berger\nOsgoode Hall Law School \nReligious Diversity\, Education\, and the “Crisis” in State Neutrality \nEducation – and particularly public education – has become a crucible for the relationship between state and religious diversity\, a principal site for contemporary debates about the meaning of secularism and the management of religious difference. This is so across a variety of national traditions\, and despite wide differences in the historical and “emotional inheritances” surrounding the configuration of law\, politics\, and religion. Through an exploration of Hannah Arendt’s thought about responsibility and freedom in education\, this article works towards a better understanding of why education is such a crucial and fraught field in the modern encounter between religion and law. The article turns to the recent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada to draw out the implications of these ideas\, arriving ultimately at a claim about the nature and limits of the concept of state neutrality. \nProfessor Benjamin Berger’s areas of teaching and research specialization are criminal and constitutional law and theory\, law and religion\, and the law of evidence.  Prior to joining Osgoode\, Professor Berger was an associate professor in the Faculty of Law and held a cross appointment in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Victoria\, where he began teaching in 2004.  He served as law clerk to the Rt. Honourable Beverley McLachlin\, Chief Justice of Canada\, and was a Fulbright Scholar at Yale University.  He has published broadly in his principal areas of research and his work has appeared in multiple edited collections and in legal and interdisciplinary journals such as: Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence; Law\, Culture and the Humanities; McGill Law Journal; Osgoode Hall Law Journal; ICON; and the Journal of Comparative Law. He is on the editorial board of the Canadian Journal of Law and Society and is an associate editor for the Hart Publishing series Constitutional Systems of the World. He is also co-editor of The Grand Experiment: Law and Legal Culture in British Settler Societies\, published by UBC Press in October 2008.  He received the 2010 Canadian Association of Law Teacher’s Scholarly Paper Award for an article entitled “The Abiding Presence of Conscience: Criminal Justice Against the Law and the Modern Constitutional Imagination.”  Professor Berger is active in professional and public education\, is involved in public interest advocacy\, and has appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada.  While at UVic Law\, Professor Berger twice received the Terry J. Wuester Teaching Award\, and was awarded the First Year Class Teaching Award; he received the Osgoode Hall Law School Teaching Award in 2013. \n\n\n\n\n\nEvent date: Wednesday\, January 29\, 2014\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\n\n\n\n\nLocation: Alumni Hall\, Victoria College
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/religious-diversity-education-and-the-crisis-in-state-neutrality/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20140228T083000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20140228T170000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T140645Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T140645Z
UID:855-1393576200-1393606800@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Constitutional Remedies: Are They Effective and Meaningful?
DESCRIPTION:REGISTRATION NOW CLOSED \nLINK TO LIVE WEBCAST \nKeynote Address \nFor more information contact Kara Norrington at kara.norrington@utoronto.ca \nThe David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights is hosting a conference examining in detail the remedies available in constitutional litigation. \nPapers and panel discussions will stimulate and develop an ongoing dialogue on the effectiveness of remedies. The goal is to examine the available remedies pursuant to s.24 and s.52 of the Charter as well as remedies for the violation of Aboriginal and treaty rights under the constitution. Key themes include the following. \n• Will the promise of the Ward Charter damage claim be realized? Issues related to the quantum of damages in relation to the costs and risks of litigation; the interaction between Charter and tort claims.\n• The role of injunctions and declarations: Would/should the Supreme Court affirm supervisory jurisdiction as it did in Doucet Boudreau if it heard the case today; are injunctions necessary or will declarations suffice including in litigation with respect to conditions of confinement and positive rights? What can be learned from comparative experiences?\n• Remedies for violations of Aboriginal and treaty rights: What are the remedies for breach of the duty to consult and are they meaningful and effective?\n• Remedies for unconstitutional legislation: Are the courts employing the soft remedies of reading down and suspended declarations of invalidity too much? \nOpening Plenary Debate: Be it resolved that Judges can rewrite statutes to make them constitutional\nDebaters: Prof. Kent Roach and Prof. Hamish Stewart\nModerator: Hon. Justice Robert Sharpe\, Ontario Court of Appeal \nKeynote Speaker: Professor Sandra Liebenberg\nH.F.Oppenheimer Chair in Human Rights Law Department of Public Law Faculty of Law\, University of Stellenbosch\, SA \nAccreditation: This program is worth 5.0 substantive hours and 0 professionalism hours. \nFull Program Here
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/constitutional-remedies-are-they-effective-and-meaningful/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20140228T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20140228T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T163949Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170721T160824Z
UID:1005-1393590600-1393596000@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Deepening Democratic Transformation in South Africa Through Participatory Constitutional Remedies
DESCRIPTION:CONSTITUTIONAL ROUNDTABLE\npresents \nSandra Liebenberg\nH.F. Oppenheimer Chair in Human Rights Law\nUniversity of Stellenbosch Law Faculty \nDeepening democratic transformation in South Africa through\nparticipatory constitutional remedies\n\nPrepared for Conference\, Constitutional Remedies: Are they Effective and Meaningful?\nDavid Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights\, University of Toronto \nThere is an intimate association between the exercise of court’s remedial powers to address violations of constitutional rights and the particular animating purposes and ideals of the particular Constitution understood in its unique social and historical context. Expressed differently\, cognisance of the relevant constitutional provisions and remedial powers vested in the courts tells us very little about the principles which should guide the crafting of remedies for violations of the rights enshrined in a constitution’s bill or charter of fundamental rights.  In order to understand some of the most acute remedial challenges facing the South African courts in human rights litigation\, it is necessary to provide an account first of the nature of the South African Bill of Rights\, and the overall role it is designed to fulfil in the context of South African society. Thereafter I turn to examining the general principles which have been articulated in relation to the crafting of constitutional remedies. The third section draws on the general purposive account of the Constitution and the remedial principles identified to discuss one of the emerging remedial strategies of the Constitutional Court of South Africa – orders of meaningful engagement. I choose to focus on this particular remedy (one of a wide range of available constitutional remedies deployed by the South African courts) as it illustrates an innovative response to one of their most pressing challenges faced by the South African courts in designing constitutional remedies – namely how to give effect to the far-reaching positive obligations imposed by a range of provisions in the Bill of Rights. It also resonates with the deeper underlying values and purposes of the Constitution discussed in the first part of the paper. I consider the multi-faced nature of this remedy as it has been applied in various cases\, particularly eviction and education rights cases\, where\, to date\, the remedy has found its primary application.  The relationship of meaningful engagement as a remedy with the criteria for assessing compliance with constitutional norms in the first phases of constitutional analysis (rights definition and limitations)\, and the features that distinguish it from the supervisory orders and structural interdictions/injunctions more familiar to constitutional lawyers are also considered. The final part of the paper evaluates the remedy and its potential to serve as a workable remedial mechanism for advancing the transformative commitments of the South African Constitution.\nThis is the lunchtime plenary for the conference\, “Constitutional Remedies:  Are They Effective and Meaningful?”\n \nFebruary 28th\, 2014
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/deepening-democratic-transformation-in-south-africa-through-participatory-constitutional-remedies/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20140312T160000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20140312T173000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T140357Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T140357Z
UID:853-1394640000-1394645400@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Privacy at Risk?
DESCRIPTION:David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights and Centre for Innovation Law and Policy\, Faculty of Law \npresent \nPrivacy at Risk?\nThe NSA and CSEC\, its Canadian Surveillance Partner\n\nWednesday\, March 12\, 2014\n4:00 – 5:30\nEmmanuel College\, 75 Queen’s Park Crescent\nRoom EM 001 \nRevelations by former NSA analyst Edward Snowden have drawn much needed attention to the involvement of governments\, including the government of Canada\, in internet spying. Recent focus has been place on the role that the Communications Security Establishment of Canada (CSEC)\, an organization of which few Canadians are aware\, plays in such surveillance\, including spying on Canadians at airports using free Wi-Fi. What are the legal limits of this surveillance? What rights are impacted by the government when they engage in this activity? Experts from the Faculty of Law and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the Munk School of Glob al Affairs will address what we know about what is happening\, what laws apply\, and what should concern us about the implications of this activity by governments around the world and in Canada. \n  \nPanelists:\nLisa Austin\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto\nKent Roach\, Professor and Prichard Wilson Chair in Law and Public Policy\, Faculty of Law\nHamish Stewart\, Professor\, Faculty of Law\nChristopher Parsons\, Post-doctoral Fellow\, Citizens Lab\, Munk School of Global Affairs\nModerator:\nSimon Stern\, Associate Professor and Co-Director\, Centre for Innovation Law & Policy\, Faculty of Law
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/privacy-at-risk/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20140707
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20140708
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T140234Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T140234Z
UID:851-1404691200-1404777599@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Clinic Applications Deadline
DESCRIPTION:CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION: DAVID ASPER CENTRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (LAW391H1F) FALL 2013 \nCLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION: HALF TERM CLINIC – WINTER 2014 \nUniversity of Toronto\, Faculty of Law students wishing to apply for these courses must email a 1-2 page statement of interest to Cheryl Milne\, cheryl.milne@utoronto.ca by July 7\, 2014. Please indicate the following: \n(a) previous upper-year courses in constitutional law or human rights law or experience that you consider to be equivalent (note pre/co-requisite for half-term clinic); \n(b) indicators of academic\, analytical and research and writing ability\, which may include grades in related classes; \n(c) any experience in human rights or constitutional issues; \n(d) any experience with lawyering or advocacy; \n(e) why you wish to enroll in the Clinic. \nSuccessful applicants will be notified of admission in time for course registration prior to July 14\, 2013.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/clinic-applications-deadline/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20140912T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20140912T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T173159
CREATED:20170621T140134Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T140134Z
UID:849-1410525000-1410530400@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Foreign Relations Law
DESCRIPTION:Campbell McLachlan\, Q.C. Victoria University of Wellington Foreign Relations Law\nReviewer/Discussant:\nStephen Toope \nFriday\, September 12\, 2014\n12:30 – 2:00\nSolarium (room FA2)\, Falconer Hall\n84 Queen’s Park \nWhat legal principles govern the external exercise of the public power of states within common law legal systems? Foreign Relations Law tackles three fundamental issues: the distribution of the foreign relations power between the or¬gans of government; the impact of the foreign relations power on individual rights; and the treatment of the foreign state within the municipal legal system. Focusing on the four Anglo-Commonwealth states (the United Kingdom\, Aus¬tralia\, Canada and New Zealand)\, McLachlan examines the interaction between public international law and national law and demonstrates that the prime function of foreign relations law is not to exclude foreign affairs from legal regulation\, but to allocate jurisdiction and determine applicable law in cases involving the external exercise of the public power of states: between the organs of the state; amongst the national legal systems of different states; and between the national and the international legal systems. \nCampbell McLachlan QC is Professor of International Law at Victoria University of Wellington. He is a New Zealand Law Foundation International Research Fel¬low and sometime Visiting Fellow at All Souls Col¬lege\, Oxford. He has been President of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law and taught at The Hague Academy of International Law. He is a member of Essex Court Chambers (London) and Bankside Chambers (Auckland & Singapore). \nStephen Toope recently stepped down after eight years as President and Vice-Chancellor of UBC. In January\, he will become Director of the Munk School of Global Affairs at U of T. He previously served as Dean of Law at McGill and President of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. He has written extensively on the interplay between domestic and international law\, especially in the area of human rights. \nFor more workshop information\, please contact Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/foreign-relations-law/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR