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: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
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20130703
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20130704
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
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:20260419T202728
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:20260419T202728
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:20260419T202728
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:20260419T202728
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:20260419T202728
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:20260419T202728
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:20260419T202728
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:20260419T202728
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:20260419T202728
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:20260419T202728
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:20260419T202728
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:20260419T202728
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
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20141014T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20141014T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T140001Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T140001Z
UID:846-1413288000-1413295200@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:The Case Against 8 - Special Screening
DESCRIPTION:Battles Are Won Because They Are Fought!\nThe Case Against 8 is a behind-the-scenes look inside the historic case to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage. The high-profile trial first makes headlines with the unlikely pairing of Ted Olson and David Boies\, political foes who last faced off as opposing attorneys in Bush v Gore. The film also follows the plaintiffs\, two gay couples who find their families at the centre of the same-sex marriage controversy. Five years in the making\, this is the story of how they took the first federal marriage equality lawsuit to the US Supreme Court. \nCo-sponsored with Out in Law\, and the International Human Rights Program. \nEvent date: Tuesday\, October 14\, 2014\, from 12:10 PM to 2:00 PM\nLocation: Alumni Hall (VC 112)\, Victoria College\, University of Toronto \nView the Event Poster HERE.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/the-case-against-8-special-screening/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20141015
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20141016
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T135345Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T135345Z
UID:841-1413331200-1413417599@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Deadline: Call for Papers October 15\, 2014
DESCRIPTION:The Interplay between Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter\nFaculty of Law\, University of Toronto\, St. George Campus – February 27\, 2015 \nThe David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights invites papers for its upcoming conference examining in detail the interplay between sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. \nThe Centre invites papers that stimulate and develop an ongoing exploration of the relationship between sections 7 and 15. Issues that can be addressed include: \n• Is equality a principle of fundamental justice under section 7?\n• How have the courts treated the two separate grounds for challenging government action?\n• Are their strategic advantages to pleading both grounds or only one?\n• How can different cases challenging the same law proceed differently based on the ground pleaded (e.g. Bedford and Downtown Eastside Sex Workers)?\n• How does the relationship between the sections play out in circumstances such as mandatory minimum sentencing\, challenges to the NCR provisions\, human smuggling legislation? \nOther conference topics may include issues such the role of individual choice in respect of both equality and liberty rights; harm or dignity as central themes; socio-economic rights or the rights of the poor; and arbitrariness as an element of the analysis under each section. \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 November 1\, 2014. Final (for the conference) papers are due by February 6\, 2015. \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 with a 1-2 paragraph biography to: Cheryl Milne at cheryl.milne@utoronto.ca \nDeadline for Submissions: October 15\, 2014
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/deadline-call-for-papers-october-15-2014/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20141015T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20141015T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T135531Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T135531Z
UID:843-1413376200-1413381600@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:R v Kokopenace: The Panel
DESCRIPTION:The Aboriginal Law Program Speaker Series and the Constitutional Roundtable present: \n“R v Kokopenace: The Panel” \n\nHeard before the Supreme Court on October 6\, 2014\, R v Kokopenace is a case concerning the representativeness of jury panels in Ontario\, particularly with respect to First Nations people living on-reserve and the role of s. 6(8) of the Juries Act. Issues in this case involve the constitutional right to an impartial jury\, the meaning of representativeness\, reasonable efforts required by the Crown to attain representativeness\, and the appropriate remedy failing reasonable efforts. Join us for a panel of the parties (featured below)\, who will discuss their arguments to the Court and responses to questions posed by the Bench. Panelists include Brian Greenspan\, Jessica Orkin\, Cheryl Milne\, Mary Eberts\, Julian Roy and Christa Big Canoe. \nView event poster here. \nWednesday\, October 15\, 2014\n12:30-2pm\nAlumni Hall\, Victoria College\, University of Toronto\nLunch provided. RSVP: n.gulezko@utoronto.ca
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/r-v-kokopenace-the-panel/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20141118T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20141118T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
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:20150113T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20150113T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T134408Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T135126Z
UID:834-1421152200-1421157600@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Autonomy\, Subsidiarity and Solidarity: The Foundations of Cooperative Federalism
DESCRIPTION:CONSTITUTIONAL ROUNDTABLE \npresents \nHugo Cyr\, Université du Québec à Montréal \nTuesday\, January 13\, 2015 \nSolarium (room FA2)\, Falconer Hall \n84 Queen’s Park \nWhat does the constitutional principle of federalism entail? Instead of a detailed set of specific rules\, the principle of federalism relies on a series of principles that distinguish federations from other political forms. I propose that three such principles stand out from within our constitutional instruments and jurisprudence: autonomy\, subsidiarity and federal solidarity. The combination of these three interrelated constitutional principles forms the normative structure that gives Canadian federalism its internal logic. And it is my contention that this internal logic is one of cooperative federalism. It is these principles that must guide the judiciary when it fulfills its special duty as “guardian of the Constitution”\, and as such\, as guardian of the principle of federalism. \nHugo Cyr\, LL.B.\, B.C.L. (McGill)\, LL.M. (Yale)\, LL.D. (Université de Montréal). Full Professor\, Director of Graduate Studies in Law\, Faculty of Political Science and Law\, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)\, is a member of the Quebec Bar and the Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur la diversité au Québec (CRIDAQ). Hugo Cyr has been a law clerk to the Honorable Justice Ian Binnie of the Supreme Court of Canada\, a Visiting Researcher at the European Academy of Legal Theory\, a Boulton Fellow at McGill University and a Schell Fellow at the Yale Law School. Professor Cyr teaches and conducts research in constitutional law and legal theory. \nA light lunch will be provided. \nRead the Paper here.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/autonomy-subsidiarity-and-solidarity-the-foundations-of-cooperative-federalism/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20150205T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20150205T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
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:20150227T090000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20150227T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T134111Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T134111Z
UID:828-1425027600-1425045600@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Life\, Liberty and Equality - Canadian-Style: The Interplay Between Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter
DESCRIPTION:This half-day conference examined in detail the interplay between sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. \nPapers were presented that stimulated and developed an ongoing exploration of the relationship between sections 7 and 15. Issues addressed include: \n• Is equality a principle of fundamental justice under section 7?\n• How have the courts treated the two separate grounds for challenging government action?\n• Are their strategic advantages to pleading both grounds or only one?\n• Protecting marginalized groups.\n• How does the relationship between the sections play out in circumstances such as challenges to mental health legislation? \nArchived webcast CLICK HERE \nLunch Time Plenary: Carter v AG Canada – UofT’s Legal Experts Comment on the Decision\nSpeakers: Trudo Lemmens\, Hamish Stewart\, Sophia Moreau\, Carol Rogerson\, David Schneiderman\, Denise Reaume \nCONFERENCE AGENDA \nLocation: Alumni Hall\, Victoria College\, University of Victoria at the University of Toronto
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/life-liberty-and-equality-canadian-style-the-interplay-between-sections-7-and-15-of-the-charter/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20150710
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20150711
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T133859Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T133859Z
UID:826-1436486400-1436572799@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Clinic Applications Deadline 2015
DESCRIPTION:CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION: DAVID ASPER CENTRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (LAW391H1F) FALL 2015 \nCLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION: HALF TERM CLINIC – WINTER 2016 \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 noon on July 10\, 2015. 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 the commencement of course registration. \nFull course descriptions here.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/clinic-applications-deadline-2015/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20150916T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20150916T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T133717Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T133744Z
UID:823-1442406600-1442412000@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Constitutional Roundtable - Richard Moon
DESCRIPTION:Constitutional Roundtable \npresents \n Richard Moon Law Faculty University of Windsor \n12:30 – 2:00 p.m. \nWednesday\, September 16\, 2015 \nSolarium\, Falconer Hall \nTopic: The Myth of Balancing In Constitutional Rights Cases \nRichard Moon teaches at the Law Faculty\, University of Windsor. He is the author of The Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression (U of T Press\, 2000) and Freedom of Conscience and Religion (Irwin Law\, 2014)\, editor of Law and Religious Pluralism in Canada (UBC Press\, 2008)\, co-editor of Religion and the Exercise of Public Authority (Hart Publications\, forthcoming) and contributing editor to Canadian Constitutional Law (3rd and 4th editions) (Emond-Montgomery\, 2006\, 2010). He is currently completing work on a book entitled “Putting Faith in Hate: When Religion is the Source or Subject of Hate Speech”. He has been the recipient of both the law school and university-wide teaching awards as well as the Mary Lou Dietz Award for contributions to the advancement of equity in the university and community.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/constitutional-roundtable-richard-moon/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20150929T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20150929T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T133608Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T133608Z
UID:821-1443529800-1443535200@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Constitutional Roundtable - Tarunabh Khaitan
DESCRIPTION:Constitutional Roundtable \npresents \n Tarunabh Khaitan Associate Professor and the Hackney Fellow in Law at Wadham College University of Oxford \n\n12:30 – 2:00 p.m. \nTuesday\, September 29\, 2015 \nSolarium\, Falconer Hall \nTopic: A Theory of Discrimination Law \nTarun Khaitan is an Associate Professor and the Hackney Fellow in Law at Wadham College. He is also an Associate Director of the Oxford Human Rights Hub. He completed his undergraduate studies (BA LLB Hons) at the National Law School (Bangalore) between 1999-2004. He then came to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and completed his postgraduate studies (BCL with distinction\, MPhil with distinction\, DPhil) at Exeter College. Before joining Wadham\, he was the Penningtons Student in Law at Christ Church. OUP has recently published his monograph entitled ‘A Theory of Discrimination Law’.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/constitutional-roundtable-tarunabh-khaitan/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20151008T180000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20151008T200000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T133425Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170721T160943Z
UID:818-1444327200-1444334400@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Book Launch - False Security by Prof Kent Roach and Craig Forcese
DESCRIPTION:All are welcome to attend the book launch for False Security: The Radicalization of Canadian Anti-Terrorism \, the latest book by Professor Kent Roach from the University of Toronto – Faculty of Law and co-author Professor Craig Forcese\, from the University of Ottawa – Faculty of Law. The book launch will be followed by a panel discussion with other esteemed panelists. \nPanelists include: \nRon Atkey P.C.\, Q.C.\, first Chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee \nJoe Fogarty\, former UK government security liaison to Canada \nSukanya Pillay\, General Counsel\, Canadian Civil Liberties Association \nCraig Forcese\, Author and Associate Professor of Law\, University of Ottawa \nKent Roach\, Author and Professor of Law\, University of Toronto \nwith Jonathan Kay from The Walrus as moderator. \nBook Launch – False Security – Kent Roach and Craig Forcese \nLocation: Victoria College – 2nd Floor\, Room 213 – 91 Charles St. West \n(2015)
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/book-launch-false-security-by-prof-kent-roach-and-craig-forcese/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20151014T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20151014T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
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:20151030T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20151030T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T133027Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T133027Z
UID:814-1446208200-1446213600@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Constitutional Roundtable - Zaid Al-Ali
DESCRIPTION:Constitutional Roundtable \npresents \nZaid Al-Ali\, Law and Public Affairs Fellow at Princeton University \n12:30 – 2:00 p.m. \nFriday\, October 30\, 2015 \nSolarium\, Falconer Hall \n  \nThe Absence of Social Solidarity Amongst Arab Elites: Causes and Consequences of the Failure of post-2011 Constitutional Reform \nPost-colonial constitutions in the Arab region were all based on the promise that they would correct the inequities of colonial rule with a new form of social justice. Virtually all included references to political accountability\, independence of the judiciary\, as well as long lists of political\, social and economic rights for all. The 2011 uprisings demonstrated the extent to which these constitutions failed to achieve that promise\, and the reform efforts that followed were an important opportunity to correct the institutional flaws that had become so apparent. This paper will first demonstrate that the post-uprising reform efforts make close to no progress in comparison to the texts that they were designed to replace\, particularly in so far as social justice is concerned. Secondly\, it will demonstrate that those few elements of progress that were made were the result of generally undemocratic processes (in the traditional sense). Thirdly\, the paper will explore the processes through which Arab countries reformed their constitutions\, with a view to explaining why reliance on direct elections and other traditional democratic mechanisms did not generally lead to improved social justice for those individuals and communities who commenced the uprisings in the first place. \nZaid Al-Ali is Senior Adviser on Constitution Building for International IDEA and is also a fellow and visiting lecturer at Princeton University’s Law and Public Affairs Program. He has been practicing law since 1999\, specializing in international commercial arbitration and comparative constitutional law. He has law degrees from Harvard Law School\, the Université de Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne) and King’s College London. From 2005 to 2010\, he was a legal adviser to the United Nations focusing on constitutional\, parliamentary and judicial reform in Iraq. Since the beginning of 2011\, he has been working on constitutional reform throughout the Arab region\, in particular in Tunisia\, Libya\, Egypt and Yemen. He has published widely on Iraq and on constitutional law. His book on the post-2003 transition in Iraq (The Struggle for Iraq’s Future) was published by Yale University Press in February 2014
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/constitutional-roundtable-zaid-al-ali/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20151214
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20151215
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T132911Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T132911Z
UID:812-1450051200-1450137599@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Deadline: Call for Papers - December 14\, 2015
DESCRIPTION:The State of Canada’s Constitutional Democracy\nFaculty of Law\, University of Toronto\, St. George Campus – February 27\, 2016 \nThe David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights invites papers for its upcoming conference examining the state of Canada’s constitutional democracy. Dramatic changes have taken place in recent years at the national level in respect to the day to day functioning of our constitutional democracy. These changes impinge on the separation of powers\, the rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution. \nExamples include: \n\nthe operation of the House of Commons and the Senate and the functioning of committees in both Houses in respect to the quality of deliberation\, reflection on questions of constitutionality generally\, and in respect to specific policy areas such as national security and crime and punishment\, as it impacts on mental health\, violence against women\,\nthe expansion and increased powers of the PMO\nthe appointment process to the Senate and the Supreme Court\nthe stance taken by the government to some aspects of the Constitution and the judiciary\,\nthe government’s approach to information creation\, retention and dissemination as well as sources of expertise and scientific knowledge\, as it impacts on public policy areas such as health\, climate change\, resource development\, Aboriginal education\, women’s equality\nthe Court’s role to strike down legislation and critique government action and the government’s response to this such as the aftermath of the PHS case\, Bedford and Carter\, and the SCC’s declaration in Khadr.\nthe professional ethics applicable to the work of government lawyers in a more politicized environment\nOur interest is examining these changes is to assess their impact on the norms and processes stipulated by our written Constitution as well as by fundamental constitutional principles and conventions.\n\nThis symposium is part of a broader analysis by the Asper Centre of the state of the rule of law and Canada’s constitutional democracy comprising background papers and additional workshops that will result in a final report.The papers will be utilized as the central themes on various panels across the one day symposium 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 January 1\, 2016 (extended). Papers for distribution at the conference must be submitted by February 6\, 2016. \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 with a 1-2 paragraph biography to: Cheryl Milne at cheryl.milne@utoronto.ca \n  \nDeadline for Submissions: December 14\, 2015 (EXTENDED) \n 
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/deadline-call-for-papers-december-14-2015/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20160203T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20160203T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T132432Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T132541Z
UID:808-1454502600-1454508000@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Constitutional Roundtable - Raj Anand
DESCRIPTION:Constitutional Roundtable \npresents \nRaj Anand\nConstitutional Litigator in Residence with the Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights\n12:30 – 2:00 p.m. \nWednesday\, February 03\, 2016 \nVictoria College\, Room 206 \nTopic: Subsection 15(2) of the Charter and its Disconnection with Substantive Equality \nRaj Anand is a partner and an arbitrator and mediator with WeirFoulds LLP. His practice includes the areas of administrative\, human rights\, constitutional and employment law\, civil litigation\, professional negligence and regulation. In his third term as an elected Bencher of the Law Society\, he is currently the Vice-Chair of the Law Society Tribunal’s Hearing Division. He was a member of task forces or working groups on admission requirements\, articling\, good character\, Law Society governance and Tribunal reform. He was Vice Chair of the Equity and Aboriginal Issues Committee for five years\, and is currently Co-Chair of the Working Group on Challenges faced by Racialized Lawyers and Paralegals in Ontario and Chair of the Three Year Review of the Tribunal reforms. Raj graduated from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law with the Dean’s Key in 1978. He has served as President of the U of T Law Alumni Council\, the Minority Advocacy and Rights Council\, the International Commission of Jurists Canada\, and Pro Bono Law Ontario; Co-Chair of the U of T Tribunal; and board member of the Advocates’ Society\, Legal Aid Ontario\, the Law Commission of Ontario\, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health\, Justice for Children and Youth\, and the Income Security Advocacy Centre. Raj was Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission in 1988-89\, Board of Inquiry from 1989-94\, and founding Chair of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre in 2008-10. Raj has taught “The New Administrative Law” at the masters level\, and “Legal Ethics: Legal Values” and “Diversity and the Legal Profession” at the JD level. He was the first recipient of the Advocates’ Society Award of Justice in 1997\, and has since received the Law Society Medal\, the Professional Man of the Year award of the Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce\, and the South Asian Bar Association’s Distinguished Career Award. In 2013\, he was an inaugural Roy McMurtry Visiting Clinical Fellow at Osgoode Hall Law School.
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/constitutional-roundtable-raj-anand/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20160226T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20160227T170000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T132024Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20180126T155203Z
UID:802-1456473600-1456592400@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:The State of Canada's Constitutional Democracy
DESCRIPTION:SYMPOSIUM \nFebruary 26 – 27\, 2016 \nFaculty of Law\, University of Toronto (Room: Solarium\, FA2) \nThe David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights\, University of Toronto and the Centre for Constitutional Studies\, University of Alberta\, co-organized this symposium examining the state of Canada’s constitutional democracy. Dramatic changes have taken place in recent years at the national level in respect to the day to day functioning of our constitutional democracy. These changes impinge on the separation of powers\, the rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution. \nExamples of topics covered included:\n• the operation of the House of Commons and the Senate and the functioning of committees in both Houses in respect to the quality of deliberation\, reflection on questions of constitutionality generally\, and in respect to specific policy areas\,\n• the increased powers of the PMO\n• the appointment process to the Senate and the Supreme Court\n• the stance taken by the government to some aspects of the Constitution and the judiciary\,\n• the government’s approach to information creation\, retention and dissemination as well as sources of expertise and scientific knowledge\, as it impacts on public policy areas such as health\, climate change\, resource development\, Aboriginal education\, women’s equality\n• the Court’s role to strike down legislation and critique government action and the government’s response to this such as the aftermath of the PHS case\, Bedford and Carter\, and the SCC’s declaration in Khadr.\n• the professional ethics applicable to the work of government lawyers in a more politicized environment \nOur interest in examining these changes was to assess their impact on the norms and processes stipulated by our written Constitution as well as by fundamental constitutional principles and conventions. \nThis symposium was part of a broader analysis by the Asper Centre of the state of the rule of law and Canada’s constitutional democracy comprising background papers and additional workshops that resulted in a now available final report. \nSymposium Agenda \nREAD MORE ABOUT THE SYMPOSIUM HERE
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/the-state-of-canadas-constitutional-democracy/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://aspercentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/5th-anniversary-e1516220832189.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20160229T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20160229T140000
DTSTAMP:20260419T202728
CREATED:20170621T132137Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T132200Z
UID:805-1456749000-1456754400@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Constitutional Roundtable - Susan Williams
DESCRIPTION:Constitutional Roundtable \npresents \nSusan Williams \nWalter W. Foskett Professor of Law and Director\, Center for Constitutional Democracy Maurer School of Law Indiana University\n12:30 – 2:00 p.m. \nWednesday\, February 24\, 2016 \nSolarium\, Falconer Hall \nTopic \nLegal Pluralism\, Gender Equality and Parity of Participation: Constitutional Issues Concerning Customary Law in Liberia \nSusan Williams is the author of Truth\, Autonomy\, and Speech: Feminist Theory and the First Amendment (NYU Press 2004). Her current book project\, Constituting Equality: Comparative Constitutional Law and Gender Equality\, is a collection of essays growing out of a spring 2007 conference she organized. She has also written numerous articles on constitutional law and feminist legal theory. She is actively involved in constitutional advising for the Burmese democracy movement. She is a constitutional advisor to the Women’s League of Burma\, the Federal Constitution Drafting Coordinating Committee\, and the state constitution drafting committees of all of the states of Burma. In this capacity\, she teaches workshops\, produces educational materials\, and works on drafting and revising constitutional language. At Indiana Law\, Williams teaches Property\, First Amendment Law\, Feminist Jurisprudence\, and a seminar on Comparative Constitutional Law on Gender Equality. She believes that the best lawyers do not conduct legal analysis in a vacuum. “We must train our students to think and argue clearly and critically\,” she says. “But at the same time\, we must encourage them to bring their own values and experiences to bear on the legal issues they are studying. Law is a mirror in which we can read our character as a society\, both as it presently exists and as we would ideally like it to be.”(Bio drawn from Susan Williams’ profile at Maurer School of Law) \n 
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/constitutional-roundtable-susan-williams/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR