Runnymede Radio

Earlier this year, Justice Malcolm Rowe of the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a two-part Runnymede lecture series on the Charter and liberal democracy across two cities in 24 hours. Part I, “How Misunderstanding the Charter Can Weaken Liberal Democracy” (March 3, 2026), was delivered at the University of Calgary. Justice Rowe considers what happens when the Charter is understood apart from the broader system of democratic government in which it operates, and the problems that can follow. The next day, Justice Rowe travelled to Vancouver to deliver Part II, “How a Proper Understanding of the Charter Strengthens Liberal Democracy” (March 4, 2026), at UBC Allard. The second lecture considers the other side of the question: how the Charter can reinforce democratic government when understood within Canada's wider constitutional system. This episode of Runnymede Radio brings the complete two-part series together for the first time.

John Borrows (University of Toronto) and Erik De Lorenzi join Runnymede Radio to discuss a proposed framework for Indigenous Community Courts and the expansion of Indigenous self-government over the administration of justice. Drawing on examples including U.S. Tribal Courts, the Akwesasne Court, and proposed arrangements involving Yukon First Nations, the conversation examines how Indigenous Community Courts could operate in practice: their jurisdiction, judicial appointments, relationship with existing Canadian courts, and potential role in improving access to justice. Borrows and De Lorenzi also consider the arguments for and against Indigenous self-government in the administration of justice and the constitutional questions that could arise from establishing these courts, including the implications of sections 96 and 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Works discussed: Erik De Lorenzi, “Indigenous Community Courts: A Framework for Expanding Indigenous Self-Governance over the Administration of Justice” (2026) 17:2 University of Western Ontario Journal of Legal Studies 21. John Borrows, The Seven Cycles of Life: Seeking Healing, Connection and Justice in Anishinaabe Teachings (Random House Canada, 2026).

Mark Harding (University of Guelph) joins Runnymede Radio to discuss his book, Judicializing Everything? The Clash of Constitutionalisms in Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, which Justice Malcolm Rowe of the Supreme Court of Canada referenced at length during his keynote address at Law & Freedom 2024. Comparing Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, Harding examines political and legal constitutionalism, strong- and weak-form judicial review, and competing approaches to the relationship between courts and legislatures. The discussion explores Canada's notwithstanding clause, underlying constitutional principles, constitutional reach, and “strained interpretation” of statutes. Harding also considers what the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in English Montreal School Board could mean for section 33 and the future balance between judicial and legislative authority in Canada.

Collin May (University of Calgary) joins Runnymede Radio to discuss his new book, From Cancel Culture to Incarceration Culture: Prosecutorial Democracy and the Future of Cancellation. Drawing on philosophy, psychology, sociology, law, and his own experience being "cancelled" following his brief tenure as Chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission in 2022, May examines the distinction between cancel culture and accountability, the institutional dynamics of cancellation, and the importance of "free speech culture." The discussion explores the psychology of cancellation, the role of professional regulators and administrative bodies, and May's concept of "prosecutorial democracy." Reflecting on the experience that led him to write the book, May explains why he believes cancel culture is evolving into something more institutional, culminating in what he describes as "incarceration culture." Throughout the conversation, May considers what these changes may mean for liberal democracy, free expression, and the future of public debate, arguing that informal social pressures are increasingly being supplemented by institutional and legal mechanisms.

Andrea Lawlor (McMaster University) and Dave Snow (University of Guelph) join Runnymede Radio to discuss judicial councils, judicial discipline, and the institutions responsible for upholding accountability within Canada's judiciary. Drawing on their recent scholarship, Lawlor and Snow examine the role of the Canadian Judicial Council and provincial judicial councils, explaining how judicial misconduct is investigated, how judicial ethics are enforced, and why these processes matter for judicial independence. The discussion also explores the reforms introduced through Bill C-9, the administrative role of judicial councils, and the relationship between judicial accountability, transparency, and public confidence in the courts. Throughout the conversation, the guests consider how Canada's judicial discipline system seeks to maintain both the integrity of the judiciary and the constitutional principles on which it rests.

Yonatan Green (Georgetown University) joins the Honourable Justice David Brown (Ontario Court of Appeal, retired) in this recording of an event hosted by Runnymede's Toronto Lawyer Chapter to discuss his book, Rogue Justice: The Rise of Judicial Supremacy in Israel. Green's book examines claims that the Israeli Supreme Court has enlarged its role in ways that have reshaped the balance between branches of government, arguably contributing to a constitutional crisis. The conversation explores the evolution of Israel's constitutional system, including a series of developments that accelerated in the 1990s and, according to Green, expanded the power of the Israeli Supreme Court.  The discussion also touches on the recent judicial reform proposals aimed at curbing that power, which sparked widespread domestic and international controversy. Along the way, Green and Justice Brown consider what Canada might learn from Israel's constitutional experience. Interested in learning more? Read Rogue Justice: The Rise of Judicial Supremacy in Israel. It is available in hardcover, paperback, and Kindle editions.

Yonatan Green (Georgetown University) joins the Honourable Justice David Brown (Ontario Court of Appeal, retired) in this recording of an event hosted by Runnymede's Toronto Lawyer Chapter to discuss his book, Rogue Justice: The Rise of Judicial Supremacy in Israel. Green's book examines claims that the Israeli Supreme Court has enlarged its role in ways that have reshaped the balance between branches of government, arguably contributing to a constitutional crisis. The conversation explores the evolution of Israel's constitutional system, including a series of developments that accelerated in the 1990s and, according to Green, expanded the power of the Israeli Supreme Court.  The discussion also touches on the recent judicial reform proposals aimed at curbing that power, which sparked widespread domestic and international controversy. Along the way, Green and Justice Brown consider what Canada might learn from Israel's constitutional experience. Interested in learning more? Read Rogue Justice: The Rise of Judicial Supremacy in Israel. It is available in hardcover, paperback, and Kindle editions.

Professor Eric Adams (University of Alberta) and Professor Dwight Newman (University of Saskatchewan) join us for a friendly debate on the interpretation of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Recorded before a standing-room-only audience at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law in November 2025, the discussion took place prior to Professor Adams' appointment to the Court of King's Bench of Alberta in April 2026. Professor Adams argues that constitutional "dialogue" leaves open the possibility of judicial engagement with rights, even under a section 33 declaration. Professor Newman argues that section 33 operates as a legislative "shield" against judicial engagement with rights during its application. Moderated by Professor Gerard Kennedy (University of Alberta), the conversation examines competing interpretations of section 33, the proper relationship between courts and legislatures, and the continuing significance of the notwithstanding clause within Canada's constitutional framework.

Professor Eric Adams (University of Alberta) and Professor Dwight Newman (University of Saskatchewan) join us for a friendly debate on the interpretation of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Recorded before a standing-room-only audience at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law in November 2025, the discussion took place prior to Professor Adams' appointment to the Court of King's Bench of Alberta in April 2026. Professor Adams argues that constitutional "dialogue" leaves open the possibility of judicial engagement with rights, even under a section 33 declaration. Professor Newman argues that section 33 operates as a legislative "shield" against judicial engagement with rights during its application. Moderated by Professor Gerard Kennedy (University of Alberta), the conversation examines competing interpretations of section 33, the proper relationship between courts and legislatures, and the continuing significance of the notwithstanding clause within Canada's constitutional framework.

Eleanore Sunchild, KC (Sunchild Law) and Professor Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary) join us to discuss residential school denialism and recent proposals to prohibit it under the Criminal Code. The conversation explores the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, competing claims about residential school history, and the evidence underlying contemporary debates over residential school denialism. Sunchild and Flanagan discuss questions surrounding abuse and mortality within residential schools, the removal of Indigenous children from their families, and ongoing debates regarding unmarked graves and alleged burial sites. The guests also examine proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, the relationship between free expression and reconciliation, and the legal and moral arguments for and against criminalizing certain forms of denial, downplaying, or misrepresentation. Along the way, the discussion considers the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, historical memory, and the role of criminal law in addressing disputed historical claims.

Eleanore Sunchild, KC (Sunchild Law) and Professor Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary) join us to discuss residential school denialism and recent proposals to prohibit it under the Criminal Code. The conversation explores the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, competing claims about residential school history, and the evidence underlying contemporary debates over residential school denialism. Sunchild and Flanagan discuss questions surrounding abuse and mortality within residential schools, the removal of Indigenous children from their families, and ongoing debates regarding unmarked graves and alleged burial sites. The guests also examine proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, the relationship between free expression and reconciliation, and the legal and moral arguments for and against criminalizing certain forms of denial, downplaying, or misrepresentation. Along the way, the discussion considers the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, historical memory, and the role of criminal law in addressing disputed historical claims.

This episode of Runnymede Radio is the second half of a two-part series on the Borderland Pride v. Township of Emo case before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. In 2024, the Tribunal ordered Emo Township and Mayor Harold McQuaker to pay damages after the Township refused requests to proclaim Pride Month and display a Pride flag. Part II features an original interview with Josh Dehaas, Interim Litigation Director at the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) and counsel for the CCF in its intervention in the Emo Township case. Dehaas critically examines the Tribunal's reasoning and discusses the freedom of expression, compelled speech, and democratic decision-making concerns raised by the case. The conversation explores the relationship between freedom of expression and anti-discrimination law, including the role of “Charter values” in administrative decision-making, the implications of the Ward and Whatcott decisions, and broader constitutional questions surrounding compelled expression, human dignity, and municipal democracy. The discussion also examines the judicial review proceedings now underway, and the legal framework courts may apply in evaluating the Tribunal's reasoning.

This episode of Runnymede Radio is the second half of a two-part series on the Borderland Pride v. Township of Emo case before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. In 2024, the Tribunal ordered Emo Township and Mayor Harold McQuaker to pay damages after the Township refused requests to proclaim Pride Month and display a Pride flag. Part II features an original interview with Josh Dehaas, Interim Litigation Director at the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) and counsel for the CCF in its intervention in the Emo Township case. Dehaas critically examines the Tribunal's reasoning and discusses the freedom of expression, compelled speech, and democratic decision-making concerns raised by the case. The conversation explores the relationship between freedom of expression and anti-discrimination law, including the role of “Charter values” in administrative decision-making, the implications of the Ward and Whatcott decisions, and broader constitutional questions surrounding compelled expression, human dignity, and municipal democracy. The discussion also examines the judicial review proceedings now underway, and the legal framework courts may apply in evaluating the Tribunal's reasoning.

This episode of Runnymede Radio is the first half of a two-part series on the Borderland Pride v. Township of Emo case before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Part I features an original interview with Doug Judson, lawyer and applicant in the proceedings against Emo Township and Mayor Harold McQuaker, following the Tribunal's 2024 decision ordering damages after the Township refused requests to proclaim Pride Month and display a Pride flag. Judson discusses the background to the dispute, the Tribunal's finding that Emo Township and its mayor discriminated against Borderland Pride, and the broader legal issues raised by the case. The conversation explores the legal test for discrimination under Ontario's Human Rights Code, the Tribunal's finding of bad faith against Mayor McQuaker, and broader constitutional and democratic questions concerning municipal governance, freedom of expression, and symbolic political decision-making.

This episode of Runnymede Radio is the first half of a two-part series on the Borderland Pride v. Township of Emo case before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Part I features an original interview with Doug Judson, lawyer and applicant in the proceedings against Emo Township and Mayor Harold McQuaker, following the Tribunal's 2024 decision ordering damages after the Township refused requests to proclaim Pride Month and display a Pride flag. Judson discusses the background to the dispute, the Tribunal's finding that Emo Township and its mayor discriminated against Borderland Pride, and the broader legal issues raised by the case. The conversation explores the legal test for discrimination under Ontario's Human Rights Code, the Tribunal's finding of bad faith against Mayor McQuaker, and broader constitutional and democratic questions concerning municipal governance, freedom of expression, and symbolic political decision-making.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we feature an original interview with Professor Philippe Lagassé (Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University). Lagassé discusses his recent writing on the possible existence of a Crown prerogative to “keep the peace” within Canada, and what this would mean for the constitutional foundations of executive power. Using the Emergencies Act and the 2022 Public Order Emergency as context, he considers whether statutory frameworks fully define the scope of emergency authority. The conversation explores the relationship between prerogative and statute, including whether unwritten executive powers may offer a deeper—yet often narrower—basis for executive action than legislation in moments of crisis.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we feature an original interview with Professor Philippe Lagassé (Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University). Lagassé discusses his recent writing on the possible existence of a Crown prerogative to “keep the peace” within Canada, and what this would mean for the constitutional foundations of executive power. Using the Emergencies Act and the 2022 Public Order Emergency as context, he considers whether statutory frameworks fully define the scope of emergency authority. The conversation explores the relationship between prerogative and statute, including whether unwritten executive powers may offer a deeper—yet often narrower—basis for executive action than legislation in moments of crisis.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we share a live recording from a bilingual event hosted by the Runnymede Society's McGill University Chapter, featuring Professor Maxime St-Hilaire (Université de Sherbrooke) and Professor Victor Muñiz-Fraticelli (McGill University). The panel examines the enduring debate between legal positivism and natural law theory, focusing on whether law can be understood as a system grounded in social facts or whether its legitimacy depends on a connection to moral reasoning and the common good. Drawing on both classical traditions and contemporary scholarship, the speakers explore different approaches within positivism, the resurgence of natural law thought, and the implications of these theories for legal pluralism, the rule of law, and the professional identity of jurists. Recorded live at McGill University, this episode offers a careful examination of the theoretical foundations of legal order and their ongoing significance for public law in Canada. Portions of the discussion take place in both English and French.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we share a live recording from a bilingual event hosted by the Runnymede Society's McGill University Chapter, featuring Professor Maxime St-Hilaire (Université de Sherbrooke) and Professor Victor Muñiz-Fraticelli (McGill University). The panel examines the enduring debate between legal positivism and natural law theory, focusing on whether law can be understood as a system grounded in social facts or whether its legitimacy depends on a connection to moral reasoning and the common good. Drawing on both classical traditions and contemporary scholarship, the speakers explore different approaches within positivism, the resurgence of natural law thought, and the implications of these theories for legal pluralism, the rule of law, and the professional identity of jurists. Recorded live at McGill University, this episode offers a careful examination of the theoretical foundations of legal order and their ongoing significance for public law in Canada. Portions of the discussion take place in both English and French.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we feature a recording from a Western University Chapter panel with Professor Dwight Newman (University of Saskatchewan) and Professor Michael Coyle (Western University). Following a previous episode examining the drafting and interpretation of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, this conversation explores how contemporary jurisprudence is shaping the scope and application of Aboriginal and treaty rights. The panel, titled “Will Reconciliation Require the Transfer of Private Land? A Discussion of Recent Jurisprudence and Reconciliation Efforts,” examines the implications of the Cowichan Tribes decision for Aboriginal title, including its potential impact on private land ownership, the security of property rights, and the broader framework of reconciliation in Canadian law. This episode offers a timely discussion of how constitutional principles are being interpreted in practice and what recent developments may signal for the future of Indigenous rights and Canadian constitutional law.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we feature a recording from a Western University Chapter panel with Professor Dwight Newman (University of Saskatchewan) and Professor Michael Coyle (Western University). Following a previous episode examining the drafting and interpretation of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, this conversation explores how contemporary jurisprudence is shaping the scope and application of Aboriginal and treaty rights. The panel, titled “Will Reconciliation Require the Transfer of Private Land? A Discussion of Recent Jurisprudence and Reconciliation Efforts,” examines the implications of the Cowichan Tribes decision for Aboriginal title, including its potential impact on private land ownership, the security of property rights, and the broader framework of reconciliation in Canadian law. This episode offers a timely discussion of how constitutional principles are being interpreted in practice and what recent developments may signal for the future of Indigenous rights and Canadian constitutional law.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we feature an original interview with Michael Scott (PrimaryDocuments.ca). Scott discusses his ongoing research on the drafting history of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982—which recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights—drawing on archival materials and his work with PrimaryDocuments.ca, a database of historical documents relating to the creation of Canada's Constitution. The conversation explores the historical context of Section 35, the interpretive challenges posed by its ambiguity, and what the drafting record reveals (and does not reveal) about its meaning. This episode offers a careful examination of constitutional history and the role of historical sources in understanding foundational legal texts.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we feature an original interview with Michael Scott (PrimaryDocuments.ca). Scott discusses his ongoing research on the drafting history of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982—which recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights—drawing on archival materials and his work with PrimaryDocuments.ca, a database of historical documents relating to the creation of Canada's Constitution. The conversation explores the historical context of Section 35, the interpretive challenges posed by its ambiguity, and what the drafting record reveals (and does not reveal) about its meaning. This episode offers a careful examination of constitutional history and the role of historical sources in understanding foundational legal texts.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we feature an original interview with Professor Norman Siebrasse (University of New Brunswick). Professor Siebrasse discusses his recent study using artificial intelligence to examine long-term trends in Supreme Court of Canada decisions. By analyzing thousands of judgments from 1974 to 2025, the study places cases on a rules–standards spectrum and identifies a marked shift toward more standard-like reasoning beginning in the early Charter era. The conversation also explores the idea of “Charter contagion,” the relationship between increasingly lengthy decisions and declining rule-likeness, and the broader promise and limits of AI in legal and academic research. This episode offers a careful examination of artificial intelligence as a research tool and of the evolving character of Supreme Court reasoning in Canada.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we feature an original interview with Professor Norman Siebrasse (University of New Brunswick). Professor Siebrasse discusses his recent study using artificial intelligence to examine long-term trends in Supreme Court of Canada decisions. By analyzing thousands of judgments from 1974 to 2025, the study places cases on a rules–standards spectrum and identifies a marked shift toward more standard-like reasoning beginning in the early Charter era. The conversation also explores the idea of “Charter contagion,” the relationship between increasingly lengthy decisions and declining rule-likeness, and the broader promise and limits of AI in legal and academic research. This episode offers a careful examination of artificial intelligence as a research tool and of the evolving character of Supreme Court reasoning in Canada.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we share a live recording from a student chapter event hosted by the Runnymede Society's University of Calgary Chapter, featuring Professor Geoff Sigalet (UBCO). Professor Sigalet's lecture makes the political and legal case against substantive judicial review of laws enacted under section 33 of the Charter. Drawing on recent constitutional litigation, academic debate, and institutional and political analysis, he explains why provinces have been more willing to invoke the notwithstanding clause since 2018, critiques arguments advanced by the Attorney General of Canada in favour of judicial scrutiny, and points out why such review would be wrong and unwise even if it were possible. Recorded live at the University of Calgary, this episode offers a careful examination of judicial power, legislative authority, and the political and legal role of the notwithstanding clause in Canada.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we share a live recording from a student chapter event hosted by the Runnymede Society's University of Calgary Chapter, featuring Professor Geoff Sigalet (UBCO). Professor Sigalet's lecture makes the political and legal case against substantive judicial review of laws enacted under section 33 of the Charter. Drawing on recent constitutional litigation, academic debate, and institutional and political analysis, he explains why provinces have been more willing to invoke the notwithstanding clause since 2018, critiques arguments advanced by the Attorney General of Canada in favour of judicial scrutiny, and points out why such review would be wrong and unwise even if it were possible. Recorded live at the University of Calgary, this episode offers a careful examination of judicial power, legislative authority, and the political and legal role of the notwithstanding clause in Canada.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we share a live recording from a student chapter event hosted by the Runnymede Society's Osgoode Hall Chapter, featuring Malcolm Rowe of the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice Rowe's lecture, titled “Can the Centre Hold?”, draws on W.B. Yeats' The Second Coming to reflect on the pressures of an increasingly polarized society and the importance of moderation in public life. Blending political and legal philosophy, the lecture explores how these traditions intersect to shape a balanced constitutional order, and what it takes to maintain that balance in unsettled times. Recorded live at Osgoode Hall, this episode offers a thoughtful and measured reflection on polarization, moderation, and the ideas that hold a constitutional democracy together.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we share a live recording from a student chapter event hosted by the Runnymede Society's Osgoode Hall Chapter, featuring Malcolm Rowe of the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice Rowe's lecture, titled “Can the Centre Hold?”, draws on W.B. Yeats' The Second Coming to reflect on the pressures of an increasingly polarized society and the importance of moderation in public life. Blending political and legal philosophy, the lecture explores how these traditions intersect to shape a balanced constitutional order, and what it takes to maintain that balance in unsettled times. Recorded live at Osgoode Hall, this episode offers a thoughtful and measured reflection on polarization, moderation, and the ideas that hold a constitutional democracy together.

In this special retrospective episode of Runnymede Radio, former Runnymede Society National Directors Mark Mancini and Kris Kinsinger reflect on a consequential period in the organization's history, recorded as part of Runnymede's tenth anniversary. The conversation explores the resistance Runnymede faced as it grew beyond its early days, the disruption and challenges of the COVID years, and how the organization adapted under pressure while remaining grounded in its core commitments. Mark and Kris discuss what it meant to stand firm while staying flexible, and how Runnymede earned and defended its place in Canada's academic and legal conversations. A candid reflection on Runnymede's resilience, adaptation, and ongoing work.

In this special retrospective episode of Runnymede Radio, former Runnymede Society National Directors Mark Mancini and Kris Kinsinger reflect on a consequential period in the organization's history, recorded as part of Runnymede's tenth anniversary. The conversation explores the resistance Runnymede faced as it grew beyond its early days, the disruption and challenges of the COVID years, and how the organization adapted under pressure while remaining grounded in its core commitments. Mark and Kris discuss what it meant to stand firm while staying flexible, and how Runnymede earned and defended its place in Canada's academic and legal conversations. A candid reflection on Runnymede's resilience, adaptation, and ongoing work.

In this special retrospective episode of Runnymede Radio, co-founders Joanna Baron and Asher Honickman reflect on the Runnymede Society's earliest days, marking its tenth anniversary. The conversation revisits what first inspired Runnymede's founding in 2016, the challenges of building a national forum for constitutional debate, and the ideas and principles that have endured over the past decade. Joanna and Asher also reflect on how the organization's early ambitions shaped its growth—and what those formative years can tell us about Runnymede's mission today. A candid look back at the origins of the Runnymede Society, with a few memorable anecdotes along the way.

In this special retrospective episode of Runnymede Radio, co-founders Joanna Baron and Asher Honickman reflect on the Runnymede Society's earliest days, marking its tenth anniversary. The conversation revisits what first inspired Runnymede's founding in 2016, the challenges of building a national forum for constitutional debate, and the ideas and principles that have endured over the past decade. Joanna and Asher also reflect on how the organization's early ambitions shaped its growth—and what those formative years can tell us about Runnymede's mission today. A candid look back at the origins of the Runnymede Society, with a few memorable anecdotes along the way.

Quelle est l'influence des prises de position théoriques dites « woke » dans le milieu universitaire canadien? Le Professeur Stéphane Sérafin discute de deux incidences particulières pour expliquer pourquoi ces prises de position sont ancrées dans les universités canadiennes, et particulièrement dans les facultés de droit.

Quelle est l'influence des prises de position théoriques dites « woke » dans le milieu universitaire canadien? Le Professeur Stéphane Sérafin discute de deux incidences particulières pour expliquer pourquoi ces prises de position sont ancrées dans les universités canadiennes, et particulièrement dans les facultés de droit.

What is the proper pace of development of the common law? Today's encore episode from Law & Freedom 2025 features Christoph Pike (McCarthy Tétrault), Prof. Stéphane Sérafin (University of Ottawa Faculty of Law), Alexi Wood (St. Lawrence Barristers), Asher Honickman (Jordan Honickman Barristers), and Prof. Malcolm Lavoie (University of Alberta Faculty of Law). Watch the full video on our Member Area. The full recording contains 1 hour and 05 minutes of Professionalism Content (Law Society of Ontario).

What is the proper pace of development of the common law? Today's encore episode from Law & Freedom 2025 features Christoph Pike (McCarthy Tétrault), Prof. Stéphane Sérafin (University of Ottawa Faculty of Law), Alexi Wood (St. Lawrence Barristers), Asher Honickman (Jordan Honickman Barristers), and Prof. Malcolm Lavoie (University of Alberta Faculty of Law). Watch the full video on our Member Area. The full recording contains 1 hour and 05 minutes of Professionalism Content (Law Society of Ontario).

Have the courts become political? In this encore episode from Law & Freedom 2025, Professor Ted Morton argues that changes in how Canadians view the role of our courts and the purpose of our constitution have politicized our courts. The full panel discussion, featuring three other speakers, can be found on our Member Area.  Further reading: The Charter Revolution and the Court Party.

Have the courts become political? In this encore episode from Law & Freedom 2025, Professor Ted Morton argues that changes in how Canadians view the role of our courts and the purpose of our constitution have politicized our courts. The full panel discussion, featuring three other speakers, can be found on our Member Area.  Further reading: The Charter Revolution and the Court Party.

How does the Supreme Court of Canada decide which cases it hears? Paul-Erik Veel, adjunct professor at the University of Toronto, shares a fascinating quantitative analysis on the Court's decision-making, exploring everything from case selection and output to judicial agreement. Watch this full session on Runnymede's Member Area: https://runnymedesociety.ca/en/account/.

How does the Supreme Court of Canada decide which cases it hears? Paul-Erik Veel, adjunct professor at the University of Toronto, shares a fascinating quantitative analysis on the Court's decision-making, exploring everything from case selection and output to judicial agreement. Watch this full session on Runnymede's Member Area: https://runnymedesociety.ca/en/account/.

Can free expression be limited based on an administrative body's prediction of resulting harm? Can a university expel a student for having an opinion on a particular social issue that it considers unprofessional? Lia Milousis, lawyer with the Acacia Group and leader of our Ottawa lawyers' chapter, discusses two cases involving the prevention of harm as a reason for limiting freedom of speech.

Can free expression be limited based on an administrative body's prediction of resulting harm? Can a university expel a student for having an opinion on a particular social issue that it considers unprofessional? Lia Milousis, lawyer with the Acacia Group and leader of our Ottawa lawyers' chapter, discusses two cases involving the prevention of harm as a reason for limiting freedom of speech.

Why were property rights excluded from the Charter? Professor Dwight Newman of the University of Saskatchewan joined students at the University of British Columbia's Peter A. Allard School of Law to discuss his research on this subject and the opportunity for further study on this topic. Further reading: Dwight Newman & Lorelle Binnion, "The Exclusion of Property Rights from the Charter: Correcting the Historical Record" (2015) 52:3 Alta. L. Rev. 543

Why were property rights excluded from the Charter? Professor Dwight Newman of the University of Saskatchewan joined students at the University of British Columbia's Peter A. Allard School of Law to discuss his research on this subject and the opportunity for further study on this topic. Further reading: Dwight Newman & Lorelle Binnion, "The Exclusion of Property Rights from the Charter: Correcting the Historical Record" (2015) 52:3 Alta. L. Rev. 543

Did the Law Society of Ontario's proposed Statement of Principles (SOP) present a threat to free speech? Today's encore episode features Lisa Bildy, a Bencher and lawyer specializing in freedom of expression cases, who spoke with our UWO student chapter about her experience standing up to the Law Society.

Did the Law Society of Ontario's proposed Statement of Principles (SOP) present a threat to free speech? Today's encore episode features Lisa Bildy, a Bencher and lawyer specializing in freedom of expression cases, who spoke with our UWO student chapter about her experience standing up to the Law Society.

Is the Alberta Sovereignty Act a mechanism to provide a "shadow court" that challenges federal laws? Martin Olszynski, Professor of law at the University of Calgary and member of the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada's advisory council on impact assessment, discusses the constitutionality of the Alberta Sovereignty Act.

Is the Alberta Sovereignty Act a mechanism to provide a "shadow court" that challenges federal laws? Martin Olszynski, Professor of law at the University of Calgary and member of the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada's advisory council on impact assessment, discusses the constitutionality of the Alberta Sovereignty Act.

How did Carter v Canada change the Canadian legal landscape? Today's encore episode of Runnymede Radio is from a discussion hosted by McGill's Runnymede chapter with Professors Yuan Yi Zhu, of Leiden University, and Stéphane Sérafin, of the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law. This episode features Jacob McConville, president of the Runnymede Society's chapter at McGill University, as guest host.

How did Carter v Canada change the Canadian legal landscape? Today's encore episode of Runnymede Radio is from a discussion hosted by McGill's Runnymede chapter with Professors Yuan Yi Zhu, of Leiden University, and Stéphane Sérafin, of the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law. This episode features Jacob McConville, president of the Runnymede Society's chapter at McGill University, as guest host.