Social Issues: At the Crossroads of Mental Illness and the Law

At the Hubert Humphrey Building dedication in Washington, D.C. on November 1, 1977, Humphrey spoke about the treatment of the weakest members of society as a reflection of its government: “the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the […]

Law and Happiness: Challenges and Opportunities to Improving Lawyer and Student Well-Being

The Panel has been designed in partnership with Healthy Legal Minds (HLM), a group of law students and jurists that provide advocacy and evidence-based solutions to address causes of poor mental health and well-being in the legal profession. HLM envisions a profession where law students and legal professionals are equipped with the tools to lead healthy and happy lives, and easily seek help in the face of the challenges of the legal profession.

Program Report: Defining Cultural and Religious Diversity in the Administration of Justice: Are There Different Perspectives? (Panel No. 1)

The opening statement heard prior to the panel had suggested that discrimination is oftentimes an involuntary by-product of an ethnocentric perspective founded in a dominant cultural viewpoint. These testimonies thus challenged the dominant viewpoint by offering a unique perspective into the personal experiences in overcoming institutional challenges barring the right to equality.

Shaping Justice Together

The justice system is being criticized a lot these days. We must admit that some of that criticism is justified. If we observe a system that is flagging and must be renewed, we must also recognize that every day, men and women are acting in concrete ways to improve the system and its accessibility.

Imagine for a moment…

Imagine for a moment that you have decided after some serious thought that you need to wear a particular item of clothing that is very visible, let’s say a type of shawl. You sincerely believe that wearing this shawl represents something of value to you. Your conscience requires you to wear it. Most people may […]

Summary of the Senate Committee Final Report: “Delaying Justice is Denying Justice”

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017, in the wake of the Jordan Supreme Court decision, the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs issued its much-anticipated final report on court delays. The Senate Committee made 50 recommendations, after hearing 138 witnesses (including lawyers, legal and mental health experts, former and current judges, victims and police), on […]

Fairness, Principles and Standard of Review: Where are we?

Robert Danay’s fascinating study observes that there is an apparent increase in deference to administrative decision makers post Dunsmuir. But there remain differing views on standard of review and – to paraphrase his paper – a never ending conflict over who gets the last word: the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branch, or the administrative tribunal.

Panorama of the Commonwealth Association of Legislative Counsel 2017 Conference (Melbourne-Sydney)

The 2017 Conference of the Commonwealth Association of Legislative Counsel (CALC) took place in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia from March 29 to April 4, 2017 bringing together nearly 200 members of the Association from all over the British Commonwealth and beyond. It was the 14th such conference since the inaugural one in Hong Kong in 1983.

Administrative Law and the Rise of Populism

Commentators have suggested that the rise of populism is a function of the failure of liberal democracy to be relevant to the lives of all but elites. Most people feel alienated from, and abandoned by, democratic institutions. We are told to trust the experts, but that has not turned out so well.

“Plus ça change”…: The Record on Judicial Review

Although judicial review in Canada has undergone a significant shift in the past decade, the rules governing evidence admissible on judicial review have not been changed in any meaningful way since the 19th century. Those rules, generally speaking, still limit the admissibility of so-called “extrinsic” evidence to situations involving alleged ‘‘jurisdictional errors” or a breach of the duty of fairness.