All Videos | CPD

Date

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

This program contains 1.5 CPD hours in all Canadian provinces.  Sponsored by the post-baccalaureate diploma program in legislative drafting at Athabasca University. 

Theme 

Au Canada, le principe moderne de Driedger a été déclaré « la méthode d’interprétation législative privilégiée » par la Cour suprême du Canada, mais certains auteurs notent un manque de cohérence des tribunaux dans l’utilisation de ce principe, notamment une alternance déroutante dans leurs décisions entre textualisme et intentionalisme. La thèse selon laquelle l’intention du législateur est en fait un construit juridique permet peut-être de sortir de ce malaise conceptuel, ce qui fera l’objet de cette présentation.

Speaker

Professor Mistrale Goudreau
Faculty of Law – Civil Law Section | University of Ottawa

Date

Tuesday, November 14, 2017 & Wednesday, November 15, 2017

This program contains 1.5 CPD hours in all Canadian provinces.  Sponsored by the post-baccalaureate diploma program in legislative drafting at Athabasca University. 

Theme

Legislation usually consists of words written in accordance with the linguistic conventions of a particular natural language such as English or French. But if you look closely, you will see that it sometimes has features derived from mathematics rather than natural languages. In this webinar, Nicky Armstrong, an experienced Australasian legislative counsel now working in New Zealand, will take you through the various ways mathematical symbols and calculations crop up in legislation and how they can be used effectively to convey complex ideas.

Speaker

Ms. Nicky Armstrong, Parliamentary Counsel, New Zealand

Ms. Nicky Armstrong graduated from the University of Western Australia with a BJuris (Hons) (1988) and LLB (1989) and was admitted to practice in Western Australia in 1991. After graduating, she worked in one of Australia’s largest commercial law firms for 5 years before joining the Western Australian Parliamentary Counsel’s Office as a drafter. Nicky worked there for 15 years before moving to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in Australia’s Northern Territory in 2010. In 2015, she moved to New Zealand to take up her current role as a parliamentary counsel at the NZ Parliamentary Counsel Office.

Date

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

This program is offered by an accredited provider of professionalism content and is eligible for up to 1.5 Substantive Hours. Sponsored by the post-baccalaureate diploma program in legislative drafting at Athabasca University.

Theme

Administrative forms may seem trivial, but they are essential to many operations of government. Forms are often a key means of communication between the public and public officials; they enable access to government services and they structure flows of information in both directions. But what is a form? What are legislators actually doing when they require one? Who should establish forms, and how much tolerance for deviations should there be? This webinar will address these and related issues from the perspective of the legislative drafter and adviser.

Speaker

The webinar will be conducted by Lawrence Purdy, an experienced drafter at both the national and subnational levels. The presentation is based on one Lawrence gave last August in Halifax at the Joint Conference of the Canadian Associations of Parliamentary and Legislative Counsel.

Date

Monday, October 2, 2017
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Theme

What is the effect of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the resolution of issues of culture and religion? Are the courts getting the mix right? Is the law falling behind or is it leading?

It is commonplace to speak of Canada as a multi-cultural or multi-ethnic society and these characteristics must figure in any consideration of diversity in the administration of justice. Diversity is an encompassing term that allows for multiple forms of social groupings but also multiple themes that cross between and among social groupings. Diversity is thus an appropriate term with which to examine the manner in which public institutions serve the interests of inclusiveness and equality in the administration of justice.

An important dimension of this conference is the examination of the manner in which public institutions have and should evolve to advance values of inclusiveness and equality, including an assessment of their shortcomings. Another broad dimension focuses on substantive issues (language, religion, race, culture, etc.) concerning complementarity and contradiction between values of diversity and equality.

Albert V. Dicey, the noted British constitutional theorist, propounded a conception of the rule of law in terms of "the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary courts". The Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms endorses this conception of the rule of law. Section 15 of the Charter provides that “Every individual is equal before and under the law…". If the same law applies equally to every individual, what is the argument then concerning the importance of taking into account religious and cultural diversity in the legal system? Is it a question of acknowledging the different perceptions that these cultural or religious groups have regarding the law and the administration of justice in general, or rather that the Canadian legal system must adapt and change its substantive norms to reflect these different perceptions?

These issues play out in every aspect of the administration of justice: for the police, for civil and criminal courts and tribunals. This conference is thus relevant to all actors in the administration of justice.

Honorary Chair

• The Honourable Nicole Duval Hesler, Chief Justice of Quebec

Co-Chairs

• The Honourable Georgina R. Jackson, Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, CIAJ President
• Mr. Patrick A. Molinari, Ad. E., FRSC, Lavery, Montreal, CIAJ Vice-President

Planning Committee

• Professor Natasha Bakht, Faculty of Law - Common Law Section, University of Ottawa
• The Honourable Danielle Côté, Associate Chief Judge - Criminal and Penal Division, Court of Québec
• Ms. Rime El Rhoul, Student, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal
• Dean Jean-François Gaudreault-Desbiens, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal
• The Honourable Sheilah Martin, Court of Appeal for Alberta
• The Honourable Shaun Nakatsuru, Ontario Superior Court of Justice
• The Honourable James O’Reilly, Federal Court of Canada
• Professor Marilyn Poitras, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan
• Professor Martine Valois, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal

Date

Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Friday, October 7, 2016

Theme

What is the value of justice? Does justice have a price tag? The question is intriguing. But justice certainly has a cost. It is part of the world where material resources and time are limited. Can we put dollar figures on justice? Certainly. Should we? Therein lies the dilemma. Since justice is financed from public funds, some would argue that governments should be able to measure its quality, performance and accessibility. Governments are required to report on court house costs, delays and other expenses; and to those numbers must be added expenses incurred by litigants and the costs associated with the lack of justice i.e., self-representation or people abandoning rights recognized by our laws. The absence of reliable data on judicial activity poses many problems. The development of reforms based on inaccurate data and the absence of a documented monitoring of the implemented reforms within the justice system attest that the legal culture is not transparent.

What information does justice need about its own activity? What do we know about its activity? How can we improve the practice of law, and the processes of the law, and, thereby, improve access to justice? How can we better understand and measure the activities of our legal institutions? What are the underlying notions of justice? Can justice be measured? What are the social returns from offering the resolution of civil justice disputes in the courts? Whose job is it to decide how much justice a citizen gets? Whose job is it to decide about proportionality in justice? Can society countenance a $200,000 cost to the litigant, and the concomitant costs to the civil justice system, of a $50,000 dispute? By asking this question and seeking a solution to it, do we risk treating justice as a commodity to be packaged, bought and sold? In the absence of data, what steps is the system taking to improve and to provide the means to fulfill the fundamentals of civil justice? What insights can an economic focus lend to an analysis of how to improve civil justice? Are we offering too much or too little access? Do the courts have the tools to curb misuse and abuse that are taking civil justice dollars without giving a perceived value? If self-represented litigants are a consequence of expensive justice costs and also a cause of delay, should we be more focussed on them, and if so, how could this be done? Do courts need to direct private justice civil processes even more than they do now?

Honorary Chair

• The Honourable Justice Thomas Cromwell, Chair, Action Committee on Access to Civil and Family Justice

Co-Chairs

• The Honourable Justice Georgina R. Jackson, Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan; CIAJ President
• Mr. Patrick A. Molinari, Ad. E., FRSC, Legal Counsel, Lavery, Montreal

Planning Committee

• Mr. Mark Benton, Chief Executive Officer, Legal Services Society, British Columbia
• Dean Natalie Des Rosiers, Faculty of Law – Common Law Section, University of Ottawa
• Ms. Virginia A. Engel, Q.C., ICD.D, Partner, Peacock Linder Halt & Mack, Calgary
• Professor Trevor Farrow, Osgoode Hall Law School, President, Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, Toronto
• Mr. Michael Gottheil, Executive Chair, Social Justice Tribunals, Ontario
• Professor Ejan Mackaay, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal
• Ms. Michèle Moreau, Executive Director, CIAJ
• The Honourable Justice Yves-Marie Morissette, Court of Appeal of Quebec
• Professor Pierre Noreau, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal
• Ms. Tijana Potkonjak, Student, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
• Mr. John Sims, Past Deputy Minister and Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Ottawa
• Professor Martine Valois, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal
• Mr. Grant Wedge, Executive Director, Policy, Equity and Public Affairs, LSUC, Ontario

Date

Monday, September 12, 2016
Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Theme

The theme of the conference is the "new legislative counsel". It will begin by considering new political realities that have altered not only the policy content of legislation, but also the way it is developed and prepared, and indeed its political significance as a tool of government. Consideration will also be given to how the media and communications now affect the preparation and enactment of legislation.

The conference will then turn to the role of legislative counsel and how they can equip themselves to work in this new environment. It will include practical sessions focusing on the use of legislative precedents and technological innovations in drafting.

Topics include:

• Political Perspectives
• Communications Perspectives
• The Pull of Precedent
• The Roles of Legislative Counsel
• Technology and Drafting

Planning committee

• Ms. Annette Boucher
• Mr. Jean-François Couture
• Mr. Richard Denis
• Mr. Philippe Dufresne
• Ms. Janet Erasmus, Q.C.
• Mr. Philippe Hallée
• Ms. Laura Hopkins
• Mr. John Mark Keyes
• Ms. Barbara Kincaid
• Mr. Hoi Kong
• Ms. Melanie Mortensen
• Ms. Pamela Muir
• Mr. Peter Pagano, Q.C.
• Mr. Michel Patrice
• Mr. Mark Spakowski

Date

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Theme

Interpretation Acts are the lynch-pins of the statute book. They establish its structure and organizational principles. They define fundamental concepts that constantly recur in legislation. Lord Thring, the first First Parliamentary Counsel, said "It is the duty of every draftsman to know it by heart and to bear its definitions in mind in every bill which he draws."

This Webinar will consider Interpretation Acts, including the revised Model Interpretation Act recently adopted by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. It will also consider Interpretation Acts from an Australian perspective. 

The Webinar will be led by two of the most experienced legislative counsel in the Commonwealth: Peter Pagano, the Chief Legislative Counsel of Alberta, and Eamonn Moran, Commissioner of the Victorian Law Reform Commission and formerly the Chief Parliamentary Counsel of Victoria (Australia) and the Law Draftsman of Hong Kong.

Date

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Theme

Much legislation still mandates or contemplates the use of written material and processes that require paper documents.  The implementation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce through Electronic Transactions Acts in many jurisdictions has permitted the use of electronic technologies as an alternative to paper.  While legislation of this kind may be useful in the context of commercial transactions, it may not always clearly apply where government processes are involved.

This presentation will explore the problem of drafting legislation to allow for both paper and electronic processes, particularly in the governmental context. The key questions covered include:

• to what extent does the use in legislation of many apparently paper-centric terms (such as document, written, signature, sealed and certified) inhibit the implementation and use of electronic technologies?
• what role can interpretation legislation and Electronic Transactions Acts play?
• can judges, through the application of statutory interpretation principles, help?
• is it possible to future-proof legislation to cater for ongoing developments in electronic technologies?

Date

Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Friday, October 16, 2015

Theme

Following on the heels of the work of the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, this Conference presents a unique opportunity for everyone within the administration of justice to consider how best to work towards reconciliation. This Conference will be of interest to judges, lawyers, police officers, correction workers, court administrators, academics, law students, members of tribunals and community workers.

“Finally, this litigation has been both long and expensive, not only in economic but in human terms as well. By ordering a new trial, I do not necessarily encourage the parties to proceed to litigation and to settle their dispute through the courts. As was said in Sparrow, at p. 1105, s. 35(1) “provides a solid constitutional base upon which subsequent negotiations can take place.” Those negotiations should also include other aboriginal nations which have a stake in the territory claimed. Moreover, the Crown is under a moral, if not a legal, duty to enter into and conduct those negotiations in good faith. Ultimately, it is through negotiated settlements, with good faith and give and take on all sides, reinforced by the judgments of this Court, that we will achieve what I stated in Van der Peet, supra, at para. 31, to be a basic purpose of s. 35(1) -- “the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.” Let us face it, we are all here to stay.” Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Supreme Court of Canada) [1997] 3 SCR 1010, par. 186

Chair

• The Honourable Justice Georgina Jackson, Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Special Advisor

• The Honourable Justice Murray Sinclair, Court of Queen's Bench for Manitoba and Chair of the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Planning Committee

• Professor Beth Bilson, Acting Dean, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan
• Ms. Omeasoo Wahpasiw, Ph. D. Student, University of Saskatchewan
• Assistant Commissioner Brenda Butterworth-Carr, Commanding Officer, RCMP, "F" Division, Saskatchewan
• Ms. Maria Campbell, Author, artist, playwright and filmmaker, Saskatchewan
• Chief Tammy Cook Searson, Lac La Ronge Indian Band, Saskatchewan
• Chief Marie-Anne Daywalker, Okanese First Nation, Saskatchewan
• The Honourable Justice Jeffery D. Kalmakoff, Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan
• Ms. Leanne LaPrise, Law Student, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan
• Mr. Mitch McAdam, Director, Aboriginal Law Branch, Ministry of Justice of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK
• The Honourable Judge Gerald M. Morin, Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Prince Albert, SK
• Professor Marilyn Poitras, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan
• The Honourable Chief Justice Martel Popescul, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
• Ms. Riva Farrell Racette, Lawyer, MacPherson Leslie & Tyeman LLP, Regina, SK
• Mr. Marcel G. St-Onge, Director, Child and Family Programs, Ministry of Social Services, Saskatoon, SK
• Ms. Beth Symes, C.M., LSM
• Ms. Jan Turner, Assistant Deputy Minister, Courts and Tribunals Division, Ministry of Justice of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK
• Chief Clive Weighill, Saskatoon Police Service, President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
• Ms. Michèle Moreau, Executive Director, CIAJ, Montreal, QC

Date

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Theme

Les textes législatifs traitent constamment des documents et des moyens de communication numériques ayant des incidences juridiques, ce qui pose des grands défis rédactionnels dans un monde de changement technologique. Dans ce contexte, on parle souvent de neutralité technologique.

Or, comme l’avance la Cour fédérale d’appel dans la décision Société Radio-Canada c. Sodrac 2003 Inc. (2014 CAF 84), présentement en appel devant la Cour suprême du Canada, le principe de neutralité technologique peut être compris de différentes façons. Il peut s’agir d’une « neutralité de support » c’est-à-dire d’une règle selon laquelle la valeur d’un document ne dépend pas de son support (papier ou électronique). On peut aussi y voir une notion d’ « équivalence fonctionnelle »; le droit doit régir de la même façon les situations analogues, peu importe la technologie en cause. Enfin pour certains, et on trouve dans la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême des déclarations en ce sens, la règle de la neutralité technologique serait un principe d’interprétation beaucoup plus large, voulant que les lois s’appliquent uniformément, malgré la diversité technologique.

La présentation passera en revue ces différentes approches, fera une récapitulation des principales décisions où la Cour suprême du Canada a expressément fait référence à ce principe et présentera quelques-unes des difficultés que ces développements pourraient entraîner.

Date

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Theme

This conference is intended to bring together many of the actors responsible for ensuring equitable treatment for young persons with mental health problems who come into contact with the criminal justice system. Members of the police, mental health organizations, doctors, lawyers and judges will collaborate to present and discuss the latest developments and preferred practices at the often difficult intersection of criminal justice and mental health. The goals of the conference include updating attendees, fostering discussion and enabling participants to emerge with better tools and firmer links to other justice, health and social service professionals and to the community.

Organizing Committee

Co-Chairs

• The Honourable Justice Michele M. Murphy, Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal, Charlottetown, PE
• Superintendent Mike O'Malley, District Commander, West District, RCMP "J" Division, Fredericton, NB

Members

• Sgt. Andrew Blackadar, RCMP Policy Analyst and Crime Reduction Strategy for PEI, Charlottetown, PE
• Michele Dorsey, Chair, Criminal Code Review Board fro PEI, Charlottetown, PE
• The Honourable Justice William Goodridge, Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division, St. John's, NL
• Brian J. McKenna, Q.C., Executive Director, Strategic Initiatives, Charlottetown, PE

Date

Monday, September 8, 2014
Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Theme

This conference is organized by the CIAJ Legislative Drafting Committee chaired by John Mark Keyes, former Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada. The conference will address a variety of current issues relating to the use and making of regulatory instruments. It will begin by considering how the concept of “nudging” is changing the regulatory landscape by focusing on prompting behavioural changes rather than dictating conduct through legally binding rules. The conference will also look at many important and developing facets of regulatory instruments, including public engagement in regulatory development, drafting questions, incorporation by reference of standards, public access to legislation and parliamentary review of regulation-making. An update on recent case law relating to regulatory instruments will also be provided as well as an address by Mr. Justice Cromwell of the Supreme Court of Canada on Access to Law.

Planning committee

• John Mark Keyes (Chair)
• Mark Audcent
• Jean-François Couture
• Richard Denis
• Janet Erasmus, Q.C.
• Philippe Hallée
• Laura Hopkins
• Barbara Kincaid
• Professor Hoi Kong
• Pamela Muir
• Peter Pagano, Q.C.
• Kimberly Poffenroth
• Mark Spakowski

Date

Thursday, October 16, 2014
Friday, October 17, 2014

Theme

Technology has changed the nature and amount of information available, with direct effects on personal privacy.  There is a pressing need to examine the ways in which these changes are already affecting the criminal law, civil law, the courts, and administrative tribunals, and to begin to chart a principled path forward with respect to these issues.  The changing nature of information, and the attendant effects on privacy, impose new challenges on courts, tribunals, and the administration of justice as a whole.  Greater resources and greater capacity are required to manage and work with the increased volume and more technical nature of evidence, not only in document-intensive civil cases but across the full range of civil, criminal, an administrative matters.  More importantly, courts and tribunals will be the forums in which the evolving law on information and privacy will be determined.  Judges and administrative agency decision-makers will be the actors responsible for ensuring that both the state and private individuals are held appropriately accountable for their use of information, and that privacy interests are articulated and evolve appropriately.

Chair

• The Honourable Chief Justice J. Derek Green, Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, NL

Planning Committee

• Mr. Remzi Cej, Chair, Human Rights Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, NL
• Associate Dean Michael Deturbide, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
• Justice Alphonsus (Fonse) E. Faour, Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, NL
• Judge Colin Flynn, Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, NL
• Judge Patrick Healy, Court of Quebec, Montreal, QC
• Justice Louis Hoegg, Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, St. John's, NL
• Professor Nicolas Lambert, Faculty of Law, University of Moncton, Moncton, NB
• Mr. Paul McDonald, Partner, Cox & Palmer, St. John's, NL
• Deputy Chief Bill Moore, Halifax Regional Police, Halifax, NS
• Ms. Beth Symes, LSM, CM, Symes Street & Millard LLP, Toronto, ON
• Ms. Mandy Woodland, Mandy Woodland Law, St. John's, NL

Date

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Theme

How should tribunals apply the Charter and Human Rights Codes? Should they be required to use the traditional analyses employed by the courts, or should tribunals be permitted/expected to develop analyses suited to their particular jurisdiction?

Organizing Committee

Chair

• Ms. Andrea Smillie, Appeal Commissioner, Nova Scotia Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, Halifax, NS 

Members

• The Honourable Justice Joel Fichaud, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Halifax, NS
• Professor Nicolas Lambert, Faculty of Law, University of Moncton, Moncton, NB
• Ms. Michèle Moreau, CIAJ Executive Director, Montreal, QC
• Professor Sheila Wildeman, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
• Ms. Beth Symes, C.M., LSM, Symes Street & Millard, LLP, CIAJ President, Toronto, ON
• Mr. Ronald Pink, Q.C., Pink Larkin Lawyers, Halifax, NS

Date

Friday, February 1, 2013

Theme

This conference is intended to bring together many of the actors responsible for ensuring equitable treatment for persons with mental health problems who come into contact with the criminal justice system. As many challenging cases have revealed and as the ratification by Canada of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities mandates, this is a time for change. Persons with lived experience and their advocates, police officers, lawyers and judges, among others, will collaborate to present and discuss the latest developments and preferred practices at the often difficult intersection of criminal justice and mental health. The goals of the conference include updating attendees, fostering discussion and enabling participants to emerge with better tools and firmer links to other justice, health and social service professionals and to the community.

Organizing Committee

Co-Chairs

• The Honourable Judge Anne Derrick, Provincial Court of Nova Scotia, Chair, Hyde Inquiry, Halifax, NS
• The Honourable Justice Joel Fichaud, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Halifax, NS
• H. Archibald Kaiser, Professor, Schulich School of Law and Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS

Members

• Constable Michael Alford, RCMP Court Liaison Officer, Kings County, NS
• Staff Sergeant John D. Ennis, Advisory NCO Southwest Nova (District), New Minas, Kings County, NS
• Constable David Fairfax, Community Safety Resource Officer for the RCMP in Nova Scotia
• Ms. Emma Halpern, Equity Officer, Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, Halifax, NS
• Deputy Chief Bill Moore, Halifax Regional Police, Halifax, NS
• Beth Symes, C.M., LSM, Symes Street Millard, LLP, Toronto, ON

Date

Friday, November 15, 2013

Theme

Webinar on Legislative Drafting sponsored by the Post-Baccalaureate Diploma Program in Legislative Drafting at Athabasca University.

This 2-hour presentation will address practical issues in legislative drafting, based on the “Master Class” session of the 2013 Commonwealth Association of Legislative Counsel conference held April, 2013 in Cape Town, South Africa.

In the CALC master classes, senior drafters from around the Commonwealth participate in a drafting challenge where all participants are provided with the same set of instructions and directed to prepare the required legislation as if it were for their own jurisdiction. The usual results provide a fine demonstration of how different drafters using the same instructions can produce remarkably different but effective drafts.

This year Janet Erasmus, Senior Legislative Counsel with the British Columbia Office of Legislative Counsel, was a master class participant who took a different approach to the challenge. Her draft was not prepared to produce a perfect draft from the instructions, rather it was prepared to demonstrate drafting techniques she uses to invite effective instructions from the instructing officials. In Cape Town, the time for presentation was very short. In this CIAJ/ICAJ webinar, she will talk in more depth about those invitation techniques (both substantive and visual), as well as the readability techniques and other techniques she used in preparing the master class draft.

Date

Thursday, October 10, 2013
Friday, October 11, 2013

Theme

The recent evolution in the law of evidence is a vital topic for those interested in our legal system, whether a decision-maker, advocate, litigator, academic, teacher, student and or law-maker. In the past 25 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has ushered in a set of revolutionary changes to the rules of evidence in several areas, including witness competence, privilege, hearsay and similar act evidence. It has developed a “principled approach” designed to return evidence law to fundamental first principles while conforming to the normative commitments of the Charter. The conference will address how facts are established through rules of evidence in criminal cases and how evidence law impacts the legal system in family law mediation, administrative hearings, civil cases, public inquiries and commissions through innovative, comparative and theoretical perspectives.

Conference Co-Chairs

• The Honourable Chief Justice Annemarie Bonkalo, Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto, ON
• Professor Ronalda Murphy, Counsel, Crown Law Office – Civil Law, Ministry of the Attorney General (Ontario), Toronto, ON, and Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
• The Honourable Justice Gladys Pardu, Superior Court of Justice (Ontario), Toronto, ON
• Mr. Paul Schabas, Partner, Blakes Toronto, ON

Planning Committee

• Professor Emma Cunliffe, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
• Bart Danko, Osgoode Hall Law Student, Toronto, ON
• The Honourable Justice Georgina Jackson, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, CIAJ Vice-President, Regina, SK
• The Honourable Justice David Paciocco, Ontario Court of Justice, Ottawa, ON
• Dean Lorne Sossin, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, ON
• Beth Symes, LSM, CM, CIAJ President, Symes Street & Millard LLP, Toronto, ON

Watch videos here

Date

Monday, September 10, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Theme

This conference is organized by the CIAJ Legislative Drafting Committee co-chaired by Ms. Judith Keating, Q.C., Deputy Minister of Justice and Attorney General of New Brunswick and John Mark Keyes, Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada. The conference will examine the general structure of legislative systems, including the interplay of different forms of legislation with other regulatory instruments as well as regulatory reform and legislative revision. It will also include updates on recent case law on legislative matters,the impact of international accessibility standards on the publication of legislation and workshops on practical aspects such as ethical issues for legislative counsel and drafting provisions authorizing the making of delegated legislation or governing the commencement of legislation.

Planning committee

• Judith Keating, QC (Chair)
• Mark Audcent
• Pierre Charbonneau
• Richard Denis
• Janet Erasmus, QC
• Philippe Hallée
• Laura Hopkins
• John Mark Keyes
• Barbara Kincaid
• Peter Pagano, QC
• Michel Patrice
• Mark Spakowski

Date

Thursday, October 11, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012

Theme

Changes in the administration of justice pose challenges for the role of the Courts as the traditional guardians and determiners of fundamental rights, CIAJ's annual conference will consider the impact of these changes as to access to and the cost of justice, the ability of the Courts to adapt and respond, adequate accountability and transparency mechanisms and the necessity of broader structural approaches or legislative steps. The conference will be of interest to members of the legal profession, the judiciary, administrative agencies, arbitrators, mediators, government policy-makers, media and the public.

Conference Co-Chairs

• Greg Harding, Q.C., Partner, Field LLP, Edmonton, AB
• The Honourable Justice Sheilah Martin, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Calgary, AB
• Alastair Lucas, Q.C., Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
• Gillian Marriott, Q.C., Executive Director, Pro Bono Law Alberta, Calgary, AB

Planning Committee

• The Honourable Judge James Ogle, Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, AB
• The Honourable Justice Lorne Giroux, Quebec Court of Appeal, Quebec City, QC
• The Honourable John Vertes, formerly at the Supreme Court of Northwest Territories, CIAJ Immediate Past President, Calgary, AB
• Alastair MacKinnon, JD Student at Law, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
• Shaunna Mireau, Director of Knowledge Management and Libraries, Field LLP, Edmonton, AB
• Beth Symes, LSM, CM, CIAJ President, Symes Street & Millard LLP, Toronto, ON

Date

Monday, September 26, 2011

Theme

There are many programs that address the needs of people with mental challenges in the context of criminal justice: This session focuses on access to justice for those with mental challenges in our civil and administrative justice systems.

Co-Chairs

• Linda P. Lamoureux, Chair, Health Professions & Health Services Appeal & Review Boards, Ontario Hepatitis C Assistance Plan Review Committee, Transitional Physician Audit Panel, Toronto, ON
• Emanuela Heyninck, Commissioner, Pay Equity Commission, and Member, Health Professions and Services Appeal & Review Boards, Toronto, ON