|
Subject-matter of presentation
|
Presenters
|
|
September 14,
2007
Section 2(b) (Freedom of Expression) and Section 1 (Justification)
(1) “Just about anything qualifies as expression,
even the worst possible child pornography, and just about any restraint on it
is ruled as a s. 2(b)
breach, sending the matter to s. 1. This approach trivializes the Charter. Matters should not be so readily sent to s.
1, where the onus
lies on government to justify its positions.
(2) “The test for justification under s. 1 can be strict (more difficult
for government to meet) or deferential (easier for government to meet). The Supreme Court of Canada has identified certain
types or categories of cases that fall into the “deferential” category. On the whole, the categories do not make
sense.”
|
(1) Presenter for “pro” side:
Brendan Stock
Presenter for “con” side:
Maria
Bursey
(2)
Presenter for “pro” side:
Yashoda Ranganathan
Presenter for “con” side:
Brad Chaplick
|
|
September 21,
2007
Section 15 (Equality Rights) and Section 1 (Justification)
(3) “The Supreme Court did a wonderful job
in the Law case and later developments
are largely positive.”
(4)
Analyze the N.A.P.E.
decision. “Its s. 1 approach is sound.”
|
(3)
Presenter for “pro” side:
Michael Perlin
Presenter for “con” side:
Donna Wilson
(4)
Presenter for “pro” side:
Matthew Anderson
Presenter for “con” side:
Tim
Robbins
|
|
September 28,
2007
Criminal Law Rights
(5)
“In recent years, fundamental criminal law rights, such as the right to
pre-trial disclosure, the right against search and seizure, the right against
arbitrary detention, the right to silence and the right to counsel, have been
undercut inappropriately. There is
supposed to be a balance between control of state and police power and
protection of the rights of the person on the one hand and on the other hand
furthering effective law enforcement.
The balance is currently wrong: the latter is inappropriately favoured
over the former.”
|
(5)
Three presenters for “pro” side: 1. Jennifer Stewart
2.
Mat Johnson
3.
Three presenters for “con” side:
1. David R. Parke
2. Cameron Grant
3.
|
|
October 12,
2007
Section 7
(6)
“The Chaouilli decision is a
really bad legal decision: it is full of poor analysis and it is a dangerous
venture beyond the proper role of the Court”
(7) “Justice Arbour’s minority reasons on
the s. 7 Charter issues in Gosselin are terrific and should be adopted by the Supreme Court
in a future case. The meaning of
‘liberty and security of the person’ in s. 7 should be broadened exactly as she suggests.”
|
(6) Presenter for “pro” side:
Jeff
Fung
Presenter for “con” side:
Tim
Fish
(7)
Presenter for “pro” side:
Alexandra
Saginur
Presenter for “con” side:
Kim Newton
|
|
October 19,
2007
Unwritten Principles / Quebec Secession / Constitutional
Interpretation
(8)
“The recent unwritten constitutional principles jurisprudence is a
welcome development in Canadian constitutional law” (assessment of what is
“good constitutional law” and what is “bad constitutional law”)
(9) Conduct a legal analysis of the
following scenario: 53%
yes vote in Quebec in favour of separation, Quebec introduces a separation
Bill. What then ensues? What challenges? What legal tactics and proceedings might
eventuate?
|
(8)
Presenter for “pro” side:
Orna
Raubfogel
Presenter for “con” side:
Taylor
Ransom
(9)
Single presenter
Chantalle
Fish
|
|
November 2,
2007
Aboriginal Rights
(10)
“The area of aboriginal rights is an area where the Supreme Court has
not been mindful of its proper role, with the result that we are stuck with certain
inappropriate judge-made approaches in this area that do little for the
welfare of aboriginal peoples”.
|
(10)
Presenter for “pro” side:
Shaunna Kelly
Presenter for “con” side:
Jonathan
Burshtein
|
|
November 16,
2006
Administrative law / Division of Powers
(11)
“The Charter applies too
much to the activities of administrative tribunals.”
(12)
“The area of division of powers is boring: there are really no new
developments worth speaking about.”
|
(11)
Presenter for “pro” side:
Presenter for “con” side:
(12)
Presenter for “pro” side:
David Kramer
Presenter for “con” side:
Monica Chohan
|
|
November 30,
2006
Remedies
(13)
“The law of Charter remedies
is overly restrictive and is not designed to vindicate Charter rights”
|
(13)
Presenter for “pro” side:
David R. Parke
Presenter for “con” side:
Carey Allen
|
|
December 7,
2006
Judicial Appointment / Constitutional
Amendment
(14)
“The current system of appointing judges should be reformed.”
(15)
“I support certain amendments to the constitution. The amendments I support are
_____________.”
|
(14)
Presenter for “pro” side:
Presenter for “con” side:
(15)
Up to two presenters:
|