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).

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/.

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

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.

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.

If law, including constitutional law, is downstream from politics, what are the implications for federalism in Canada? Barry Cooper, Professor of Political Science at the University of Calgary, joins Runnymede Radio to discuss the Free Alberta Strategy and its cornerstone, the Alberta Sovereignty Act, including the notion that this Act was drawn up as "unconstitutional on purpose".


For further reading, take a look at "Geoffrey Sigalet and Jesse Hartery: The critics were wrong about Danielle Smith’s Alberta Sovereignty Act."

Does the Notwithstanding clause turn off rights protected by the Charter? Does it preserve those rights by requiring courts to stay silent while legislatures alone interpret their bounds? Or are courts always available to provide a remedy? This episode features political science professor Geoffrey Sigalet and lawyer Eric Mendelsohn.

For further reading, take a look at the following articles:

Grégoire Webber, Eric Mendelsohn & Robert Leckey  "The faulty received wisdom around the notwithstanding clause" (Policy Options, 2019)
Maxime St-Hilaire and Xavier Foccroulle Ménard, "Nothing to Declare: A Response to Grégoire Webber, Eric Mendelsohn, Robert Leckey, and Léonid Sirota on the Effects of the Notwithstanding Clause" (Constitutional Forum, 2020)
Grégoire Webber, “Notwithstanding rights, review, or remedy? On the notwithstanding clause and the operation of legislation” (University of Toronto Law Journal, 2021)
Robert Leckey & Eric Mendelsohn, “The Notwithstanding Clause: Legislatures, Courts, and the Electorate” ( University of Toronto Law Journal,   2022)
Geoffrey Sigalet, "The Truck and the Brakes: Understanding the Charter's Limitations and Notwithstanding Clauses Symmetrically" (Supreme Court Law Review, 2022)
Grégoire Webber, “The notwithstanding clause, the operation of legislation, and judicial review” (Queen's University Legal Research Paper, 2022)
Geoffrey Sigalet, “Legislated Rights as Trumps: Why the Notwithstanding Clause Overrides Judicial Review” (Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 2023)

Is free speech protected in Canada? Christine Van Geyn, Litigation Director, and Josh Dehaas, Counsel, for the Canadian Constitution Foundation join us to talk about their latest book, "Free Speech in Canada." The book provides a history of this important right and how it has evolved. This episode features guest host Sam Benzaquen, Vice President of the Runnymede Society’s student chapter at McGill University.

How can legal professionals better understand the meaning of the Canadian constitution? MP Scott Reid and Michael J. Scott discuss Primary Documents, "a searchable database of historical documents relating to the drafting and adoption of the Constitution of Canada." Their work aims to facilitate legal research and provide a better understanding of Canada's constitutional law and history. For more information, take a look at their website, primarydocuments.ca.

Did Canada breach its constitutional agreement with Alberta, prompting the creation of the Alberta Sovereignty Act? Professor Geoffrey Sigalet from the University of British Columbia and Jesse Hartery, Ph.D. candidate at Melbourne Law School, discuss the Alberta Sovereignty Act. This episode features guest host Jacob McConville, president of the Runnymede Society's student chapter at McGill University. For further reading, take a look at their joint paper, "The Frontiers of Nullification and Anticommandeering: Federalism and Extrajudicial Constitutional Interpretation."

Thank you for listening to Runnymede Radio! Tim Haggstrom, the host of Runnymede Radio and the Runnymede Society's National Director, has a special message for our listeners, reflecting on this past season's episodes and discussing our idea for next season's theme: self-censorship in Canadian law schools. Feel free to contact us and send your ideas for next season by emailing us at communications@runnymedesociety.ca.

Can administrative decisions be shielded from judicial scrutiny by section 33 of the Charter?  Professor Andy Yu from Western University discusses his forthcoming paper on whether legislators can pass on to administrative bodies the immunity afforded by the notwithstanding clause.

How can we remain committed to free speech while addressing misinformation and disinformation in our democracies? Has social media "aggravated the harm of speech and made legal responses less practical"? Professor Richard Moon of the University of Windsor dives into these important questions and more in his latest appearance on Runnymede Radio, building upon his latest book, The Life and Death of Freedom of Expression.

How will Bill C-63, commonly known as the Online Harms Act, impact Canada’s Human Rights Commission and Tribunal? Professor Dave Snow of the University of Guelph, discusses how descriptive statistics can help us understand the significant changes that Bill C-63 is expected to bring.

Should the Senate avoid adopting bills that invoke Section 33 and risk being struck down by the Charter? Professor Ryan Alford of Lakehead University’s Bora Laskin Faculty of Law breaks down a controversial motion introduced into the Senate in May 2024 that could lead to deadlock between the House of Commons and the Senate.

What is the force and scope of the Charter in administrative contexts? Professor Mark Mancini of Thompson Rivers University tackles this issue by taking a look at key cases that have marked significant shifts in the role that the Charter has played in administrative law.