We're pleased to be welcoming Professor Sandrine Ampleman-Tremblay (University of Alberta, Faculty of Law) for a lecture on the possibility of unifying incapacity-based defences in criminal law.

This will be a hybrid event, hosted on Thursday, October 1st at 12:00PM-1:00PM MST both in-person in the Law Centre (room 113) and online via Zoom.

To register for in-person attendance, please click the red button on the right-hand side of the page, or follow this link: Unifying Incapacity-Based Defences in Criminal Law | October 1 @ 12:00-1:00 PM MST | Eventbrite

To register for online attendance, please follow this link: Unifying Incapacity-Based Defences in Criminal Law | October 1 @ 12:00-1:00 PM MST | Zoom

Abstract: Automatism, self-induced extreme intoxication, NCRMD, and incapacity in the context of objective fault offences are among the most complex defences in Canadian criminal law. Their complexity stems from the convoluted relationship between the legal and scientific understandings of the concepts underlying these defences, as well as from the proliferation of distinct doctrines addressing a common principle: an accused who lacked the requisite capacity at the time of the offence should usually not incur criminal liability. Canadian case law adopts a source-based approach to incapacity. It requires courts to identify the key "source" of an accused’s incapacity and, on that basis, determine which defence applies. This approach overlooks the scientific phenomenon of co-morbidity, in which multiple conditions may simultaneously contribute to an individual’s incapacity, and, even if the absence of co-morbidity, often departs from scientific understandings of the condition behind the incapacity. The single-source approach also risks treating accused persons differently based on whether their incapacity is characterized as having a physical, mental, or substance-related source; distinctions that may have little bearing on whether the accused possessed the capacity required for criminal liability at the time of the offence.

This lecture reviews Canadian incapacity defences to identify their shared characteristics and argues that, in light of their similarities, they could be understood through a unified framework. It then proposes three alternative routes through which Canadian law could move toward a single incapacity defence.

We're excited to be hosting several webinars on the constitutional questions on the ballot in the upcoming Alberta referendum, starting with this session featuring Professor Dwight Newman (University of Saksatchewan, College of Law). Professor Newman will be unpacking ballot question 9, which concerns the way in which conflicts between federal and provincial laws ought to be managed. The webinar will be streamed via Zoom on September 22, 2026, at 12pm (MST). To register, please go here: Webinar Registration - Zoom

Webinar Description:

Question 9 of the upcoming Alberta referendum asks about amending the rules that apply when federal and provincial laws conflict. In this talk, Dr Dwight Newman, KC, FRSC from the University of Saskatchewan will start by accessibly explaining the basics of Canada's current rules upholding the paramountcy of federal laws over provincial laws. Then he will talk about how citizens might wish to critique these current rules. Attend to learn about a constitutional law topic that affects all our lives.

We're pleased to be hosting a book launch for two new books by professor Colton Fehr (University of Saskatchewan, College of Law): Rethinking Homicide: The Constitutional Case for Reform (McGill-Queen's University Press) and Cruel and Unusual: Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (University of Toronto Press).

The event will be hosted on Thursday, September 24th at 12:00PM-1:00PM MST. It will be a hybrid event, taking place both in-person in the University of Alberta Law Centre (room 113) and online via Zoom.

To register for in-person attendance, please click the red button on the right-hand side of the page, or follow this link: Colton Fehr Book Launch | September 24 @ 12:00-1:00 PM MST | Eventbrite

To register for online attendance, please follow this link: Colton Fehr Book Launch | September 24 @ 12:00-1:00 PM MST | Zoom

Book Synopsis: Rethinking Homicide: The Constitutional Case for reform (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2026)

Critics describe homicide law in Canada as outdated and unprincipled in application. While early jurisprudence compelled limited reform, constitutional challenges subsided near the turn of the twentieth century, and legislative amendments have been rare and piecemeal.

Rethinking Homicide makes a compelling case for constitutionally restructuring homicide law and considers how Parliament might respond. Colton Fehr contends that the distinctions between first- and second-degree murder and manslaughter unfairly label some offenders, challenges the infanticide provision, and explains why the provocation defence has no constitutional status and should be repealed. He also argues that murder’s exclusion from the duress defence is inconsistent with the principle prohibiting conviction for morally involuntary conduct. From that principle, Fehr develops a broader constitutional structure for substantive defences implicated by homicide offences. He further contends that the minimum sentences applicable to homicide constitute cruel and unusual punishment. In response, Parliament will have to choose between a sentencing safety valve and a diminished responsibility defence, with the former option being the preferable policy.

The arguments offered in Rethinking Homicide provide a timely and important contribution to criminal law. Scholars, judges, and lawyers alike will appreciate its much-needed contemplation of the Charter within this core area of criminal law.

Book Synopsis: Cruel and Unusual: Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (University of Toronto Press, 2026)

Cruel and Unusual presents an overview and critical discussion surrounding the judicial interpretation of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This book explains the various components of section 12 including the judicial development and application of the terms “punishment,” “treatment,” and “cruel and unusual.” It provides a rigorous discussion of the remedies available upon proving that the state imposed “cruel and unusual” consequences, as well as whether any law mandating such a draconian-sounding consequence may be justified under section 1 of the Charter. Colton Fehr puts forward various reform recommendations and criticisms of current doctrine. He contends that the judicial development of section 12 and its methodology for proving an infringement provide a principled framework upon which to consider a variety of issues that are sure to come before the courts including the consideration of the constitutionality of various minimum sentences and other methods of treatment used in Canadian prisons.

Written in a concise and accessible manner, Cruel and Unusual is tailored to both law students seeking to develop an understanding of this complex area of law and jurists seeking to apply and develop this important constitutional right.

The Centre for Constitutional Studies, the University of Alberta Department of Political Science, the Peter Lougheed School of Politics and Democracy, and the Kule Institute for Advanced Study are pleased to be hosting a public workshop on the Alberta independence movement. This full-day workshop will bring together a group of interdisciplinary experts to unpack what to expect in the lead-up to and aftermath of an independence referendum.

Please note that tickets for this workshop are now sold out. A recording will be posted to our website and YouTube channel following the event.

We're delighted to host Andrew Coyne as our 36th annual McDonald lecturer.

The lecture will take place on Tuesday, March 24 at 12:30PM-1:30PM MDT in the McLennan Ross lecture hall at the University of Alberta's Law Centre.

To register, please click the red button on the right side of the page.

Lecture Title:

Democracy, Rights, Nationhood and Federalism

Lecture Abstract:

A federation, to cohere in face of its differences, must think of itself as a nation. Nationhood is rooted in what we hold in common: common citizenship, common rights, common obligations, and common purpose.

We're pleased to be welcoming Professor Gerard Kennedy (University of Alberta, Faculty of Law) for a lecture on sections 25-31 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This hybrid event will be held on March 12th at 12:00PM-1:00PM MST in room 113 of the Law Centre and online via Zoom.

To register for in-person attendance, please click the red button on the right-hand side of the page, or follow this link: They're All Interpretive | March 12 @ 12:00-1:00 PM MST | Eventbrite

To register for online attendance, please follow this link: They're All Interpretive | March 12 @ 12:00-1:00 PM MST | Zoom

Abstract: The "General" Provisions of the Charter – grouped together under sections 25-31 – have been the subject of increased interest in recent years through cases such as Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and English Montreal School Board, et al v Attorney General of Quebec, et al. This lecture explores this, doctrinally, historically, and theoretically, with aims that are both doctrinal and theoretical. It is posited that these provisions share important commonalities, notably by not being rights-granting in and of themselves, but by indicating how other provisions in the constitution are to be interpreted. There is nonetheless significant difference between the provisions, with some being "purely" interpretive guides, while others are "trumps" that direct how to resolve potential conflicts in the constitution.

We're pleased to be welcoming Jaclyn McNamara and Victoria Vicks from Olthuis Kleer Townshend LLP for a lecture on the BC Supreme Court's 2025 Cowichan Tribes decision and its implications for private property rights. This is the second in our two-part lecture series on Aboriginal title.

Abstract: In Cowichan Tribes, the court declared that the Cowichan Tribes have Aboriginal title over certain privately-owned lands, and that some of those lands should be returned to the Cowichan Tribes. This landmark decision reaffirms the constitutional and unique nature of Aboriginal title, while acknowledging the need for reconciliation with existing private property rights. It is a clear signal to the Crown that it needs to proactively deal with longstanding, unresolved land claims through good faith negotiations with Aboriginal title holders. This presentation will highlight how the decision in Cowichan Tribes came to be, the implications for governments, Aboriginal title holders, and private property owners, and where we can go from here.

We're pleased to be welcoming Professor Robert Hamilton (University of Calgary, Faculty of Law) for a lecture on the New Brunswick Court of Appeal's 2025 Wolastoqey Nation decision and its implications for Aboriginal title. This is the first in our two-part lecture series on Aboriginal title.

Abstract: The New Brunswick Court of Appeal recently held that a declaration of Aboriginal title is not available where lands are held by private parties. That is, even where title might otherwise be established, the existence of private interests prevents courts from recognizing Aboriginal title and limit available remedies to compensation. This presentation considers the NBCA's decision and what it may mean for groups claiming aboriginal title.

We're pleased to welcome Justice Colin C.J. Feasby from the Alberta Court of King's Bench for a lecture on democratic theory.

Abstract: Legal academics and political scientists question whether courts faced with democracy issues should be guided by political theory. Justice Feasby will argue that the text and structure of the constitution force judges to confront different aspects of political theory. The real question, according to Justice Feasby, is what kind of theory (or theories) judges should adopt. He will argue that an underlying theory of the state and three different democratic theories can be discerned from the Supreme Court of Canada’s democracy jurisprudence. These theories, sometimes in tension with one another, are manifested in different types of cases and different aspects of constitutional analysis. Justice Feasby explains that there is a coherent theoretical foundation for Canada’s law of democracy that provides useful guidance for judges confronted with democracy issues.

We're pleased to welcome Scott Fairley (Cambridge LLP) for a lecture on his newly released book, Foreign Affairs in the Canadian Constitution.

This hybrid event will be held on January 29 at 12:00PM MST in room 113 of the Law Centre and online via Zoom.

To register for in-person attendance, please click the red button on the right-hand side of the page, or follow this link: Foreign Affairs in the Canadian Constitution | January 29 @ 12:00-1:00 PM MST | Eventbrite

To register for online attendance, please follow this link: Foreign Affairs in the Canadian Constitution | January 29 @ 12:00-1:00 PM MST | Zoom 

Abstract: This book challenges siloed understandings of treaty-making (federal) and treaty implementation (federal or provincial depending on subject matter, regardless of the international context) with a view to bringing them together under a single subject, as its title suggests. However, it does so, mindful that Canada remains a diverse federal state spread over a vast territory. My account does not seek to drive a cart and a horse through constitutionally allocated provincial powers. What I do say, however, is that the "international" makes the "local" of national interest and importance for purposes of federal competence to act comprehensively for that purpose, both at the executive level and through Parliament as a key part of federal residual powers for the Peace, Order and Good Government of the Nation (or POGG for short). Federal trade and commerce cases have also been very helpful in conveying a similarly principled message. There are chapters on both. In this, I am perhaps a little ahead of the Supreme Court of Canada on point, but that court is not far behind. We might even go so far as to say that our current government is leading with its chin in this area in seeking new allies to augment or replace our now mercurial neighbor to the south and trying to pull off grand projects in the national interest, in part, to nurture those relationships.