We're excited to be hosting several webinars on the constitutional questions on the ballot in the upcoming Alberta referendum, continuing with this session featuring Professor Erin Crandall (Acadia University, Department of Politics). Professor Crandall will be unpacking ballot question 6, which concerns the appointment of judges to the provincial Courts of King's Bench and Courts of Appeal.

The webinar will be streamed via Zoom on October 15, 2026, at 12:00-1:00 PM (MST). To register, please go here: Webinar Registration - Zoom

Webinar Description:

Question 6 in Alberta’s upcoming referendum asks whether the constitution should be amended to give provincial governments, rather than the federal government, responsibility for selecting judges for provincial Courts of King’s Bench and Courts of Appeal. In this webinar, Dr. Erin Crandall of Acadia University will explain how judges are currently appointed and examine how different views of federalism shape critiques of the appointments process. She will also discuss why public confidence in judicial appointments matters for Canadian courts.

We're excited to be welcoming Professor Feo Snagovsky (University of Alberta, Department of Political Science) for a seminar on Alberta separatism.

This will be an in-person only event, hosted on Wednesday, October 14th at 12:00-1:30 PM in the Law Centre (room 231/237). To register to attend, please click the red button on the right-hand side of the page, or follow the link HERE.

Abstract: Who supports Alberta separatism, what do they want, and how are they pursuing their goals? This talk explores how a broad push for greater leverage within Canada has become shaped by a smaller but influential far-right populist faction seeking independence and a rollback of progressive policies.

We're pleased to be welcoming Professor Kent Roach (University of Toronto, Faculty of Law) for a lecture on the future of the RCMP in Alberta. Professor Roach will be joined by Professor Steven Penney as discussant.

This will be a hybrid event, hosted on Wednesday, October 7th at 12:15PM-1:15 PM 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: The Future of the RCMP in Alberta | October 7 @ 12:15-1:15 PM MST | Eventbrite

To register for online attendance, please follow this link: The Future of the RCMP in Alberta | October 7 @ 12:15-1:15 PM MST | Zoom

Abstract: This talk by Professor Kent Roach will examine the future of the RCMP with special attention to plans to replace RCMP contract policing with a new Alberta police service, the challenges of the RCMP's contract, and rural and remote policing as well as its federal policing role. The role of Indigenous and territorial police services as possible replacements for the RCMP will also be examined.

We're excited to be partnering with the Legal Education Society of Alberta (LESA) for the Patricia Paradis Constitutional Law Symposium this October.

This symposium will examine pressing and evolving issues in Canadian constitutional law. Join leading scholars and practitioners to explore topics including:

• Legal Pluralism, One Judicial System: When and How Canadian Courts Engage with Indigenous Laws
• Climate Federalism
• “Speaking with Counsel”: A Phrase of Constitutional Significance
• Insolvency Law and the Charter
• Legislated Standards of Review and Constitutional Values: Can We Legislate How Constitutional Review is Conducted?

This program honours Patricia Paradis, former Executive Director of the Centre for Constitutional Studies. It is intended for lawyers and academics who are interested in constitutional law.

The full-day symposium will be hosted on Friday, October 23, 2026 from 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. Attendance is available both in-person at LESA's program space (Suite 1401, 10088-102 Avenue, Edmonton AB) and online via livestream. Please note that there is a registration fee of $50 + GST for all types of tickets. Register through LESA here.

***

Symposium Topics

Legal Pluralism, One Judicial System: When and How Canadian Courts Engage with Indigenous Laws
This panel examines when and how it is appropriate for Canadian courts to interpret and apply Indigenous laws. Panelists will discuss how Indigenous laws, as part of living legal traditions, enter Canadian legal analysis, including evidentiary recognition through oral histories, expert opinions, and accounts of traditional ceremonies and practices. Even though courts’ engagement with Indigenous laws is not something new (e.g. Woolrich v Connolly, Casimel, Delgamuukw, Tsilhqot’in), there are still questions regarding whether Canadian courts are competent and equipped to apply Indigenous laws as independent sources of authority, in all their depth and complexity, rather than as mere evidentiary inputs into common law. This includes assessing the implications of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and its emphasis on legal pluralism and self-determination. Attention will be paid to methodological challenges: how courts interpret Indigenous legal orders without distorting them, the risks of judicial translation into common law categories, and the institutional limits of Canadian courts as forums for plural legal expression. The panel is designed for legal practitioners seeking to understand how jurisprudential trends are redefining the boundaries between Canadian and Indigenous legal orders and what this means for litigation strategy, judicial education, and the broader project of reconciliation.

Climate Federalism 4.0?
There is no tidy formula for periodizing and characterizing climate governance in Canada, particularly when accounting for the federal-provincial dynamics which colour and define different regulatory epochs. By some accounts, Canada traversed three intersecting phases of climate federalism between 1990 and 2025, including a period of consensus decision-making (1990-2007), a phase of province-led initiatives (2007-2016), and an era of federal dominance (2016-2024). A combination of global and domestic developments, beginning with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, punctuated by Donald Trump’s election in the United States in 2024, and culminating in Mark Carney’s emergence as Canada’s prime minister in 2025, appear to have ushered in a new dispensation of climate federalism in Canada.

While ex-post periodization has its usefulness, identifying ongoing trends is essential both epistemically and functionally. The objective of this panel is to understand the current state of climate federalism in Canada. Several questions beg for answers. Is Canada truly in a new phase of climate federalism (climate federalism 4.0)? What are the characteristics of Canada’s current iteration of climate federalism? What are the constitutional issues likely to emerge from the current iteration? To what extent does Canada’s current climate federalism align with or diverge from its constitutional framework? Is the prevailing climate governance framework constitutionally consistent while lacking the ambition and urgency climate change requires? And what lessons from Canada’s history of climate federalism are helpful for understanding and addressing the current dispensation of climate federalism?

“Speaking with Counsel”: A Phrase of Constitutional Significance
Section 10(b) of the Charter provides a constitutional right to counsel for detainees. Recent jurisprudence across Canada has highlighted some tensions in the interpretation of this fundamental right, including, notably, the sufficiency of the one-time consultation, issues pertaining to the legal awareness of the detainee, and the impact of a more detailed definition of police duties under section 10(b) on other Charter rights.

Insolvency Law and the Charter
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines some of our cardinal legal rights and freedoms, but is generally viewed as limiting government power not private actors. Insolvency law enables private actors to discharge or restructure their indebtedness. At first blush, it may appear that the Charter has little applicability to insolvency law. To the contrary, this panel will explore some of the ways in which the Charter can engage with insolvency law and, in doing so, contribute to the larger conversation around the relevance of the Charter in private law.

Legislated Standards of Review and Constitutional Values: Can We Legislate How Constitutional Review is Conducted?
This panel will address the intersection between constitutional law and statutory interpretation, considering how “values” and “purposes” from the constitution should affect statutory interpretation, even when the statute’s constitutionality is not challenged. This panel will also address the extent, if any, that the manner of constitutional review can be prescribed by legislation, particularly looking at experiences in British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba.

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.