The Centre for Constitutional Studies is thrilled to be hosting a book launch for our newly released special double issue of the Review of Constitutional Studies (RCS 29:2 and 29:3). This special issue, which is titled "Our More Than Human Constitutions," was guest edited by Professors Jessica Eisen (University of Alberta) and Lindsay Borrows (Queen's University). It comprises contributions from scholars in an array of academic fields -- including Indigenous law, environmental law, and animal law -- on the ways in which our legal orders, Indigenous and state, approach the regulation of the more-than-human.

Our launch event for this special issue will feature Professors Eisen and Borrows, alongside several of the issue's contributors: Hannah Askew (Sierra Club BC), Professor Darcy Lindberg (University of Victoria), Professor Pamala Spalding (University of Victoria), and Professor Stepan Wood (University of British Columbia).

This event will be hosted online via Zoom on Wednesday, November 19, 2025 from 12:00PM-1:00PM. To register for the webinar, please click the red button on the right side of this page, or follow this link.

We're pleased to welcome Professor Margot Young from the University of British Columbia's Peter A. Allard School of Law to discuss the 2024 SCC Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation decision.

This hybrid event will be held on November 17 at 12:00PM in room 231 of the Law Centre and online via zoom.

To register to attend in person, click the link on the right side of the page or click HERE.

To register to attend online, click HERE.

Lecture Abstract:

There are several important narratives to be pulled from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation. The decision is long and complex, spanning three separate judgments. This lecture looks at a few particular aspects: the assessment across each judgment of the applicability of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the Vuntut Gwitchin government and the elaborations of the import of section 25 of the Charter that follow findings that the Charter applies. The lecture's argument teases out the centrality assigned to liberal understandings of constitutional relations, of government, and of the rights the Charter protects. Caution issues about judicial resort to the notion of "Indigenous difference" as reference point for the scope of section 25. The lecture concludes that a majority of the judges sidestep engagement with the critical recasting of constitutional relations and justice that decolonization demands.

The Centre is pleased to host a lecture by Caleb Behn, Lands Manager with West Moberly First Nation. Caleb will be delivering a lecture titled "Killing Law Quietly: The Battles over UNDRIP Implementation."

This event will be held in-person on Thursday, October 16 in the Law Centre (Room 231/237) from 12:00PM-1:00PM.

To register, please use the red button on the side of this page or go HERE.

The Centre is excited to announce that we'll be hosting a launch event for Challenging Exile: Japanese Canadians and the Wartime Constitution by Professors Eric Adams (University of Alberta, Faculty of Law) and Jordan Stanger-Ross (University of Victoria, History Department). Join us for food, drinks, and a short talk by co-author Professor Adams, as well as comments on the book by Jessica Eisen (U of A, Law), Dominique Clement (U of A, Sociology), and Aya Fujiwara (U of A, History). It will take place at 5:30pm on October 21st, in the City Room (5th floor) of Peter Lougheed Hall (University of Alberta).

This event is co-sponsored by the University of Alberta Faculty of Law and the Prince Takamado Japan Centre for Teaching and Research.

To register, click the link below, or click the red button to the right.

Challenging Exile Book Launch Tickets, Tues Oct 21, 2025 at 5:30 PM | Eventbrite

Book Abstract:

In September 1945, Canada proposed exiling Japanese Canadians to Japan, a country devastated by war. Thousands who had experienced internment and dispossession were now at risk of banishment.

In Challenging Exile, Eric M. Adams and Jordan Stanger-Ross detail the circumstances and personalities behind the exile. They follow the lives of families facing government orders that uprooted them from their homes, stripped them of their livelihoods and possessions, and proposed to exile them from Canada. And they analyze the court case in which lawyers and judges grappled with the meaning of citizenship, race, and rights in times of war and its aftermath.

Unfolding in a context of global conflict, sharpened borders, and racist suspicion, the story told in Challenging Exile has enduring relevance for our own troubled times.

The Centre is excited to host a Zoom lecture by Andrew Stobo Sniderman, an SJD candidate at Harvard Law School and co-author of the acclaimed book, Valley of the Birdtail: An Indian Reserve, a White Town, and the Road to Reconciliation (along with Professor Douglas Sanderson). To register, please use the red button on the side of this page or go HERE.

Lecture Abstract

Canada’s belated legal reckoning with unequal public services on Indian reserves is only beginning. This article proceeds in two main parts. First, I address a puzzle: even though the problem of deficient services on reserves endured for decades – and, in many respects, endures still – Canadian courts have hardly addressed its constitutionality. This constitutional silence can appear surprising, even astonishing. Second, I suggest that the curiously neglected section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which calls for "reasonably comparable services" and "essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians," should inform the constitutional conversation about unequal services on reserves. The exclusion of reserves from equalization, a principle enshrined in section 36, is a largely-overlooked legal omission that has enabled the problem to fester. Conceiving of section 36's components as "directive principles" – neither enforceable fundamental rights nor empty political aspirations – helps unlock new possibilities for judicial and political use, particularly in light of the treatment of directive principles in other countries. The language of section 36 has never been explicitly used by a Canadian judge as an interpretive aid. But this should change.

We're pleased to welcome Professor Michael Pal from the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law to discuss the right to vote under section 3 of the Charter.

This event will be held at 12:00PM in room 101 of the Law Centre.

To register, click the link on the right side of the page.

Lecture Abstract:

The right to vote guaranteed by section 3 of the Charter is in a period of rapid evolution, after the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Frank, City of Toronto, and Working Families. This lecture argues that the history of section 3, the text of the Charter, and the contemporary case law suggest that the answers to three questions will define the ‘new right to vote.’ First, what is the proper relationship of section 3 to other democratic rights and freedoms? Second, what are the implications of the more frequent use of the notwithstanding clause for section 3? Third, is there a ‘positive’ dimension of the right to vote? The lecture argues that the scope of the new right to vote will be closely tied to the answers to these questions. It sets out responses to each in light of Canada’s democratic tradition and the reality of global challenges to democracy.

Please join us for the launch of Public Law: Cases, Commentary, and Analysis (5th Edition), with authors Professor Gerard Kennedy (University of Alberta, Faculty of Law), Professor Emeritus Philip Bryden (University of Alberta, Faculty of Law), Malcolm Lavoie (Government of Alberta, Ministry of Justice), and Professor Frankie Young (University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law).

This is a free event open to all members of the community. It will be held in-person at Peter Lougheed Hall in the City Room on the 5th floor. Catering will be provided. To register, click the link below, or click the red button to the right.

Public Law: Cases, Commentary, and Analysis Tickets, Mon Sep 8, 2025 at 6:00 PM | Eventbrite

Book Description

Public Law: Cases, Commentary, and Analysis, 5th Edition is the only text of its kind devoted exclusively to public law in Canada. Serving as a primer on the subject, this title will educate students about the importance of statutes and regulations both as forms of law and as political responses to pressing issues in Canadian society. This text demonstrates concepts, principles, constraints, and theory in a direct and accessible manner, contextualized with carefully selected case excerpts. Cases are presented with insightful author commentary, which offers a compelling, cohesive introduction to the subject of public law.

We're excited to be hosting an online talk by Chinese lawyer and political activist Teng Biao, who'll be presenting on some of the tensions within China's party-state system on April 16th at 12pm MST. To register, click the button on the right of this page or go here: https://ualberta-ca.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_CcFO5czRS2yofFkyrNqBIA.

***

The Centre for Constitutional Studies is pleased to welcome Dr. Ryan Beaton from Vancouver's Power Law to discuss enfranchisement and current constitutional challenges relating to loss of status under the Indian Act. This event will be held at 12:00pm in room 231A of the Law Centre. Lunch will be provided.

Lecture Abstract:

From the pre-confederation "Gradual Civilization Act" through various iterations of the Indian Act up to 1985, Canadian law provided mechanisms for "Indians" to apply for "enfranchisement", renouncing their Indian status in exchange for such benefits as the right to vote and to keep their children out of residential schools. The Indian Act today continues to deny status to thousands of individuals based on a family history of enfranchisement. This talk will give an overview of the history of enfranchisement and describe the lawsuit filed in June 2021 (and now proceeding through the courts following an attempted legislative solution, Bill C-38, killed by prorogation) by members of three families challenging the legacy of enfranchisement under the Indian Act.