Advertise on podcast: Runnymede Radio

Has the Charter strengthened Canadian constitutionalism, or has its interpretation by courts undermined the relationship between citizens, legislatures, and the judiciary? In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we visit Runnymede's UBCO Student Chapter, where Prof. Mark Mancini (TRU) explores one of Canada's most important constitutional debates with undergraduate students. Responding to ongoing academic debates and media commentary questioning the Charter's impact on Canadian society, Prof. Mancini compares recent judicial decisions with early Charter jurisprudence to examine whether today's criticisms of the Charter reflect problems inherent in the Charter itself, or in how courts have interpreted it. Introduced by Student Chapter leader Jenna Bierwirth, the session offers an accessible and interactive introduction to constitutional law, with undergraduate students engaging in discussion with Prof. Mancini—along with a guest appearance by Prof. Geoff Sigalet (UBCO). The event demonstrates Runnymede's commitment to bringing constitutional conversations to undergraduate campuses, introducing students to the questions, principles, and competing perspectives that animate Canadian legal debate, even before they enter law school.

Can Parliament restrict what its own members are permitted to say without violating the Constitution? Prof. Ryan Alford of Lakehead University's Bora Laskin Faculty of Law brought that question before the Supreme Court of Canada in a constitutional challenge to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act. The Court delivered its decision in Alford v. Attorney General of Canada on May 1, 2026. In this episode of Runnymede Radio, Prof. Alford reflects on his experience bringing the case and the competing interpretations of parliamentary privilege, including whether Parliament can restrict parliamentary speech through ordinary legislation. The discussion examines the historical origins of parliamentary privilege, from the English Bill of Rights 1689 to section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of Parliament's authority to define and limit its privileges. Prof. Alford also considers the Court's approach to constitutional interpretation and the distinction between parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy, a central theme of his new book, By Authority of Parliament: The Constitutional Boundaries of Legislative Power in Canada (2026). Purchase By Authority of Parliament wherever books are sold.

This Law & Freedom Flashback returns to a panel discussion from Law & Freedom 2026 examining recent jurisprudence and doctrinal developments concerning democratic rights and electoral fairness. Drawing on Fair Voting BC and Working Families, the panel considers these developments with particular attention to courts’ treatment of third-party participation in the electoral process. The discussion features Prof. Jamie Cameron (Osgoode Hall Law School), Devin Drover (Canadian Taxpayers Federation), Prof. Michael Pal (University of Ottawa), and Kerry Sun (University of Oxford), moderated by Prof. Gerard Kennedy (University of Alberta). Law & Freedom returns to Hart House at the University of Toronto on February 5–6, 2027, culminating in a Saturday night keynote featuring the Hon. Russell Brown, retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Tickets go on sale October 1, 2026.

Earlier this year, Justice Malcolm Rowe of the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a two-part Runnymede lecture series on the Charter and liberal democracy across two cities in 24 hours. Part I, “How Misunderstanding the Charter Can Weaken Liberal Democracy” (March 3, 2026), was delivered at the University of Calgary. Justice Rowe considers what happens when the Charter is understood apart from the broader system of democratic government in which it operates, and the problems that can follow. The next day, Justice Rowe travelled to Vancouver to deliver Part II, “How a Proper Understanding of the Charter Strengthens Liberal Democracy” (March 4, 2026), at UBC Allard. The second lecture considers the other side of the question: how the Charter can reinforce democratic government when understood within Canada’s wider constitutional system. This episode of Runnymede Radio brings the complete two-part series together for the first time.

John Borrows (University of Toronto) and Erik De Lorenzi join Runnymede Radio to discuss a proposed framework for Indigenous Community Courts and the expansion of Indigenous self-government over the administration of justice. Drawing on examples including U.S. Tribal Courts, the Akwesasne Court, and proposed arrangements involving Yukon First Nations, the conversation examines how Indigenous Community Courts could operate in practice: their jurisdiction, judicial appointments, relationship with existing Canadian courts, and potential role in improving access to justice. Borrows and De Lorenzi also consider the arguments for and against Indigenous self-government in the administration of justice and the constitutional questions that could arise from establishing these courts, including the implications of sections 96 and 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Works discussed: Erik De Lorenzi, “Indigenous Community Courts: A Framework for Expanding Indigenous Self-Governance over the Administration of Justice” (2026) 17:2 University of Western Ontario Journal of Legal Studies 21. John Borrows, The Seven Cycles of Life: Seeking Healing, Connection and Justice in Anishinaabe Teachings (Random House Canada, 2026).

Mark Harding (University of Guelph) joins Runnymede Radio to discuss his book, Judicializing Everything? The Clash of Constitutionalisms in Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, which Justice Malcolm Rowe of the Supreme Court of Canada referenced at length during his keynote address at Law & Freedom 2024. Comparing Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, Harding examines political and legal constitutionalism, strong- and weak-form judicial review, and competing approaches to the relationship between courts and legislatures. The discussion explores Canada’s notwithstanding clause, underlying constitutional principles, constitutional reach, and “strained interpretation” of statutes. Harding also considers what the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in English Montreal School Board could mean for section 33 and the future balance between judicial and legislative authority in Canada.

Collin May (University of Calgary) joins Runnymede Radio to discuss his new book, From Cancel Culture to Incarceration Culture: Prosecutorial Democracy and the Future of Cancellation. Drawing on philosophy, psychology, sociology, law, and his own experience being "cancelled" following his brief tenure as Chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission in 2022, May examines the distinction between cancel culture and accountability, the institutional dynamics of cancellation, and the importance of "free speech culture." The discussion explores the psychology of cancellation, the role of professional regulators and administrative bodies, and May's concept of "prosecutorial democracy." Reflecting on the experience that led him to write the book, May explains why he believes cancel culture is evolving into something more institutional, culminating in what he describes as "incarceration culture." Throughout the conversation, May considers what these changes may mean for liberal democracy, free expression, and the future of public debate, arguing that informal social pressures are increasingly being supplemented by institutional and legal mechanisms.

Andrea Lawlor (McMaster University) and Dave Snow (University of Guelph) join Runnymede Radio to discuss judicial councils, judicial discipline, and the institutions responsible for upholding accountability within Canada's judiciary. Drawing on their recent scholarship, Lawlor and Snow examine the role of the Canadian Judicial Council and provincial judicial councils, explaining how judicial misconduct is investigated, how judicial ethics are enforced, and why these processes matter for judicial independence. The discussion also explores the reforms introduced through Bill C-9, the administrative role of judicial councils, and the relationship between judicial accountability, transparency, and public confidence in the courts. Throughout the conversation, the guests consider how Canada's judicial discipline system seeks to maintain both the integrity of the judiciary and the constitutional principles on which it rests.

Yonatan Green (Georgetown University) joins the Honourable Justice David Brown (Ontario Court of Appeal, retired) in this recording of an event hosted by Runnymede's Toronto Lawyer Chapter to discuss his book, Rogue Justice: The Rise of Judicial Supremacy in Israel. Green’s book examines claims that the Israeli Supreme Court has enlarged its role in ways that have reshaped the balance between branches of government, arguably contributing to a constitutional crisis. The conversation explores the evolution of Israel's constitutional system, including a series of developments that accelerated in the 1990s and, according to Green, expanded the power of the Israeli Supreme Court.  The discussion also touches on the recent judicial reform proposals aimed at curbing that power, which sparked widespread domestic and international controversy. Along the way, Green and Justice Brown consider what Canada might learn from Israel's constitutional experience. Interested in learning more? Read Rogue Justice: The Rise of Judicial Supremacy in Israel. It is available in hardcover, paperback, and Kindle editions.

Professor Eric Adams (University of Alberta) and Professor Dwight Newman (University of Saskatchewan) join us for a friendly debate on the interpretation of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Recorded before a standing-room-only audience at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law in November 2025, the discussion took place prior to Professor Adams' appointment to the Court of King's Bench of Alberta in April 2026. Professor Adams argues that constitutional "dialogue" leaves open the possibility of judicial engagement with rights, even under a section 33 declaration. Professor Newman argues that section 33 operates as a legislative "shield" against judicial engagement with rights during its application. Moderated by Professor Gerard Kennedy (University of Alberta), the conversation examines competing interpretations of section 33, the proper relationship between courts and legislatures, and the continuing significance of the notwithstanding clause within Canada's constitutional framework.

Eleanore Sunchild, KC (Sunchild Law) and Professor Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary) join us to discuss residential school denialism and recent proposals to prohibit it under the Criminal Code. The conversation explores the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, competing claims about residential school history, and the evidence underlying contemporary debates over residential school denialism. Sunchild and Flanagan discuss questions surrounding abuse and mortality within residential schools, the removal of Indigenous children from their families, and ongoing debates regarding unmarked graves and alleged burial sites. The guests also examine proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, the relationship between free expression and reconciliation, and the legal and moral arguments for and against criminalizing certain forms of denial, downplaying, or misrepresentation. Along the way, the discussion considers the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, historical memory, and the role of criminal law in addressing disputed historical claims.

This episode of Runnymede Radio is the second half of a two-part series on the Borderland Pride v. Township of Emo case before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. In 2024, the Tribunal ordered Emo Township and Mayor Harold McQuaker to pay damages after the Township refused requests to proclaim Pride Month and display a Pride flag. Part II features an original interview with Josh Dehaas, Interim Litigation Director at the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) and counsel for the CCF in its intervention in the Emo Township case. Dehaas critically examines the Tribunal’s reasoning and discusses the freedom of expression, compelled speech, and democratic decision-making concerns raised by the case. The conversation explores the relationship between freedom of expression and anti-discrimination law, including the role of “Charter values” in administrative decision-making, the implications of the Ward and Whatcott decisions, and broader constitutional questions surrounding compelled expression, human dignity, and municipal democracy. The discussion also examines the judicial review proceedings now underway, and the legal framework courts may apply in evaluating the Tribunal’s reasoning.

This episode of Runnymede Radio is the first half of a two-part series on the Borderland Pride v. Township of Emo case before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Part I features an original interview with Doug Judson, lawyer and applicant in the proceedings against Emo Township and Mayor Harold McQuaker, following the Tribunal’s 2024 decision ordering damages after the Township refused requests to proclaim Pride Month and display a Pride flag. Judson discusses the background to the dispute, the Tribunal’s finding that Emo Township and its mayor discriminated against Borderland Pride, and the broader legal issues raised by the case. The conversation explores the legal test for discrimination under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, the Tribunal’s finding of bad faith against Mayor McQuaker, and broader constitutional and democratic questions concerning municipal governance, freedom of expression, and symbolic political decision-making.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we feature an original interview with Professor Philippe Lagassé (Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University). Lagassé discusses his recent writing on the possible existence of a Crown prerogative to “keep the peace” within Canada, and what this would mean for the constitutional foundations of executive power. Using the Emergencies Act and the 2022 Public Order Emergency as context, he considers whether statutory frameworks fully define the scope of emergency authority. The conversation explores the relationship between prerogative and statute, including whether unwritten executive powers may offer a deeper—yet often narrower—basis for executive action than legislation in moments of crisis.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we share a live recording from a bilingual event hosted by the Runnymede Society’s McGill University Chapter, featuring Professor Maxime St-Hilaire (Université de Sherbrooke) and Professor Victor Muñiz-Fraticelli (McGill University). The panel examines the enduring debate between legal positivism and natural law theory, focusing on whether law can be understood as a system grounded in social facts or whether its legitimacy depends on a connection to moral reasoning and the common good. Drawing on both classical traditions and contemporary scholarship, the speakers explore different approaches within positivism, the resurgence of natural law thought, and the implications of these theories for legal pluralism, the rule of law, and the professional identity of jurists. Recorded live at McGill University, this episode offers a careful examination of the theoretical foundations of legal order and their ongoing significance for public law in Canada. Portions of the discussion take place in both English and French.