Podcast
Runnymede Radio
Hosted by Runnymede Radio · EN
Official podcast of the Runnymede Society
11episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Rogue Justice: The Rise of Judicial Supremacy in Israel
2w agoTap to summarizeYonatan 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.
Transcribe →Clause and Effect: Section 33 and the Constitutional Conversation
4w agoTap to summarizeProfessor 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.
Transcribe →Residential School Denialism: Competing Perspectives
Jun 10Tap to summarizeEleanore 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.
Transcribe →Emo Township, Part II: Rethinking the Tribunal Decision
May 2700:50:47Tap to summarizeThis 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.
Transcribe →Emo Township, Part I: Inside the Borderland Pride Case
May 13Tap to summarizeThis 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.
Transcribe →The Prerogative to Keep the Peace and the Limits of the Emergencies Act
Apr 29Tap to summarizeIn 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.
Transcribe →Positivism & Natural Law: Competing Foundations of Legal Order
Apr 15Tap to summarizeIn 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.
Transcribe →Cowichan Tribes, Reconciliation, and Private Land
Apr 1Tap to summarizeIn this episode of Runnymede Radio, we feature a recording from a Western University Chapter panel with Professor Dwight Newman (University of Saskatchewan) and Professor Michael Coyle (Western University). Following a previous episode examining the drafting and interpretation of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, this conversation explores how contemporary jurisprudence is shaping the scope and application of Aboriginal and treaty rights. The panel, titled “Will Reconciliation Require the Transfer of Private Land? A Discussion of Recent Jurisprudence and Reconciliation Efforts,” examines the implications of the Cowichan Tribes decision for Aboriginal title, including its potential impact on private land ownership, the security of property rights, and the broader framework of reconciliation in Canadian law. This episode offers a timely discussion of how constitutional principles are being interpreted in practice and what recent developments may signal for the future of Indigenous rights and Canadian constitutional law.
Transcribe →Understanding an Ambiguous Clause: Section 35 and the Drafting of the Constitution
Mar 18Tap to summarizeIn this episode of Runnymede Radio, we feature an original interview with Michael Scott (PrimaryDocuments.ca). Scott discusses his ongoing research on the drafting history of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982—which recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights—drawing on archival materials and his work with PrimaryDocuments.ca, a database of historical documents relating to the creation of Canada’s Constitution. The conversation explores the historical context of Section 35, the interpretive challenges posed by its ambiguity, and what the drafting record reveals (and does not reveal) about its meaning. This episode offers a careful examination of constitutional history and the role of historical sources in understanding foundational legal texts.
Transcribe →Measuring Jurisprudence with AI: Rules, Standards, and the Supreme Court of Canada
Mar 400:55:26Tap to summarizeIn this episode of Runnymede Radio, we feature an original interview with Professor Norman Siebrasse (University of New Brunswick). Professor Siebrasse discusses his recent study using artificial intelligence to examine long-term trends in Supreme Court of Canada decisions. By analyzing thousands of judgments from 1974 to 2025, the study places cases on a rules–standards spectrum and identifies a marked shift toward more standard-like reasoning beginning in the early Charter era. The conversation also explores the idea of “Charter contagion,” the relationship between increasingly lengthy decisions and declining rule-likeness, and the broader promise and limits of AI in legal and academic research. This episode offers a careful examination of artificial intelligence as a research tool and of the evolving character of Supreme Court reasoning in Canada.
Transcribe →