In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we share a live recording from a student chapter event hosted by the Runnymede Society’s University of Calgary Chapter, featuring Professor Geoff Sigalet (UBCO).

Professor Sigalet’s lecture makes the political and legal case against substantive judicial review of laws enacted under section 33 of the Charter. Drawing on recent constitutional litigation, academic debate, and institutional and political analysis, he explains why provinces have been more willing to invoke the notwithstanding clause since 2018, critiques arguments advanced by the Attorney General of Canada in favour of judicial scrutiny, and points out why such review would be wrong and unwise even if it were possible.

Recorded live at the University of Calgary, this episode offers a careful examination of judicial power, legislative authority, and the political and legal role of the notwithstanding clause in Canada.

In this episode of Runnymede Radio, we share a live recording from a student chapter event hosted by the Runnymede Society’s Osgoode Hall Chapter, featuring Malcolm Rowe of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Justice Rowe’s lecture, titled “Can the Centre Hold?”, draws on W.B. Yeats’ The Second Coming to reflect on the pressures of an increasingly polarized society and the importance of moderation in public life. Blending political and legal philosophy, the lecture explores how these traditions intersect to shape a balanced constitutional order, and what it takes to maintain that balance in unsettled times.

Recorded live at Osgoode Hall, this episode offers a thoughtful and measured reflection on polarization, moderation, and the ideas that hold a constitutional democracy together.

In this special retrospective episode of Runnymede Radio, former Runnymede Society National Directors Mark Mancini and Kris Kinsinger reflect on a consequential period in the organization’s history, recorded as part of Runnymede’s tenth anniversary.

The conversation explores the resistance Runnymede faced as it grew beyond its early days, the disruption and challenges of the COVID years, and how the organization adapted under pressure while remaining grounded in its core commitments. Mark and Kris discuss what it meant to stand firm while staying flexible, and how Runnymede earned and defended its place in Canada’s academic and legal conversations.

A candid reflection on Runnymede’s resilience, adaptation, and ongoing work.

In this special retrospective episode of Runnymede Radio, co-founders Joanna Baron and Asher Honickman reflect on the Runnymede Society’s earliest days, marking its tenth anniversary.

The conversation revisits what first inspired Runnymede’s founding in 2016, the challenges of building a national forum for constitutional debate, and the ideas and principles that have endured over the past decade. Joanna and Asher also reflect on how the organization’s early ambitions shaped its growth—and what those formative years can tell us about Runnymede’s mission today.

A candid look back at the origins of the Runnymede Society, with a few memorable anecdotes along the way.

Quelle est l'influence des prises de position théoriques dites « woke » dans le milieu universitaire canadien? Le Professeur Stéphane Sérafin discute de deux incidences particulières pour expliquer pourquoi ces prises de position sont ancrées dans les universités canadiennes, et particulièrement dans les facultés de droit.

What is the proper pace of development of the common law? Today's encore episode from Law & Freedom 2025 features Christoph Pike (McCarthy Tétrault), Prof. Stéphane Sérafin (University of Ottawa Faculty of Law), Alexi Wood (St. Lawrence Barristers), Asher Honickman (Jordan Honickman Barristers), and Prof. Malcolm Lavoie (University of Alberta Faculty of Law). Watch the full video on our Member Area. The full recording contains 1 hour and 05 minutes of Professionalism Content (Law Society of Ontario).

Have the courts become political? In this encore episode from Law & Freedom 2025, Professor Ted Morton argues that changes in how Canadians view the role of our courts and the purpose of our constitution have politicized our courts. The full panel discussion, featuring three other speakers, can be found on our Member Area.  Further reading: The Charter Revolution and the Court Party.

How does the Supreme Court of Canada decide which cases it hears? Paul-Erik Veel, adjunct professor at the University of Toronto, shares a fascinating quantitative analysis on the Court's decision-making, exploring everything from case selection and output to judicial agreement. Watch this full session on Runnymede's Member Area: https://runnymedesociety.ca/en/account/.

Can free expression be limited based on an administrative body's prediction of resulting harm? Can a university expel a student for having an opinion on a particular social issue that it considers unprofessional? Lia Milousis, lawyer with the Acacia Group and leader of our Ottawa lawyers' chapter, discusses two cases involving the prevention of harm as a reason for limiting freedom of speech.

Why were property rights excluded from the Charter? Professor Dwight Newman of the University of Saskatchewan joined students at the University of British Columbia's Peter A. Allard School of Law to discuss his research on this subject and the opportunity for further study on this topic.

Further reading: Dwight Newman & Lorelle Binnion, "The Exclusion of Property Rights from the Charter: Correcting the Historical Record" (2015) 52:3 Alta. L. Rev. 543