Runnymede Radio

In 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.

Michael Scott, project manager and editor at PrimaryDocuments.ca who researches constitutional drafting, traces the history behind Section 35. He maps the 1980s players and shifting politics. He recounts how wording like "existing" was added, debates over title and rights, and why drafting choices left major questions unresolved.

In 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.

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.

In this engaging discussion, legal minds Alexi Wood, a skilled lawyer from St. Lawrence Barristers, Asher Honickman, president of Advocates for the Rule of Law, and Christoph Pike, an associate at McCarthy Tétrault, dive into the evolution of common law and the judiciary's role. They explore the potential recognition of family violence as a new tort, analyze landmark cases like Kaseki v. City of Toronto, and debate the balance between adapting legal standards to modern issues while maintaining judicial consistency. It's a thought-provoking dialogue on the future of law.

Ted Morton, an Executive Fellow at the School of Public Policy and Professor Emeritus in Political Science at the University of Calgary, dives into the politicization of Canadian courts. He discusses the impact of U.S. judicial activism on Canadian perceptions and explores the evolving constitutional paradigms over fifty years. Morton highlights the tension between judicial power and societal values, critiques unaccountable governance, and addresses the influence of judicial review on provincial rights and rights advocacy groups.