“The eighth edition of Criminal Law has been thoroughly updated to include new developments. It includes a detailed discussion of R v Brown striking down restrictions on the extreme intoxication defence and the likely parliamentary reply, and Parliament’s reply in Bill C-28. It also examines changes in jury selection upheld in R v Chouhan; important decisions on fault, such as R v Zora, R v Javanmardi, R v Chung, and R v Goforth; and assesses R v Cowan on parties. The discussion of sexual assault has been updated to take into account R v Barton and the possible implications of R v Morrison. The Supreme Court’s first decision under the amended self-defence provisions in R v Khill is reviewed. This new edition also has been revised to include important decisions from the Ontario and Nova Scotia Courts of Appeal on sentencing Black offenders, as well as the Supreme Court’s striking down of mandatory minimum fine surcharges and stacking of twenty-five-year periods of parole ineligibility.” -publisher
“The book includes introductory materials on the nature, history, and theory of international law from an international relations, as well as a legal, perspective. Carefully selected and edited primary materials — including treaties, UN documents, and cases — take readers to the very sources of the rules and principles that comprise modern international law. Extensive and critical commentary on, and analysis of, these primary materials guide the reader to an understanding of the rules, their strengths and weaknesses, and their place in the international legal system. Descriptions of contemporary real-world situations provide concrete context to the discussion.
Remarkable for both its depth and breadth, International Law: Doctrine, Practice, and Theory sets the standard for the study of international law in Canada. It also constitutes an invaluable reference collection for practitioners, judges, and scholars working in this ever-increasingly important area of modern law.” – publisher
Emond’s Criminal Law Series has also been updated with a new edition.
Indigenous People and the Criminal Justice System, 2nd ed. by Jonathan Rudin
“The second edition contains a new chapter devoted to Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and the experiences of FASD-affected individuals in the Canadian Criminal Justice system. It also includes a practical review of the 2019 Final Reports by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) and the Public Inquiry Commission on relations between Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Québec: listening, reconciliation and progress. This bestseller also features expanded coverage of overrepresentation, sentencing, plea bargains, Gladue principles, and Charter challenges.” – publisher
New articles from the following journals are now available for Law Society members upon request. For a pdf copy of these or other legal journal articles email us at email@example.com. Click on the journal title to see full article titles.
Canadian Criminal Law Review vol. 26
“Scraping in Cyberspace: Police Entrapment in the Virtual World” 26 Can. Crim. L. Rev. 203 Mathew Zaia
“Defending the Castle: Search Incident to Arrest after R. v. Stairs” 26 Can. Crim. L. Rev. 227 Colton Fehr
“La Création D’un Tribunal Spécialisé en Matière de Violences Sexuelles et de Violence Conjugale au Québec: Vers une Meilleure Justice?” 26 Can. Crim. L. Rev. 269 Anne-Marie Boisvert
“Le Châtiment Corporel des Enfants: L’Article 43 C.cr. n’a Plus sa Place en Droit Canadien” 26 Can. Crim. L. Rev. 241 Maya-Chahinez Oultache
Canadian Family Law Quarterly vol. 41
“”Put Bluntly”, We Need to Contemplate Polyamory” 41 C.F.L.Q. 99 Kelsey Beazer; Elizabeth Cameron; Samantha Simpson
“Torts and Family Law: What’s New, What’s Old and How To Use” It 41 C.F.L.Q. 23 Mary Jo Maur
“Moving Towards a Post-Pandemic “New Normal”: Perspectives of Ontario Family Justice Professionals and Self-Represented Litigant” 41 C.F.L.Q. 1 Claire Houston; Rachel Birnbaum; Nicholas Bala
“A Look at Recent Developments in the Law of Contempt” 41 C.F.L.Q. 77 Katherine Cooligan; Brad Yaeger
Canadian Journal of Administrative Law and Practice vol. 35
“Case Comment: Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz.” Fredrick Schumann. 35 Can. J. Admin. L. & Prac. 385.
“Vavilov, Reasonableness Review and Logic.” Louis Guilbault. 35 Can. J. Admin. L. & Prac. 287.
“Citizenship Revocation in Canada: Dialogue or Defiance?” Ben Lerer, Alex Bogach. 35 Can. J. Admin. L. & Prac. 253.
“Jurisdiction and Access to Justice: An Analysis of Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario-Issued Notices of Intent to Dismiss.” Frank Nasca. 35 Can. J. Admin. L. 253.
“The Law Society of Ontario’s Duty to Accommodate Mental Disability: Toward a Distinct Regulatory Approach.” David LeMesurier. 35 Can. J. Admin. L. & Prac. 325.
Education and Law Journal vol. 31
“The Many Faces of Educational “Choice”: Student Autonomy, Parental Rights, and the “Choice in Education” Threat.” Ned Lecic, Marvin A. Zuker. 31 Educ. & L.J. 83.
“At the Intersection of Fairness and Rights: The Ombudsman’s Administrative Oversight of Education in Ontario.” Jean-Frédéric Hübusch. 31 Educ. & L.J. 139.
“Ontario’s Teacher-Certification Math Test Unconstitutional Due to Disproportionate Negative Effect on Racialized Candidates.” Max Halparin. 31 Educ. & L.J. 201.
“Quebec’s Laicity Act, Teacher, and Dress Codes in Canadian Case Law: Introspection before Legal Action.” Darryl Hunter, Paul Clarke. 31 Educ. & L.J. 169.
“Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Rules on Reassignment Grievance at Saskatchewan Polytechnic.” Simone Truemner-Caron. 31 Educ. & L.J. 209.
“Mandatory Vaccination in Toronto Schools.” Rebecca Meharchand. 31 Educ. & L.J. 2015.
“A Class Complaint Forces the Vancouver School Board to Respond to Charges of Systemic Anti-Black Racism.” Max Halparin. 31 Educ. & L.J. 223.
Intellectual Property Journal vol. 34
Book review – Law and Reputation: How the Legal System Shapes Behavior by Producing Information, Roy Shapira (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2020) 34 I.P.J. 227 Aviv Gaon
Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law vol. 16
“Notable Case Law Concerning Legislative Bodies and Their Members.” Melanie J. Mortensen. 16 J. Parliamentary & Pol. L. 753.
“Review of: Behind Closed Doors: The Law and Politics of Cabinet Secrecy by Yan Campagnolo (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2021).” Andrew Flavelle Martin. 16 J. Parliamentary & Pol. L. 771.
“How Political Law Enables Authoritarian Opportunity: The Transition to Federalism in Nepal.” Jena Karim. 16. J. Parliamentary & Pol. L. 663.
“Attorney General v. Latu,  WSCA 6 (23 July 202) The Court of Appeal of Samoa Has Upheld Democracy, the Rule of Law and the Constitution, by Ending a 15-Week Political Impasse.” Gavin Murphy. 16 J. Parliamentary & Pol. L. 747.
“Review of: Laws of the Constitution Consolidated by Donald F. Bur (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 2020).” J.W.J. Bowden. 16 J. Parliamentary & Pol. 779.
“Law Society of Ontario v. Ghadmari 2021 ONLSTH 45,  LSDD 64 [Ghamari].” Andrew Flavelle Martin. 16 J. Parliamentary & Pol. L. 735.
“What Would Aristotle Say?” Gregory Tardi. 16 J. Parliamentary & Pol. L. 591.
“Money, Pavement and PEP: Assessing Canada’s New Pre-Election Rules on Third Party Spending.” Dr. Cristine de Clercy, Valere Gaspard. 16 J. Parliamentary & Pol. L. 607.
“Can Inmates in Canada’s Penal Institutions Vote? A Transnational Perspective.” Anna Grundmark. 16 J. Parliamentary & Pol. L. 685.
“Votes for Women: An Indispensable Step Toward Equality.” Erin Curtis. 16 J. Parliamentary & Pol. L. 713.
“The Role of Attorney General and Minister of Justice; The Perspective of an Informed Citizen.” Dawn McKevitt. 16 J. Parliamentary & Pol. L. 703.
“Alert! On the Formation of a Democratic Government / Alerte! De la Formation D’un Gouvernement Démocratique.” 16 J. Parliamentary & Pol. L. 567.
“The Public Nature of Ministerial Tasks: Mandate Letters before the Supreme Court of Canada.” James L. Turk. 16 J. Parliamentary & Pol. L. 601.
““Ukraine—Crucifixion”: The First-Ever Stationary Exhibition on the Ongoing Russian-Ukrainian War.” Dmytro Hainetdinov.
“Lé Fédéralisme Coopératif et les Administrations Publiques au Canada : Terminologies, Modalités, Métaphores.” Dave Guénette. 16 J. Parliamentary & Pol. L.
McGill Journal of Law and Health vol. 15
“The Best Interest of the Child and the Limits of Parental Autonomy to Refuse Vaccination” 15 McGill J. L. & Health 65 Alison Braley-Rattai
“A Roadmap for Change: International Strategies for Improving End-of-Life Care” 15 McGill J. L. & Health 119 Daphne Gilbert
University of Toronto Law Journal vol. 72
“Of Linchpins and Bedrock: Hope, Despair, and Pragmatism in Animal Law” 72 U. Toronto L.J. 468 Jessica Eisen
“Heritage Preservation Easements, Urban Property, and Heritage Law: Exploring Canadian Common Law and Civil Law Tools for Responding to International Cultural Preservation Frameworks for Cities” 72 U. Toronto L.J. 436 Sara Gwendolyn Ross
“The Death of Law? Computationally Personalized Norms and the Rule of Law” 72 U. Toronto L.J. 373 Timothy Endicott , Karen Yeung
“The Judicial Review of Legality” 72 U. Toronto L.J. 403 Natalie R Davidson , Leora Bilsky
September 30th will be the second National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, a day of reflection on the history and legacy of the residential school system, honouring the survivors, family members and communities affected. This year the Manitoba courts will not be sitting as per last year’s notice, and the courthouse will also be closed. The library will be open, providing service either by phone or email.
If you wish to learn more about Indigenous Laws and history, the Library has texts and resources available both in print and online.
For more information of the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation and Orange Shirt Day take a look at these sources.
The reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and other government reports, are freely available online.
“The Indian Residential School Survivor Society (IRSSS) is a provincial organization with a twenty-year history of providing services to Indian Residential School Survivors. The Indian Residential School Survivors Society began in 1994 as a working committee of the First Nations Summit. We were known as the Residential School Project, housed out of and as a part of the BC First Nations Summit. Our work was primarily to assist Survivors with the litigation process pertaining to Residential School abuses. In more recent years our work has expanded to include assisting the descendants of Survivors and implementing Community education measures (Indigenous & Non-Indigenous).”
“Orange Shirt Day is a legacy of the St. Joseph Mission (SJM) Residential School (1891-1981) Commemoration Project and Reunion events that took place in Williams Lake, BC, Canada, in May 2013. This project was the vision of Esketemc (Alkali Lake) Chief Fred Robbins, who is a former student himself. It brought together former students and their families from the Secwepemc, Tsilhqot’in, Southern Dakelh and St’at’imc Nations along with the Cariboo Regional District, the Mayors and municipalities, School Districts and civic organizations in the Cariboo Region. “The events were designed to commemorate the residential school experience, to witness and honour the healing journey of the survivors and their families, and to commit to the ongoing process of reconciliation. Chief Justice Murray Sinclair challenged all of the participants to keep the reconciliation process alive, as a result of the realization that every former student had similar stories.”
September 30, 2021 marked the first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. The federal government called on Canadians to don orange shirts bearing the message Every Child Matters and to reflect on the impacts of Canada’s residential school system.
The Court’s decision highlights the gap between Canada’s public commitments to Indigenous Peoples and its failure to carry out the hard work that reconciliation requires.
What it is about
For decades, First Nations have fought for increased funding to support Indigenous children and families living on reserve.
In 2007, two Indigenous-led organizations filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that Canada’s failure to properly fund the delivery of child and family services to First Nations on reserve violated the Canadian Human Rights Act.
In 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found First Nations children and families were denied equal access to child and family services due to Canada’s failure to adequately fund services on reserve.
Over the next 5 years, the Tribunal issued a series of decisions setting out how affected First Nations children and families would be compensated for Canada’s discriminatory treatment. Canada brought an application for judicial review at Federal Court challenging the Tribunal’s decisions.
What the Court said
The Federal Court dismissed Canada’s application and reaffirmed that the federal government must compensate First Nations for its failure to provide adequate funding for the delivery of child and family services on reserve.
Justice Favel, writing for the Court, went on to reflect on the concept of reconciliation, which he described as part of an ongoing process of “nation-building” based on the foundational, evolving relationship between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples.
Drawing on both Supreme Court decisions and the words of Pitikwahanapiwin (Chief Poundmaker), Justice Favel concluded that when viewed in the context of nation-building, a shared commitment to reconciliation has the potential to “remedy unprecedented discrimination” and lead to the “re-establishment, on a proper foundation, of broken or damaged relationships between Indigenous people and Canada.”
Why it is important
Last summer, the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc announced they had located the remains of hundreds of children who attended the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. Since then, the unmarked graves of thousands more children have been identified. In the wake of these announcements, the federal government finally acknowledged that Canada’s treatment of Indigenous children amounted to genocide, and established September 30 as a national day to honour survivors of residential schools.
Critically, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada placed child welfare, including the provision of adequate resources to enable First Nations to keep Indigenous families together in safe, culturally appropriate environments, first among its 94 Calls to Action.
It is within this context that Canada sought to avoid its obligations to pay compensation for failing to adequately fund the delivery of much-needed services to children and families living on reserves.
The Federal Court’s decision is an important vindication for First Nations and Indigenous organizations who have spent decades fighting for better funding for health and family services for Indigenous children and families. It also underscores the connection between Canada’s treatment of Indigenous children at residential schools, and the ongoing discrimination that continues to exist in the child welfare system.
Canada as a country is founded on the state’s systematic destruction of Indigenous families and cultures.
If we are to move beyond this legacy, the federal government must do more than issue apologies and call on the public to honour the memory of children who have been lost. As Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc Kukpi7 (Chief) Rosanne Casimir recently advised the Prime Minister, “we are not interested in apologies that don’t lead to institutional and widespread change.”
As a first step, Canada must fulfil its legal – and moral – obligations to Indigenous children in Canada today, including by compensating First Nations who have suffered as a result of Canada’s underfunding of Indigenous child and family services, and providing accessible, properly funded services to First Nations on reserve in accordance with the TRC’s Calls to Action.
At a time when the concept of ‘reconciliation’ has increasingly become hollow, the federal government would also do well to take the recent Federal Court decision to heart. As Justice Favel’s words remind us, reconciliation need not be a matter of empty rhetoric – it can be an important, positive part of rebuilding the flawed foundation on which Canada was established.
As always, it will be the federal government’s choice whether to continue on its current path or to take new steps to repair both the past and present-day impacts of colonization on Indigenous children and families.
Canada has 30 days from the date of the Federal Court’s decision to apply for leave to appeal.
First Peoples Law LLP is a law firm dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of Indigenous Peoples. We work exclusively with Indigenous Peoples to defend their inherent and constitutionally protected title, rights and Treaty rights, uphold their Indigenous laws and governance and ensure economic prosperity for their current and future generations.
Funded by the Law Foundation of Ontario Access to Justice Fund, this informative report shares knowledge with respect to both the crisis of Indigenous over-incarceration in Saskatchewan and the justice system’s response.
by Alissa Schacter
Equity Officer and Policy Counsel, The Law Society of Manitoba
The country’s highest court exhibited boldness and initiative in its decision to sit outside of Ottawa for the first time in its 145-year history. Winnipeg had the great honour of hosting the nine Supreme Court judges during the last week of September.
The justices took up temporary residence in the Manitoba Court of Appeal. In addition to hearing a criminal and civil appeal, they had a jam packed schedule, which included meeting local high school students and law students, attending a reception with Mayor Bowman, hosting a Q&A event for the public at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, attending a presentation of sacred eagle feathers to the Manitoba courts, meeting with representatives of First Nations, Métis, and Francophone communities as well as with Executive members of the Law Society and Manitoba Bar Association. Chief Justice Richard Wagner even managed to make time to drop the puck at a Jets game. The justices were the guests of honour at a gala dinner attended by approximately 800 members of Manitoba’s legal profession. They mingled with the crowd in the packed foyer of the Convention Centre and played musical chairs, doing an admirable job of rubbing elbows with as many members of the bar as possible. Throughout the week, there was a palpable excitement in the air within the legal community, as their presence carried an aura of celebrity. Even beyond the legal community, many people took a keen interest and attended the hearings and the public events, which was exactly the point of the Court’s visit.
The Winnipeg visit was part of a broader commitment the Supreme Court has made to access to justice. The court has established an active presence on Twitter and Facebook, and in March 2018, it began posting plain language case summaries on its website. All of these initiatives are intended to help the public better understand the role of the Court and its decisions. As the Supreme Court presides over cases involving some of the most important social policy issues of our time, from same sex marriage and the right to assisted dying to delineating Indigenous rights, it has a hand in shaping Canada’s social fabric. It is imperative that the Canadian public understand the function of the Court so that they have confidence in our justice system. This is critical at a time when people increasingly obtain news and information in easy-to-digest nuggets via diffuse social media platforms, not all of which are reliable.
When the nine esteemed Supreme Court jurists hailing from around the country travelled to Winnipeg and spent the week meeting with a cross section of the legal and broader communities, they revealed their personalities, their senses of humour, their genuine curiosity about the local community and of course, their humanity. They put a human face on the Supreme Court and sent a powerful message that the Court wants to understand the people it serves and make itself more transparent and accessible to them. It also demonstrated the Court’s awareness of its need to adapt to the changing context in which it operates and to modernize its approach.
As in most endeavours, you create trust by fostering greater mutual understanding and building relationships. That is exactly what the nine judges did during their time in Winnipeg. Canada’s Supreme Court has long been venerated around the world. When the Court left its grand building on Wellington Street to head west to the Prairies, it also increased its profile and esteem among Canadians.
by Alissa Schacter Equity Officer and Policy Counsel, The Law Society of Manitoba
The last week of September marked a couple of notable “firsts” for Manitoba’s legal community. The Supreme Court of Canada sat in Winnipeg, marking the first time it has ever sat outside of Ottawa in its 145 year history. In another milestone, Manitobans can now testify in court by holding an eagle feather to signify the truthfulness of their testimony rather than swearing on a Bible or affirming their promise to tell the truth.
On September 26, forty-five eagle feathers were blessed in a sunrise smudging ceremony at Oodena Circle at the Forks and then presented to a joint sitting of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench and Provincial Court in the afternoon. The afternoon ceremony was attended by Indigenous elders, the Supreme Court judges and numerous judges from Manitoba’s Court of Appeal, Court of Queen’s Bench, and Provincial Court, Masters and Judicial Justices of the Peace, as well as members of the RCMP. Some of the attendees danced in their seats to the powerful sounds of Indigenous drumming and singing, which lent the court proceeding a ceremonial air. Elder Ed Azure shared a teaching about the significance of the eagle feather in Indigenous culture: since eagles are able to fly to great heights, close to the heavens, they are regarded as a “messenger from our maker” and their feathers represent honour, achievement, bravery, truth, clarity and service to others. Chief Justice Glenn Joyal and Chief Judge Margaret Wiebe both addressed the court and talked about this (incorporating the eagle feather into court proceedings) as one step on the court’s journey toward reconciliation.
Following the ceremony, the Law Society sponsored a reception in the Great Library and a tribute was made to a special guest in attendance, Marion (Ironquill) Meadmore, the first Indigenous woman to graduate from law school in Canada. She graduated from the University of Manitoba’s Faculty of Law in 1977.
It was a moving ceremony that marked the ground breaking step of incorporating an Indigenous tradition into Manitoba’s justice system.
The Manitoba Law Library would like to acknowledge with gratitude that we are situated on Treaty One Territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree and Dakota peoples, and the homeland of the Métis Nation.
Printing and Photocopying
If you need to use the library’s printing and photocopying services you will need to create an account. See us at the front desk for assistance.