DOCSLIB.ORG

Kent William Roach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kent William Roach KENT ROACH B.A., LL.B., LL.M., F.R.S.C. Born: Montreal, Quebec, Canada Address: University of Toronto 78 Queens Park Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C5 Phone: (416) 946-5645 Fax: (416) 978-2648 e-mail: [email protected] Employment: 2006- Prichard-Wilson Chair of Law and Public Policy, University of Toronto 1999- Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto (status cross appointments in criminology and political science) 1998-1999 Dean and Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan 1994-98 Associate Professor, University of Toronto, Faculty of Law (with tenure) (status cross appointment in criminology) 1989-1994 Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, Faculty of Law (status cross appointment in criminology) 1988-89 Law Clerk for Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, Supreme Court of Canada Education: 1988 Master of Laws, Yale Law School with honours in majority of courses 1987 Bachelor of Laws, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, with honours and second in class 1984 Bachelor of Arts, political science and history Victoria College, University of Toronto with high distinction and the Governor General’s Gold Medal Kent William Roach Grants and Awards: 2013 Awarded Trudeau Fellowship (one of four) in recognition of career contribution of international pre-eminence in academic and creative professional excellence 2012 Awarded Mundell Medal for contributions to legal writing 2011 Appointed (honourary) Professor, University of New South Wales 2010 Awarded British Academy Short Term Visiting Fellowship, University of Warwick Awarded Lexpert Platinum Award for best contribution to pro-bono legal services by an academic 2008 Awarded Alan Mewett award for excellence in teaching by graduating students at the Faculty of Law 2006 Appointed Editorial Board, National Journal of Constitutional Law 2004 Awarded with Robert J. Sharpe the J.W. Dafoe Prize for the book that makes the best contribution to the understanding of Canada 2003 Appointed Editorial Board, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies Awarded (with Gary Trotter) a major research grant from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to conduct research on the causes and remedies of wrongful convictions 2002 Elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences 2001 Short listed for the Donner Prize for best book on Public Policy published in 2001 Awarded grant from the Foundation for Legal Research 2000 Short listed for the Donner Prize for best book on Public Policy published in 1999 1999 Awarded grant from the Wright Foundation for Legal Research 1997 Awarded the Walter Owen Book Prize for the best law book published in English in 1994 or 1995 Page 2 of 52 Kent William Roach 1997 Awarded grant from the Foundation for Legal Research Awarded grant from the Wright Foundation for Legal Research 1993 Awarded grant from the Foundation for Legal Research 1991 Awarded major research grant by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (with M.L. Friedland and Michael Code) to conduct a comparative study of the criminal justice systems in Niagara Falls, Ontario and New York 1989-1990 Awarded Connaught New Staff Grant, University of Toronto Awarded Research Board General Grant 1987-1988 Awarded Doctoral Fellowship, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada 1987 The Class of 1987 Prize for ranking second among the graduating class The Dean Cecil Wright Key for participation in extra-curricular work of an academic nature Professional Activities 2013 Appointed to Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on the Future of Canadian Policing International Expert sponsored by United Nations Development to advise Tunisian Constituent Assembly on the third draft of the Constitution, Tunis, Tunisia, May. International Expert appointed by Idea International to advise Tunisian Constituent Assembly on Security Sector Reform in the second draft Constitution, Tunis, Tunisia, February. Member of Consensus Chair chaired by Hon. Ian Binnie on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and the Legal System, Alberta Health Economics Conference, Edmonton, September, 2013 Co Chair (with Mayo Moran) of National Conference and Workshop on Residential Schools Litigation and Settlement, University of Toronto. Counsel (pro bono) for the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights in Tajuajawa v. Canada and Ontario, on the availability of remedies for violations of ss.7 and 15 of the Charter in relation to housing rights Page 3 of 52 Kent William Roach 2012- Appointed General Reporter on Counter-Terrorism for the XIX International Congress on Comparative Law to be held in Vienna, 2004 Special Advisor, Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Indian Residential Schools with lead responsibilities for report on the legacy of the schools 2012 Expert report on military police independence for the Military Police Complaints Commission Lead counsel (pro bono) for British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in R. v. Khawaja in the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Canada’s definition of terrorism. Co-counsel (pro bono) for Asper Centre on Constitutional Rights in R. v. Kokopenace in the Ontario Court of Appeal on s.15 of the Charter and jury selection involving Aboriginal people in Ontario’s north. Lead counsel (pro bono) for Asper Centre on Constitutional Rights in A.G. Canada v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers in the Supreme Court of Canada concerning public interest standing Visiting British Academic Fellow, University of Warwick Visiting and Conjoint Professor, University of New South Wales 2011 Lead counsel (pro bono) for British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in R. v.Ladue in the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders and decision joined with R. v. Ipeelee Witness before Senate Special Committee on Anti-Terrorism Law Expert submission on police military independence to Parliamentary committees on behalf of the Military Police Complaints Commission Visiting British Academy Fellow, University of Warwick Participant, High Level Policy Seminar on European and United States Counter- Terrorism Policies, the Rule of Law and Human Rights, European University Institute, Florence. Page 4 of 52 Kent William Roach 2010 Qualified as expert witness in Intelligence and Evidence in France v. Diab, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Qualified as expert witness in Aboriginal people and criminal justice and effects of mandatory minimum sentences in R. v. Barnhart in Ontario Court of Justice Visiting Professor, University of New South Wales Visiting Professor, National University of Singapore Instructor, National Judicial Institute course on wrongful convictions Peter Allan Memorial Lecture, University of Hong Kong 2009 Member of a Task Force on Terrorism, Democracy and the Law sponsored by the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Comparative Law, the Israel Democracy Institute and the Woodrow Wilson Centre for Foreign Scholars. 2009 Visiting Professor, Centre for Transnational Legal Studies, London, England Conference Co Chair Taking Remedies Seriously Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice Annual Conference Ottawa Country Reporter for Canada “Courts as Positive Legislators” XVIII International Congress of Comparative Law Washington D.C. 2010 Lead counsel (pro bono) for the British Columbia Civil Liberties and Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights in Ward v. British Columbia in the Supreme Court of Canada involving the availability of damages under s.24(1) of the Charter Lead counsel (pro bono) for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in Karas v. Canada concerning the constitutionality of extradition to Thailand without assurances that the death penalty would not be applied (appeal abandoned) Co- counsel (pro bono) for the Criminal Lawyers Association and Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights in R. v. Conway in the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the remedial powers of Mental Health Review Boards Instructor National Judicial Institute Course on Wrongful Convictions Member Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted (AIDWYC) case selection committee Page 5 of 52 Kent William Roach Assisted (pro bono) in preparation of factum in R v. Jack White in the Supreme Court of Canada in association with AIDWYC 2008 Lead counsel (pro bono) for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in Ward v. British Columbia in the British Columbia Court of Appeal involving availability of damages as a remedy under s.24(1) of the Charter. Board member of British Columbia Civil Liberties Association 2007 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Legal Expert Group on the Implementation of the Penal Provisions on Nuclear Terrorism Contained in the Universal Legal Framework Against Terrorism 2007-2008 Research Director for the Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology. 2006-2009 Research Director –Legal Studies, Commission of Inquiry into the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. 2006 Special Lecturer of a course of Comparative Anti-Terrorism Law. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Keynote speaker Association for Victim Assistance Annual Conference Prepared a Report on the use of prosecutorial stays and means to determine and declare wrongful convictions published as an appendix in Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Aspects of the Trial and Conviction of James Driskell 2005 27th Annual Viscount Bennett Lecture, University of New Brunswick “Must we Trade Rights for Security?” Keynote Speaker, Associations Active in Criminal Justice/Department of Justice Annual Conference
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Canada's Different Criminal and Constitutional Standards of Fault
    Kent Roach* MIND THE GAP: CANADA’S DIFFERENT CRIMINAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS OF FAULT† This paper critically assesses the gap between Canada’s criminal law standards of fault articulated in the 1950s and 1970s and its constitutional standards of criminal fault articulated in the 1980s and 1990s. This gap is explained in terms of the Court’s ambivalence about subjective fault principles as manifested by its acceptance of criminal negligence. It is also explained by the Court’s unique treatment of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a right that, unlike any other right in the Charter, is only subject to reasonable limitation under section 1 of the Charter in extraordinary emergency situations. The paper then suggests that the gap between crim- inal and constitutional fault standards is not sustainable and can only be closed if the Court rethinks its approach to the limitation of section 7 rights. Maintenance of the gap may erode respect for common-law presumptions of subjective fault. If this occurs, Canada’s apparently robust approach to the constitutionalization of fault will have actually diminished respect for and protection of subjective fault principles. Keywords: criminal law/Canada/fault/common law/constitutional/ fundamental justice i Introduction The Canadian experience with constitutionalization of criminal law fault principles seems at first glance to be positive and robust. Unlike in the United States, the Canadian courts have struck down felony murder and various absolute-liability provisions as inconsistent with constitutional requirements of fault.1 The Court has also gone farther than courts in Israel and Germany in constitutionalizing fault requirements,2 as well as principles that would prohibit convictions for physically3 or morally * Faculty of Law, University of Toronto † I thank the participants of the Criminal Law and Constitutionalism conference held at the University of Toronto and especially Hamish Stewart for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Biographical Note of Justice Robert J. Sharpe
    Brief Biographical Note of Justice Robert J. Sharpe Robert Sharpe has been a judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario since 1999. After graduating with a B.A. from the University of Western Ontario in 1966 and an LL.B. from University of Toronto in 1970, he attended Oxford University where he graduated in 1974 with a D.Phil. Robert Sharpe was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1974 and practised with MacKinnon McTaggart (later McTaggart Potts) in the area of civil litigation. He taught at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto from 1976 to 1988 and served under Chief Justice Brian Dickson as Executive Legal Officer at the Supreme Court Canada from 1988 to 1990. Robert Sharpe was appointed Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto in 1990 and served in that capacity until his appointment as member of the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (now the Superior Court of Justice), in 1995. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada in 1991, awarded the Ontario Bar Association Distinguished Service Award in 2005, elected a Senior Fellow of Massey College in 2006, and received the Mundell Medal for Distinguished Contribution to Law and Letters in 2008. In 2011, he was appointed as a Visiting Professor, Oxford University and received the honorary doctoral degrees from the Law Society of Upper Canada and the University of Windsor. Robert Sharpe has written several books including The Law of Habeas Corpus (3rd ed. 2011); The Last Day, the Last Hour: The Currie Libel Trial, (1988); Injunctions and Specific Performance (3rd ed.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rare View Into 1980S Top Court
    A rare view into 1980s top court New book reveals frustrations, divisions among the judges on the Supreme Court By KIRK MAKIN JUSTICE REPORTER Thursday, December 4, 2003- Page A11 An unprecedented trove of memos by Supreme Court of Canada judges in the late 1980s reveals a highly pressured environment in which the court's first female judge threatened to quit while another judge was forced out after plunging into a state of depression. The internal memos -- quoted in a new book about former chief justice Brian Dickson -- provide a rare view into the inner workings of the country's top court, which showed itself to be badly divided at the time. The book portrays a weary bench, buried under a growing pile of complex cases and desperately worried about its eroding credibility. One faction complained bitterly about their colleagues' dithering and failure to come to grips with their responsibilities, according to memos seen for the first time by the authors of Brian Dickson: A Judge's Journey. The authors -- Mr. Justice Robert Sharpe of the Ontario Court of Appeal and University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach -- also interviewed many former judges and ex-clerks privy to the inner workings of the court at arguably the lowest point in its history. "The court was struggling with very difficult issues under very difficult circumstances at the time," Prof. Roach said yesterday. "It was a court that had an incredible amount on its plate and, in retrospect, we were well served by that court." The chief agitators were Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer and Madam Justice Bertha Wilson.
    [Show full text]
  • Forty-Ninth Parallel Constitutionalism: How Canadians Invoke American Constitutional Traditions
    FORTY-NINTH PARALLEL CONSTITUTIONALISM: HOW CANADIANS INVOKE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS I. INTRODUCTION While a debate over citing foreign law rages in America, Canadian constitutional discourse references the United States with frequency, familiarity, and no second thoughts. This is nothing new. After all, Canada’s original constitutional framework was in some ways a reac- tion against American constitutionalism.1 Similarly, the drafters of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,2 passed in 1982, took care- ful account of the American Bill of Rights.3 Nevertheless, today’s burgeoning of comparative constitutionalism invites a closer and more structured look at the role America plays in Canadian constitutional discourse. As comparative constitutionalists strive for methodological discipline,4 setting out criteria for how and when foreign constitutional experience should be employed, the Cana- dian example, with its rich references to American constitutionalism, serves as a useful case study.5 This Note proposes a framework for understanding the ways in which Canadian constitutional discourse invokes American constitu- tionalism. Canadian political and legal actors, it suggests, use Ameri- can sources in three ways: as a model to follow, as an anti-model to avoid, and as a dialogical resource for reflecting on Canada’s own con- stitutional identity.6 Each of these positions, moreover, is situated ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 See PETER H. RUSSELL, CONSTITUTIONAL ODYSSEY 12 (3d ed. 2004) (“[The] basic con- stitutional assumptions [at the time of Confederation] were those of Burke and the Whig constitu- tional settlement of 1689 rather than of Locke and the American Constitution.”); id. at 23 (de- scribing how the Fathers of Confederation saw American federalism as “thoroughly flawed”).
    [Show full text]
  • A Shared Struggle for Truth and Accountability Canada, Europe and Investigations Into the Detention and Abuse of Citizens Abroad
    A Shared Struggle for Truth and Accountability Canada, Europe and investigations into the detention and abuse of citizens abroad CEPS Special Report/March 2009 Lindsay Aagaard Abstract The post-9/11 environment, in which inter-state and inter-agency cooperation has at times been preferred to the detriment of the security and rights of individuals, is a context that Canada and many European nations share. This broad survey is intended to provide those interested in government investigations into the torture and detention of their citizens abroad with food for thought. The Canadian experience reveals that there are costs associated with the involvement of state officials in the dubious treatment of citizens: costs for institutions, individuals and political parties. Furthermore, there is no doubt that investigations are an essential part of the accountability process and that setting up a process that is independent, public and effective is a significant challenge. The O’Connor and Iacobucci inquiries are important not just because of the themes we can extract from their findings – themes relating to the sharing of information, the training of officials, the provision of consular services and other issues found in the experiences of many different countries. They are also important because of the way they sought to balance the elements required for a legitimate and successful inquiry with the demands of national security confidentiality. This work was prepared as part of the EU–Canada project – The Changing Landscape of Justice and Home Affairs Cooperation in the European Union and EU–Canada Relations – funded by the European Commission, Directorate-General for External Relations, Relations with the US and Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • The Charter Versus the Governmentâ•Žs Crime Agenda
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 58 (2012) Article 8 The hC arter versus the Government’s Crime Agenda Kent Roach Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Roach, Kent. "The hC arter versus the Government’s Crime Agenda." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 58. (2012). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol58/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. The Charter versus the Government’s Crime Agenda Kent Roach* I. INTRODUCTION At the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Free- doms,1 I posed a “Charter reality check” and asked how relevant the Charter was to the justness of our criminal justice system. After examin- ing rates of imprisonment, pre-trial detention, imprisonment of Aborigi- nal people, crime victimization and wrongful convictions, I concluded that “Parliament deserves much of the credit or blame for the state of our criminal justice system”.2 Despite the important changes that the Charter has brought to the criminal justice system,3 the Charter played a minimal role in explaining why Canada did not move towards American-style reliance on imprisonment. What was in 2008 something of an academic exercise has taken on a new relevance and urgency in 2012, given the ability of the majority Conservative government to enact a dizzying array of new crime control measures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Canadian Intelligence Dilemma and the Securitisation of Terrorism
    THE CANADIAN INTELLIGENCE DILEMMA AND THE SECURITISATION OF TERRORISM Maj L.J.H. Clifford JCSP 42 PCEMI 42 Exercise Solo Flight Exercice Solo Flight Disclaimer Avertissement Opinions expressed remain those of the author and Les opinons exprimées n’engagent que leurs auteurs do not represent Department of National Defence or et ne reflètent aucunement des politiques du Canadian Forces policy. This paper may not be used Ministère de la Défense nationale ou des Forces without written permission. canadiennes. Ce papier ne peut être reproduit sans autorisation écrite. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as © Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, représentée par represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2016. le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2016. CANADIAN FORCES COLLEGE – COLLÈGE DES FORCES CANADIENNES JCSP 42 – PCEMI 42 2015 – 2016 EXERCISE SOLO FLIGHT – EXERCICE SOLO FLIGHT THE CANADIAN INTELLIGENCE DILEMMA AND THE SECURITISATION OF TERRORISM Maj L.J.H. Clifford “This paper was written by a student “La présente étude a été rédigée par un attending the Canadian Forces College stagiaire du Collège des Forces in fulfilment of one of the requirements canadiennes pour satisfaire à l'une des of the Course of Studies. The paper is a exigences du cours. L'étude est un scholastic document, and thus contains document qui se rapporte au cours et facts and opinions, which the author contient donc des faits et des opinions alone considered appropriate and que seul l'auteur considère appropriés et correct for the subject. It does not convenables au sujet. Elle ne reflète pas necessarily reflect the policy or the nécessairement la politique ou l'opinion opinion of any agency, including the d'un organisme quelconque, y compris le Government of Canada and the gouvernement du Canada et le ministère Canadian Department of National de la Défense nationale du Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Brian Dickson: a Judge's Journey by Robert J, Sharpe and Kent Roach Toronto: Osgoode Societyfor Canadian Legal History, 2003, Pp
    362 OTTAWA LAW REVIEW REVUE DE DROIT D'OTTAWA 36:2 Brian Dickson: A Judge's Journey by Robert J, Sharpe and Kent Roach Toronto: Osgoode Societyfor Canadian Legal History, 2003, Pp. 576. THIS ATTRACTIVE BOOK IS PUBLISHED by the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History which has contributed so much to the preservation of our legal heritage. Written by two distinguished scholars, Robert J. Sharpe, now a member of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and Kent Roach, Professor of Law at the University of Toronto, it provides a unique insight into decision- making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Brian Dickson was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1973 directly from the Manitoba Court of Appeal. In 1984, on the death of Bora Laskin, he was appointed Chief Justice and served until he retired in 1990. He spent some 27 years, the greater part of his professional life, as a judge. As a young lawyer practicing before the Court, I met the Chief Justice on many occa- sions and after his retirement I worked with him on implementation of the Canadian Bar Association's report on the civil justice system. 2005 CanLIIDocs 33 While Dickson was a strong and principled leader of the Court, and introduced a number of administrative reforms, it is his Supreme Court opinions, renowned for their clarity and simplicity of expression, including those important decisions which lay down the rules for the interpretation of our individual rights and freedoms, which are his lasting legacy. Robert Sharpe worked as Executive Legal Officer at the Supreme Court from January 1988 until June 1990 and knew Dickson intimately.
    [Show full text]
  • When Secret Intelligence Becomes Evidence: Some Implications of Khadr and Charkaoui II Kent Roach
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 47 (2009) Article 6 When Secret Intelligence Becomes Evidence: Some Implications of Khadr and Charkaoui II Kent Roach Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Roach, Kent. "When Secret Intelligence Becomes Evidence: Some Implications of Khadr and Charkaoui II." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 47. (2009). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol47/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. When Secret Intelligence Becomes Evidence: Some Implications of Khadr and Charkaoui II Kent Roach* I. INTRODUCTION Jim Judd, the outgoing head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (“CSIS”), has listed “the judicialization of intelligence” as one of the major changes affecting intelligence agencies. The judicialization of intelligence is a process in which intelligence agencies have to confront, often for the first time, “a range of legal issues such as disclosure, evidentiary standards, and the testimony of intelligence personnel in criminal prosecutions”.1 Mr. Judd made these remarks on April 15, 2008. In what is surely an admirable quality in the head of an intelligence agency, he accurately predicted the future. A month after Judd’s speech, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the Omar Khadr case.
    [Show full text]
  • Brian Dickson: a Judge's Journey by Robert J, Sharpe and Kent Roach Toronto: Osgoode Societyfor Canadian Legal History, 2003, Pp
    362 OTTAWA LAW REVIEW REVUE DE DROIT D'OTTAWA 36:2 Brian Dickson: A Judge's Journey by Robert J, Sharpe and Kent Roach Toronto: Osgoode Societyfor Canadian Legal History, 2003, Pp. 576. THIS ATTRACTIVE BOOK IS PUBLISHED by the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History which has contributed so much to the preservation of our legal heritage. Written by two distinguished scholars, Robert J. Sharpe, now a member of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and Kent Roach, Professor of Law at the University of Toronto, it provides a unique insight into decision- making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Brian Dickson was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1973 directly from the Manitoba Court of Appeal. In 1984, on the death of Bora Laskin, he was appointed Chief Justice and served until he retired in 1990. He spent some 27 years, the greater part of his professional life, as a judge. As a young lawyer practicing before the Court, I met the Chief Justice on many occa- sions and after his retirement I worked with him on implementation of the Canadian Bar Association's report on the civil justice system. While Dickson was a strong and principled leader of the Court, and introduced a number of administrative reforms, it is his Supreme Court opinions, renowned for their clarity and simplicity of expression, including those important decisions which lay down the rules for the interpretation of our individual rights and freedoms, which are his lasting legacy. Robert Sharpe worked as Executive Legal Officer at the Supreme Court from January 1988 until June 1990 and knew Dickson intimately.
    [Show full text]
  • Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era
    Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era Edited by Michael Geist University of Ottawa Press LAW, PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE IN CANADA IN THE POST-SNOWDEN ERA Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era.indd 1 15-05-19 14:18 Page left blank intentionally 15-05-19 14:18 Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era.indd 2 LAW, PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE IN CANADA IN THE POST-SNOWDEN ERA EDITED BY Michael Geist University of Ottawa Press 2015 Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era.indd 3 15-05-19 14:18 The University of Ottawa Press gratefully acknowledges the support extended to its publishing list by Canadian Heritage through the Canada Book Fund, by the Canada Council for the Arts, by the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences through the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program and by the University of Ottawa. Copy editing: Joanne Muzak Proofreading: Susan James Typesetting: Édiscript enr. Cover design: Llama Communications and Édiscript enr. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Law, privacy, and surveillance in Canada in the post-Snowden era / edited by Michael Geist. (Law, technology and media) Includes bibliographical references. Issued in print and electronic formats. ISBN 978-0-7766-2207-1 (paperback). ISBN 978-0-7766-2183-8 (pdf). ISBN 978-0-7766-2182-1 (epub) 1. Electronic surveillance — Law and legislation — Canada. 2. Privacy, Right of — Canada. 3. Technology and law — Canada. I. Geist, Michael, 1968-, author, editor II. Series: Law, technology and media KE9328.L34 2015 345.71’052 C2015-903727-1 KF9670.L34 2015 C2015-903728-X © Michael Geist, 2015 under Creative Commons License Attribution — Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) Printed in Canada Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era.indd 4 15-05-19 14:18 T able of Contents Acknowledgements ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Professor Kent Roach
    Kent Roach Biography Kent Roach is a Professor of Law at the University of Toronto with cross-appointments in criminology and political science, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. He is a graduate of the University of Toronto and of Yale, and a former law clerk to Justice Bertha Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada. Professor Roach's books include Constitutional Remedies in Canada (winner of the 1997 Owen Prize for best law book), Due Process and Victims' Rights: The New Law and Politics of Criminal Justice (short- listed for the 1999 Donner Prize for best public policy book), The Supreme Court on Trial: Judicial Activism or Democratic Dialogue (short-listed for the 2001 Donner Prize), September 11: Consequences for Canada (named one of the five most significant books of 2003 by the Literary Review of Canada) and (with Robert J. Sharpe) Brian Dickson: A Judge's Journey (winner of the 2004 J.W. Dafoe Prize for best contribution to the understanding of Canada). He is also the author of Criminal Law 3rd ed (2004) and co- author (with Robert J. Sharpe) of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms 3rd ed (2005) and (with Ken Jull and Todd Archibald) of Regulatory and Corporate Liability: From Due Diligence to Risk Management (2005). Professor Roach was a contributor to the Oxford Companion to Legal Scholarship and he has written over 90 articles and chapters published in Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as in Canada. Since 1998, Professor Roach has been editor-in- chief of the Criminal Law Quarterly.
    [Show full text]