DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court Rules Against Trinity Western University’S Proposed Law School

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court Rules Against Trinity Western University’S Proposed Law School Supreme Court rules against Trinity Western University’s proposed law school OTTAWA ̶ In a pair of closely watched cases that pitted freedom of religion against equality rights, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favour of two law societies that refused accreditation to a proposed law school at a Christian university in British Columbia. The law societies of Ontario and British Columbia had refused to accept future law school graduates from Trinity Western University (TWU) in Langley because the privately funded, evangelical Christian university has a community covenant that prohibits sexual activity outside of traditional marriage. In 7-2 decisions handed down on June 15, the Supreme Court justices ruled the covenant discriminated against equal access to the law profession by lesbian, gay and other sexual minorities. Though six of the nine justices ruled that religious freedom was engaged—one said it was not engaged—they argued the law societies had proportionately balanced competing Charter rights. The Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) had won at both lower court levels, while the B.C. Law Society had lost at both levels. At issue was a balancing of the Charter rights of religious freedom and freedom of association with the public interest statutory objectives of Ontario’s law society. “In our respectful view, the LSUC’s decision not to accredit TWU’s proposed law school represents a proportionate balance between the limitation on the Charter right at issue and the statutory objectives the LSUC sought to pursue,” the majority wrote in dismissing TWU’s appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. “The LSUC’s decision was therefore reasonable.” “In our view, the LSUC was entitled to conclude that equal access to the legal profession, diversity within the bar, and preventing harm to LGBTQ law students were all within the scope of its duty to uphold the public interest in the accreditation context, which necessarily includes upholding a positive public perception of the legal profession,” the majority ruled in the Ontario case. “To begin, it is inimical to the integrity of the legal profession to limit access on the basis of personal characteristics.” “This is especially so in light of the societal trust enjoyed by the legal profession,” the decision said. “As a public actor, the LSUC has an overarching interest in protecting the values of equality and human rights in carrying out its functions.” The majority ruled the LSUC’s decision “only interferes with TWU’s ability to operate a law school governed by the mandatory covenant,” viewing it as a minor infringement, because a Christian law school could operate without a covenant. “This limitation is of minor significance because a mandatory covenant is not absolutely required to study law in a Christian environment in which people follow certain religious rules of conduct, and attending a Christian law school is preferred, not necessary, for prospective TWU law students. In the B.C. decision, the majority argued “an entire law school would be closed off to the vast majority of LGBTQ individuals on the basis of their sexual identity.” “Those who are able to sign the covenant will be able to apply to 60 more law school seats per year, whereas those 60 seats remain effectively closed to most LGBTQ people,” the justices said. Janet Epp Buckingham, a TWU professor one of the archtects of the proposed law school, said she was saddened by the decision. Deborah Gyapong, CCN Janet Epp Buckingham, a professor at Trinity Western who helped develop the proposal for the law school, called the decision disappointing. “We feel that this is a loss for diversity in Canada,” she told reporters in Ottawa. “Canada has traditionally upheld values of diversity for a broad array of religious views, so we’re very disappointed in the way the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled today.” The university will have to take time to process the judgment, she said, and had no immediate plans for changes. “Trinity Western University is not violating any law, they did not say we are violating any laws, so for the moment we’re going to continue to operate as we have. We do invite a diverse array of people to come to Trinity Western so long as they’re willing to become part of our community.” The university had argued before the courts that it does accept LGBTQ students, some of whom are evangelical Christians who abide by the covenant. Andrew Bennett, who formerly headed Canada’s Office of Religious Freedom and now promotes religious freedom through the Cardus faith-based think, suggested the decision advances “an imagined conflict between sexual identity and religious identity.” Former religious freedom ambassador Andrew Bennett said he was disappointed with the Trinity Western law school decision.Deborah Gyapong, CCN “When we do that, it becomes very difficult for us to build a common life as Canadians,” said Bennett.“This is not a question of religious identity, it’s not a question of sexual identity; it’s a question of fundamental freedoms, and also the freedom to live your faith publicly. A public faith is at the heart of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.” Bennett, a deacon in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, compared the TWU ruling to the Supreme Court’s recent Wall decision, which upheld the right of the Jehovah Witnesses to determine their own rules governing their faithful. “Clearly Wall states that it’s OK to practise your faith within the walls of your church, your temple, your gurdwara, but when you take that out and live your faith publicly, or when you associate with others who have the same faith as you …. It seems what the court has done ̶ when you put these two decisions side by side ̶ is they have taken a very narrow understanding of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, that it is only to be exercised privately.” The majority on the court—Justices Rosalie Abella, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Robert Wagner, now Chief Justice, and Clement Gascon—wrote a joint decision, arguing while religious freedom was engaged, the public interest mandates outweighed it. Justice Malcolm Rowe agreed with the majority decision, but argued in both cases religious freedom was not engaged. Former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, in her last decision with the Supreme Court, wrote concurring decisions, though she said religious freedom was significantly engaged. She referred to the 2001 decision regarding TWU and accreditation of its teachers college. “In arriving at this conclusion, I am mindful of the fact that this Court has held that a decision to deny accreditation to TWU’s school of education was unreasonable: TWU 2001,” she wrote. “That case, however, is distinguishable from the one before us. There, the College of Teachers based its claim on the concern that teachers trained at TWU would bring discrimination into the classroom.” “The LSBC here has not impugned the competence of potential graduates from TWU,” she wrote. “Instead, it is concerned with upholding its own mandate by seeking to avoid condoning or even appearing to condone discrimination.” Justices Suzanne Côté and Russell Brown disagreed with the majority, arguing the Charter binds state actors, but “not private institutions like TWU.” They argued the law societies should have accredited TWU’s law school, and that examining the school’s admissions policies and its covenant were beyond their public interest mandate to ensure future lawyers’ competence and conduct. “Accommodating religious diversity is in ‘the public interest,’, broadly understood, and approving the proposed law school does not condone discrimination against LGBTQ persons,” Côté and Brown wrote. While recognizing that many LGBTQ students would choose not to attend the law school, or sign the covenant at a cost to themselves, they argued. “TWU is not for everybody; it is designed to address the needs of people who share a number of religious convictions” (TWU 2001, at para. 25).” “In our view, however, the majority fails to appreciate that the unequal access resulting from the covenant is a function of accommodating religious freedom, which itself advances the public interest by promoting diversity in a liberal, pluralist society.” The cases attracted a number of intervenors from Catholic and other religious groups, including the Catholic Civil Rights League, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Archdiocese of Vancouver, who warned that a decision in favour of the law societies could have far-reaching implications for religious freedom in Canada..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CCCC Attended Supreme Court of Canada Hearing on the Aga Case
    Table of Contents • CCCC attended Supreme Court of Canada hearing on the Aga case CCCC attended Supreme Court of Canada hearing on the Aga case Analysis of current issues involving law, religion, and society, led by Barry W. Bussey, Director of Legal Affairs. By Barry W. Bussey CCCC (09.12.2020) - https://bit.ly/3nlGTQl - CCCC’s Director of Legal Affairs, Barry W. Bussey, represented the CCCC at the Supreme Court of Canada’s virtual hearing today (Dec 9) in the case of Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral, et al. v. Teshome Aga, (39094). CCCC was granted the opportunity to intervene in the case, and to file a brief, but was not given time for oral argument. Brief fact summary Several members of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church St. Mary Cathedral were on a committee that investigated a movement within the congregation. The committee reported to Archbishop Dimetros that the movement was heretical. The committee recommended action, including purging of heretics. When Archbishop Dimetros did not follow their recommendations, the committee members were robust in their opposition – to the point that they were warned of church discipline. Finally, they were suspended from membership. In response, they then sued in court. The church in return asked for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice agreed with the church and dismissed the disgruntled members’ lawsuit, noting that the courts have no jurisdiction to hear such cases. However, the members appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal stated that courts could hear the case because there was a contract between the members and the church.
    [Show full text]
  • Carissima Mathen*
    C h o ic es a n d C o n t r o v e r sy : J udic ia l A ppointments in C a n a d a Carissima Mathen* P a r t I What do judges do? As an empirical matter, judges settle disputes. They act as a check on both the executive and legislative branches. They vindicate human rights and civil liberties. They arbitrate jurisdictional conflicts. They disagree. They bicker. They change their minds. In a normative sense, what judges “do” depends very much on one’s views of judging. If one thinks that judging is properly confined to the law’s “four comers”, then judges act as neutral, passive recipients of opinions and arguments about that law.1 They consider arguments, examine text, and render decisions that best honour the law that has been made. If judging also involves analysis of a society’s core (if implicit) political agreements—and the degree to which state laws or actions honour those agreements—then judges are critical players in the mechanisms through which such agreement is tested. In post-war Canada, the judiciary clearly has taken on the second role as well as the first. Year after year, judges are drawn into disputes over the very values of our society, a trend that shows no signs of abating.2 In view of judges’ continuing power, and the lack of political appetite to increase control over them (at least in Canada), it is natural that attention has turned to the process by which persons are nominated and ultimately appointed to the bench.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: a 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 Canliidocs 33319 Adam M
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 67 (2014) Article 4 Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 Adam M. Dodek 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 Dodek, Adam M.. "Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 67. (2014). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol67/iss1/4 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. Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit* Adam M. Dodek** 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 The way in which Justice Rothstein was appointed marks an historic change in how we appoint judges in this country. It brought unprecedented openness and accountability to the process. The hearings allowed Canadians to get to know Justice Rothstein through their members of Parliament in a way that was not previously possible.1 — The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, PC [J]udicial appointments … [are] a critical part of the administration of justice in Canada … This is a legacy issue, and it will live on long after those who have the temporary stewardship of this position are no longer there.
    [Show full text]
  • “Canada” on the Supreme Court in 2016
    DRAFT | CPSA 2017 Please don’t cite without permission Competing Diversities: Representing “Canada” on the Supreme Court in 2016 Erin Crandall | Acadia University Robert Schertzer | University of Toronto The Supreme Court oF Canada’s (SCC) inFluence on politics and public policy – from deciding human rights cases to adjudicating Federal-provincial disputes – has long placed it in the spotlight oF political actors and watchers alike. Seeing the Court as activist or restrained, as siding with the Federal government or as balanced in its Federalism case law, as anti-democratic or the guardian oF the constitution, are all hallmarks oF the debate about its place in Canadian politics. Underpinning these debates is an often-critical focus on the justices’ themselves, the process by which they are selected, and the virtually unFettered power Prime Ministers have had in appointing individuals to the bench. In August 2016, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau clearly established his position within this debate by announcing a new way to choose SCC justices. Along with promoting more transparency and accountability in the process, the key elements oF Trudeau’s proposed reForms were to ensure that all future justices were functionally bilingual and that they represent the diversity of Canada (see Trudeau 2016b). In line with these new objectives, one oF the First things Trudeau highlighted in his announcement was a willingness to break with the convention of regional representation on the bench and move toward an open application process. With the upcoming retirement of Nova Scotia Justice Thomas Cromwell in September 2016, questions immediately emerged as to whether the government would deviate from the tradition of having one of the nine justices on the SCC come from Atlantic Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • The Appointment of Justice Rowe
    October 26, 2016 The Appointment of Justice Rowe By: Drew Yewchuk Event Commented On: Nomination of the Honourable Malcolm Rowe for Appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada On October 17, 2016 Prime Minister Trudeau nominated Justice Malcolm Rowe for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice Rowe was a trial judge in Newfoundland and Labrador for two years before being appointed to the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2001. The first section of this post describes the recent changes to the Supreme Court appointment process, as Justice Rowe is the first nomination under the new process. The second section of this post reviews Justice Rowe’s application for the position. The third discusses the public hearing, which I attended in Ottawa on 25 October 2016. The Appointment Process for Supreme Court Justices The Supreme Court Act, RSC 1985, c S-26, s 4(2) gives the power to appoint Supreme Court justices to the Governor in Council. It does not describe any process for how the Governor in Council is to do so. Prior to 2004, any consultation that took place was confidential and informal. A new process was adopted by the Liberal government in 2004 that was ad hoc and quickly organized. The 2004 committee had only one day’s notice as to who the two nominees were before speaking to them, and no part in the selection process. This process resulted in the appointment of Justices Abella and Charron to the Supreme Court. The 2005 committee – also struck by the Liberals – participated in the selection process by narrowing the short list of six names (chosen by the Minister) down to three names.
    [Show full text]
  • Dispatches from the Energy Industry
    ALUMNI MAGAZINE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SPRING 2016 DISPATCHES FROM THE ENERGY INDUSTRY Thank you to Moodys Gartner LLP for your generous five-year, $100,000 gift in support of the Bowman National Tax Moot team and student research assistantships to aid faculty research in the area of taxation law. JENNY KHAKH Aspiring Mooter // Class 2018 DEAN’S MESSAGE Spring 2016 UAlberta Law ALUMNI MAGAZINE SPRING 2016 EDITOR Jill Rutherford elcome to the Spring 2016 issue of Without Prejudice, the University of ASSISTANT EDITOR WAlberta Faculty of Law alumni magazine. As alumni, you are members Gillian Reid of a community more than 100 years in the making; a community with a distinguished tradition of learning the law and engaging in public service ART DIRECTION AND DESIGN – locally, nationally, and internationally. In this issue, we look back on the Backstreet Communications year that was to celebrate the many accomplishments of our faculty, staff, CONTRIBUTING WRITERS students, and alumni. Our cover story examines the challenges facing the Matthew Dolan, Jeff Kubik, Gillian Reid, energy industry, with commentary from professors David Percy, Q.C. and Jill Rutherford, Michael Swanberg Dr. Cameron Jefferies, as well as from distinguished alumni providing counsel or leading change in an industry critical to Alberta and Canada. Visit us online at The 2015-2016 academic year had many highlights – flip to the Year in www.lawschool.ualberta.ca and find us on: Review section to see a selection of photos – including the swearing in to the Supreme Court of Canada of The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell Brown; the promotion to full Professor of Cameron Hutchison and Vice Dean Moin Yahya; the announcement of three new Assistant Professors to the Faculty and two Visiting Without Prejudice is published annually Assistant Professors to increase our scholarly depth, strength, and diversity; by the Faculty of Law, with a circulation and a tremendously successful competitive moot season for our students.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversifying the Bar: Lawyers Make History Biographies of Early and Exceptional Ontario Lawyers of Diverse Communities Arran
    ■ Diversifying the bar: lawyers make history Biographies of Early and Exceptional Ontario Lawyers of Diverse Communities Arranged By Year Called to the Bar, Part 2: 1941 to the Present Click here to download Biographies of Early and Exceptional Ontario Lawyers of Diverse Communities Arranged By Year Called to the Bar, Part 1: 1797 to 1941 For each lawyer, this document offers some or all of the following information: name gender year and place of birth, and year of death where applicable year called to the bar in Ontario (and/or, until 1889, the year admitted to the courts as a solicitor; from 1889, all lawyers admitted to practice were admitted as both barristers and solicitors, and all were called to the bar) whether appointed K.C. or Q.C. name of diverse community or heritage biographical notes name of nominating person or organization if relevant sources used in preparing the biography (note: living lawyers provided or edited and approved their own biographies including the names of their community or heritage) suggestions for further reading, and photo where available. The biographies are ordered chronologically, by year called to the bar, then alphabetically by last name. To reach a particular period, click on the following links: 1941-1950, 1951-1960, 1961-1970, 1971-1980, 1981-1990, 1991-2000, 2001-. To download the biographies of lawyers called to the bar before 1941, please click Biographies of Early and Exceptional Ontario Lawyers of Diverse Communities Arranged By Year Called to the Bar, Part 2: 1941 to the Present For more information on the project, including the set of biographies arranged by diverse community rather than by year of call, please click here for the Diversifying the Bar: Lawyers Make History home page.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Justice Malcolm Rowe Becomes Honorary Fellow
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Honourable Mr. Justice Malcolm Rowe, Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, Receives Honorary Fellowship from The American College of Trial Lawyers NEWPORT BEACH, CA (March 16, 2018) – The American College of Trial Lawyers (the College) presented The Honourable Mr. Justice Malcolm Rowe of the Supreme Court of Canada with Honorary Fellowship at its Spring Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, on Saturday, March 3, 2018. The American College of Trial Lawyers is composed of Fellows who represent the best of the trial bar in the United States and Canada. There are more than 5,800 Fellows of the College, including Judicial Fellows elected before ascending to the bench, and Honorary Fellows, who have attained eminence in the highest ranks of the legal profession, the judiciary, or public service. In total, there have been twenty-one other Canadian Honorary Fellows in the College. Justice Rowe is the twenty-second. College President Samuel H. Franklin said, “Historically, all of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Canada have been inducted as Honorary Fellows. We are proud to have you as an Honorary Fellow. We value our relationship with your court and all the fellow justices who sit with Justice Rowe on the Canadian Supreme Court.” Regent Mona T. Duckett, Q.C. of the Dawson, Duckett, Garcia & Johnson law firm in Edmonton, Alberta, introduced Justice Rowe. Ms. Duckett said, “As we advance the mission of the College to support and strengthen the rule of law and the administration of justice, we occasionally extend Honorary Fellowship to certain jurists, who have attained a very high degree of respect and eminence.
    [Show full text]
  • Gender Equality I
    Gender EqualityI.,. ,!Sa*=fl q J$ * ."" &,j & ;"<$$p "" !:A"- %* BY MICHELLE FALARDEAU-RAMSAY, Q.C, Pour montrer I'Pvolution des droits a I'PgalitP, lkuteure the future." In the early years of Confederation, women utilise, h commencer par les '5fameuses"du cas Personne en faced severe discrimination under the law and were sys- 1929, la tradition chez les Canadiennes, de se seruir du tematically excluded from the judicial system. Certain systi.me judiciaire incluant les tribunaux administratifj. criminal laws, such as infanticide, applied only to women, and different punishments for crimes were meted out When I graduated from law school in the late '50s, I was depending on the sex of the offender. Family law, under one of only six women in a class of 200. I was asked at the both civil law in Quebec and common law in other parts time, on more than one occasion, whether I was studying. - of Canada, treated women entirely as dependents. For law because I wanted to marry a lawyer, a question that example, a husband's permission was necessary for a wife would be inconceivable today. The first time I appeared in to engage in business, or even to administer or sell prop- court on behalf of a client, I was asked by a colleague erty which she had owned before marriage. whether I would cry if I lost the case. And I remember one Nor could women have any influence over the laws that occasion in the Montreal courthouse when three male affected them. Women could not vote or hold public colleagues stood guard while I used the men's washroom, office, and it was not until 1897 that the first woman- because it had not occurred to anyone to put aladies' room Clara Brett Martin-was admitted to the Bar of a Cana- in the area reserved for lawyers.
    [Show full text]
  • Industry Update on Electricity, Natural Gas and Telecommunications
    Industry Update on Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications GPT2021-0562 ATTACHMENT 1 ENERGY PRICES AND MARKETS Natural Gas The 2021 March gas cost flow-through rate was $4.10 per gigajoule. Prices are forecast to remain relatively flat through 2021. Electricity The ENMAX regulated rate option price for 2021 March was 7.34 cents per kilowatt-hour. The month to date all-hours average power pool price for 2021 April 5 was 6.22 cents per kilowatt-hour. For reference, the all-hours average price for 2020 April was 2.89 cents per Page 1 of 4 ISC: Unrestricted Industry Update on Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications GPT2021-0562 ATTACHMENT 1 kilowatt-hour. Power pool prices are forecast to stay between 6 and 7 cents per kilowatt-hour for the remainder of 2021. UTILITIES AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENTS Supreme Court rules Canadian Carbon Tax is constitutional On 2021 March 25 in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Federal Government’s national carbon tax is entirely constitutional, putting an end to the two-year legal proceeding with conservative premiers over the policy. In the 405-page decision, Chief Justice Richard Wagner, speaking on behalf of the majority, found the Federal Government’s 2018 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act — which requires provinces to meet minimum national standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by applying a price on the use of fossil fuels by large industries or consumers fueling their cars — “is critical to our response to an existential threat to human life in Canada and around the world.” Justice Malcolm Rowe and Justice Russell Brown wrote lengthy dissents, arguing the majority decision would give Ottawa precedent to set minimum national standards in other areas of provincial jurisdiction, “including intra-provincial trade and commerce, health, and the management of natural resources.” “This is a model of federalism that rejects our Constitution and rewrites the rules of Confederation,” Brown wrote.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul J. Lawrence Fonds PF39
    FINDING AID FOR Paul J. Lawrence fonds PF39 User-Friendly Archival Software Tools provided by v1.1 Summary The "Paul J. Lawrence fonds" Fonds contains: 0 Subgroups or Sous-fonds 4 Series 0 Sub-series 0 Sub-sub-series 2289 Files 0 File parts 40 Items 0 Components Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................Biographical/Sketch/Administrative History .........................................................................................................................54 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................Scope and Content .........................................................................................................................54 .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IMMIGRATION LAW REPORTER Fourth Series/Quatri`Eme S´Erie Recueil De Jurisprudence En Droit De L’Immigration VOLUME 5 (Cited 5 Imm
    IMMIGRATION LAW REPORTER Fourth Series/Quatri`eme s´erie Recueil de jurisprudence en droit de l’immigration VOLUME 5 (Cited 5 Imm. L.R. (4th)) EDITORS-IN-CHIEF/REDACTEURS´ EN CHEF Cecil L. Rotenberg, Q.C. Mario D. Bellissimo, LL.B. Barrister & Solicitor Ormston, Bellissimo, Rotenberg Don Mills, Ontario Toronto, Ontario Certified Specialist Certified Specialist ASSOCIATE EDITOR/REDACTEUR´ ADJOINT Randolph Hahn, D.PHIL.(OXON), LL.B. Guberman, Garson Toronto, Ontario Certified Specialist CARSWELL EDITORIAL STAFF/REDACTION´ DE CARSWELL Cheryl L. McPherson, B.A.(HONS.) Director, Primary Content Operations Directrice des activit´es li´ees au contenu principal Graham B. Peddie, LL.B. Product Development Manager Sharon Yale, LL.B., M.A. Jennifer Weinberger, B.A.(HONS.), Supervisor, Legal Writing J.D. Supervisor, Legal Writing Peter Bondy, B.A.(HONS.), LL.B. Heather Stone, B.A., LL.B. Lead Legal Writer Lead Legal Writer Rachel Bernstein, B.A.(HONS.), J.D. Peggy Gibbons, B.A.(HONS.), LL.B. Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Jim Fitch, B.A., LL.B. Stephanie Hanna, B.A., M.A., LL.B. Senior Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Mark Koskie, B.A.(HONS.), M.A., LL.B. Nicole Ross, B.A., LL.B. Legal Writer Legal Writer Amanda Stewart, B.A.(HONS.), LL.B. Martin-Fran¸cois Parent, LL.B., Senior Legal Writer LL.M., DEA (PARIS II) Bilingual Legal Writer Erin McIntosh, B.A.(HONS.) Content Editor IMMIGRATION LAW REPORTER, a national series of topical law reports, Recueil de jurisprudence en droit de l’immigration, une s´erie nationale de is published twelve times per year.
    [Show full text]