{"id":35087,"date":"2026-06-24T01:05:01","date_gmt":"2026-06-24T07:05:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/?p=35087"},"modified":"2026-06-23T09:48:16","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T15:48:16","slug":"clause-and-effect-section-33-and-the-constitutional-conversation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/en\/clause-and-effect-section-33-and-the-constitutional-conversation\/","title":{"rendered":"Clause and Effect: Section 33 and the Constitutional Conversation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Professor Eric Adams (University of Alberta) and Professor Dwight Newman (University of Saskatchewan) join us for a friendly debate on the interpretation of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<\/span><\/p>\n

Recorded before a standing-room-only audience at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law in November 2025, the discussion took place prior to Professor Adams’ appointment to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta in April 2026.<\/span><\/p>\n

Professor Adams argues that constitutional “dialogue” leaves open the possibility of judicial engagement with rights, even under a section 33 declaration. Professor Newman argues that section 33 operates as a legislative “shield” against judicial engagement with rights during its application.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moderated by Professor Gerard Kennedy (University of Alberta), the conversation examines competing interpretations of section 33, the proper relationship between courts and legislatures, and the continuing significance of the notwithstanding clause within Canada’s constitutional framework.<\/span><\/p>\n