Charter values have become a topic of intense debate. This debate recently surfaced in the Supreme Court\u2019s decision on the proposed law school at Trinity Western University. The Court found that, in balancing the Charter value of equality against religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter, it was reasonable for law societies in Ontario and British Columbia to favour equality and deny accreditation to Trinity\u2019s law school. Four of the nine judges of the Court (including two judges that ruled against Trinity) raised concerns with recourse to Charter values where administrative law and Charter issues intersect. This panel will evaluate these concerns.<\/p>\n
The Hon. Justice Peter D. Lauwers received a LL.B from the University of Toronto in 1978 and a LL.M. from Osgoode Hall of York University in 1983. He was called to the bar in 1980. When he was appointed to the Superior Court of Ontario in 2008, Justice Lauwers was a partner at Miller Thomson LLP. He practised in the areas of civil litigation, constitutional law, human rights, and administrative law and appeared at every level of court. Justice Lauwers was appointed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 2012.<\/p>\n
The Hon. Justice Lorne Sossin was appointed to the Superior Court of Justice of Ontarion in December of 2018. He was a professor of Osgoode Hall Law School, at York University and served as dean (2010-2018). Justice Sossin was formerly a faculty member at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, a litigation lawyer with the firm of Borden & Elliot (now Borden Ladner Gervais), and a law clerk to former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada. He holds doctorates from the University of Toronto and from Columbia University in law. He is the author of numerous books and articles.<\/p>\n
Mark Mancini is an LL.M. student at the University of Chicago Law School. He writes in the area of administrative law, particularly the law of judicial review. He has a developing interest in internal agency design and how agency policies and procedures affect the efficacy of judicial review.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"template":"","library--year":[105],"law-and-freedom":[157],"library-theme":[89,158],"dicey-law-review":[],"main-categories":[71],"class_list":["post-31169","library","type-library","status-publish","hentry","library--year-105","law-and-freedom-law-freedom-2019","library-theme-charter","library-theme-charter-values","main-categories-law-freedom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library\/31169","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/library"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library\/31169\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"library--year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library--year?post=31169"},{"taxonomy":"law-and-freedom","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/law-and-freedom?post=31169"},{"taxonomy":"library-theme","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library-theme?post=31169"},{"taxonomy":"dicey-law-review","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/dicey-law-review?post=31169"},{"taxonomy":"main-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/main-categories?post=31169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}