Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bleepbloopblop

CCF law conference - great for networking, travel bursaries available for articling students

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone.

I work for a group called the Canadian Constitution Foundation. We put on an annual law conference and I have been given permisssion to post this here for those who may be interested in attending. I hope this interests at least a few of you on these forums. The conference is a great place to network with some notable lawyers and politicians.

 

We’ll have talks on a wide range of subjects that affect law and human freedom, including the Omar Khadr case, Uber vs. taxi regulators, free trade in alcohol, civil forfeiture law, and vaping regulation.

This year's speakers will include the Hon. Justice David Stratas; Omar Khadr lawyer Nate Whitling; dean of Osgoode Hall Law School Lorne Sossin; healthcare freedom advocate Dr. Brian Day; intellectual property lawyer Andrew Mincov; political scientist Tom Flanagan; and alcohol law experts Arnold Schwisberg and Ian Blue.

For articling students, a 50% travel scholarship is being offered, as well as a special student-only session with the Hon. Justice David Stratas on Saturday. Registration is cheaper for articling students and a special early-bird discount is also available for anyone who registers before the end of November.

 

Read more about it at theccf.ca/2016conference

 

The conference is at Hart House on the University of Toronto's downtown campus from Jan 8 to 10, 2016.

Edited by Bleepbloopblop
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, duplicates of this posting were removed in accordance with the board's policy on spam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh,  Stratas and Sossin!  Two of my favourite people in the legal world. I highly recommend this, just for the opportunity to hear these two.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to one of these back in the day and felt somewhat duped when I realized that it was one of those pretend to debate issues but really a conservatives attack the unsuspecting liberals who have been invited to present their points.  I recall actually apologizing to one presenter for how embarrassingly rude a large contingent of the audience was to him.  I'm pretty sure a lawyer there told me (in all sincerity) that hate speech laws threatened their right to publish non-mainstream views on property law. This same group held a debate on campus that year about abortion where the group's presenters steamrolled some presenters from Planned Parenthood (I think) with fake facts about abortion--this was around the time when that bill was on the table about fetus' rights (or whatever the nonsense was circa 2009). Mainly I was mad because I traveled to go to this thing and was stuck there for the whole weekend.  YMMV.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to one of these back in the day and felt somewhat duped when I realized that it was one of those pretend to debate issues but really a conservatives attack the unsuspecting liberals who have been invited to present their points.  I recall actually apologizing to one presenter for how embarrassingly rude a large contingent of the audience was to him.  I'm pretty sure a lawyer there told me (in all sincerity) that hate speech laws threatened their right to publish non-mainstream views on property law. This same group held a debate on campus that year about abortion where the group's presenters steamrolled some presenters from Planned Parenthood (I think) with fake facts about abortion--this was around the time when that bill was on the table about fetus' rights (or whatever the nonsense was circa 2009). Mainly I was mad because I traveled to go to this thing and was stuck there for the whole weekend.  YMMV.

 

I'm leery of any group that uses that word "Constitutional" in their title. Constitutional means OMG SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS H8 FREE SPEECH.

 

The site is a hoot. Look at this endorsement!

 

"I believe in the rule of law. I believe in freedom, property rights and the BNA Act. The Canadian Constitution Foundation defends the constitutional rights of Canadian citizens against the ever encroaching state. They have helped many people who have not been able to take on the nanny state by themselves. I am proud to be a long time supporter of this important organization."

 

OMFG THE VIDEO! THE VIDEO :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

 

*edit There is a limit to how many emoticons can be used!?

Edited by artsydork
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an interesting account. Is it for sure the same group?

 

OP, any response to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any idea as to the legitimacy of the group or conference, but Tom Flanagan is the famous former Harper advisor and Wildrose organizer, and Ian Blue is an appropriately named Tory with a reputation for being a firebrand and a great speaker.  That being said, Sossin is not (to the best of my knowledge) a partisan of any stripe; he's just one of the leading legal minds in the country.

 

So... who knows.

 

Frankly, if Flanagan and Blue are going to try to ambush Sossin on policy, popcorn's on me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the group's Board of Directors:

 

Andy Crooks, former director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

 

Dr. Michael Walker, Fraser Institute

 

Marni Soupcoff, Comments Editor at the National Post

 

Glenn Fox, a "heavily opinionated" "climate change denier" who "pulls from the annals of Libertarian studies." (Three separate reviews from Ratemyprofessor.)

 

Will "Assisted suicide patients should be required to talk to a judge" Johnston, MD

 

Patrick Donnelly, an energy securities lawyer (all I could find was this article talking trumpeting free trade and slamming Chavez).

 

Claus Jensen, a retired owner of a shipping company (only public opinion I could find was hating paying for building permits, which...fair enough).

 

Finally, Mark Mitchell, who was endorsed by Hedy Fry when he ran for a Park Board?

 

 

Besides the Hedy Fry thing, my guess would be get your popcorn ready.

Edited by Dwarvishleaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any idea as to the legitimacy of the group or conference, but Tom Flanagan is the famous former Harper advisor and Wildrose organizer, and Ian Blue is an appropriately named Tory with a reputation for being a firebrand and a great speaker.  That being said, Sossin is not (to the best of my knowledge) a partisan of any stripe; he's just one of the leading legal minds in the country.

 

So... who knows.

 

Frankly, if Flanagan and Blue are going to try to ambush Sossin on policy, popcorn's on me.

 

I'd like to see any of them take on David Stratas as well :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for taking so long to reply to this thread. I'll try to cover what I can.
 

FYI, duplicates of this posting were removed in accordance with the board's policy on spam.

 

A private conversation I had with Moderator almostnot seem to imply I could post in both. I apologize if I made a mistake, it was not my intention to spam up your forums.
 

Ahh,  Stratas and Sossin!  Two of my favourite people in the legal world. I highly recommend this, just for the opportunity to hear these two.

 

Indeed.  The Hon. Justice Stratas will be speaking on an interesting topic too.

He provided me with a rough outline:

 

"Reflections on the Decline of Legal Doctrine"

Some say that judges are increasingly importing non-legal, freestanding
policy considerations to tweak, revise or discard constraining legal
doctrine, sometimes repeatedly and frequently in the same area of law.
Does precedent and traditional legal principle play a smaller role in
judicial decision-making these days?

Justice Stratas will kick off the conference by provoking reflection and
discussion on that question. To the extent the answer to the question is
yes, does this development further or undermine respect for rights,
liberties and freedoms? A question period will follow his lecture.


 

I went to one of these back in the day and felt somewhat duped when I realized that it was one of those pretend to debate issues but really a conservatives attack the unsuspecting liberals who have been invited to present their points.  I recall actually apologizing to one presenter for how embarrassingly rude a large contingent of the audience was to him.  I'm pretty sure a lawyer there told me (in all sincerity) that hate speech laws threatened their right to publish non-mainstream views on property law. This same group held a debate on campus that year about abortion where the group's presenters steamrolled some presenters from Planned Parenthood (I think) with fake facts about abortion--this was around the time when that bill was on the table about fetus' rights (or whatever the nonsense was circa 2009). Mainly I was mad because I traveled to go to this thing and was stuck there for the whole weekend.  YMMV.

 

If it was the CCF (which I can't confirm), I can only assume you went to our conference many years ago when our organization tended to orient itself with a more conservative crowd. We have a different staff and a different approach these days. I hope you would consider giving it another try. Since we relaunched the conference last year we've worked really hard to include competent speakers on all sides of our debates.

For example, last year for our assisted dying panel I would argue most of the crowd sided with the BCCLA's Grace Pastine who was arguing on the non-conservative side of the debate. I don't think the group you described would respond in the same way.

 

I'm leery of any group that uses that word "Constitutional" in their title. Constitutional means OMG SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS H8 FREE SPEECH.

 

The site is a hoot. Look at this endorsement!

 

"I believe in the rule of law. I believe in freedom, property rights and the BNA Act. The Canadian Constitution Foundation defends the constitutional rights of Canadian citizens against the ever encroaching state. They have helped many people who have not been able to take on the nanny state by themselves. I am proud to be a long time supporter of this important organization."

 

OMFG THE VIDEO! THE VIDEO :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

 

*edit There is a limit to how many emoticons can be used!?

 

I'm not sure how I can respond to this. Try to keep an open mind. We certainly orient our work from a pro-liberty perspective if that is your concern.
 

That's an interesting account. Is it for sure the same group?

OP, any response to this?

I can't confirm this as I've only been with the CCF for a year. We certainly wouldn't touch abortion discussions nowadays. Perhaps he or she is confusing us with the JCCF?
 

Check out the group's Board of Directors:

 

Andy Crooks, former director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

 

Dr. Michael Walker, Fraser Institute

 

Marni Soupcoff, Comments Editor at the National Post

 

Glenn Fox, a "heavily opinionated" "climate change denier" who "pulls from the annals of Libertarian studies." (Three separate reviews from Ratemyprofessor.)

 

Will "Assisted suicide patients should be required to talk to a judge" Johnston, MD

 

Patrick Donnelly, an energy securities lawyer (all I could find was this article talking trumpeting free trade and slamming Chavez).

 

Claus Jensen, a retired owner of a shipping company (only public opinion I could find was hating paying for building permits, which...fair enough).

 

Finally, Mark Mitchell, who was endorsed by Hedy Fry when he ran for a Park Board?

 

 

Besides the Hedy Fry thing, my guess would be get your popcorn ready.

I'm a little confused here. We certainly have some libertarians and conservatives on our board, but I don't think that should dissuade people from attending our conference.

I'm not extremely familiar with all of the board members' work and opinions but I can assure you that our Exective Director Marni Soupcoff works very hard to bring in speakers with different viewpoints to talk on interesting subjects.


We will also be talking about some of our big cases at this event:

  • R. v. Comeau (on interprovincial free trade)
  • R. v. Montague (civil foreiture, property rights)
  • Cambie v. MSCBC (on whether there is a constitutional right to procure your health care privately)

 

I would recommend people consider attending based on the speakers and discussions we will be having above all else. If you have concerns that there might be some opinions expressed that are different from yours I would suggest you try to keep an open mind. Sometimes it is good to see your own beliefs and ideas challenged at events like these.

Thanks everyone and again I apologize for taking so long to respond to these posts.

Edited by Bleepbloopblop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh,  Stratas and Sossin!  Two of my favourite people in the legal world. I highly recommend this, just for the opportunity to hear these two.

 

Seconded. Or thirded after Jaggers.

 

If you have time / funding take advantage of this conference.  Especially this part:  [blink]"as well as a special student-only session with the Hon. Justice David Stratas on Saturday."[/blink]

Edited by kurrika

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seconded. Or thirded after Jaggers.

 

If you have time / funding take advantage of this conference.  Especially this part:  [blink]"as well as a special student-only session with the Hon. Justice David Stratas on Saturday."[/blink]

Yes! We'll have more details on exactly what that special student-only session will entail very soon as well. I'll make sure to come back to this thread and post about it.

 

This might be a long shot considering some of the hostile responses I got before, but if any lawyers here would consider sponsoring a student to attend this event we would love to hear from you. As previously mentioned, we may be able to cover half of their travel expenses to get them to the conference if they're from out of town and we can certainly provide a substantial discount on registration.

 

Please send me a private message or an email to [email protected] if anyone would like to discuss this.

Edited by Bleepbloopblop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • After graduating, i decided to study for the LSAT while volunteering. My first score was pretty bad (due to nerves i think), but the second time around (June 15th) i was able to score a 154. I know that a 154 is still lower than the current minimum for law schools in Canada.. Now, while doing PTs, i usually score around a 157-160. I have a CGPA of 3.5, and my B2 would roughly be around a 3.6. Again, just shy of the minimum. I know that law schools look at your application holistically. Just to give you an idea of my work/volunteering experience, I interned for the federal government in Ottawa as a policy analyst for around 2 years, and will be working for the government again in the next month or so. I volunteered at a Non-profit as a policy analyst and advocacy director, as well as other noteworthy volunteer positions such as working with ex-convicts, and helping immigrant refugees integrate into Canadian society. Submission of applications for law school begin in September and i don't want to wait any longer. I'm unsure whether i should take the LSAT for the third time in August and risk getting a lower score, or if i should apply and try my luck. I feel like some of you folks would have a better idea as to whether I have a shot getting in with these scores if i have a strong application (personal statement, resume, ECs, etc.). I think it's the risk of getting a lower score that scares me, because if i do, that would look pretty bad on my application and i think it would ruin my chances of ever getting in. Thanks so much!!  
    • I dont think any schools will look at the two tests differently. I think it is important to recognize that waiting for a regular test to be administered (if that is what you prefer) will probably not happen for a few months, so if you're looking to apply this cycle, I wouldn't wait until the end of the year in hopes of avoiding the flex. You don't want to feel like you're studying or taking the test too last minute... especially if you have to take the test again! 
    • I have bought it when 7sage gave a discount on it, but there are no contents even relevant to Canadian law. So, don't buy it.
    • yes i did. i don't get it either to be honest. I wanted to call them but they're closed today.. very frustrating 
    • I don't remember exactly when I applied (it was in late October) and I received a entrance scholarship in the first big wave of 2020. I didn't write my PS until January.

×
×
  • Create New...