Winning teams from the Canadian Division tournament go on to compete in the World Championship match (known as the White & Case Jessup International Rounds) being held April 9 – 15 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Washington, DC. Participants at the Jessup Cup finals hail from roughly 700 law schools in 100 countries. Law students learn to prepare written and oral arguments on complex issues of public international law involving hypothetical cases before the International Court of Justice.

“We are delighted that Robson Hall is hosting the Canadian Rounds of the Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition,” said Dr. Gillian MacNeil, an assistant professor at the University of Manitoba’s Faculty of Law and co-cordinator of the competition with Dr. Gerard Kennedy. “We are particularly happy to be welcoming teams, advisors and guest judges from across Canada to compete in person for the first time in three years. We hope that many members of the Robson Hall community have a chance to come to the competition and observe some of the rounds.”

“A qualifying tournament of this size can’t happen without help from the legal community,” said Kennedy. “We are most thankful to our sponsors and volunteer judges and students,” he said, adding, “We especially would like to thank our student research assistant, Brandon Leverick, who has excelled in many aspects of organization, particularly regarding coordinating the volunteers. Volunteering for the competition is a great opportunity to interact with current law students and senior members of the legal profession and to witness oral advocacy first-hand.”

This year’s moot problem addresses several international legal questions, including the interpretation of a peace treaty, deadly attacks in allegedly occupied territory, unilateral economic sanctions, and the legal consequences of failing to dispose of hazardous waste properly.

Anyone interested in volunteering for the Canadian Division of the Jessup moot are welcome to visit the website.

The 2023 sponsors of the Jessup Moot include:

Gold Sponsors
Lax O’Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb
MLT Aikins

Silver Sponsors
Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP Barristers
NRF
Torys LLP
White & Case

Bronze Sponsors
Canadian Council on International Law
Olthuis Van Ert
Osler

Pewter Sponsors
Fasken
Stikeman Elliott

The visit came about after Manitoba Court of Appeal Chief Justice Richard Chartier mentioned Justice Brown’s upcoming visit to Dr. Richard Jochelson, Dean of Law. “The Chief Justice put us in touch and Justice Brown was eager to visit with students,” Jochelson explained. “At that point we handed things off to the Manitoba Law Students’ Association (MLSA) and the rest happened.”

“The rest” consisted of a friendly “Fireside Chat” with the Justice, who, as a former law professor and Associate Dean at the University of Alberta, demonstrated ease and great interest in conversing with the near-capacity Moot Courtroom.

MLSA President Mikal Sokolowski had organized an interview panel consisting of Assistant Professor Gerard Kennedy, Manitoba Indigenous Law Student executive member Melinda Moch, and MLSA executive member Braydon Gray. Pre-submitted questions ranged from soft-balls about most memorable experiences on the Bench, to the most valuable skills needed to be successful as a lawyer.

Manitoba Indigenous Law Student Association member Melinda Moch (left) asks Supreme Court of Canada Justice Russell Brown (right) a question as Assistant Professor Gerard Kennedy (middle) looks on.

“Legal writing,” he said, emphatically and multiple times, “is the most important skill a lawyer should have.”

When asked for observations of how lawyers have changed over his years on the Bench since he was first appointed to Alberta’s Court of Queen’s (now King’s) Bench in 2013 until now, he noted that legal writing has improved.

For every question he was asked Justice Brown gave a warm and thoughtful answer. Law students learned many important insights from Justice Brown, and had a further opportunity to mingle with him after the formal chat over lunch in the Common Room.

Justice Brown holds degrees from the University of British Columbia (BA), the University of Victoria (LLB) and the University of Toronto (LLM, SJD). He was admitted to the Bars of British Columbia (1995) and Alberta (2008), and practiced at Davis & Company (now DLA Piper LLP) in Vancouver from 1995 to 1996 and at Carfra & Lawton (now Carfra Lawton LLP) in Victoria from 1996 to 2004. From 2008 to 2013, he was associate counsel to Miller Thomson LLP. From 2004 to 2013, Justice Brown was a member of the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta, variously as professor and associate dean. His main areas of practice were commercial law, medical negligence, public authority liability, insurance law and trusts and estates.

He was appointed to the Court of Queen’s (at the time) Bench of Alberta on February 7, 2013, and to the Court of Appeal of Alberta on March 7, 2014. Justice Brown also served as a Judge of the Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories and a Judge of the Court of Appeal of Nunavut. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada on August 31, 2015. His full biography is on the Supreme Court of Canada website.

The Faculty of Law will again be honoured to host Justice Brown’s colleague, The Honourable Andromache Karakatsanis at the end of October for law students and faculty at Robson Hall.

The blog will include information on:

• Access to justice-related changes to the law in Manitoba and in Canada;
• Interesting cases that involve access to justice from Manitoba or that are applicable in Manitoba; 
• News of research and conferences on access to justice;
• Updates from access to justice stakeholders in Manitoba; and
• News on initiatives regarding access to justice within Manitoba and Canada.

Professor Kennedy currently teaches Civil Procedure and Administrative Law at Robson Hall and Ms. Brown currently teaches the Access to Justice course. Kennedy’s students will have the opportunity to contribute to the blog, in addition to two student research assistants, second-year law students, Calvin Ediger and Eric Epp.

“I am honoured to be co-editing this blog, which we hope will be a source for laypeople, policymakers, and members of the legal profession to learn about interesting developments in access to justice,” said Kennedy.

“I am thrilled to be working alongside Professor Kennedy on this A2J Blog,” said Brown. “My hope is that the blog will provide Manitoba’s Access to Justice stakeholder organizations with a central landing space for updates on our province’s Access to Justice initiatives and will provide a means for increased conversation and collaboration as we work together to increase access to justice for Manitobans.”

The blog is now up and running and is hosted by the Faculty of Law’s website.

“The Distinguished Visitors Lecture Series is an opportunity for us to bring many of Canada’s and the world’s leading scholars to Robson Hall,” said Dr. Gerard Kennedy, an Assistant Professor at the law school and one of the series’ organizers. “We are delighted to have such a diverse group of leading scholars this year to speak on such an interesting and wide range of topics.”

Last term, the Faculty kicked off the lecture series with Dr. Carol Liao, an Associate Professor from the University of British Columbia’s Peter A. Allard School of Law who spoke on “Critical Race Feminism and Sustainable Corporate Law.”

The lecture series also collaborated with the Faculty of Law’s Marcel A. Desautels Centre for Private Enterprise and the Law to present the Rod Senft Lecture in Family Business Law. Featured this year was former Dean of Law and former UM Chancellor, Mr. Harvey Secter, O.M. who discussed how “Successful family businesses build strong economies and healthy communities: The advisor’s role in perpetuating the virtuous circle.”

Recordings of both lectures are available on the Robson Hall Youtube channel at the above links.

Six guests are lined up for the winter term, starting with the inaugural talk of the newly established Desautels Lecture Series on January 25^th at 12:00 p.m. featuring Dr. Matthew Bellamy of Carleton University’s Department of History. Dr. Bellamy will discuss his book Brewed in the North: A History of Labatt’s in a talk titled “Family Firm to Managerial Enterprise: Three Generations of Labatt’s and the Bootlegging Manager-Entrepreneur Who Saved the Brewery from Prohibition.”

The Annual DeLloyd J. Guth Visiting Lecture in Legal History continues virtually with the 13^th installment on February 10^th at 12:00 p.m. featuring Wilfrid Laurier University’s Dr. Barrington Walker, Professor of History, VP Academic and Associate Vice-President of Equity Diversity and Inclusion (EDI). Dr. Walker will speak on “Inchoate Citizens: Black Canadians, Law and the Racial State,” drawing on published and in-progress works exploring the Canadian racial state formation, law and the Black Canadian experience over time.

A complete listing of the 2022 Winter Term speakers is below and in the 2022 Lecture Season Catalogue on the Faculty of Law website. Registration is now open for all lectures.

Upcoming Lectures:

• January 25th, Desautels Lecture Series Presents: Dr. Matthew Bellamy
  Dr. Bellamy is a Professor of History at Carleton University. He will speak on: “Family Firm to Managerial Enterprise: Three Generations of Labatts and the Bootlegging Manager-Entrepreneur who saved the Brewery from Prohibition.”
• February 1st, Distinguished Visitors Lecture Series presents: Dr. Helen Duffy
  Dr. Helen Duffy is a Professor of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights at Leiden University.
• February 3rd, Distinguished Visitors Lecture Series Presents: Dr. Darcy Lindberg
  Dr. Darcy Lindberg is a Professor at the University of Victoria Faculty of Law. The title of his talk is “Promises to Keep: Cree Treaties, Cree Ceremonies, and Pathways to a Shared Constitution.”
• February 10th, the 13th Annual DeLloyd J. Guth Visiting Lecture in Legal History: Dr. Barrington Walker
  Dr. Barrington Walker is a Professor of History at Wilfrid Laurier University. He will speak on: “Inchoate Citizens: Black Canadians, Law and the Racial State.”
• February 15th, Distinguished Visitors Lecture Series Presents: Dr. Nayha Acharya
  Dr. Acharya is a law professor at Dalhousie’s Schulich School of Law. Her talk is on “Adjudication and Mediation are Cousins Playing in the Same Sandbox: Reflections on Mandatory Mediation.”
• March 8th, Distinguished Visitors Lecture Series Presents: Dr. Teresa Scassa
  Dr. Teresa Scassa is a Canada Research Chair in Information Law and Policy and Full Professor at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section.

Proposing that the subject of the Great Debate of corporate law can no longer be Shareholder vs Stakeholder but rather that fiduciary duty is owed to the corporation, Liao set out how climate obligations are now part of a corporation’s fiduciary duties, now that courts are confirming across the board that climate change is real.

The three dimensions of the sustainability of corporations, she argued, are environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability. Liao, who was recently named one of Canada’s Top 100 Most Powerful Women by the Women’s Executive Network, provoked many questions from the audience with her talk, a defining characteristic of the Faculty’s long-running, interactive lecture series.

“The Distinguished Visitors Series is an opportunity to welcome many of the country’s – and world’s best legal minds, said Assistant Professor Dr. Gerard Kennedy, chair of the series’ organizing committee.

“This year has five outstanding speakers,” Kennedy added. “Hosting them will be an intellectual treat – and our honour.”

The full recording of Dr. Liao’s lecture is available to view on the Faculty of Law’s Youtube Channel.

Upcoming lectures in the series include:

November 18, 12:00 p.m.
Dr. Nayha Acharya, Schulich School of Law – “Adjudication and Mediation are Cousins Playing in the Same Sandbox: Reflections on Mandatory Mediation.”

December 2, 12:00 p.m.
Dr. Darcy Lindberg, UVic Faculty of Law – “Promises to Keep: Cree Treaties, Cree Ceremonies, and Pathways to a Shared Constitution.”

February 1, 2022, 12:00 p.m.
Dr. Helen Duffy, Leiden University (Details to come)

March 8, 2022 12:00 p.m.
Teresa Scassa, Canada Research Chair in Information Law and Policy and Full Professor at then University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section. (Details to come).

Associate Dean (Juris Doctor) Mary Shariff and Assistant Professor Brandon Trask have been outspoken on issues around health treatment ethics, especially in the context of the pandemic. Shariff has been particularly concerned with laws around the elderly and dying, while Trask has looked at privacy rights and discrimination.

Ottawa Citizen Op-Ed: Law Professors Shariff and Trask: COVID triage protocols could hurt marginalized people most

Globe and Mail Op-Ed – Brandon Trask: COVID-19 vaccine passports would discriminate against Canadians if used here at home

Toronto Star – The Saturday Debate: Is there a role for vaccine passports in Canada?

Assistant Professor Gerard Kennedy addressed the federal government’s treatment of the minister of justice and attorney general as “just another cabinet post.”

National Post Op-ed: Gerard Kennedy: Trudeau Liberals go around attorney general again, this time over bilingualism

Director of the Master of Human Rights Program and Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law, Dr. Kjell Anderson wrote in The Conversation on the subject of his recent research, Dominic Ongwen, former leader of Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army who was recently tried at The Hague. Anderson’s new book on how to conduct research on perpetrators of genocide was also launched this winter.

The Conversation: Kjell Anderson: Child victim, soldier, war criminal: unpacking Dominic Ongwen’s journey

New book fills gap in research on perpetrators of genocide

Professor Brenda Gunn, Robson Hall’s resident expert on the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), weighed in with several editorials intended to educate the Canadian public about the pressing importance of Canada’s implementation of the Declaration.

Globe and Mail Op-Ed: What Canadians should understand about the federal UNDRIP bill

Ottawa Citizen Op-Ed: Gunn and Neve: Canada mustn’t wait any longer to implement the UN declaration on Indigenous rights

Two years ago this month, the Justin Trudeau government was rocked by the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Inappropriate attempted influence from the Prime Minister’s Office in the prosecution of a Quebec engineering company seriously damaged the prime minister’s image. The scandal cost the government two of its best-performing cabinet ministers in Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott. It also resulted in Trudeau coming perilously close to winning only a single mandate.

One might have thought that the government would now realize that the minister of justice and attorney general is not “just another cabinet post.” But on Friday came another instance of the government seemingly ignoring this distinct role. Bemusingly, this was part of an effort to protect the interests of French-speaking Canadians — by circumventing a Supreme Court of Canada decision that sought to protect the interests of Quebeckers and, in doing so, may have done the opposite.

Official Languages Minister Mélanie Joly said she will bring several initiatives to protect and strengthen the status of the French language. Given that French is a minority in Canada, to say nothing of North America, this is understandable, even laudable. But snuck in among Joly’s myriad proposals is a requirement that Supreme Court judges be bilingual in French and English.

This is remarkable for multiple reasons.

First and foremost, this is a likely change in the eligibility requirements for membership on the Supreme Court. In the famous 2014 Nadon Reference, the Court held that three “Quebec seats” on the Court must filled by those who are, at the time of their appointment, members of the province’s bar or superior courts. Marc Nadon, a former Quebec lawyer with decades of practice experience in Quebec before serving on the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal for two decades, was held to be ineligible.

But the Nadon Reference did not merely hold that Justice Nadon was ineligible due to the language of the Supreme Court Act. The court went further and held that any legislative amendment to make him eligible would be unconstitutional.

As such, in constitutionalizing the “eligibility requirements,” which certainly did not include bilingualism, the court may have foreclosed making bilingualism a requirement to serve on the court. To be sure, some observers have suggested that a French-English bilingualism requirement would not fall within the ambit of what was constitutionalized in the Nadon Reference. But this is at least a serious matter for debate.

Second, and in the vein of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, this announcement was made by the minister of official languages — not Minister of Justice and Attorney General David Lametti. Maybe he is involved behind the scenes. But a change to court composition not being introduced by him is odd, to put it mildly. It seems to be an attempt to underplay the legal nature of the change.

Joly’s proposal suggests that changes to eligibility criteria will “take into account” Supreme Court precedent on eligibility requirements. But if, by having another cabinet minister effect this change, the government is seeking to avoid Lametti’s introducing and thus being questioned upon constitutionally suspect legislation, it circumvents his obligation to ensure all legislation is constitutional.

There is no possibility that David Lametti, a McGill Law professor, is unaware that an attempt to change the eligibility requirements for Supreme Court membership would be constitutionally suspect.

If he has indicated discomfort with introducing the legislation because of its dubious constitutionality, that is even worse, especially for a government that has previously sought to disregard an attorney general’s views for political gain in Quebec.

None of this is to take issue with the desirability of having Supreme Court judges being passably, if not fluently, bilingual. In a bilingual country, there is a serious problem when a party is assigned a judge who cannot understand pleadings and submissions in an official language. Nuance is lost with even the best translators and interpreters. On the other hand, one might query whether these considerations are in tension with the goal of diversifying the bench. Within Canada’s English-speaking provinces, French-English bilingualism is disproportionately found among privileged Canadians of European ancestry.

Many Indigenous Canadians, particularly in Western and Northern Canada, may be bilingual as they speak an Indigenous language as well as English — but have never had the opportunity to learn French. Finally, the level of bilingualism that is required to overcome nuance lost with the best translation and interpretation is extremely high, perhaps something likely to be achieved only by those who grew up in bilingual homes.

But the desirability of having bilingual Supreme Court judges is beside the point. There is a serious question about the constitutionality of any legislative attempt to limit to Supreme Court appointments to only bilingual judges. And to seemingly bypass Lametti in an effort to enact such a requirement is deeply problematic, especially for the Trudeau Liberals which nearly sank themselves by attempting to go around the previous attorney general.

A final paradox is worth noting. The Nadon Reference is the reason to doubt the ability to impose a bilingualism requirement on Supreme Court judges. This decision, which followed pushback against Nadon’s appointment, has been seriously queried on constitutional and statutory interpretation grounds. But it could be most persuasively defended as an attempt to protect Quebec’s interests on the highest court through ensuring that the Quebec representatives on it come from the province’s bar or superior courts.

But a — perhaps unintentional — consequence of the decision may be precluding the possibility of making bilingualism a prerequisite for appointment to the court.

Taking this possibility off the table hardly serves Quebec’s interests. One suspects that many Quebeckers would prefer that all Supreme Court judges be bilingual, even if one of the “Quebec seats” is filled by a former Quebec lawyer serving on the Federal Court of Appeal, than having Supreme Court judges who do not understand the French language, even if all three “Quebec seats” are filled by those appointed directly from Quebec’s bar or superior courts.

So to litigators and other legal activists: be careful what you wish for. The shield you are granted today may be the sword that injures you tomorrow. In the constitutional realm — where ordinary legislation cannot overturn ill-advised court decisions — this concern is even more acute. The victory for Quebec’s interests in Nadon may now be the impediment to protecting those same interests.

For those who do not know, administrative law seeks to reconcile legislative intent with the rule of law, and that anytime an individual interacts with the state, administrative law can get involved. Administrative decisions not only affect something as trivial as what Canadians watch on television, as seen in NFL and Bell, but it also affects something as sacred as a person’s citizenship (Vavilov).

In fact, administrative law permeates human rights, border crossings, liquor licencing, vehicle registration, hospital privileges for doctors, building decisions, and the list goes on. That is why changes in administrative law should matter to Canadians.

From the SCC’s early adoption of three standards of review before 2008, to a case called Dunsmuir’s simplified two standards of review, administrative law has had its ups-and-downs. Specifically, one of these “downs,” according to the panelists, was that pre-Vavilov courts presumed a standard of reasonableness when administrative decision-makers were considered to have expertise. This presumption, in Heckman’s words, “became almost irrebuttable” even when confronted by clear statutory language that warranted a correctness review. Consequently, as Heckman put it, “judges began to rebel.”

Then, on December 19, 2019, came administrative law’s “New Hope”: the Vavilov Trilogy. According to Heckman, Vavilov attempted to address two issues: (1) the selection of the standard of review, and (2) the meaning of reasonableness review. On the first issue, Kennedy expressed approval. He stated, “After Vavilov, I think it is fair to say that we do have a clearer prescription for determining when and where correctness…and reasonableness…will be employed.” He is not wrong.

Simply put, Vavilov now presumes reasonableness in all administrative decisions, with five exceptions that rebut the presumption: (1) instances where a legislature legally prescribes a standard of review; (2) where there is a statutory right of appeal regarding questions of law and not on questions of fact (palpable and overriding error); (3) questions regarding jurisdictional boundaries between tribunals; (4) constitutional questions, specifically separation of powers issues and, maybe, issues involving Charter rights; and, (5) general questions of law and of central importance to the legal system as a whole, like a solicitor-client privilege issue during a tribunal hearing.

Lastly, the panelists discussed Vavilov’s clarity on the scope of reasonableness, considering that a significant problem arose during the pre-Vavilov era where courts supplemented a decision-maker’s reasons with their own and then concluded that the decision-maker’s decision was reasonable.

Fortunately, Vavilov categorically rejects allowing judges to supplement tribunal decision-makers’ reasons with their own. And to that, Heckman exclaimed, “Hallelujah!” He further stated, “Supplementation, I think, was creating perverse incentives to administrative decision-makers – if I am a decision-maker, why should I go through the trouble of crafting adequate reasons if I know that a reviewing court will do my job for me later.” Heckman predicted that decision-makers will now render clearer reasons as a result of courts being barred from supplementing their reasons.

Near the end of the discussion, a student wondered if the panelists saw Vavilov as addressing the problem of disguised correctness review in statutory interpretation issues in which courts explicitly say they are conducting a reasonableness review when, in practice, the court’s analysis looks more like correctness. On that, the panelists were particularly concerned that the boundaries between a reasonableness and correctness analysis will be hard to determine moving forward, because what is important to one decision-maker, may not be to another.

Though Vavilov was a wonderful gift from the Supreme Court, there are many issues that remain. Will lower courts rebel or embrace Vavilov in the coming years? How will the legal community approach the nuances of Vavilov? Only time will tell. As appropriately stated by Heckman, “Put on your seatbelts, because it is going to be a fun ride.”

A video recording of the full panel discussion can be viewed on the Robson Hall Youtube channel.

“Speaking on behalf of the faculty members at Robson Hall, I am most pleased to have Dr. Kennedy join us,” said Dr. Jonathan Black-Branch, Dean of Law. “He brings with him unique experiences and education to share with our students, and I look forward to seeing the impact his research will have on improving Administrative Law and access to justice for Canadians.”

Kennedy brings a lot to the Robson Hall community table, so it behooves us to learn more about him. He kindly answered some questions recently, and we found in this administrative law academic, a very forward-thinking and practically minded advocate for access to justice.

Dr. Gerard Kennedy

Robson Hall:  What courses are you officially designated to teach here at Robson Hall?
Gerard Kennedy: Thus far, I have been designated to teach Administrative Law and Legal Profession and Professional Responsibility. I expect to teach Civil Procedure next year. Both Administrative Law and Civil Procedure are my primary research areas, while LPPR complements both, as well as my practice experience.

RH: What is your area of research focus and why are you so interested in it?
GK: I primarily look at how civil and administrative justice can help facilitate access to justice. Much of lawsuits are procedure – and most individuals encounter the justice system through administrative actors. So I view both areas as of immense practical importance. I came to understand the import of these areas while in practice myself.

RH:  Did you like being a litigator and do you think you’ll seek to work as a litigator in private practice ever again?
GK: There’s nothing like the thrill of arguing in court, and/or receiving a great result for a client, whether from a judicial decision or a well-formed settlement. I definitely want to become a member of the Manitoba bar. I am doubtful I’ll enter into full-time private practice again given how much I relish being a law professor but I could definitely envision practice experience that is complementary to my academic work. Practice experience has been so complementary in the past – I don’t see why that may not be a possibility in the future.

RH:  What is your PhD on and do you anticipate turning it into a book or maybe accessible plain language publications to benefit practitioners and the public?
GK: My Ph.D. looks at the effects of the Supreme Court of Canada’s call for a “culture shift” in how litigation is conducted vis-à-vis more discrete, tailored efforts to change how procedural law is utilized to facilitate access to justice. I’m hoping to have the dissertation published as a series of articles (indeed, three chapters have been published already). I plan on publishing in an array of journals and outlets, some tailored to the general public and some tailored to fellow academics. But I hope all are useful to practitioners.

RH: Would you encourage your students to pursue legal studies at a graduate level beyond practicing?
GK: I would certainly urge that they consider it, for multiple reasons. I have found an academic career tremendously rewarding. But even for practitioners, I believe an LL.M. can be a great way to gain expertise and delve deeply into a legal topic, that can complement one’s practice. On that note, I would also encourage any aspiring academic to consider spending some time in practice. My own experience is that this can inspire more informed academic projects, and also help one’s teaching.

RH:  Where are you originally from, where have you lived, studied and taught, and where would you most like to live?
GK: I grew up in Scarborough, which has since been subsumed into the City of Toronto. After twenty-two years in suburban Toronto, I went to Kingston to earn my J.D. at Queen’s for three years. That time included a summer studying international law in England, and a summer internship in The Hague the following year. After a year clerking in Toronto, I then headed to Boston to earn my LL.M. at Harvard. That was followed by six more years in Toronto, practicing and beginning my Ph.D. and teaching career, though I spent much of one autumn in Kingston, teaching at Queen’s Law School. The sixteen months before starting at Robson were once again spent travelling around the world, with visiting scholar positions both in New York and Luxembourg. So I’ve been quite a few places!

As for where I’d most like to live? Wherever my spouse and daughter are! That may not have been what you meant by the question so I should emphasize that I clearly learn a lot from being abroad, and hope to do so again in the future while on sabbatical. But my time abroad has also confirmed that Canada is “home” and I’m honoured to be a member of the Canadian academy and Canadian legal profession. So that’s where I want to be.

RH:  As you settle in here, do you think you’ll take on coaching any of the moot teams as you have in the past at U of T and Queen’s?
GK: I would love to coach a moot team here. I find mooting to be a great social and educational experience for students, that builds practical advocacy and writing skills.

RH:  What was it about Robson Hall, Faculty of Law that caught your interest and inspired you to come here (surely not Winnipeg’s mild weather!)?
GK: I love the small, collegial atmosphere of the law school, and the connection to the bench and the bar. On a personal level, my spouse’s family is located throughout the Prairies, and we became parents less than a year ago, so we jumped at the chance to be closer to family.

RH:  What can Robson Hall students expect in teaching style and classroom approach from the new Professor?
GK: Expect animation…I’m not one to stand at the lectern and read from a script! I also find discussion with the class to be a highlight, to explore ambiguities/uncertainties in the law, and discover where there are difficulties in the absorption of the material.

RH:  Is it par for the course for law professors to complete the doctorate now?
GK: It is certainly becoming more and more common, both as a training ground to become a better researcher, and as an opportunity to publish more. It is certainly a time investment and the job market remains competitive, however. So I would not encourage starting a doctorate lightly!