2019 CALE Conference – Call for Proposals

As previously announced, the 2019 CALE annual conference will be hosted by the University of Windsor. It will follow its traditional schedule, starting on the evening of Thursday, October 24 and ending mid-day on Saturday, October 26, 2019.

Below are the calls for expressions of interest for the Research, Teaching and Regulation streams. If you are unclear as to whether your topic fits best the Research, Regulation, or Teaching stream of the CALE Conference, please feel free to email any of the organizers noted below and they can ensure that your content is considered for the most appropriate stream.


Stephen Pitel and Pooja Parmar invite anyone interested in presenting on research topic to contact them.  They welcome proposals from junior scholars and from those working on legal ethics outside the academy.  The eventual format of the presentations will depend on, among other things, the number of proposals we accept, but we expect that each presenter would have about 15-20 minutes plus time for questions.  There is no need to have a formal paper accompanying your presentation: slides or oral remarks alone are fine.  You need not have a finished product: work in progress is welcome.

Please respond to Pooja (parmar@uvic.ca) and Stephen (spitel@uwo.ca) with expressions of interest on or before May 15, 2019.


Richard Devlin and Andrew Martin are collecting expressions of interest for the sessions on legal ethics and professionalism teaching. They welcome all participants with something to share, especially adjuncts and part-time faculty. As with the research sessions, a paper is not required and works in progress are welcome

If interested, please contact Richard (Richard.Devlin@dal.ca) and Andrew (martin@allard.ubc.ca) by May 15, 2019.


Amy Salyzyn and Basil Alexander and are gathering expressions of interest for the regulatory stream. They welcome expressions of interest from those working as regulators as well as practitioners and academics for presentations on topics related to the regulation of the legal profession.

Please email Basil (basil.s.alexander@gmail.com) and Amy (amy.salyzyn@uottawa.ca) with your expressions of interest for presenting in the Regulation stream on or before May 15, 2019.

Upcoming Public Lecture by Canada’s Former Governor General

On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 the Right Honourable David Johnston, former Governor General of Canada, will deliver a public lecture on the lawyer’s commitment to professionalism and the rule of law, entitled “Seeking the Good”.  The lecture, which is the tenth annual Coxford Lecture, is at 12:30pm in room 38 of the Faculty of Law at Western University in London, Ontario.

Initial Feedback from CALE/ACEJ to Canadian Judicial Council on the review of the Ethical Principles for Judges

The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) is currently undertaking a review of its Ethical Principles for Judges. More information can be found here.

In response to an invitation from the CJC, CALE/ACEJ has provided some initial feedback on the substance and process of the proposed review. For those interested in reading more, here is the letter that we have sent.

OBA Fellowships for Ethics and Professionalism 2019-20

The Ontario Bar Association is calling for applications for two Fellowships for 2019-20: The OBA Foundation Chief Justice of Ontario Fellowship in Research and the OBA Foundation Chief Justice of Ontario Fellowship in Legal Ethics and Professionalism Studies.  Details about the two Fellowships and the application process are available here.  The deadline to apply is July 2, 2019.

These Fellowships were started in 2011 by the Chief Justice of Ontario’s Advisory Committee on Professionalism.  In 2013 they were assumed and continued by the OBA. 

New Scholarship:The Attorney General’s Forgotten Role as Legal Advisor to the Legislature: A Comment on Schmidt v Canada (Attorney General)

CALE member Andrew Martin has a new article up on SSRN (published in UBC Law Review).

Here is the abstract:

In Schmidt v Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court of Appeal interpreted a series of provisions requiring the Minister of Justice to inform the House of Commons if government bills or proposed regulations are “inconsistent with” the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Federal Court of Appeal, like the Federal Court below, held that these provisions are triggered only where there is no credible argument for consistency. In doing so, both Courts relied, in part, on a separation of powers argument. They stated that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is not a legal advisor to Parliament. However, this statement was a legal error: federal legislation provides that the Attorney General is, as a matter of law, a legal advisor to Parliament.

New Scholarship: Advocacy in Non-Adversarial Family Law: A Recommendation for Revision to the Model Code

New scholarship from CALE member Deanne Sowter now up on SSRN!

Link here.


Family law is evolving towards non-adversarial dispute resolution processes. As a result, some family lawyers are representing clients who are trying to reach settlements that recognize their interests, instead of just pursuing their legal rights. By responding to the full spectrum of client needs, lawyers are required to behave differently than they do when they are representing a client in a traditional civil litigation file. They consider the emotional and financial consequences of relationship breakdown – things that are not typically within the purview of the family law lawyer. They objectively reality check with their client, and they approach interest-based negotiations in a client-centric way. These lawyers view their role as that of a non-adversarial advocate, and their client as a whole person with interests that are not just legal. This paper draws on an empirical study involving focus groups with family law lawyers, to argue that the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, Model Code of Professional Conduct, needs to be updated to incorporate non-adversarial advocacy. The lawyers in the study viewed non-adversarial advocacy as being responsive to client needs, and in the interest of the client’s children. This paper draws from the study to establish what constitutes non-adversarial advocacy and then it presents a proposal for revising Rule 5 (Advocacy) of the Model Code.