Shaping Canada

In 1982, a Calgary drug store stayed open on a Sunday — and launched the first freedom-of-religion case to reach the Supreme Court of Canada under the new Charter. Professor Howard Kislowicz of the University of Calgary joins Hugo Martin to unpack R. v. Big M Drug Mart (1985), which defined what religious freedom means, and Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem (2004), which reshaped it around sincere personal belief. Together they explore state religious neutrality, human dignity as the Charter’s “golden thread,” and how courts balance religious freedom against competing rights. This project has been made possible by the Government of Canada.

For over a century, Indigenous rights in Canada were treated as revocable privileges “dependent on the goodwill of the Sovereign.” In 1990, R. v. Sparrow (the Supreme Court’s first interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982) began to change that. Professors Naiomi Metallic and Karen Drake trace the road from Confederation to Sparrow, unpack the extinguishment and justification tests, and explain why Sparrow may be the “high watermark” of Aboriginal rights law.

Is the right to life also the right to choose how we die? Professor Jocelyn Downie, a Member of the Order of Canada and leading scholar of Canadian health law, joins host Hugo Martin to trace the road from Rodriguez’s narrow 1993 rejection of assisted dying to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 decision in Carter v. Canada. They unpack the Charter arguments, the evidence that changed a precedent, and the legislative battles, Bill C-14, Truchon, Bill C-7, that have followed in Carter’s wake.

Your home is your castle, but what about your phone, your text messages, your IP address? Professor François Tanguay-Renaud of Osgoode Hall Law School joins Shaping Canada to explore Hunter v. Southam (1984), the case that established Canada’s warrant requirement and made privacy the cornerstone of Section 8 of the Charter. From the 1982 search of an Edmonton newspaper’s offices to the 2024 IP-address ruling in Bykovets, this episode traces how search and seizure law has evolved, and asks whether privacy alone can carry the constitutional weight we’ve placed on it. This project has been made possible by the Government of Canada.

Does freedom of expression protect a commercial sales pitch? In 1989, Irwin Toy v. Quebec forced the Supreme Court to define the very scope of expression in Canada. Professor Richard Moon, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Windsor, explains this landmark decision that shaped every Charter case since. From protecting advertising to setting limits on hate speech, from bubble zones to compelled speech, he unpacks how the Court defined expression as “any act intended to convey meaning to an audience”, and why the real analysis happens under Section 1. “Political speech is core value expression. Commercial advertising? Not so much.”

Are Charter rights absolute? In 1981, David Oakes was caught with drugs and faced a reverse onus forcing him to prove his innocence. His case became the foundation of Canadian constitutional law. Professors Joel Bakan and Marcus Moore — who clerked for Chief Justice Dickson during the Oakes decision — explain the landmark test that determines when governments can limit our rights. They unpack the four-part framework, the balance between individual freedoms and collective interests, and why Chief Justice Dickson’s definition of democracy as “commitment to social justice and equality” remains constitutionally entrenched. A test that has stood time and spread worldwide.

An exclusive conversation with the Honourable Malcolm Rowe, the first justice from Newfoundland and Labrador, appointed in 2016. With 40% of his career in non-legal roles — from Foreign Service Officer to architect of the “Turbot War” strategy — Justice Rowe brings unique practical insight to the bench. He explains stare decisis (standing by previous decisions), the line between private life and state intervention, and how the Court balances stability with societal change. He discusses landmark cases including the Secession Reference, which he calls “a master class in the Canadian Constitution,” and the Anti-Inflation Reference’s competing visions of federalism.

An exclusive conversation with the Honourable Sheilah Martin, appointed to the Supreme Court in December 2017. A former law professor, Dean at the University of Calgary, and advocate for wrongfully convicted individuals, Justice Martin shares her commitment to equal justice for all. She explains how the Charter has transformed Canadian law — from self-defence standards for battered women to removing stereotypes in sexual assault cases. She discusses mandatory minimum sentences, the role of dissent, and landmark cases like Vriend and Roncarelli v. Duplessis. “A decision maker sitting in a court has to understand the diversity of the people that come before court to render proper justice.”