A Fireside Chat with SCC Justice Mahmud Jamal
It has been an active year for the Runnymede Society at the University of Toronto.
The club is on track to host over 16 events across the Fall and Winter Terms, with speakers including two Supreme Court of Canada justices, two Ontario Court of Appeal justices, one Federal Court of Appeal justice, the current Attorney General of Ontario, two Premiers, and a host of leading legal academics.
The wide array of speakers has been paralleled by the breadth of topics covered during these events, which include Charter interpretation, federalism, judicial restraint, the notwithstanding clause, mandatory minimums, Indigenous ownership of resource projects, religious freedom, and much more.
The common thread running through these events has been Runnymede’s commitment to its core values of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms—and to advancing intellectual diversity within the Canadian legal community.
The enthusiasm on campus has been immense, with between 80 and 200 people consistently attending each event.
On January 27, Runnymede welcomed Justice Mahmud Jamal, the second Justice of the Supreme Court to participate in a Runnymede event in the span of only three months. Justice Jamal was joined by Justice Grant Huscroft of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, a distinguished member of the bench and profound legal thinker in his own right. Excitement on campus was palpable. As the 6:30 pm start time approached, the Rosalie Silberman Abella Moot Court room was jam-packed with around 200 students, faculty, jurists, and members of the public.
The discussion between Justices Jamal and Huscroft—which was preceded by an excellent introduction by Runnymede Co-President, Erik De Lorenzi (3L)—was a thought-provoking and eye-opening exchange between two of Canada’s most admired jurists. Their dialogue provided a unique chance for attendees to pull back the curtain and hear about the inner workings of Canada’s highest court. They provided insight into the Court’s leave process, the value of judicial specialization, the role of academic work and international law in judicial reasoning, their approaches to authoring opinions, and the fundamentals of good legal advocacy.
More than anything, the discussion humanized the two Justices. As students, we spend hours and hours (and hours and hours) reading through decisions that have profoundly shaped the common law, many of them issued by the courts these two men now sit on. We become familiar with the leading men and women of the common law: Laskin, Dickson, Wilson, McLachlin, and, of course, the omnipresent Lord Denning. In many ways, these figures seem larger than life. Yet, at events like these, we are provided the opportunity to see how—behind the eloquent legal reasoning, between the lines of their judicial opinions, and beyond the ubiquitous use of Latin—they are living and breathing persons, endowed with the same humanity as any 1L student that roams Jackman’s halls. As Justices Jamal and Huscroft reflected on the justice system, the law, and colleagues they had in common — engaging in friendly banter with one another along the way — we saw these sides of them. Furthermore, we saw that while the two may hold vastly different positions on a wide range of issues, they continue to respect and appreciate each other as individuals.
This is what made the event special. In my view, it is also what makes Runnymede an indispensable organization at U of T Law: they are actively committed to creating a forum for good faith participants of all different perspectives to engage, learn from one another, and make measured advancements towards the truth and the pursuit of the common good.
Editor’s Note: Andrew Sansone (1L) is a member of the Runnymede Society.