While IFLS’s roundtable tomorrow on the Lori Douglas inquiry has been cancelled because of the ongoing labour disruption on the York campus, there is this panel, that I’m on, as past of the Law and the Curated Body Conference put on by a team including my colleague Prof. Faisal Bhabha

from the conference website:

The First Conference of Its Kind.

Law and the Curated Body is an interdisciplinary conference focusing on socio-legal, curatorial, historical and cultural research that considers the intersection of bodily performance (whether legal-professional, theatrical, quotidian and aesthetic) with normative and epistemological frameworks (including doctrine, policy, spirituality, and ethics).

New understandings of curating in the visual and performing arts draw on a long history of acknowledging the curatorial endeavour as a catalyst for personal and social transformation. Similarly, the centrality of the relational encounter as a site for social transformation through law is increasingly prevalent in theoretical understandings of human rights, legal ethics, criminal justice, legal pluralism and alternative dispute resolution.

Law and the Curated Body will feature innovative and interdisciplinary presentations and workshops exploring these interconnected themes from theoretical, experiential, doctrinal and practice-based perspectives.




2:30 pm


Karen Busby (University of Manitoba Faculty of Law), “Unimaginable Ostracism and Lurid Examination: Lori Douglas and the CJC”

Sonia Lawrence (Osgoode Hall Law School), “The Word Made Flesh: Policing Judicial Images in the Digital Age”

Susan G. Drummond (Osgoode Hall Law School), “Curating the Gaze: Who Looked, and How, in the Douglas Inquiry?”The Law Society of Upper Canada, Lower Barristers’ Lounge


March 12 at IFLS: Judicial Bodies, Ethics and Investigations. Re: ACJ Lori Douglas

StrikeThursday March 12ACJLDMarch12
1230 to 2 IKB Rm. 2027
Light Lunch  Please RSVP to Lielle Gonsalves
This roundtable will consider the saga of ACJ (Manitoba) Lori Douglas, who faced an Inquiry by the Canadian Judicial Council after (inter alia) her husband posted photographs of her on the internet. Did this bring into question her credibility as a judge? Or were the proceedings just “victim blaming couched as legitimate judicial inquiry”? What lessons can we draw from the way the Inquiry unfolded?

with:   Sheila Block, Molly Reynolds (‘08) & Sarah Whitmore (‘10) Torys LLP (Counsel for ACJ Douglas); Prof Susan Drummond; Esther Mendelsohn, Osgoode 2L; ­­­­Dean Lorne Sossin

Poster for sharing here

Feminist Judgments (secondary literature)

Here’ s the followup to my last post on this topic, a bibliography of work about Feminist Judgments and then a second list, a bit of a grab bag of work considering the general topic, not directly. Please put additions in the comments if you can, or email me (sonia DOT Lawrence at osgoodeDOT yorku dot ca.

I. About Feminist Judgments Projects, Directly


Hunter, Rosemary, Clare McGlynn & Erika Rackley, eds. Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (Oxford ; Portland, Or: Hart Publishing, 2010).

Douglas, Heather et al. Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014).


Auchmuty, Rosemary. “Using feminist judgments in the property law classroom” (2012) 46:3 The Law Teacher 227.

Blizzard, Thadd A. “Gender and Judging” (2014) 25 Hastings Women’s LJ 267. [review]

Cobb, Neil. “Re-Reading Criminal Law through a Feminist Lens: R v Stone and Dobinson” (2010) 2010 Inter Alia 80. [student judgment/England]

Davies, Margaret. “Feminism and the Idea of Law” (2011) 1:1 feminists@law, online: <>.

Davies, Margaret. “The Law Becomes Us: Rediscovering Judgment” (2012) 20:2 Fem Leg Stud 167.

Drakopoulou, Maria. “Revisiting Feminist Jurisprudence: A Rehabilitation” (2013) 3:2 feminists@law, online: <>.

Grear, Anna. “Learning legal reasoning while rejecting the oxymoronic status of feminist judicial rationalities: a view from the law classroom” (2012) 46:3 The Law Teacher 239.

Hunter, Caroline & Ben Fitzpatrick. “Feminist judging and legal theory” (2012) 46:3 The Law Teacher 255.

Hunter, Rosemary. “Can Feminist Judges Make a Difference” (2008) 15 Int’l J Legal Prof 7.

Hunter, Rosemary. “The Power of Feminist Judgments?” (2012) 20:2 Fem Leg Stud 135.

Hunter, Rosemary. “Introduction: feminist judgments as teaching resources” (2012) 46:3 The Law Teacher 214.

Hunter, Rosemary. “Contesting the Dominant Paradigm: Feminist Critiques of Liberal Legalism” in Margaret Davies & Vanessa Munro, eds, The Ashgate Research Companion to Feminist Legal Theory (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013) 13.

Majury, Diana. “Introducing the Women’s Court of Canada” (2006) 18 Can J Women & L 1. [introduction to collection of judgments]

Rackley, Erika. “Why Feminist Legal Scholars Should Write Judgments: Reflections on the Feminist Judgments Project in England and Wales” (2012) 24 Can J Women & L 389.

Reaume, Denise, with Jennifer Koshan, Diana Majury, Carissima Mathen, and Megan Evans Maxwell “Rewriting Equality: The Pedagogical Use of Women’s Court of Canada Judgments”, (2010) 4 Canadian Legal Education Annual Review 121.

Samuels, Harriet. “Feminizing Human Rights Adjudication: Feminist Method and the Proportionality Principle” (2012) 21:1 Fem Leg Stud 39.


Rackley, Erika. “How feminism could improve judicial decision-making”, the Guardian, online: <>.

Your honour, we respectfully disagree,” Toronto Star, March 8, 2008 (samples from 4 WCC judgements)

Janice Kennedy, “Startling acts of well-thought uppitiness” Ottawa Citizen, March 2, 2008. Available at [incredibly bad title, possibly the worst ever]


Hunter, Rosemary. Feminist Judgments as Teaching Resources, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2115435 (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2012).


Peters, Dianne ‘The Women’s Court of Canada’ September 11, 2011, University Affairs, accessible at:

Women’s Court hopes to end equality rights neglect,” Law Times, March 17, 2008.


Reaume, Denise. The Women’s Court of Canada: Reflections on a Radical Experiment. (Document prepared for CBA National Legal Conference 2010, Niagara Ontario).


Discussion with members of the WCC on CBC Radio’s The Sunday Edition, March 9, 2008 (MP3 file hosted by the University of Toronto Faculty of Law).

“Women’s Court of Canada: Future Directions” (document prepared for Rewriting Equality meeting, 2008), available at


II.               Citing Feminist Judgments Projects OR otherwise engage with the idea of Feminist Judgments/Women Judging


Brenner, Hannah & Renee Newman Knake. “Rethinking Gender Equality in the Legal Profession’s Pipeline to Power: A Study on Media Coverage of Supreme Court Nominees (Phase I, the Introduction Week)” (2011) 84 Temp L Rev 325.

Chan, Elizabeth. “Women Trailblazers in the Law: The New Zealand Women Judges Oral Histories Project” (2014) 45 Victoria U Wellington L Rev 407.

Cook, Beverly Blair. “Moral Authority and Gender Difference: Georgia Bullock and the Los Angeles Women’s Court” (1993) 77 Judicature 144.

Degeling, Simone & Mehera San Roque. “Unjust Enrichment: A Feminist Critique of Enrichment” (2014) 36 Sydney L Rev 69.

Dixon, Rosalind. “Female Justices, Feminism, and the Politics of Judicial Appointment: A Re-Examination” (2009) 21 Yale JL & Feminism 297.

Glasbeek, Amanda. “Maternalism Meets the Criminal Law: The Case of the Toronto Women’s Court” (1998) 10 Can J Women & L 480.

Hunter, Rosemary C. “Gender in Evidence: Masculine Norms vs. Feminist Reforms” (1996) 19 Harv Women’s LJ 127.

Laster, Kathy & Roger Douglas. “Feminized Justice: The Impact of Women Decision Makers in the Lower Courts in Australia” (1995) 12 Just Q 177.

Mack, Kathy & Sharyn Roach Anleu. “In-Court Judicial Behaviors, Gender and Legitimacy” (2012) 21 Griffith L Rev 728.

Martin, Elaine. “Representative Role of Women Judges, The” (1993) 77 Judicature 166.

Melville, Angela L. Evaluating Judicial Performance and Addressing Gender Bias, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2533912 (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2014).


Millns, Susan & Charlotte Skeet. “Gender Equality and Legal Mobilization in the United Kingdom: Using Rights for Lobbying, Litigation, Defense, and Attack” (2013) 28 Can JL & Soc 169.


Pisconti, Rossella. “Juridical Rape & Courtroom Lack of Belief: A Wittgensteinian View on Consent” (2013) 1 Birkbeck L Rev 339.


Resnik, Judith. “On the Bias: Feminist Reconsiderations of the Aspirations for Our Judges” (1987) 61 S Cal L Rev 1877.

Roberts, Heather. “Swearing Mary: The Significance of the Speeches Made at Mary Gaudron’s Swearing-in as a Justice of High Court of Australia” (2012) 34 Sydney L Rev 493.

Rush, Sharon Elizabeth. “Feminist Judging: An Introductory Essay” (1992) 2 S Cal Rev L & Women’s Stud 609.

Schiller, Ethel E. “Specialized Women’s Courts, The” (1936) 23 Women Law J 7.

Solimine, Michael E & Susan E Wheatley. “Rethinking Feminist Judging” (1994) 70 Ind LJ 891.


Kim Buchanan at Osgoode Mon Feb 23 – Rape by Fraud: Coercion, not Deception

Monday February 23 2015
Rape by Fraud:  Coercion, not Deception

Chair: Prof. Benjamin Berger
Abstract:  In four recent cases, the Supreme Court of Canada sought to protect gender equality, sexual autonomy and other Charter values by expanding the scope of s.265(3)(c) of the Criminal Code: sexual assault by “fraud”. Although the Court invokes “significant risk of serious bodily harm” to limit the scope of consent-vitiating deception (or nondisclosure), its
application of this standard has been justly criticized for inconsistency, and for diverging from the scientific consensus about transmission risk.
Feb23KimSBThis Article offers a principled way to distinguish criminal from noncriminal sex by deception. Rape-by-fraud should be defined in accordance with the core values protected by sexual assault law: moral retribution, harm, gender equality, and sexual autonomy. On all these counts, sex by deception is distinct from sex by coercion, and it is less serious. Voluntary-but-deceived sex is not sexual assault. Deceptions that lead to sex should be punished as rape only if they are coercive: that is, they led the victim to believe s/he had to have sex. We do not need a fraud provision to capture such deceptions: they are largely prohibited by other sexual assault provisions that prohibit sex by threats, fear, and abuse of trust, power or authority. Moreover, we do not need a fraud provision to capture the two deceptions that constituted rape at common law: fraud as to identity and fraud as to the “nature and quality of the act”. Both these situations involve no consent: agreement to nonsexual touching is not consent to sex, and agreement to sex with one person is not consent to sex with another.
Monday February 23
1230 to 2 in FCR (Osgoode Hall 2027)
Light refreshments
Please RSVP to
Email as above if you would like a copy of Prof. Buchanan’s draft paper.

Link to PDF poster for sharing/printing