Due to escalating disruptive protests, I have decided to cancel the remainder of these lectures. This is deeply lamentable, but the disruption has undermined the academic nature of this series. Students shouldn't face bullying or harassment when attending academic events.

Good on the Globe and Mail for shining a light on what it calls "a new chapter of judicial activism": "The courts must exercise their powers with restraint, and with due deference to legislatures. That is, or at least should be, an immutable characteristic of the legal system."

Globe editorial: Why Chief Justice Richard Wagner should recuse himself theglobeandmail.com/opinion/…

This Canadian Press story is plain wrong. The Supreme Court didn't uphold anything, and it absolutely did not rule out Aboriginal title claims on private property. It merely declined to hear an appeal of a case in New Brunswick. That's not upholding or rejecting. The Canadian Press story also got the New Brunswick case wrong. The NBCA didn't say that Aboriginal title can't apply to private land. It said that there can be findings of Aboriginal title over private property, and that any liability for that lies with the Crown, not private owners. I.e.: If your house gets Aboriginal title'd, it would be the government that has to pay out. The court did say that Aboriginal title can't be declared over land rights (declaration = Aboriginal group gets ownership rights; finding = Aboriginal group doesn't get ownership but can pursue compensation from the Crown). This offers some comfort in New Brunswick, for now, but this matter is not settled in Canada.