Published articles

Engaging constructive debate

The Mens Rea for Animal Cruelty Offences after R v Gerling: A Dog’s Breakfast (2016) 26 Criminal Reports (7th) 267

The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently released its decision in R. v. Gerling – the first appellate authority in more than 40 years to discuss the elements of the cruelty against animal offences located in s. 445.1 of the Code. Unfortunately, the decision is a major disappointment. Though it was presented with competing visions for the provision, and lengthy discussion surrounding the applicable mens rea, the Court of Appeal dealt with the legal arguments in just three short paragraphs. In the process, the decision seemed to confuse an evidentiary presumption with a mens rea standard, and then confused the applicable subjective standard with an objective one. It was anything but a strong and decisive decision on cruelty against animals. In this comment, I discuss the decision and examine what it does both for the criminal law and the protection of animals.

Opportunity Lost: The Supreme Court Misses a Historic Opportunity to Consider Question of Public Interest Standing for Animal Interests (2012) 30 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 129

The Supreme Court of Canada recently denied leave to appeal in Reece v. Edmonton (City), a 2-1 decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which focused on the right of private parties to seek judicial intervention on behalf of animals. In this article, solicited by the Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, I examine what was lost by this decision to deny leave, explore the important questions that were at stake in the appeal, and suggest why the Supreme Court should have decided otherwise.

Animal Welfare Law and The Concept of Dialogue: Can Welfare Law Simultaneously Fail and Succeed? (2012)

18 Animal Law Rev. 281: Animal law advocates often debate whether real progress towards the better treatment of animals can ever occur through modifications to the welfare status of animals or whether the abolition of animal exploitation is required for any significant change. In this article, I examine this question in a different way, by considering the possibility that some types of animal welfare law, while “failing” in their own right, can nonetheless improve the dialogue between the state, its citizens and animal use industries and as a consequence gradually establish a public space in which meaningful animal welfare reform can in fact occur. Looking at the first ten years under the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act as a case study, I suggest that the legislation has been useful in advancing the cause of long-term animal welfare reform—though not in the way the legislators might have anticipated. While the Act has failed to stimulate meaningful reform directly, it has changed the nature of the dialogue surrounding animal issues in New Zealand, and in so doing, may well have set the stage for meaningful changes in future years.

Wildlife and the Animal Welfare Act 1999: Can “Cruel” Acts of Hunting Ever Be Prosecuted? (2011)

15 NZ J. of Env. L. 213: Section 175 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 exempts “hunting” and “killing” a wild animal from prosection. What is the impact of this section? Does it allow any conduct to be used upon wild animals, or merely certain types of activity? I argue that the vagueness of this section impedes prosecution of crimes against wild animals. Download article.

Turn Up the Dialogue (2008) 1 Australian Journal of Animal Protection Law 6

This short piece was written as the introductory commentary for the inaugural edition of the Australian Animal Protection Journal. It discusses the progress that has been made in developing animal law in the region over the past several years and provides a preview of my book, Animal Law in Australasia: A New Dialogue.

Five Years of the ‘New’ Animal Welfare Regime: Lessons Learned From New Zealand’s Decision to Modernize Its Animal Welfare Legislation (2005) 11 Animal Law Review 7

This article critically examines New Zealand’s law governing the treatment of farm animals, and consider the progress – and lack thereof – made during the first five years under the AWA. It focuses upon “lessons learned” from the ‘new’ era of animal welfare that began with the enactment of the AWA, with the hope that these lessons will provide insight for animal advocates in jurisdictions contemplating similar changes. This article was reprinted as a chapter in Animal Rights and Law (Icfai University Press: India, 2008) at 236-274. Download article.

Flawed Logic Impedes Animal Welfare Act Sentencing [2004] New Zealand Law Journal 357

Changes designed to increase sentences handed down for significant cruelty against animals have been mostly ineffective in New Zealand. It is submitted that the reason for this failure is a flawed form of reasoning being applied in the sentencing for these offences. This article will consider how an inappropriate judicial attitude to crimes against animals has impeded Parliament’s objective of bumping up the penalties for these offences. Download article.

Rewriting the Charter to Provide Stronger Due Process and Evidentiary Protection (2008) 40 Supreme Court Law Review (2d) 349

This article was a contribution for a book celebrating the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will be presented at a conference in Toronto held in September. The paper explores some of the more controversial decisions rendered under ss.11 and 24 of the Charter and consider how the Charter could be “re-drafted” to rectify the results.

Majority Jury Verdicts and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2006) 39 University of British Columbia Law Review 333

Although majority jury verdicts are popular in many parts of the world, they have never been part of the Canadian criminal process. This article examines the use of majority jury verdicts around the world and poses an intriguing question: If this process were imported into Canada, would it withstand Charter scrutiny? The article concludes that the use of majority verdicts would likely lead to a violation of s.11(f) of the Charter [right to a trial by jury], although it is unlikely that s.11(d) [the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt] would be implicated. It is more difficult to assess how s.1 would be used to defend the measure, but a few thoughts are offered on the manner in which the analysis is most likely to take place. This paper can be downloaded from the Social Science Research Network by clicking here.

Generally Speaking, We’re Going in the Right Direction – A Response to the Honorable Claire L’Heureux-Dubé (2006), 3 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 491

This article was solicited by the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law to respond to an address made by L’Heureux-Dubé that was critical on the use of the Charter of Rights in the criminal law context. The article reflects upon the Charter’s impact on criminal justice since its inception, and rejects the contention that it has been misused to the advantage of criminal defendants, and to the detriment of victims and a wider conception of “justice”. It also examines the use of the Charter by corporations, and the manner in which the Charter deprives juries of evidence to decide trials.

The Judicial Obligation to Raise Bill of Rights Issues [2003] New Zealand Law Journal 446

Co-authored with Scott Optican — This article reacts to the use of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 as a mechanism for excluding evidence, and to the judicial decision to ignore potential human rights violations when they are not raised by counsel. The article is critical of the Court of Appeal decision in R v Murphey, CA 87/03, 13 June 2003, which leaves one with the uncomfortable feeling that the Court has shirked its overriding obligation to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings, and may have underwritten a miscarriage of justice on the facts of this particular case. The approach evidenced in Murphey also undermines the importance of rights legislation and the duty imposed by Parliament on the judiciary to enforce the Bill of Rights.

Articulable Cause Based Searches: This Cooke May Spoil the Broth (2002) 2 Criminal Reports (6th) 41

Focussing upon the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Cooke (2002) 2 C.R. (6th) 35, this article critiques an unfortunate development in Canadian search and seizure law to equate searches incident to detention with searches incident to arrest. Had this development continued, it would have dramatically reduced the ability of a person to remain free of unreasonable search and seizure, as in many cases, detention premised on the articulable cause to suspect criminal activity would have grounded a legal authority to search. This article was cited favourably on this point by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in R. v. Willis (2003) 174 CCC (3d) 406 and by the Quebec Court of Appeal in R. v. Vigneault (2003) 182 CCC (3d) 322. Much of the law reviewed in this article was clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in the decision of R. v. Mann (2004) 185 CCC (3d) 308 (SCC).

Crown Disclosure after Mills: Have the Ground Rules Suddenly Changed? (2000) 28 Criminal Reports (5th) 285

This short article examined the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in R. v. Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668, a judgment upholding legislation governing the disclosure of certain types of personal records in trials of a sexual nature. Rather than considering the primary issues and conclusion, this article critiqued the Court’s reasoning, and particularly its controversial conclusion that the legislation did not even implicate an accused person’s right to disclosure, as that right never extended to material over which a witness retained a reasonable expectation of privacy. My argument was that this conclusion represented a radical and unnecessary departure from existing jurisprudence, and one that was likely to restrict disclosure of a large volume of material in future and muddy the law in this area. The conclusions were explicitly adopted in the decision of R. v. Kporwodu (2001) 90 C.R.R. (2d) 182 (Ont. C.J.).

Suspicious Searches: What’s So Reasonable About Them? (1999) 24 Criminal Reports (5th) 124

Co-authored by Stephane Perrault — This article considered the rising and rather disturbing trend of courts to sanction searches of various types where law enforcement officials possessed a “reasonable suspicion” of illegal activity. Rather than critiquing the standard itself, this article focused upon the manner in which the standard was applied, citing instances where judges appeared to accept various indicia as providing “suspicion” notwithstanding the absence of any objective indicators that the indicia were actually suspicious. The article’s approach to (and definition for) reasonable suspicion was expressly adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Kang-Brown, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456.

R. v. Edwards: When Two Wrongs Might Just Make A Right (1996) 45 Criminal Reports (4th) 330

Co-authored with Ursula Hendel — My first published work, this article was critical of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to reject Charter applications where the applicant was not personally affected by the State conduct. The article suggests that while s.24(1) of the Charter precludes a person from arguing that an unreasonable search of someone else’s property affected them sufficiently to warrant a remedy, it should not preclude arguments founded on s.7 of the Charter, and the contention that the conduct amounted to an abuse of process. In essence, two wrongs (the original breach, and the decision by the Crown to try and admit the evidence against the accused) could make a right. Cited favourably by a minority of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. La [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680.

The Perfect Storm: Section 12, Mandatory Minimum Sentences and the Problem of the Unusual Case (2013) 22 Constitutional Forum 3

Prepared for a constitutional seminar held by the Center for Constitutional Studies at the University of Alberta, this paper explores the current interaction between section 12 of the Charter and a host of new mandatory minimum sentencing provisions enacted by Parliament. The paper draws an analogy between the forces driving a conflict between s. 12 and the new sentencing rules to a “perfect storm”, in that several established Charter doctrines are pushing in opposite directions, leading to an inevitable collision between the courts, existing Charter jurisprudence and Parliament. Download paper

The Application of Section 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a Civil Action (2004) 28 Advocates Quarterly 103

Since its enactment in 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been the subject of intense judicial and academic examination, and few sections of the Charter have received greater scrutiny than s.24(2) – the clause that permits the judiciary to exclude evidence where to admit it would “bring the administration of justice into disrepute”. However, in the civil context very little consideration has been given towards how the section should operate and, indeed, to what extent it should operate at all. This article explores this issue and suggests how the Charter’s exclusionary rule might be utilized in civil proceedings. Download paper

The New Exclusionary Rule: A Preliminary Assessment of R v Shaheed [2003] New Zealand Law Review 1

Co-authored with Scott Optican — In R v Shaheed [2002] 2 NZLR 377 (CA) the Court of Appeal abandoned the decade-old, prima facie rule of exclusion for evidence obtained by the police in violation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Balancing various factors, a court must now decide if exclusion is a proportional remedial response to the breach of the Bill of Rights at issue in the particular criminal case. This article undertakes a preliminary assessment of Shaheed and concludes that, while a change to the law of exclusion may have been inevitable, the Court failed to justify its abandonment of the prima facie rule and did not adequately rationalize its decision to adopt a proportionality-balancing approach.

Constitutional Exemptions: An Ongoing Problem Requiring A Swift Resolution (2003) 36 University of British Columbia Law Review 231

This article examines the current status of the exemption remedy and explores the effects of delaying a resolution to the critical question: how should a court treat a situation where legislation is constitutional in most of its applications but occasionally has an impact that is unconstitutional? The answer to this question will have an enormous impact on the manner in which the Charter of Rights is interpreted and extend into our judicial treatment of rights and remedies. This article was a follow-up and expanded exploration of the issues considered in “Constitutional Exemptions: Myth or Reality” (2000). Download paper

Constitutional Exemptions: Myth or Reality (2000) 11 National Journal of Constitutional Law 409

Over the past fifteen years, Canadian trial courts have often resorted to the “constitutional exemption” remedy to uphold the validity of statutory provisions which are generally inoffensive but which have unconstitutional results in rare instances. This article reviews the history of exemptions and examines their legal foundation. It argues that creation of a valid exemption remedy will require a fair amount of legal creativity, as such a remedy is not generally in accord with the Charter’s structure or established Supreme Court precedent. This article was cited approvingly by the Supreme Court of Canada in its landmark decision on exemptions, R. v. Ferguson. Download paper

Creating a Right of Reply: R. v. Rose is Not Without a Few Thorns (1999) 20 Criminal Reports (5th) 305

Co-authored with Ursula Hendel — My first attempt to address the constitutional exemption issue, this article was highly critical of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Rose, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 362 which sidestepped legislation of a mandatory nature by suggesting that a trial judge could utilize his “inherent jurisdiction” where not doing so would lead to an unfair trial.

Strip Searches and the Charter: Addressing Conceptual Problems of Right and Remedy (1999) 16 Criminal Reports (5th) 266

This article focused upon strip searches, and attempts by detainees to assert that an unconstitutional strip search could taint other police actions, like breathalyzer tests, leading to exclusion of such evidence. The article primarily examines the term “obtained in a manner”, and offers a new approach to the types of violations that should allow an applicant to seek to have evidence excluded pursuant to s.24(2) of the Charter.

Calder Should Not Preclude the Readmission of Real Evidence (1998) 14 Criminal Reports (5th) 289

A brief follow-up to the article described below. Focussing upon the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Bisko (1998), 14 C.R. (5th) 283 (Ont. C.A.), it contends that the court was wrong to apply Calder to a case where pre-existing evidence was discovered after a Charter violation, and suggested that where an accused person takes the stand and lies about evidence that was excluded under the Charter, the court should be able to reconsider admitting the evidence.

Trial Fairness Beyond Self-Incrimination: Section 24(2) After R. v. Calder: (1996) 1 Canadian Criminal Law Review 339

Co-authored with Ursula Hendel — This article concentrates on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Calder, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 660, a case where the Crown wanted to cross-examine the accused about a statement which had been excluded to test his credibility, and particularly upon the “fair trial” rationale for exclusion under s.24(2) of the Charter. The article suggests that the while the result is acceptable, the reasons given for excluding the evidence in Calder were unsatisfying. More importantly, the case offered an opportunity to expand the “fair trial” rationale beyond its existing focus on whether the evidence was self-incriminating.

The Mens Rea for Animal Cruelty Offences after R v Gerling: A Dog’s Breakfast (2016) 26 Criminal Reports (7th) 267

In R. v. Gerling, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reached some questionable conclusions about the mens rea that applies to the cruelty against animals offences in the Criminal Code. Amongst other errors, the decision seemed to confuse an evidentiary presumption with a mens rea standard, and then replace the applicable subjective mens rea standard with an objective one. In this comment, I discuss the decision and examine what it does both for the criminal law and the protection of animals.

Still The Worst $90,000 Ever Spent: 10 More Questions About Mike Duffy, Nigel Wright, the Criminal Code and the Canadian Criminal Justice System (2015)

Mike Duffy’s ongoing criminal trial has created a tremendous stir online and in the media. In a sequel to my original paper on the topic, I examine 10 more important legal questions arising from the trial with the objective of clarifying what might be happening in this landmark criminal case. Download paper

The Worst $90,000 Ever Spent: 10 Questions About Mike Duffy, Nigel Wright, the Criminal Code and the Canadian Criminal Justice System (2015)

Mike Duffy’s ongoing criminal trial has created a tremendous stir online and in the media. Unfortunately, the commentary is rife with speculation and error, much of it caused by the strange nature of the charges, and the conduct of the Crown and defence. In this piece, I examine the charges brought in relation to the infamous $90,000 cheque and discuss 10 key questions arising from the trial with the objective of clarifying what might be happening in this landmark criminal trial. Download paper

Why Should a Confinement Need to Be “Significant” to Attract Liability? A Proposal to Clarity and Reform the Current Approach to Forcible Confinement [with Adrienne Funk]: (2015) 62 Criminal Law Quarterly 150

On the surface, the crime of forcible confinement is straightforward enough. Nonetheless, because of some strange turns in the jurisprudence, the common law now requires confinement to be of a “significant” duration before a conviction can be imposed, even though the statute says nothing along these lines. This article explores how this confusing state of affairs came to be, considers the ramifications of this development, and proposes a solution. To read a version of this paper, click here.

R. v. Cairney: Predictable Responses and the Diminishing Defence of Provocation:(2014) 5 CR (7th) 254

This commentary focuses on the Supreme Court of Canada’s latest decision on provocation, the Cairney judgment from Alberta. In it, I critique the majority’s approach to the “suddenness” element in provocation, suggesting that it was: (1) questionable in light of the statutory language, jurisprudence and historical rationale of the defence; (2) troublesome given the facts of the case; (3) likely to have undesirable ramifications in future for a host of actors who might otherwise claim provocation; and (4) wrongly driven, at least in part, by a mistaken desire to assess provocation as a justification based defence, rather than an excuse. Download paper

The Failure to Enforce the Criminal Law: Does it Impede the Development of Social Discourse on Important Policy Issues? (2013) 46 Housei Riron (Niigata LJ) 1

In this article, I examine the educative function served by the criminal law, and consider whether Canada´s relentless expansion of the penal sanction has diluted this role. I will use Canada’s federal prohibition against cruelty to animals as an example to show how the use of the penal sanction has set back society’s treatment of animals. The “dramas” staged through a criminal trial have effectively created a narrative where only extreme types of malicious treatment against animals is wrongful. In the process, the law has warped the public’s sense of what improper conduct against animals is, and impeded debate on this important issue.

Khawaja: Mixed Messages on the Meaning of Intent, Purpose and Desire (2013) 97 C.R. (6th) 280

In a recent decision reviewing Canada’s terrorism legislation, the Supreme Court made a number of controversial statements regarding the fault elements of certain terrorism offences. In this commentary, I review these statements and consider their impact on the future of mens rea in Canadian criminal law in general, and the crime of participating in a terrorist offence in particular.

Is Three A Crowd? Victims in the Sentencing Phase of Trial [2007] New Zealand Law Review 459

This paper explores the role of victims in the sentencing process, and particularly considers the use of victim impact statements (VIS), and examines how their effectiveness has been reduced by court imposed restrictions, despite a clear legislative intention to allow for greater participation by victims. For the most part, the judges and lawyers who run the system have reacted by subverting VIS, forcing them to comply with traditional justice goals, muting the impact of this new tool and reducing the benefits it was intended to provide. The primary contention is that restricting the participation of the victim as the information model has done may well be unnecessary, as it risks undermining the purposes for which the new legislation was enacted and limiting the benefits it intended to achieve. Moreover, while there are certainly risks to a system that focuses exclusively on the restorative goals emphasized by the use of VIS, it is not clear that advancing victim satisfaction as a secondary purpose necessarily inhibits the established aims of the sentencing process.

Wrongful Convictions and the Shock Wave Effect [2006] New Zealand Law Journal 134

This article reviews a 2006 report on Miscarriages of Justice in New Zealand and a subsequent conference to explore the country’s approach to wrongful convictions. In the article, I explore the power of wrongful convictions as an agent for change and drawing upon the experience in Canada, describe how the revelation of wrongful convictions can create a climate for wide scale change to the criminal justice process with unexpected ramifications.

Constituents in the Trial Process – The Evolution of the Common Law Criminal Trial in New Zealand (2007)

This article provides a broad overview to the criminal trial process and how it has evolved in New Zealand, focussing on the “players” in the system, and three essential elements of New Zealand criminal justice: 1) crime being regarded as a harm against the State rather than the victim; 2) the trial being adversarial rather than inquisitorial in nature; and 3) the availability of trial by jury for serious crime. This work was commissioned as a Chapter by Professor Warren Brookbanks and Associate Professor Julia Tolmie (eds.) for their book entitled Perspectives on Criminal Justice in New Zealand (Lexis-Nexis: Butterworths, 2007).

R v. Laing: Two Major Steps Backward on Corbett Applications (2017) 33 CR (7th) 63

This commentary criticizes the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Laing, 2016 ONCA 184, and the judiciary’s approach to Corbett applications more broadly. The focus of the critique is with respect to the way the Court approaches Corbett applications to exclude an accused’s criminal record.

Comment on R v Ali, 2015 BCCA 333 (2015) 22 CR (7th) 218

A short annotation that explores recent comments by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on reversing the burden of proof where defences are concerned. The annotation criticizes certain wording used by the Court, and suggests a new method for approaching situations in which a defence requires evidence from the accused that does not reverse the burden of proof.

R. v. Nedelcu: The Role of Compulsion in Excluding Incriminating Testimony under s. 13 of the Charter (2011) 83 CR (6th) 55

This article considers how a witness’s “voluntary” testimony can be used in a subsequent criminal proceeding and some of the complexities posed by the Supreme Court of Canada’s revised approach to s. 13 of the Charter.

The Search for a Better Understanding of Discretionary Power in Evidence Law (2007) 32 Queens LJ 487

This article is about the use of discretion as a tool to decide upon the admissibility of evidence in a criminal proceeding, and assesses the success of the principled approach to admissibility which has dominated Canadian evidentiary jurisprudence for at least two decades. Download paper

Corbett Revisited: A Fairer Approach to the Use of An Accused Person’s Criminal Record in Cross-Examination (2006) 51 Criminal Law Quarterly 400

Following on from the some of the author’s earlier research on the use of an accused person’s criminal record in cross-examination, this article thoroughly reviews the theoretical rationales and principled application of the discretion created by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670. Download paper

Corbett, Crimes of Dishonesty and the Credibility Contest: Challenging the Accepted Wisdom of What Makes a Prior Conviction Probative (2006) 10 Canadian Criminal Law Review 215

The question of whether an accused’s prior criminal convictions can be raised against him in cross-examination depends heavily upon whether those convictions constitute crimes of dishonesty, and whether defence counsel has attacked the credibility of a Crown witness. In this article, the author challenges this position, suggesting that a second look at both conclusions is warranted. Download paper

Spousal Incompetence and the Principled Approach to Hearsay Admissibility: When Ancient and Modern Doctrines Collide (2006) 35 Criminal Reports (6th) 43

This short article looks at the spousal incompetence rule and the manner in which it uncomfortably co-exists with recent developments to the rule against hearsay.

The Evidence Bill 2005: A New Approach to Hearsay Raises New issues [2005] New Zealand Law Journal 446

Co-authored with Scott Optican — The Evidence Bill 2005 promises the most radical reform of the law of evidence in New Zealand’s history. This article critiques two aspects of this change, suggesting that further consideration of the law is necessary in order to prevent unforeseen complications from arising with witnesses who change their testimony or profess to have forgotten their earlier statement.

Gazing Into the Hearsay Crystal Ball – Will New Zealand Adopt the Canadian Approach to the Residual Exception for Hearsay? [2002] New Zealand Law Journal 250

This article examined the New Zealand approach to hearsay and the manner in which its use of the residual exception was deviating from the Canadian approach for reasons that were not entirely justifiable. The article suggested that New Zealand courts were unnecessarily restricting useful evidence from being admitted and wrongly interpreting the Canadian jurisprudence.

R. v. Charland – A Lost Opportunity to Clarify Corbett and the Use of an Accused’s Criminal Record (1998) 12 Criminal Reports (5th) 228

My first attempt to understand the Corbett discretion and pose questions about its erratic and imprecise nature. This article raised seven issues that were briefly discussed, but which formed the basis of my later work in this area. The article was cited approvingly in R. v. Klimek (2000) 33 C.R. (5th) 377 (Sask. Prov. Ct.).

The Flipped Classroom: How The Use of Technology Outside the Classroom Can Make Law Classes More Productive and Enjoyable [with Craig Forcese]: [2015] Canadian Legal Education Annual Review 117

This article follows up on the research I’ve done on “capsules” by exploring the rationale and “nuts and bolts” of using prerecorded material in a flipped classroom environment. A joint project with Craig Forcese of the University of Ottawa – another proponent of the technique – this article builds upon a workshop held in Ottawa in October 2013, and explores our experiences with the flipped classroom in law school. Download paper

Taking Instruction of Law Outside the Lecture Hall: How the Flipped Classroom Can Make Learning More Productive and Enjoyable (for Professors and Students) (2014) 51 Alta L Rev 891

This article reviews my experience in teaching the Law of Evidence, with particular emphasis placed on my decision to create “capsules”, short video lectures that explain the “black letter law” of a topic, allowing for more time to discuss in the classroom. In it, I explain my rationale for using this teaching technique, and review its efficacy. Download paper

Charting the Growth of Animal Law in Education (2008) 4 Journal of Animal Law 105

In late 2006, I began conducting research on the state of animal law education internationally, as I believe it is useful to track the increase of animal law courses worldwide as a means of demonstrating the viability of this area of scholarship. This article provides a statistical analysis of the growth of this area of law study by examining how, where and when new animal law courses have sprung up internationally. Download paper

Scroll to Top