There is resounding consensus that diversity in legal education is a priority. Yet, North American law schools continue to be criticized for failing to reflect the diversity of the society that they are training lawyers to serve. This article is a project of conceptual reorientation against a backdrop of critical scholarship and empirical evidence. Parts I and II examine the past twenty years of diversity promotion in legal education, concluding that, while several advances have been made, especially in increasing numerical representation of diverse groups in law schools, the promise of meaningful diversity remains unfulfilled. Part III suggests that reforms in legal education, though well-intentioned, have continued to focus on the production of a model of professional identity that is out of reach and out of touch for many minority students. In Parts IV and V, the author outlines a program for transforming the norm of lawyering taught in law school. Grounded in a normative framework of access to justice and equality, the author argues that experiential/clinical learning practices offer a useful method to achieve a more engaged pedagogical commitment to diversity in legal education.

Canada and the United States have both experienced a substantial increase in income inequality over the last several decades. In this article, we examine the complex interaction of income inequality with tax and transfer systems in Canada and the United States. We begin by comparing the data on taxation and expenditure to understand the similarities and differences between the two countries. We then consider how changes to tax and transfer policies have affected the levels of inequality in both countries. The article concludes by offering some policy recommendations that each country may consider to address the increasing levels of inequality.

Access to justice is the most pressing justice issue today. It has become the major focus of essentially all stakeholders in the legal community—governments, regulators, bar associations, researchers, and educators. It now needs to become an increasing topic of attention for those who use the system: the public. With all of this attention, what does the phrase “access to justice” really mean, particularly from the perspective of the public? In addition to reviewing the access to justice literature and policy initiatives, this article develops a public centered understanding of access to justice. It does so primarily by reporting on a recent survey of public views on justice. This study fits within a growing wave of literature and recent reform efforts designed to put the public squarely at the centre of the justice system.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are highly controversial subjects that have drawn much attention in Canada over the last two decades. This paper outlines how the Netherlands, the United States, Australia, and Canada have approached the practices. Jurisprudence, public opinion polls, legislative developments, and the positions of medical organizations and their members are included in the analysis. A number of arguments for and against the continued prohibition of the practices in Canada are evaluated. As well, information regarding the extent to which euthanasia and assisted suicide are performed in these countries is assessed. It will be shown that Canadians currently enjoy significant control over decisions concerning end of life. The principles of autonomy and beneficence provide the foundation necessary to justify lifting the prohibition of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. With regard to the development of safeguards, the way in which foreign jurisdictions have dealt with both procedures is highly instructive. A qualified system of pre-authorization, unlike those adopted elsewhere, would prevent abuses from occurring and maintaining the prohibition of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Since legislators are in the best position to deal with the issues, change in the law should be made by the government, not the judiciary. Practical legislation is feasible and a proposal of what this should entail is presented.

This article poses the question: Now that women are receiving an increasing share of the seats on the Supreme Court of Canada (the Court), can we conclude with confidence that they have been admitted to full participation, with a mix of judgments—including the more significant decisions—that is fully comparable to their male colleagues? The author looks at the assignment of reasons for judgment on the Court over the last three chief justiceships, with specific reference to the relative rate of assignments to male and female judges. He finds that the male/female gap is more robust than ever, although he also identifies considerations that suggest that there may be factors other than gender alone that are at play.