
Théodore Lafleur
Judicial ReasoningSpent over a decade working as a research lawyer at the appellate level before moving to legal education. His sessions on ratio decidendi are among the most practically focused in the program.
Eight weeks of applied legal reasoning — working through real judicial decisions, understanding how courts construct arguments, and building the analytical habits that actually hold up in practice.
How courts structure their reasoning. The difference between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta — and why that distinction matters more than most law school courses suggest.
How binding authority actually works across Canadian jurisdictions. When courts distinguish precedent, when they overrule it, and what argumentation makes either move credible.
Courts rarely apply statutes in a vacuum. This module walks through how interpretive tools interact with case law — using decisions from the Federal Court and provincial appellate courts as the material.
Applied sessions where participants construct written arguments using assigned case clusters. Feedback focuses on whether the case support is accurate and whether the reasoning holds under scrutiny.
Each week opens with a live session — roughly 90 minutes — where the instructor works through assigned decisions in detail. The focus is on how the court reached its conclusion, not just what the conclusion was.
Between sessions, participants work through a set of cases independently before submitting a short written analysis. Written work is reviewed with specific comments, not scores.

Spent over a decade working as a research lawyer at the appellate level before moving to legal education. His sessions on ratio decidendi are among the most practically focused in the program.

Practised administrative law for fourteen years with a particular focus on federal regulatory frameworks. His module on statutory interpretation draws on a large archive of real advocacy briefs.

Legal researcher and writer with a background in comparative constitutional law. Her feedback sessions are structured around written submissions, working through what makes a case-based argument persuasive — and what undermines it.
Seats fill quickly — cohorts are kept small by design. If the current session is full, you can register for the next available intake.
We use cookies to improve your experience and understand how our site is used. Under PIPEDA, you can choose which data collection you permit. Necessary cookies are always active.