Biography

David M. Tanovich, M.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Queens), LL.M. (NYU) is a Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Windsor where he teaches and writes in the areas of criminal law, evidence, legal ethics, and racial profiling. He is also the Academic Director of Windsor’s Law Enforcement Accountability Project (LEAP) and the recipient of a $50,000 grant from the Law Foundation of Ontario for the LEAP project.

Professor Tanovich has written over 40 books and articles including  The Colour of Justice: Policing Race in Canada (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2006); and, Law's Ambition and the Reconstruction of Role Morality in Canada (2005), 28 Dalhousie L. Rev. 267-310. Professor Tanovich has been invited to present at numerous conferences and other fora, including endowed lectures at Dalhousie Law School and the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan. In 2008, he was a Robson Hall Distinguished Visitor at the University of Manitoba. Professor Tanovich’s research has been frequently cited by the Supreme Court of Canada and other appellate courts, law reform and human rights commissions. It has also been recognized in various awards such as the 2005 University of Windsor Award for Excellence in Scholarship, Research and Creative Activity and 2006 Canadian Association of Law Teachers’ Scholarly Paper Award.

Prior to joining the academy, Professor Tanovich served as a law clerk to Chief Justice Antonio Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada for the 1995 term and as a partner with Pinkofsky Lockyer (1997-2003) where he argued more than 90 cases in the Supreme Court of Canada and Ontario Court of Appeal. Some of his more notable cases include R. v. Golden where the Supreme Court of Canada imposed constitutional limits on the ability of the police to strip-search suspects; R. v. Lyttle where the Supreme Court of Canada placed ethical limits on cross-examination; R. v. Richards, the first appellate case to argue racial profiling in Canada; R. v. Borde, where the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized that race is relevant in assessing sentence; and, R. v. Moore-McFarlane where the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the failure to video-tape a confession is a relevant factor in assessing admissibility.