A New Subtlety in Judicial Supremacy: Review of the 2003-2004 Constitutional Cases
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As the debate over new appointments may suggest, there is a need to protect the legitimacy of the Court as a legal (rather than political) institution. These factors lead, I think, to a new subtlety in the ways that the Court describes its own work and its position in the Canadian system. We can therefore see hints in the Charter cases that some justices are working to avoid the perceptionthat the Supreme Court of Canada is a place for politics. This they can do through expressions of distaste when something they choose to call arrives at the Court, and frequent assertions of deference to Parliament. Yet at the same time, the tests which the Court is creating and the ways in which they are being applied serve to increase the Court's discretionary powers. The Court is required to walk a fine line in between upholding the Constitution and usurping the power of Parliament, and a close look at this year's balancing act reveals just how difficult defining that line can be. The Court will have difficulty trying to outrun the perception that they are engaging in a form of judicial politics (although whether or not this is a criticism of the Court is another question). The cases this year feed that perception by failing to develop bright line tests. To the extent that the Court is using context specific, flexible analysis which rely heavily on the factual matrix, and particularly where the tests involve balancing, the line between law and politics - assuming it exists becomes increasingly blurred.This article reviews the constitutional cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 2003-2004 term. For the purposes of this piece, the term runs from August 2003 to June 2004. Only cases in which the Constitution figured prominently in the Supreme Court's decision are included (cases in which reasons were not provided are excluded). Part II of this article will consider cases involving freedom of religion and expression. Part III looks at the cases decided under section 7, while Part IV reviews this year's Charter equality cases. Part V looks at three section 8 search and seizure cases. In Part VI, the important Doucet-Boudreau decision on remedy is described. Finally, Part VII considers the division of powers cases. The Supreme Court did not closely consider any constitutional section which falls outside of thesecategories.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».