“Patent Unreasonableness is Dead. And We Have Killed It.” A Critique of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in <i>Dunsmuir</i>
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Upon arriving back to work after a brief yet refreshing trip to Las Vegas, my colleague burst into my office lamenting, "The Supreme Court has completely changed administrative law!They have killed off patent unreasonableness as a standard of review!"I felt an ominous sinking feeling, a sense of shock, and heartache, akin to the pain and loss that I felt when Tony Soprano pinched the nostrils of his nephew Christopher and watched him drift off into the great unknown.I hurriedly printed off the 7 March 2008, Supreme Court of Canada decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 1 and read it with bated breath, expecting the worst, yet hoping to find renewal and perhaps even a sort of rebirth into a fabulous new world of administrative law.What I discovered was that, in the words of Michael Stipe, it may be the end of the world as I know it, yet I still feel fine. I. THE FACTSMr. Dunsmuir was employed by the Department of Justice for the Province of New Brunswick as a legal officer.This position was "at pleasure" though, pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Service Act, 2 his employment was governed by the ordinary rules of contract.After multiple reprimands for unacceptable performance, Dunsmuir was dismissed without cause and given four months pay in lieu of notice.He filed a grievance under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, 3 alleging a lack of reasons for his employer's dissatisfaction, a lack of an opportunity to respond, and insufficient notice.The grievance was denied and the matter proceeded to adjudication.The adjudicator found, in a preliminary determination, that he had jurisdiction to determine the reasons for the decision to terminate and jurisdiction to reinstate the applicant.In a subsequent decision pertaining to the appropriate notice award, the adjudicator found that due to the hybrid nature of Dunsmuir's employment, he was entitled to and did not receive procedural fairness in the decision to terminate.Accordingly, the adjudicator ordered him reinstated, found that his termination was void ab initio, and provisionally found that if the reinstatement was quashed on judicial review, then the appropriate notice period would be eight months.On judicial review, the Court of Queen's Bench found that the correctness standard applied to the preliminary decision.The Court quashed this decision on the basis that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to look into the reasons for the applicant's dismissal, as he only had the authority to determine whether the notice given was reasonable.On the substantive decision relating to reinstatement and the appropriate notice award, the Court
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,028 | 0,030 |
| Communication savante | 0,018 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,032 | 0,029 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».