The Better Local Government Act versus Municipal Democracy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IN AN ERA MARKED BY THE RISE of "illiberal democracies," the rule of law we thought we knew is being tested.Courts have been asked to engage with the expanded and extraordinary use of executive and parliamentary powers everywhere-most recently in the United Kingdom (on the use of the executive's prerogative powers to call elections against the will of Parliament) and the United States (on the legality of executive orders by the President).Locally it has taken the form of interference by the provincial government of Ontario in municipal elections, including the threat of invoking the "notwithstanding clause" in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to shield such interference from effective constitutional oversight.This special volume of the Journal of Law and Social Policy examines and contextualizes these acts of interference.On 27 July 2018, the Honourable Doug Ford, newly elected Progressive Conservative Premier of Ontario, announced that his government would introduce legislation to reduce the size of Toronto City Council from forty-seven to twenty-five ward seats.This, despite the fact that the 2018 municipal election period had already begun on 1 May 2018 and was well underway; that voting day was scheduled for 22 October 2018; and that the City had recently undertaken an extensive, four-year public consultation on ward boundaries, which resulted in City Council increasing the number of wards from forty-four to forty-seven.Ignoring the requirements of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, 1 the government had not previously consulted the City, provided notice about this drastic change, or even campaigned on the issue before being elected the month before.It is helpful to note that the City and Province (under the former provincial government) had previously worked out a compromise for determining the structure and process of local government.This negotiation of jurisdiction was enacted in the City of Toronto Act, 2006: there would be a lengthy process to determine ward boundaries (taking into account "effective representation" principles developed for the purpose of section 3 democratic rights under the Charter) and a requirement that both the City and Province consult on any changes.The ward boundary review process began in 2013 and concluded in 2017, following several rounds of community consultations, many committee and Council meetings, and significant changes to the city's governance model. 2 The City of Toronto's lengthy and detailed ward boundary review process was upheld on review by the Ontario Municipal Board.3 Yet the City's long-laboured decision was over-ridden by a former City councillor (now Premier) who apparently believed from the start of the City's review that the ward boundaries should simply match federal and provincial electoral boundaries.On 30 July 2018, the provincial government introduced Bill 5, the Better Local Government Act, 2018 (Bill 5 or the Act), for first reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. 4 The Bill would amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (Schedule 1), the Municipal Act, 2001
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 | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,017 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,019 | 0,003 |
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 ».