Legal Capacity in Canada: An Equality Rights Analysis in Light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has fuelled disability advocacy, law reform and community organising efforts in countries world-wide with the goal of ensuring that laws, policies and practices live up to the vision of equality in the exercise of legal capacity for people with disabilities. Article 12, paragraph 2, requires that States Parties recognise “that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life”. This paragraph is frequently cited by disability advocates to substantiate their claim to a right to control their own lives and to resist any attempt at interference with their decision-making, through legal avenues such as guardianship and other forms of substitute decision-making. Because of the exclusion that many people with disabilities face and the historical restrictions on their autonomy resulting in an affront to their dignity, their claim has been hard fought for, but largely unrealised in jurisdictions internationally. Understanding what is required to achieve Article 12's ideals demands an in-depThexploration of what is meant by the enjoyment of legal capacity on an equal basis . While equality, and the related concept of discrimination, are well understood in other contexts, such as physical accessibility, it is less clear what they mean in the context of legal capacity. What characterises a legal capacity law as discriminatory? In order to effect change, we must first be able to identify the problem with sufficient precision to guide action. This chapter explores legal capacity through an equality lens, based on the equality right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and the CRPD. The experience in Canadian law is examined to demonstrate one method of undertaking an equality rights analysis. Canada is an apt jurisdiction for this case study as Canada was the lead State Party at the United Nations in the development of Article 12. As described by Julian Walker, and citing a joint paper by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Canadian Association for Community Living, “Canada's strong contribution to the CRPD allowed certain Canadian values to be enshrined in international human rights law.”
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».