The Unprincipled Use of Originalism and Section 24(2) of the Charter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada laid the foundation to the modern approach of the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter in R. v. Collins. The author examines the treatment of this test by the Supreme Court in the subsequent cases of R. v. Burlingham and R. v. Stillman, with particular attention paid to the majority's rationale in Stillman for creating an "exclusionary rule" for conscriptive non-discoverable evidence. The author examines the critical debate surrounding Stillman, focusing on the argument that it was contrary to the "original intentions" of the drafters of the section. The author challenges this argument with four major assertions and then proceeds to examine recent attempts to reformulate the Stillman test. The author concludes that the rationale underlying the Stillman test was clearly and powerfully articulated. Any move to change the law must confront this rationale.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".