The Continual Reinvention of Section 15 of the Charter
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past three decades the Supreme Court of Canada has taken three distinctive approaches to equality rights under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as exemplified in the decisions Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), and R v Kapp. In this paper, we reflect upon these approaches and the conceptual and analytical difficulties they raise. In our opinion, the Court’s various reinventions of section 15 have led to a marked lack of success for equality-seekers, despite its periodic recognition of some of the problems with these approaches. Subject to a small number of important exceptions, we believe the Court’s reinvention in Kapp (and Kapp’s companion cases) is the least likely to achieve substantive equality and remedy the oppression of disadvantaged groups in Canada. Through a review of the cases, we identify a number of ongoing problems with the Supreme Court’s interpretations of section 15, which indicate that although the Court continually describes its goal as one of substantive equality, it has yet to develop an approach that truly embraces that notion. We also review the most recent decision of the Supreme Court on section 15, Quebec (Attorney General) v A, addressing the implications of that case for our arguments in the conclusion.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it