The Arbitrariness in “Arbitrariness” (And Overbreadth and Gross Disproportionality): Principle and Democracy in Section 7 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
This paper examines the rise to prominence of proportionality analysis in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In recent years, the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that any law affecting life, liberty and security of the person must not be arbitrary, overbroad or grossly disproportionate. The expansion of section 7’s substantive scope to include means-testing government action re-engages concerns about judicial capriciousness that have troubled section 7 since its early days. This paper examines this concern in light of section 7’s history. It suggests that the prominence of proportionality analysis in section 7 may be understood as, in part, an effort to avoid the difficult task of setting normative boundaries on the scope of the provision. This paper argues that substantive values are inescapable as courts identify and frame these goals and scrutinize proportionality with close attention to real-world impacts of government action. Drawing on comparisons with the role played by proportionality analysis in section 1 of the Charter, the paper suggests that means-testing government policy should be guided by the Court’s institutional role, but with careful attention to the substantive purpose of section 7 of the Charter as a right, a purpose that includes protection against overweening majoritarianism. Such a purposive interpretation may permit proportionality analysis to be informed by democratic deficits and political powerlessness in government law and policy-making processes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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