The Re-emergence of a Clash of Rights: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in R. v. S. (N.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a case comment on the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2012 decision in R. v. S. (N.). The authors place this decision within the Supreme Court’s “conflict of rights” jurisprudence and provide an overview of this case law, using Justice Iacobucci’s articulation of “reconciling rights” as a framework. Ultimately, the authors argue that, contrary to the Supreme Court’s statements in the decision, S.(N.) is not an example of reconciling rights (as that term is understood according to Justice Iacobucci’s articulation of it) and that ultimately one right was preferred over another. The authors also point out several of the practical implications of the decision, namely, how the decision will likely lead to increased procedural burdens for witnesses, that it requires courts to consider the strength of a witness’s subjective religious beliefs and the issues that it will cause regarding access to justice.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".