Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solicitor-client privilege has been part of the common law for over 400 years, yet it has undergone its most profound transformation in just the last two Supreme Court terms.In 2001, the Court declared the privilege to be a principle of fundamental justice protected under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1 and in 2002 added that a client also has a reasonable expectation of privacy in communications with a lawyer that is guaranteed under section 8. 2 This paper traces the constitutionalization of the privilege, from its origins in the law of evidence, to its status as a substantive principle and a fundamental civil and legal right, to its most recent elevation to a constitutionally guaranteed right under the Charter.We also discuss some of the important implications flowing from constitutionalization.These include the potentially significant impact of the privilege's new status in the civil context, and whether the civil bar should now be poised for a "full answer and defence" exception to the privilege similar to that already recognized in the criminal context.We also consider whether other legal privileges have similarly been constitutionalized, * Partners, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.We would like to thank Neil Paris, student-atlaw, for his excellent research assistance, and Jean-Marc Leclerc
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 | 0.027 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".