LEAF and the Supreme Court of Canada Appeal of Health Services and Support-Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le present article porte sur la requete pour permission d'intervenir dans l'affaire Health Services and Support-Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. c. British Columbia (l'affaire concernant le projet de loi 29), requete presentee par le Fonds d'action et d'education juridiques pour les femmes (le FAEJ) devant la Cour supreme du Canada. La permission a ete refusee. L'une des principales questions en litige dans cet appel porte sur les dispositions relatives a l'egalite dans les conventions collectives en vigueur dans le secteur de la sante en Colombie-Britannique, secteur largement domine par les femmes. L'appel conteste la constitutionnalite de la loi du gouvernement de la Colombie-Britannique qui annule ces dispositions, au regard de l'article 15 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes. L'interpretation et l'application de l'article 15 de la Charte, qui est d'importance critique pour le FAEJ, est au cœur meme de cette affaire. Un sommaire ainsi que le memoire du FAEJ au complet sont inclus. L'application du critere en matiere de discrimination par les tribunaux inferieurs dans l'affaire concernant le projet de loi 29 fait l'objet de critiques. L'approche formelle de l'article 15 adoptee par les tribunaux inferieurs est denoncee comme faussant l'analyse de la discrimination et occultant les implications du genre. On y soutient que l'egalite substantive ne peut etre realisee par de telles analyses formelles. On y decrit le processus de redaction du memoire du FAEJ et on y critique aussi l'effet des Reglements revises de la Cour supreme du Canada regissant les interventions. This article profiles the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund's (LEAF) proposed intervention before the Supreme Court of Canada in Health Services and Support-Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia (Bill 29 case). LEAF was denied leave to intervene in this case. One of the main issues in the Bill 29 appeal relates to equality provisions of existing collective agreements of the female-dominated health care sector in British Columbia and whether or not the BC government's legislation voiding those provisions violates section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Central to this case is the interpretation and application of section 15 of the Charter, which is of critical importance to LEAF. A summary of the LEAF Bill 29 factum is provided and the LEAF factum itself is also included. The application of the test for discrimination by the lower courts in Bill 29 is critiqued. The formalistic approach to section 15 applied by the lower courts is exposed as obfuscating the discrimination analysis and rendering the gender implications invisible. It is argued that substantive equality cannot be advanced via such formalistic analyses. The LEAF factum drafting process is described and the effect of the revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada governing interventions is also critiqued.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".