Patriation, Politics and Power: The State of Balance between the Supreme Court and Parliament after 30 Years of the Charter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the granting of the Magna Carta until present day, the debate over the proper role of courts and legislatures in the practice of governance has dominated the study of both law and politics in democratic states around the world. In Canada, this debate has received a particularly large amount of attention since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. With the entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of Canada’s constitutional framework, courts were given the power to assess the validity of legislation with respect to constitutional rights. Consequently, since 1982, the courts’ expanded role has attracted much criticism from commentators.Beginning with a historical overview of the doctrine of the separation of powers between courts and legislatures in the Westminster parliamentary system, this article outlines the development of judicial review of legislation in Canada. A comparison of the Canadian practice of judicial review with that of other similar democracies is also presented. Furthermore, this article summarizes the major criticisms of judicial review in Canada and classifies them in four different categories. Finally, a response to each criticism is provided through both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of scholarship and jurisprudence over a thirty-year period. The year 2012 marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Charter. It is thus an opportune moment to assess the Charter’s impact on the balance of power between the Supreme Court and Parliament. The Charter has allowed the judiciary to play a more prominent role in Canadian governance. The evidence, however, suggests that judges have exercised their powers in a moderate and balanced manner.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".