Charter Protection against Unlawful Police Action: Less Black and White Than It Seems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pre-Charter, in principle the police had limited powers. However, in practical terms it was not possible for a private citizen to object to all police action that fell outside those powers: realistically it was only if the police action were egregious enough to rise to the level of a tort or an offence that there was a mechanism for review. That is, there was a lot of grey area in between the things the police clearly were allowed to do and those they clearly were not allowed to do. The Charter changed that. By making “lawfulness” the standard for deciding whether there was an unreasonable search or an arbitrary detention, the Supreme Court in the ory banished the grey area, making it possible to review any action falling outside the strict limits of police powers. However, experience led to the conclusion that those “strict limits” might in fact be too strict, and so paradoxically the restraint mechanism of the Charter has led in some instances to the expansion of police power. Further, the particular approach taken to expanding police powers amounts to potentially declaring all of the previous grey area to fall within the powers of the police. This paper argues that that is an undesirable strand in Charter jurisprudence, and that it could be avoided by dealing with grey area issues at the remedy stage, as section 24(2) anticipates, rather than at the stage of deciding what powers police have.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".