Legal Rights in the Supreme Court of Canada in 2000: Seeing the “Big Picture”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legal rights in sections 7-14 of the Charter 1 were among the first to be developed by the Supreme Court of Canada after the adoption of the Charter in 1982, and were the vehicle for some of the most important judicial changes to Canadian law, and in particular Canadian criminal law. 2 The year 2000 did not offer the Supreme Court of Canada many opportunities to apply or expand this jurisprudence.It did, however, provide the Court with four cases which raised claims under sections 7, 11(c), 11(d) and 12 of the Charter: two criminal cases, one human rights investigation and one child protection proceeding.3 This comment focuses on the Court's decisions in two cases which raised claims under section 7 of the Charter in the context of proceedings important to women's equality.Both of these cases demonstrate a commitment on the part of the Court to contextualize the interpretation of legal rights to take into account interests beyond those of the immediate parties to the case.In this paper, I argue that this trend is justifiable in both the human rights and the criminal contexts at issue in the past year's appeals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".