The Increasing Irrelevance of Section 1 of the Charter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Murray-Hall v. Québec (Attorney General) as a focal point, this paper tracks the evolution and intersection of the federal criminal law power and the provincial health law power in Canadian federalism cases. Part II of the paper examines existing methods used to prescribe plenary powers, including interpretative narrowing (formalism), expansion of concurrent federalism (double aspect), and purpose review (colourability). The paper shows that the Supreme Court of Canada has applied these prescriptions to the federal criminal law power but rarely to the provincial health law power. Part III looks around the corner to hard cases at the intersection of criminal law and health law that may make their way to the Supreme Court of Canada: (1) bans on medically recommended healthcare treatment for trans children in Alberta, and (2) involuntary addiction treatment of competent adults who use drugs in New Brunswick. The main claim of the paper is that the Supreme Court of Canada’s present approach to prescribing plenary powers at the intersection of criminal law and health emboldens provinces to enact quasi-criminal legislation with limited connection to health and substantial rights infringements.
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 | 0.017 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".