Remedial Minimalism under Section 24(1) of the Charter: Bjelland, Khadr and Nasogaluak
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three recent judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada signal a departure from the broad and generous manner in which the Court has previously interpreted and applied section 24(1) of the Charter. In each of R. v. Bjelland, Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr and R. v. Nasogaluak, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge’s finding of a breach of Charter rights but overturned the trial judge’s choice of remedy under section 24(1) in order to grant a more limited remedy in its place. In doing so, the Court shifted the analytical focus away from the promotion of remedial efficacy and toward the minimization of the burdens imposed by the remedy on government. This article reviews each of these judgments and examines the extent to which they are consistent with previous section 24(1) jurisprudence and the purpose of the Charter’s broadest remedial provision.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| 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".