Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores recent judicial treatment of section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and reaches the conclusion that judicial activism and judicial inactivity have created an ineffective incorporation of constitutional norms within Canadian police culture. A proper understanding of activism would dictate that the Supreme Court of Canada should seize the available opportunities to clarify the boundaries of police power and not issue narrow rulings under the guise of allowing the power to evolve incrementally under the common law. It is best to leave the question of police empowerment through new technology for Parliament and if, and when, Parliament determines that it wants to add a particular, invasive technology to the police arsenal, the Court can review the power to determine if it comports with the Constitution. When it comes to the exercise of police discretion on the street, it is unfair to require the police to decipher the relationship between reasonable grounds to detain, reasonable grounds to suspect and reasonable and probable grounds. If the Court cannot provide sufficient guidance in creating new powers for state officials, it should decline to do so and in taking no action it can compel Parliament to address the issue in a comprehensive manner. Creating new police powers without attempting to address the issue in a comprehensive manner is judicial activism gone awry. The police have been vested with enormous discretion and this paper examines the Supreme Court’s approach in providing (or failing to provide) guidance on the parameters of the exercise of this discretion.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".