The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian Officials Abroad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes how the Federal Courts have dealt with two issues pertaining to the extra-territorial application of the Charter arising from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in R. v. Hape and Canada (Justice) v. Khadr: (1) whether there exists a “fundamental human rights exception” to the general rule that the Charter does not apply extra-territorially; and (2) whether non-Canadian citizens outside Canada who are not subjected to a Canadian judicial process are beneficiaries of Charter rights. The Federal Courts have concluded that the Supreme Court did not create a “fundamental human rights exception” justifying the extra-territorial application of the Charter if Canadian state actors are involved in fundamental human rights violations outside Canada. In addition, they have determined that non-Canadian citizens outside Canada with no sufficient connection to Canada are not entitled to avail the mselves of Charter rights guaranteed to “everyone”. The paper concludes by identifying several additional questions arising from the Supreme Court’s Hape and Khadr decisions that future courts may be required to consider.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".