The Charter in the Administrative Process: Statutory Remedy or Refounding of Administrative Jurisdiction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EnglishIn asking whether administrative tribunals can apply the Charter, jurists have assumed that the Charter is a statutory remedy that can be applied or not, rather than consider it the basis of a general refounding of administrative jurisdiction. The result, evidenced in Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Worker’s Compensation Board) v. Laseur, has been an unprincipled expansion of administrative power under the Charter but also, as a response to this ruling, a general legislative withdrawal of Charter jurisdiction from administrative tribunals, as evidenced in Alberta’s Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act (APJA). The author argues that this ruling, along with the APJA, represent extreme solutions to a more complex problem, which finds its origins in the autonomy of constitutional and statutory interpretation. The author proposes a more integrated view of constitutional and statutory interpretation, which would, on the whole, result in broader administrative responsibility under the Charter without going as far as to allow for an “ informal” declaration of unconstitutionality of primary legislation. The author explains why statutory and constitutional interpretation remain dissociated, and how they can be integrated through the presumption of constitutionality. francaisEn demandant si les tribunaux administratifs peuvent appliquer la Charte, les juristes ont pris pour acquis que la Charte n’est qu’un remede statutaire qui peut etre applique ou non, plutot qu’un refondement general de la competence administrative. En consequence, le resultat a ete une croissance demesuree des pouvoirs des tribunaux administratifs, tel que decide dans Nouvelle-Ecosse (Workers’ Compensation Board) c. Martin; NouvelleEcosse (Workers’ Compensation Board) c. Laseur, mais egalement leur declin correlatif par des loi telles la Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act (APJA) en Alberta, qui de facon generale, interdit aux tribunaux administratifs d’appliquer la Charte. Comme solution, l’auteur propose une conception plus integree de l’interpretation statutaire et constitutionnelle, ce qui aurait pour consequence de reconnaitre aux tribunaux administratifs une responsabilite plus large en vertu de la Charte, sans pour autant aller jusqu’ a autoriser un pouvoir “ informel” de declarer la legislation dite “primaire” inconstitutionnelle. L’auteur explique les raisons qui ont contribuees a l’ isolement de l’ interpretation statuaire de l’ interpretation constitutionnelle et comment ils peuvent se reintegrer a travers la presomption de constitutionalite.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".