Litigation in Canadian referendum politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: During the last decade, various governments in Canada have organized referenda to define their options on issues of great popular controversy. The Canada‐wide referendum on the Charlottetown Constitutional Accord in 1992, the Quebec sovereignty referendum in 1995, and the British Columbia referendum on aboriginal treaty negotiations in 2002 are the most interesting and the most significant examples. The core issue in each case was determining the political direction a government or a jurisdiction should follow. In each of these instances, interested citizens representing a segment of public opinion sought court injunctions to stop the vote. The focus of this article is the use of the courts on the political process. In each of the three cases, the applications for injunction were denied and the referendum proceeded. Nevertheless, the legal proceedings highlighted the increasing impact of law in politics under the Charter, as well as the greater willingness of political actors to use litigation to achieve political goals. These trends point out lessons for democracy that public administrators ought not ignore. Sommaire: Au cows de la demière dénnie, divers governments au Canada ont organisé des référendums pour déterminer leurs options concemant des questions faisant l'objet de séneuses controversies. Le référendum Canadian de 1992 sur l Accord constitutional de Charlottetown, le référendum de 1995 sur la souverainets du Québec et le refbrendurn qui s'est tenu en 2002 en Colombie‐Britan‐nique sur les négociations des droits issus de traités des Autochtones sont les référendums les plus intéressants et les plus marquants. Dans chaque cas, le point essential consistait à determiner l'orientation politique que le gouvemement ou une juridiction devrait adopter. Dans chacun de ces examples, des citoyens concernés représentant un segment de l'opinion publique ont tenté d'empêcher la tenue du vote en solicitant des injunctions auprès des tribunaux. Le present article porte sur le recours à des moyens légaux pour influer sur le processus politique. Dans chacun des trois cas, les demandes d'injonctions ont été refusées et le réféerendum a eu lieu. Néanmoins, les actions en justice ont souligné l'impact grandissant du juridique dam le domaine des politiques, sous l'influence de la Charte, et une plus grande acceptance de la part des responsables politiques à recourir à des litiges pour atteindre des objectifs politiques. Ces tendances soulignent pour la démocratie des leçons que les administrateurs publics ne devraient pas ignorer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".