Administration at the Supreme Court of Canada: Challenges and change in the Charter era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article presents a descriptive account of administration at the Supreme Court of Canada. Since 1975, the Court has gained considerable control over its docket, attained administrative independence from the federal Department of Justice and seen its role transformed following the enactment of the Charter of Rights. This new context has brought a host of challenges, requiring procedural reforms and adaptation to technological developments to ensure institutional efficiency. The institution's role under the Charter has also enhanced its public prominence, placing normative pressure on the Court to enact measures to increase transparency, particularly with regards to its relationship with the media. Drawing on interviews with former justices and Court staff members, as well as secondary material, this article examines these changes and their implications. Sommaire : Cet article décrit l'administration de la Cour Suprême du Canada. Depuis 1975, la Cour a considérablement augmenté le contrôle de son registre, a acquis une indépendance administrative par rapport au ministère fédéral de la Justice et a vu son rôle se transformer suite à l'adoption de la Charte des droits et libertés. Ce nouveau contexte a apporté pléthore de défis, exigeant à la fois des réformes procédurales et une adaptation aux changements technologiques afin d'assurer son efficacité institutionnelle. L'adoption de la Charte a aussi augmenté le profil de la Cour auprès de la population, en exerçant une pression normative et en l'obligeant à adopter des mesures supplémentaires pour accroître sa transparence, en particulier en ce qui concerne son rapport avec les médias. En s'appuyant sur des entrevues avec d'anciens juges et membres du personnel de la Cour et d'autres documents, cet article examine ces changements et leurs implications.
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".