The Promise of Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd : Those Who Bear Children Should Not Be Disadvantaged
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers the defining moment embodied in the judgment of Chief Justice Brian Dickson in Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd when he proclaimed that it is "unfair to impose all of the costs of pregnancy upon half the population." The author argues that the case is important because of the history that preceded it and because of the breadth of its promise. She suggests that the promise has been somewhat betrayed by more recent cases dealing with the dual roles of many women as mothers and as workers that suggest a return to the formal approach to equality that Brooks clearly rejected. Le présent article traite du moment décisif que représente le jugement du juge en chef Brian Dickson dans l'arrêt Brooks c. Canada Safeway Ltd où il affirme qu'il est « injuste d'imposer tous les couˆts de la grossesse à la moitié de la population ». L'auteure soutient que cet arrêt est important en raison de ses antécédents historiques aussi bien que par l'ampleur du changement promis. Elle suggère que cette promesse ne s'est pas réalisée dans les décisions récentes portant sur le double rôle de nombreuses femmes qui cumulent la maternité et le travail, ce qui laisse présager un retour à l'approche formelle de l'égalité que l'arrêt Brooks avait clairement rejeté. In 1989, Chief Justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada recognized in Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd.1 that a woman who was discriminated against because of pregnancy was discriminated against on the basis of sex and that such discrimination was contrary to both human rights legislation and the equality guarantee of the Canadian Charter of
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".