Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a critique of the Supreme Court’s decision in Doré v. Barreau du Québec and the Charter values analysis it establishes. In the paper the authors first place Doré in context by providing background on the relationship between the Charter and administrative tribunals generally. Following a review of the Court’s decision in Doré, the paper discusses the genesis and development of Charter values. The critique of Doré has three main elements: first, the undefined nature of Charter values; second, the deferential standard of review that the Supreme Court establishes for review of tribunals’ decisions applying Charter values; and third, practical issues that arise in litigating Charter values. In conclusion, the authors argue that only Charter values that have a corresponding Charter right should be recognized and adjudicated. In addition, the authors suggest that a correctness standard of review apply to the review of a tribunal’s definition and scope of a Charter right or value, so that only the tribunal’s application of Charter values would be granted deference. Constrained in this manner, Charter values can play a useful role in the exercise of administrative discretion.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".