Positive Obligations Under Sections 15 and 7 of the Charter: A Comment On Gosselin V. Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the outset, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has had its detractors. 1 Today it is predictable, and healthy too, for commentators to debate judicial review's consequences for parliamentary government.The Charter's significance should not be understated: just as individuals became entitled to challenge actions by the state which interfere with their liberty, courts acquired the authority to enforce those entitlements against the democratic branches of government.Still, the Supreme Court of Canada declared, in the early years of Charter interpretation, that the adjudication of constitutional rights "must be approached free of any lingering doubts as to its legitimacy." 2 Despite that pronouncement, the Court realizes that doubts persist and are an adjunct of the institutional tension that accompanies judicial review.The tension can surface when a "negative" remedy invalidates a legislative provision that violates the Charter, but is aggravated by claims which seek to impose positive obligations on governments, or which otherwise displace economic and social policy.Claims of that nature pose a dilemma for courts.On the merits, they may be as compelling as other entitlements which can be enforced by a negative order limiting the government's authority.At the same
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.025 |
| 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".