Clarifying the Role of Precedent and the Doctrine of Stare Decisis in Trial and Intermediate Appellate Level Charter Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What happens when valid constitutional precedent, including precedent from our country’s highest court, is called into question in both fact and law? Such has been an increasingly familiar phenomenon in Canadian Charter jurisprudence. This is not necessarily surprising considering that the Charter is now over 30 years old and previous Charter issues once thought to be settled are starting to be relitigated in light of new social and legislative facts. It is amongst this backdrop that this paper considers, and makes attempts to disentangle, some of the thorny doctrinal issues associated with stare decisis and precedent in such situations. The paper uses and considers two cases, Bedford v Attorney (General Canada) and Carter v Canada (Attorney General), as examples of courts having to grapple with stare decisis and precedent based issues in face of binding Supreme Court of Canada precedent. Since this paper was published, new cases have emerged where trial and intermediate appellate courts have had to face similar, if not identical, issues with the doctrine of stare decisis in the Charter context [see e.g. The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour et al v The Queen, 2013 SKCA 43 leave to appeal granted 2013 CanLII 654102 (SCC)]. Ultimately, this paper goes on to provide a principled framework for navigating stare decisis and precedent based issues in trial and intermediate level appellate level Charter analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".