Exploring Complex Judicial–Executive Interaction: Federal Government Concessions in Charter of Rights Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.This article analyzes the federal government's concessions before the Supreme Court of Canada that its own laws are unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights, marking the first time that concessions have been analyzed empirically in Canada. Using data from 1984–2004, the author finds that full concessions of unconstitutionality are exceptionally rare but that partial concessions are not uncommon. There is weak support for the hypothesis that governments are more willing to concede laws passed by previous governments of a different party, but, on the whole, the federal government appears committed to defending its laws in court. The author explores the implications of this for the relationship between the judiciary and the executive, including judicial activism, Charter dialogue and government use of the courts to advance policy goals. Résumé.Cet article analyse les concessions du gouvernement fédéral devant la Cour suprême du Canada que ses propres lois violent laCharte canadienne des droits et libertés. Il s'agit, en fait, de la première analyse empirique de ces concessions au Canada. S'appuyant sur des données des années 1984 à 2004, l'auteur constate que les concessions complètes d'inconstitutionnalité sont exceptionnellement rares, mais que les concessions partielles ne sont pas inhabituelles. On donne peu d'appui à l'hypothèse que les gouvernements sont plus disposés à concéder les lois passées par des gouvernements précédents représentant un autre parti, et, dans l'ensemble, le gouvernement fédéral semble être engagé à défendre ses lois devant les cours. L'auteur explore l'incidence de cette situation sur les relations entre le pouvoir judiciaire et le pouvoir exécutif, abordant, entre autres, la question de l'activisme judiciaire, du dialogue sur la Charte et de l'utilisation des tribunaux par le gouvernement pour promouvoir certaines politiques.
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 | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".