Enforcing the Right to Reasonableness in Social Rights Litigation: The Canadian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter discusses the potential for effective remedies for systemic social rights violations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The author outlines the challenges of social rights enforceability based on three themes: immediate as opposed to future-oriented remedies; discrete (engaging one provision and one respondent) as opposed to multifaceted (engaging multiple entitlements and different actors) remedies; and corrective (of a flaw or omission in an existing program or law) as opposed to transformative remedies requiring structural or substantive changes to entitlement systems. A potentially unifying concept is the emerging jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada affirming a standard of rights-compliant reasonableness. The Supreme Court of Canada has preferred to characterize and remedy violations of substantive rights by focusing on the quality of conferred decision-making rather than on legislative omissions. Where legislation does not require decision-makers to refuse to comply with positive social rights obligations, decision-makers should make decisions that uphold fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has developed a standard of reasonableness to assess whether discretionary decisions comply with international and constitutional rights that is consistent with the standard of reasonableness adopted by the United Nations in recent optional protocols covering ESC right. The right to reasonable decisions and policies, informed by international human rights values, potentially brings together individual entitlement claims and broader structural, transformative claims, mapping out a strategy that moves beyond the enforcement of particular judicial decisions to a strategy for social transformation based on human rights values.
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 | 0.023 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.075 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".