Judicial Review and the Charter from Multani to Doré (Contrôle judiciaire et la Charte de Multani à Doré)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the modern administrative state, administrative decisions often affect Charter-protected rights. The Supreme Court’s approach to reviewing such decisions has been inconstant since the early days of the Charter. In particular, the Court has adopted different positions on the question of the relationship between administrative decisions and the requirement of section 1 of the Charter. Madam Justice Charron advocated use of the analytic framework developed in Oakes to test the validity of such decisions. Recently, the Court has suggested that the Oakes test is ill-suited to individual decisions.This paper offers a critical examination of the justification for the new approach and concludes that the practical difficulties of applying Oakes to individual decisions are overstated. It further concludes that the new approach is likely to invite more deference to decisions infringing Charter-protected rights.Dans l’etat administratif moderne, les decisions administratives portent souvent atteinte aux droits garantis par la Charte. Depuis les premiers jours de la Charte, l’approche de la Cour supreme en revision de telles decisions s’est revelee inconstante. La Cour a notamment adopte des positions differentes quant a la relation entre les decisions administratives et la justification au regard de l’article premier de la Charte. Mme la juge Charron preconisait l’application du cadre d’analyse developpe dans l’arret Oakes pour apprecier la conformite a la Charte de telles decisions. Recemment, la Cour a indique/laisse entendre que le test elabore dans Oakes est mal adapte aux decisions individuelles.Cet article offre un examen critique de la justification donnee a l’appui de cette nouvelle approche et conclut que les difficultes pratiques soulevees par l’application du test prevu a l’arret Oakes aux decisions individuelles sont surestimees. Il conclut egalement qu’il est probable que la nouvelle approche invitera a plus de retenue face aux decisions portant atteinte aux droits vises par la Charte.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".