The Trilogy Strikes Back: Reconsidering Constitutional Protection for the Freedom to Strike
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper* seeks to address the issue of constitutional protection for strike action under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly in light of the jurisprudential revolution in freedom of association jurisprudence that has taken place over the past decade. We outline the three prevailing views delineating the scope of freedom of association under the Charter -- raised in the original Labour Trilogy as well as more recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions such as B.C. Health Services -- and conclude that each requires some constitutional protection for the freedom to strike. Given the agreement on each of these views that state measures restricting the freedom to strike run afoul of section 2(d), we proceed to address the difficult question of when such restrictions are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society under section 1 of the Charter. We draw on the Court's decisions in the Trilogy -- particularly those of Chief Justice Dickson and Justice Wilson, who found that the legislation in question violated 2(d) -- as well as a broader range of section 1 case law, in attempting to provide some guidance to courts in determining the constitutional permissibility of limits on strike action. While we do not doubt that limitations on strike action may at times be required, we believe that courts should rigorously apply the section 1 framework, to ensure that such restrictions are in fact directed at pressing and substantial objectives, are indeed rationally connected to those objectives, and are minimally impairing of the freedom. * This is an unedited draft of a paper scheduled for publication in an upcoming volume of the Ottawa Law Review.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| 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".