The Justice of Access: Who Should Have Standing to Challenge the Constitutional Adequacy of Legal Aid?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canadian Bar Assn. v. British Columbia, the British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed a claim from the Canadian Bar Associated (CBA), which was seeking a declaration to recognize a constitutional right to legal aid in civil justice. The basis for the Court dismissing the claim was that the CBA lacked standing to bring the suit. In the analysis below, I argue that the Court misconstrued the test for public interest standing and failed to appreciate the role of Charter principles, including the principle of access to justice, in applying this test. The Court has created an artificial dichotomy between “individual” and “systemic” Charter litigation, the result of which will be to further erode access to justice in Charter cases involving social rights.There is a certain uncomfortable irony in a case denying the right to lawyers to argue for better access to justice. An organization like the CBA is distinctly well-suited to argue for the access to justice rights on behalf of those unable to do so because the cost of civil justice is out of reach. In this comment, I explore how issues such as the constitutional right to legal aid ought to be raised by public interest groups and why judicial discretion in applying public interest standing should facilitate such litigation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".