Critical Comparisons: The Supreme Court of Canada Dooms Section 15
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparison has become a central component of the equality analysis under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While comparison can be a useful tool in understanding inequalities and crafting appropriate remedies, the current understanding of comparison employed by Canadian courts has been reduced to requiring the claimant to describe a single correct comparator group that applies to his or her situation. This restrictive use of comparison revives the formal equality approach rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada 15 years ago, and leads to overly simplistic analyses. It is therefore necessary to rethink the use of comparison and comparator groups in section 15 equality jurisprudence. Following a discussion of the rise of comparator groups under section 15, the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Granovsky v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General) and Falkiner v Ontario (Director, Income Maintenance Branch, Ministry of Community and Social Services) are used to demonstrate the problems with the current comparator group approach. The paper ends with some preliminary thoughts on a more flexible and open use of comparison in equality jurisprudence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it