Exiting the Freedom of Association Labyrinth: Resurrecting the Parallel Liberty Standard Under 2(D) & Saving the Freedom to Strike
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the constitutionalization of rights to unionize in Dunmore v. Ontario (AG), and collective bargaining in Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn v British Columbia and Ontario (AG) v. Fraser, the question of whether the Charter contains a freedom to strike has been thrust into the constitutional limelight. This paper seeks to assess the present state of the Supreme Court of Canada's section 2(d) doctrine, with specific reference to collective action in the public sector. In particular, it will propose that the 'parallel liberty' definition - the freedom to do with others what one is free to do alone - is a principled default approach to section 2(d), that should be deviated from only in exceptional circumstances. It is argued that this standard maintains consistency with the Court's approach to other fundamental freedoms, recognizes the important distinction between freedoms and rights, and fortuitously avoids the complete usurpation of the legislative role in defining the scope and bounds of collective bargaining. At the same time, the parallel liberty standard would provide meaningful recourse where the fundamental freedom of employees to act collectively as they are free to act together, such as through back-to-work orders, has been infringed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".