Les « dents » de la Loi sur les langues officielles: le recours judiciaire sous la partie X (The 'Teeth' in the Official Languages Act: The Court Remedy Under Part X)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: La partie X de la Loi sur les langues officielles (LLO) instaure devant la Cour federale un recours judiciaire pour revendiquer le plein respect de certaines dispositions de la LLO.L’objectif de ce texte est de presenter l’etat du droit en ce qui concerne le recours judiciaire prevu par l’article 77 de la Loi sur les langues officielles et, plus generalement, sur les dispositions de la partie X de la Loi intitulee « Recours judiciaire ». Le texte n’a donc pas pour objet de presenter l’ensemble des recours judiciaires disponibles pour sanctionner des violations aux dispositions de la Loi sur les langues officielles et encore moins l’ensemble des recours, administratifs ou judiciaires, qui existent en droits linguistiques. Il se concentre sur le recours prevu a la partie X de la Loi et sur la jurisprudence afferente.Le texte traite d’abord des conditions d’application du recours : qui peut deposer un tel recours ? Quelles dispositions de la Loi peuvent faire l’objet du recours ? Quels sont les delais applicables pour le depot du recours ? Le texte explore par la suite la nature du recours prevu a la partie X puis aborde certaines questions liees a la procedure, y compris celle des obligations linguistiques qui incombent a la Couronne lorsque de tels recours sont intentes. La quatrieme partie porte sur des questions relatives a la preuve et la cinquieme des reparations pouvant etre octroyees lorsque la Cour federale estime qu’une institution federale n’a pas respecte la Loi. La question des depens est traitee en conclusion.English Abstract: Part X of the Official Languages Act creates a court remedy before the Federal Court, designed to ensure full compliance with certain provisions of the Act.The objective of this paper is to present the state of the law as regards the court remedy created under section 77 of the Official Languages Act and, more generally, with respect to the provisions of Part X of the Act entitled “Court Remedy”. The paper is therefore not intended to present a summary of all available court remedies for violations of the provisions of the Official Languages Act nor is it intended to present a summary of all the different remedies, whether administrative or legal, that exist in the realm of language rights. The paper focuses solely on the legal remedy created by Part X of the Official Languages Act and on the relevant case law.The paper will first review the conditions for application of the court remedy: Who may apply for such a remedy? For which provisions of the Act can the court remedy be brought? What are the limitation periods to apply for such a remedy? The text then explores the nature of this court remedy as well as certain procedural issues, including the issue of the Crown’s language obligations when such legal remedy is sought. The forth part of the text focuses on evidence issues and the fifth on the specific remedies that may be granted when the Federal Court finds that a federal institution has not complied with the OLA. The issue of costs is addressed in the final part of the text.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".