Institutionalizing Access to Justice: Judicial, Legislative and Grassroots Dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well understood that there can be no legal right without a remedy and, further that the remedy must be accessible if it is to be meaningful. In reality, however, the pragmatic concerns associated with effectuating access-to-justice have proven complex. Of particular concern is how best to ensure access-to-justice for those who lack the financial means to litigate. This concern has taken on a particular importance in light of two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions on advanced costs and the right to legal aid, as well as the Government of Canada’s recent cancellation of the Court Challenges Program. The current deficit in access-to-justice programs suggests that a more multi-faceted approach involving judicial initiatives, legislative programs and coordination amongst social activists is needed to uphold the constitutional value of access to the justice system. The author argues, through doctrinal, theoretical and case study analysis, that increasing access-to-justice necessarily entails taking positive steps to create access to the courts, rather than relying solely upon the inherent limitations of judicial pronouncements and doctrine. Further, the author suggests that this multi-faceted approach would encourage lawyers to empower communities, demystify the law and contribute to the institutionalization of access-to-justice.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".