Bibliographic record
Abstract
April 17, 2005 marked the twentieth anniversary of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this paper, the author reviews the writings of equality specialists in 1985 and the submissions of equality seeking and other groups before the Parliamentary Sub-Committee on Equality Rights in 1985, to assess what was expected, in 1985, of the new guarantee of equality rights. The author finds that the expansive wording and coverage of section 15 for which equality seeking groups had lobbied, including the words equal benefit of the and a guarantee of equality rights for people with mental and physical disabilities that was unprecedented, was understood as having effected a dramatic shift in the idea of equality. It was believed that successful lobbying had moved the protection of equality beyond a right to freedom from discrimination, even in benefit programs, to a broadly framed guarantee of equality as a positive social right. Section 15 was thus understood by equality seekers to impose obligations on governments to take positive measures to address systemic patterns of socio-economic disadvantage and to incorporate social and economic rights which Canada had affirmed under international law such as the right to housing, to education, to an adequate income and to fulfilling work. These types of positive obligations were expected to be enforced by courts where necessary, but equality seekers also envisioned a new model of participatory and accountable governance in which disadvantaged groups would be newly empowered as rights-holders. Reviewing developments in courts and in governance in Canada over the last twenty years, the author concludes that these central expectations have remained largely unrealized. Despite some significant victories in Charter litigation with positive remedial implications, the Supreme Court of Canada has ultimately failed to hear or to honour the central claim to equality that was at the core of what rights holders expected of the right to equality in 1985. Similarly, governments have marginalized, rather than mainstreamed, equality rights in governance. Human rights institutions have failed to promote and enforce the broad right to equality envisioned in 1985. Considering whether, in light of these disappointments, Canadians have perhaps expected too much of the right to equality, the author concludes that we ought not to be talked out of our expectations. An expectation that the right to equality can act as a vehicle for the protection not only from discrimination but also as a guarantee of social and economic rights which in other constitutions are enumerated separately was a unique feature of Canada's emerging constitutional democracy which ought not to be lost.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".