Rational Connections: Oakes, Section 1 and the Charter's Legal Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Any review of Charter jurisprudence will rank R v Oakes at or very near the top. The decision where the Supreme Court of Canada set out its approach to justifying rights limits under section 1, Oakes has been cited hundreds of times over the last quarter-century. Much scholarship has been devoted to “the Oakes test,” and to questions of deference, evidence and judicial review. One aspect, though, has tended to escape notice: rational connection. Given that the law at issue in Oakes foundered at this first stage of proportionality, its muted legacy is intriguing. This article takes a fresh look at rational connection, arguing that it is essential to the overall process of justification and a rich source of principles that have particular purchase in the criminal law context. It urges a reinvigorated approach, noting a number of attendant benefits, including rendering section 1 more consistent with Oakes’ original vision.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".