"Chartering" in the Shadow of Lochner: Guindon, Goodwin and the Criminal-Administrative Distinction at the Supreme Court of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distinction between criminal and administrative wrongdoing plays a key role in Canadian public law. Though it functions somewhat differently across domains, the upshot is the same: the state is presumptively entitled, as a principle of statutory and constitutional interpretation, to more favourable procedures for establishing administrative wrongdoing than criminal offending. Conversely, people accused of administrative infractions are presumptively entitled to less protection against state power in the investigative and adjudicative process than those charged with crimes (or in many cases, regulatory offences). The criminal-administrative distinction has a long pedigree, but has taken on heightened importance since the Charter. The entrenchment of the Charter’s “legal rights” provisions emboldened lawyers to claim the same procedural protections for persons accused of non-criminal wrongdoing that statute and common law had typically (but not universally) provided to criminal defendants. With few exceptions, these claims have failed. Despite long-standing criticism of its doctrinal coherence and policy justifications, the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly confirmed the distinction’s vitality and applied it to deny Charter challenges by persons deemed to be operating in the administrative sphere. The Court has been far more willing, in contrast, to find Charter violations in the criminal context.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".