"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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".