Administrative Law Cases at the Supreme Court of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: In this article, Marya Duckworth and Francois Larocque discuss recent decisions, decisions on reserve, appeals inscribed for hearing and appeals where leave has been granted regarding Canadian administrative law cases at the Supreme Court of Canada. Among these decisions, the authors review Ellis-Don Ltd. v Ontario (Labour Relations Board), a case where a panel of the O.L.R.B. heard a grievance, drafted a decision and then engaged in discussions with the full tribunal that led to significant changes in the decision. The Supreme Court found that institutional consultation does not create an apprehension of bias or lack of independence, provided that the consultation is limited to questions of policy and law. Among other key decisions, the authors also examined the following cases: Trinity Western University v British Columbia College of Teachers, Chieu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Centre Hospitalier Mont-Sinai v Quebec (ministere de la sante et des services sociaux), Saint-Romuald (ville) v Olivier (Immeubles Jancloroc enr.), McKinley v BC Tel, Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat,Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v British Columbia (General Manager, Liquor Control), Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Gosselin v Quebec (Attorney General) and Edwards v Law Society of Upper Canada. French Abstract: Dans cet article, Marya Duckworth et Francois Larocque presentent des decisions recentes, des decisions reservees, des pourvois inscrits pour audition et des pourvois ou l’autorisation d’appel a ete accordee relativement a des decisions de droit administratif canadien a la Cour supreme du Canada. Parmi ces decisions, les auteurs examinent Ellis-Don Ltd c Ontario (Commission des relations de travail), une decision ou le panel de la CRTO, ayant entendu un grief, a redige une decision, puis a entame des discussions avec le tribunal, ce qui a mene a des changements significatifs dans la decision. La Cour supreme du Canada a conclu que la consultation institutionnelle ne suscite pas de partialite ni de probleme d’independance, a condition que la consultation se limite aux questions de politique et de droit. Parmi les autres decisions importantes, les auteurs ont egalement examine les decisions suivantes : Trinity Western University c British Columbia College of Teachers, Chieu c Canada (Ministre de la Citoyennete et de l’Immigration), Centre Hospitalier Mont-Sinai c Quebec (ministere de la sante et des services sociaux), Saint-Romuald (ville) c Olivier (Immeubles Jancloroc enr.), McKinley c BC Tel, Law Society of British Columbia c Mangat, Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. c British Columbia (General Manager, Liquor Control), Suresh c Canada (Ministre de la Citoyennete et de l’Immigration), Gosselin c Quebec (Procureur general) and Edwards c Barreau du Haut-Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".