Like a Prayer: Administrative Law Implications of the Supreme Court's Freedom of Religion Decision in Saguenay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Mouvement laique quebecois v. Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a municipality and its mayor to stop reciting a prayer at city council meetings on the basis that they had breached the state’s duty of neutrality and had thus created a discriminatory interference with an individual’s freedom of conscience and religion. Touching on a hot topic – conflicting assertions of religious rights and freedoms – the Court’s conclusion piqued the interest of the Canadian public, lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Canadian litigators, however, should be particularly interested in Saguenay, because of the way the Court reached its conclusion. The Court’s analysis provides helpful guidance and an interesting discussion on the appropriate standards of review for a statutory appeal, holding that (1) standards of review where a statute provides for an appeal of an administrative tribunal are those that apply on judicial review, rather than appeals from a court; (2) different standards of review can apply to separate aspects of one decision; and (3) reviewing courts must refrain from considering issues outside the tribunal's jurisdiction in their review.
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 | 0.038 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".