L'accès à la justice en matière de droits de la personne : le difficile accès au Tribunal des droits de la personne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le mouvement d'accès à la justice a vu le jour dans le contexte de l'État providence, et ce, dans plusieurs pays de l'Europe de l'Ouest et du Commonwealth.Au Québec, il s'est développé avec l' avènement de la révolution tranquille et a été pensé afin de favoriser l'idéal de justice dans la société québécoise.Dans l' esprit de faire progresser le droit à l' égalité, le Tribunal des droits de la personne du Québec a été créé afin de permettre une plus grande accessibilité à la justice et plus d'efficacité dans le processus d'adjudication.Plus de vingt ans après sa création, plusieurs questions se posent quant à la raison d'être de cette cour de justice, notamment en ce qui concerne son accessibilité qui a été réduite de façon significative au cours des dernières années par les tribunaux, notamment dans l'arrêt Ménard c. Rivet, alors que la Cour d'appel a limité la possibilité de la saisine individuelle.Le texte qui suit a comme objectif de tenter de démontrer le problème actuel d'accès au Tribunal des droits de la personne.L'arrêt Ménard c. Rivet sera examiné et différentes avenues en faveur d'un renversement de l'arrêt Ménard c. Rivet seront proposées.The access to justice movement has developed in conjunction with the emergence of the welfare state in several European and British Commonwealth countries.In Quebec, it occurred during the Quiet revolution and was viewed as an ideal to be attained in Quebec society.In the spirit of seeking to advance equality rights, the Human Rights Tribunal of Quebec was created in order to provide greater access to justice as well as to promote efficiency in the adjudicative process.Twenty years or so after its creation, questions are being raised in relation to its accessibility which has been severely curtailed by the courts, notably by the Ménard v Rivet decision, in which the Court of Appeal has limited the opportunity for individuals acting solely on their own initiative, to seize the Human Rights Tribunal.The writer emphasizes the current problem of access to justice relating to matters of fundamental rights before this Tribunal.The Ménard case is analyzed and various avenues for reversing this decision are proposed. * .Avocate
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".