Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Women's Court of Canada (WCC) reconsiders the 1989 case of Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, in which the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether a citizenship requirement for law society membership discriminated against a non-Canadian lawyer. In the decision, the Court set out the principles and analytic framework for an analysis under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a framework that continues to be applied by Canadian courts today. The WCC considers the appeal as raising pure questions of law on the basis that neither party appealed on the merits. The decision relies solely on arguments that were available in 1989. The WCC's reframing of the section 15 analysis is based on a consideration of the general principles of Charter interpretation, the purpose and scope of section 15, the historical context, and the text of the provision. According to the WCC, section 15 contains a positive right to equality rather than simply a narrow prohibition against discrimination. This approach rejects the Court's view that equality rights are vague and open-ended and require limiting criteria. The WCC goes on to set out a framework for the section 15 inquiry focused on giving meaning and import to the full text of this section. Finally, the WCC considers the relationship between section 15(1) and section 1 of the Charter, confirming that it is paramount to keep the two inquiries separate and distinct.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".