Placing Vulnerability at the Centre of Section 15(1) of the Charter: A Case Comment on Inglis V British Columbia (Minister of Public Safety)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to advance substantive equality under the Charter through the section 15(1) framework, Canadian courts should shift towards a vulnerability-centric model that focuses on protecting individuals and groups who experience based on enumerated or analogous grounds. In adjudicating claims under section 15(1), Canadian courts have occasionally invoked the notion of vulnerability.However, the courts have yet to engage in a thorough discussion of the term's meaning and implications across specific contexts. This article explores the meaning and contours of vulnerability and analyzes the prospect ofusefully integrating into the section 15(1) framework. This includes a discussion of how the section 15(1) test as currently formulated falls short, and how the advancement of a juridical theory of can remedy several key shortcomings. This article explores through the lens of Inglis v British Columbia (Minister of Public Safety), examining how a vulnerability-centric model might operate based on lessons learned from Inglis. Four themes of emerge: resource imbalances, dependency, physicaland/or mental condition, and marginalization. This article concludes with the observation that, although the vulnerability-centric model is not without its flaws, its weaknesses are outweighed by its strengths in terms of advancing substantive equality.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".