Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undoubtedly, Bedford v Canada’s doctrinal renovations and innovations are reshaping the future of Charter enforcement. However, the applause for Bedford’s progress in assessing Charter violations falls flat when it comes to remedying Charter violations. With an eye to reform, this article probes the regressive result of Bedford’s remedy, the suspended declaration of invalidity, which kept the unconstitutional prostitution prohibitions in force for one year. Part I will depict how Bedford’s remedy frustrated three remedial objectives: 1. promoting the public interest by maintaining the rule of law, public safety, and equality; 2. facilitating institutional dialogue between judges and legislators about rights and freedoms; and 3. fostering consultative dialogue between marginalized groups and the government. On top of the ongoing injustice of enduring another year of “fundamentally flawed laws” held to aggravate the risk of disease, violence, and death, rights-bearers endangered by the section 7 violation faced procedural harm during Parliament’s fast-tracked, fractured reply to Bedford’s ruling. To remedy Bedford’s remedy and suspended declarations writ large, Part II advances “deliberate remedial procedure”, which configures whether and how long to suspend declarations of invalidity. Bookended by classic and contemporary Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, including the Reference re Manitoba Language Rights and Carter v Canada, the mainstays of deliberative remedial procedure are a separate remedial hearing, retaining jurisdiction, broader participation, enriched evidence, and interim measures (such as guidelines and constitutional exemptions) to mitigate damage to individual rights. Deliberative remedial procedure calls upon the judiciary’s traditional role to protect minorities, enlists the modern movement of access to justice, and is inspired by society’s demand for evidence-based justifications.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".