Judicial Independence and Judicial Place of Residence: A Tale of Two (or more) Cities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Judicial independence is an “unwritten constitutional principle” of democratic constitutional governance and the rule of law. At its most basic, judges must be independent and impartial in their adjudicative functions—an individual dimension of independence. More broadly, the Supreme Court of Canada has declared that judicial independence also recognizes the dimension of institutional independence from the executive and legislative branches of government. One aspect of that is “place of residence” of a superior court judge, in which case a distinction must be made between initial appointment and subsequent transfer from one judicial district to another. While appointment to a particular judicial district is the prerogative of the executive, transfer to another district is fraught with issues of judicial independence, particularly when the executive claims a veto on the transfer of a judge. This article examines judicial independence in the context of “place of residence” through the lens of Canadian law, supplemented with international and comparative perspectives. The article concludes that a provincial law requiring executive consent to transfer a judge from one judicial district to another is unconstitutional.
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".