Family as Status in Doe v. Canada: Constituting Family Under Section 15 of the Charter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released a decision rejecting a constitutional challenge to the Processing and Distribution of Semen for Assisted Conception Regulations. In this paper I argue that the Court's reasoning in Doe v. Canada is flawed and that certain provisions of the Semen Regulations constitute an unjustified infringement of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I also argue that the claimants in this case would have been better served by the jurisprudence of section 15 of the Charter had they premised their argument on the assertion that they were discriminated against on the basis of family status rather than sexual orientation. Such an approach would be preferable both in terms of avoiding the pitfalls of the formal equality approach to section 15 adopted by both levels of court in this case, in addition to providing a more inclusive and progressive litigation strategy for acquiring legal recognition of familial relationships which deviate from the hetero-normative paradigm assumed by the Semen Regulations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".