A Judiciary Cleaved: Superior Courts, Statutory Courts and the Illogic of Difference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has courts created and regulated by statute whose powers primarily emanate from statute. They are known as statutory courts. Canada also has courts that are created and regulated by statute whose powers primarily emanate from statute but they are the successors in Canada to certain courts in the United Kingdom. They are known as superior courts. In its jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of Canada--ironically a statutory court itself--treats Canada's statutory courts as lesser cousins to superior courts. This is so even though there is only a fine difference between the two. In their modern emanations, the powers of both types of courts are primarily statutory. In effect, the Supreme Court has cleaved Canada's judiciary. This article examines the legal and policy reasons for this cleavage and finds them wanting. Specific examination is given to the two recent decisions in Lloyd and Windsor. This article has been published at (2017) 58 UNBLJ 54. The UNBLJ has consented to its posting in SSRN. The article is a modified version of the 2017 Viscount Bennett Lecture delivered by the author at the University of New Brunswick Faculty of Law, February 9, 2017.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| 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".