Revisiting the Application of Section 7 of the Charter in Immigration and Refugee Protection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada’s current approach to the application of s. 7 in the immigration and refugee protection context is inconsistent with its approach to s. 7 engagement in other legal regimes. No principled and transparent reasons have yet been offered to justify this discrepancy. Liberty is engaged in removal proceedings under IRPA because this statute effectively establishes an administrative regime to control non-citizens in large measure through the threat of their forced removal from Canada and exposes them to the possibility of detention in order to carry out this threat. Moreover, deportation may in certain circumstances engage non-citizens’ liberty in its broad sense by preventing them from making fundamental personal choices that go beyond the bare assertion of a right to mobility. Non-citizens’ security of the person is engaged where deportation would place them at risk of physical or serious and profound psychological harm, including that caused by the resulting interference with their profoundly intimate and personal choices, regardless of whether this also involves the breach of their statutory rights. Finally, as in other contexts where there is a risk of state deprivation of liberty or security of the person, and consistently with the relaxed standard of causation adopted by the Supreme Court in Bedford, courts should recognize that these s. 7 interests are engaged in the early stages of the administrative process and not only at the stage most proximate to deportation.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it