Revisiting the Application of Section 7 of the Charter in Immigration and Refugee Protection
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.
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 | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".