Meaningless mantra: substantive equality after Withler
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the contribution made by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Withler v Canada (Attorney General) to equality rights jurisprudence under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court's approach to issues concerning substantive equality, the use of comparative analysis and comparator groups, and the role and application of the contextual factors from Law v Canada are addressed. The authors raise concerns about the Court's narrow definition of discrimination, its return to the language of relevance, the ways in which the Court imports section 1 justification considerations into the section 15(1) analysis, and the Court's lack ofattention to the roader context beyond the benefits scheme at issue, including its lack of attention to the gender and class dimensions of the case. Overall, the authors conclude that although the Court has repeatedly stated a commitment to the principle of substantive equality in its section 15(1) Charter decisions, Withler is another example in a long line of cases that fails to give effect to that principle
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".