Bibliographic record
Abstract
In its seminal 2008 judgment in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick and in subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court has done much to address essential questions regarding how Canadian courts should approach the review of administrative decisions, including those that engage the Charter. Notably, it has clarified and simplified the standard of review framework by making reasonableness the presumptive standard of review of administrative decision makers’ interpretation of their enabling and related legislation. In Mouvement Laique Quebecois v Saguenay (City) and Tervita Corp. v Canada (Commissioner of Competition), two decisions from its 2014-2015 term, the Court recognized relatively contained “contextual exceptions” to the presumption of reasonableness review based, respectively, on legislatures’ express conferral on courts and tribunals of shared first instance jurisdiction over questions of statutory interpretation and on their formulation of statutory provisions that expressly contemplate correctness review. These decisions serve as reminders that in determining the proper standard of review for a specific question, courts still seek to ascertain whether legislatures intended the tribunal or the reviewing court to answer that question. The majority judgment in Loyola High School v Quebec (Attorney General) goes some way towards clarifying the role of Charter values in the framework for the review of exercises of discretion that engage the Charter rights of affected parties, unanimously adopted by the Court in its 2012 judgment in Dore v Barreau du Quebec. By defining Charter values as values that underpin and give meaning to each Charter right and help determine both the extent of a rights infringement in the context of administrative decision making and when limitations on the right are proportionate in light of the applicable statutory objectives, the Court has firmly placed the question of whether a Charter right is engaged at the core of the inquiry. However, the decision of the concurring judges to subject the impugned decision to review based on a truncated section 1 analysis signals a weakening commitment to the Dore framework and the resurgence on the Court of familiar fault lines regarding the proper relationship between administrative and constitutional law.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".