A Separate Head of Judicial Review: Divergent Paths in Common Law Rights Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: The law governing the judicial review of administrative decisions developed hand-in-hand in England and Canada prior to Britain’s entry into the European Community in 1973 and Canada’s adoption of the Charter in 1982. Until that point, courts in both countries worked largely within a framework derived from Wednesbury and Anisminic. However, the introduction of statutory and constitutional rights frameworks led to divergent approaches in both countries as courts were forced to consider the effects of administrative actor’s decisions on fundamental rights. Central to this divergence was the introduction of two distinct methods of rights review: the development of a separate head of proportionality review in England and the Dore framework as developed in Canada. This paper argues that proportionality review, if adopted in Canada as a separate head of review, would provide a more robust form of rights protection. French Abstract: Le droit regissant le controle judiciaire des decisions administratives s’est developpe de concert en Angleterre et au Canada avant l’entree de la Grande-Bretagne dans la Communaute economique europeenne en 1973 et l’adoption de la Charte par le Canada en 1982. Jusqu’a ce moment, les tribunaux des deux pays travaillaient essentiellement dans un cadre d’analyse tire des arrets Wednesbury et Anisminic. Toutefois, l’introduction de cadres legislatifs et de droits constitutionnels a mene a des approches divergentes dans les deux pays alors que les tribunaux ont ete obliges de tenir compte des effets des decisions de l’acteur administratif sur les droits fondamentaux. Au cur de cette divergence etait l’introduction de deux methodes distinctes d’examen des droits: l’elaboration d’un motif distinct de contrle de la proportionnalite en Angleterre et le cadre d’analyse etabli dans l’arret Dore au Canada. Cet article fait valoir que le controle de la proportionnalite, s’il etait adopte au Canada en tant que motif distinct de controle, fournirait un moyen de protection des droits plus robuste.
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 | 0.191 | 0.314 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".