Section 28’s Potential to Guarantee Substantive Gender Equality in <i>Hak c Procureur général du Québec</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hak c Procureure générale du Québec is an action that has combined four distinct challenges to An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State . In this article, I canvass section 28 doctrine and jurisprudence to outline the purpose and role of section 28 in order to understand how it might operate in the challenge undertaken in Hak . To do so, I conduct a purposive analysis of section 28. In my opinion, section 28 has two distinct purposes: first, it acts as a “gender equality interpretive tool” that requires judges to choose constitutional interpretations that favour substantive gender equality and, second, it ensures that substantive gender equality cannot be overridden by anything else in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Within these broad purposes, I also discuss section 28’s status as an interpretive provision that confers the substantive right to substantive equality, and I offer illustrations of the gender equality tool in case law. I conclude with the potential of section 28 to operate as a gender equality tool in Hak , including its potential to do so intersectionally.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".