Remedial Consensus and Dialogue Under the Charter: General Declarations and Delayed Declarations of Invalidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A consensus in Canadian Charter litigation has emerged in the 1990's under which Courts, cognizant of the separation of the executive and judiciary, have preferred the issuance of general declarations as opposed to specific injunctions and have begun to make increasing use of delayed declarations of invalidity. By examining Little Sisters, Eldridge and Auton, this paper critically evaluates the challenges that general declarations pose for governments and Charter applicants, while an analysis of Eldridge and Corbiere does the same for the use of delayed declarations of invalidity. Building upon the deficiencies of these developments, this article charts a path forward based on the use of declarations coupled with the retention of jurisdiction. In so doing, it criticizes the majority of the Court of Appeal in Doucet-Boudreau for their antipathy towards retention of jurisdiction and argues that retaining jurisdiction has the potential to make remedial dialogue more democratic and accessible for minorities and Charter applicants.
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 | 0.025 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".