Charter Litigation, Social and Economic Rights & Civil Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we consider the scope of social and economic rights litigation under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with reference to the recent right to housing case, Tanudjaja v Canada (Attorney General). In Tanudjaja, the applicants sought to challenge both Ontario’s and Canada’s housing-related law and policy, under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court’s decision to strike the Charter application on the basis that a right to housing as pleaded was not justiciable (the Supreme Court of Canada subsequently denied leave to appeal). This article challenges the reasoning used by both levels of court. We argue that novel approaches to the Charter should serve as a catalyst for examining a series of crucial and unresolved questions for Canadian constitutional thought and practice. The article begins with a discussion of the Tanudjaja case. We then consider the application of civil procedure principles in the context of Charter litigation. We also explore the case and its implications for the law of justiciability, especially in Charter settings. We then examine the current state of positive social and economic rights in Canada, including in the aftermath of the Tanudjaja decision. We conclude by proposing a new approach to justiciability within the context of Charter litigation: a form of public interest justiciability that aligns with the approach the courts have adopted towards public interest standing and does not automatically preclude litigants who advance novel and/or complex Charter claims from having their day in court.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".