Navigating entangled terrain: The Supreme Court's impact and the dismissal powers of human rights tribunals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The human rights justice system is a politically and legally complex area to navigate with legislative changes and judicial decisions shaping the administration and governance of human rights policies. This article provides a comprehensive examination of the complexities and intricacies of this system by measuring the impact of judicial rulings on the discretionary decision‐making of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO). The impact of the Supreme Court of Canada's relevant jurisprudence in Figliola and Penner on the HRTO's discretionary powers to dismiss claims pursuant to section 45.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code is measured by examining the outcomes of decisions made by the Tribunal. The article presents new empirical data on all early dismissal decisions (N = 1479) from 2008 to 2021 and demonstrates the effects of the Supreme Court's rulings in Figliola and Penner . The findings in this article reveal that both Figliola and Penner had significant impacts on the Tribunal's discretionary decision‐making powers.
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 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".