5. The Supreme Court of Canada: The Concept of Cooperative Federalism and Its Effect on the Balance of Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federalism and Its Effect on the balance of Power eugénie brouillet I. IntroductionCanada is one of the world's oldest democratic federations.Its birth in 1867, and its evolution over time, were both marked by the coexistence of communities with distinct languages and cultures, whether Aboriginal, French-speaking, or English-speaking.The federation later accepted immigrants with many ethnic and cultural backgrounds.The country's past as a british colony also left its mark on its institutions, including its constitutional monarchy, parliamentary regime, and system of judicial organization.Changes to the Canadian federation have been mainly the work of the courts, primarily because of the huge difficulties faced by the federal and provincial governments in formally amending the constitutional texts.The courts of final resort in the constitutional field have, in performing their duties, developed extensive jurisprudence in the area of federative disputes. 1 The dualistic approach to power-sharing promoted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London (the court of final appeal for Canadian cases until 1949) has been followed by the more cooperative approach to Canadian federalism exemplified in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada.The original * I would like to thank all the participants in the Canadian round table on 28 March 2012 in Montreal that discussed the theme examined in this book.Many of the ideas from the discussion were useful in preparing this chapter.1 The term federative disputes refers here to disputes about sharing legislative powers and disputes that involve a fundamental aspect of the country's federative structure, such as the constitutional amendment procedure, the legal status of the federal and federated entities, or the territory of a federated entity and its authority to secede.10 Ss.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".