Mind the Gap: Toussaint and the Reception of International Human Rights Law in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the reception of international human rights law (“IHRL”) in Canada and the enforcement gap that may arise when legislation is not passed expressly implementing human rights treaties that Canada has ratified. Despite establishing a variety of interpretive methods that may result in Canada’s binding IHRL obligations having domestic effect even when they are not expressly implemented, Canadian courts have struggled to provide clear and consistent guidance on how IHRL applies in Canada. The selective approach in Canada to implementing legislatively IHRL obligations may give rise to an enforcement gap when rights individuals purportedly enjoy under international law are found to have no domestic effect. To demonstrate this gap, this article focuses on litigation brought by the late Nell Toussaint, who lived in Canada and was denied federal health insurance coverage when facing life-threatening medical conditions due to her then-irregular migrant status. Exploring Ms. Toussaint’s unsuccessful domestic claim that her rights to health, life, and non-discrimination were violated by Canada and her advocates’ ongoing efforts to ensure that Canada abides by the subsequent determination of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that Canada violated her rights to life and non-discrimination under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, this article demonstrates how not expressly implementing ratified human rights treaties can create a barrier to IHRL being effective domestically in Canada.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.065 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".