MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408092896 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1450

How the Dissent in Sharma Opens the Door to Indigenize the Section 15(1) Charter Analysis

2024· article· en· W4408092896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBangladesh Politics, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissentCharterSection (typography)Political scienceLawBusinessAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores how the dissenting opinion in R. v. Sharma opens the door for Indigenizing the analysis under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It considers how the dissenting opinion creates a pathway for strengthening Indigenous women’s rights under section 15(1) by expanding the range of impacts considered when assessing disadvantage in the equality analysis. It argues that in a case alleging a violation of Indigenous people’s section 15(1) rights, the courts can consider the impugned law’s impacts on Indigenous laws, including Indigenous people’s roles under those laws. Any interference with these roles should be recognized as a harm that reinforces, perpetuates and exacerbates the disadvantage of Indigenous peoples at the second stage of the section 15(1) Charter analysis. This paper (1) reviews the importance of recognizing Indigenous laws relating to Indigenous women when adjudicating Charter rights; (2) considers how the dissenting opinion facilitates recognition of Indigenous laws in the equality analysis; and (3) explores how the “constitutional imperative of reconciliation” can form a paramount consideration in future determinations of equality rights. The explicit recognition of the importance of reconciliation and the implicit acknowledgement of Indigenous laws by the dissenting judges form part of a developing trend of judicial engagement with these principles, and signals a potentially transformative development in equality rights jurisprudence. The distinct constitutional status of Indigenous peoples in Canada can be reflected through the meaningful consideration of Indigenous laws in the adjudication of section 15(1) Charter rights. In the case of Sharma where Indigenous women faced incarceration, Indigenous laws on the roles and responsibilities held by Indigenous women tell a different part of the story on how Canadian laws reinforce, perpetuate or exacerbate disadvantage – not only to the woman confronting removal from her family and community, but also to those around her. Engaging with these broader considerations allow for a more holistic analysis under section 15(1) of the Charter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicBangladesh Politics, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207