Bibliographic record
Abstract
In R. v. J.J., the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the new Criminal Code admissibility rules for the complainant’s private records held by the accused and the new procedural regime governing admissibility of private records and evidence of the complainant’s other sexual activity. The Court considered claims that these provisions violated section 7 and section 11(c) and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, and a six-member majority rejected all these claims. This paper analyzes a key theme in the majority judgment: discretion. The majority emphasized that one reason the new regime complies with the Charter is that it grants judges the evidentiary discretion to admit significant defence evidence and the procedural discretion to adjust procedures to ensure fairness on a case-by-case basis. This analysis highlights the majority’s reliance on judicial discretion and reveals some troubling features of that reliance. The majority’s appeal to evidentiary discretion worryingly downplays the Charter-based requirement that the balancing of prejudicial effect against probative value be weighted in favour of admitting relevant defence evidence. On the procedural side, the majority problematically grants trial judges broad discretion over procedures without providing a principled framework for its exercise.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".