“We do not really know why this approach was taken”: Explaining and Modifying the Supreme Court’s Approach to the Indirect Horizontal Effect of Charter Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This short comment is not a direct reflection on the case of Cool World v Twitter, which is the animating focus of this special issue. Rather, it takes the Cool World litigation as a cue for a more general reflection on the role that the Charter ought to play in such cases, where a private litigant is relying on the common law to inflict “contra-constitutional” harms on another private litigant. In this regard, the comment’s premise is that Cool World provides us with a much-needed opportunity for reconsidering the line drawn in RWDSU v Dolphin Delivery between private law legislation (to which the Charter is fully applicable) and the private common law (to which the Charter is weakly applicable). Ultimately, the comment suggests that this line is unsustainable, and that the Court should respond to this unsustainability by modifying its approach to cases where common law rights collide with Charter rights. In conclusion, I suggest that this modification should be guided by the Court’s own recent decision in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, which provides a useful template for the management of conflicts between constitutionally prioritized and non-prioritized rights.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".