Charter Horizontality, the Public/Private Divide, and Responding to Injustice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to explore the ways in which private law theory bears on the question of the horizontal effect of the Charter and the promises and limits of horizontality as a way of responding to injustice. Specifically, I ask whether the strategy pursued by the applicants in Cool World is likely to be effective in securing the progressive vision of social justice which Joel Bakan — co-counsel for the applicants — defended in his earlier work on the Charter. I offer a response to this question by showing how private law theorists understand the relationship between private law and “public” forms of distributive and social justice, specifically by framing private law in a way that insulates the practice of private law from public law values like those in the Charter. The concern that I raise, ultimately, is whether the horizontality argument in the Cool World case implicitly accepts broadly the same inadequate institutional response to injustice endorsed by these private law theories. That is, it focuses on the effects of unequal private power rather than reconfiguring private law relations to alter the power of the parties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".