Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The power of the legislature to override court rulings on rights—and to legislate ‘notwithstanding’ rights—is one of the most notable and controversial features of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982 and the UK Human Rights Act 1998 . By giving courts the power to protect rights, whilst giving the legislature the last word, the legislative override seems to solve the notorious counter-majoritarian difficulty. Yet in both jurisdictions, there has been a tendency to underuse the override. In this article, I argue that the underuse of the override is rooted in a set of unwritten constitutional norms requiring the branches of government to treat each other with comity and mutual respect—norms which preclude the legislature from regularly or lightly overriding court decisions. Foregrounding the principles of comity, collaboration, and conflict-avoidance, I argue that legislatures should apply—and in Canada and the UK generally do apply—a general presumption in favour of complying with judicial decisions, unless that presumption is rebutted by exceptional circumstances. Based on a close, comparative analysis of Canada and the UK, I then explore contemporary concerns about an increased use of the override in the Canadian context—and the potential for the Supreme Court of Canada to enter the fray by adjudicating the exercise of the override in challenging times.
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 | 0.028 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".