Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thirty-seven years after its decision in Ford, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in 2025 against the Quebec Court of Appeal’s ruling in the Work Sikh Organization case. This appeal is poised to be the most significant development in the Court’s jurisprudence on section 33 since the 1988 Ford decision. The case, now known as English Montreal School Board, raises important issues and invites the Court to reconsider its stance in Ford. This article takes Ford as a starting point but addresses a question neither raised nor settled in Ford — whether the notwithstanding clause functions as an ouster clause. The Quebec Court of Appeal answered this question in the affirmative, but I argue that the Court was wrong. The notwithstanding clause does not oust the jurisdiction of a court to substantively review an impugned law or provision for Charter compatibility. This point is separate and distinct from the decision of the Supreme Court in Ford that the legislature’s use of section 33 cannot be reviewed substantively. Interpreting the notwithstanding clause as an ouster clause needlessly outlies section 33 by departing from standard principles of Charter interpretation, ignoring clear constitutional wording, and undermining the Charter’s purpose of protecting 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".