A Comprehensive Analysis of Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Evolving Evidentiary Rule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) evolving understanding of section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been informed largely by three landmark cases. In R. v. Collins (1987), R. v. Stillman (1997), and R. v. Grant (2009), the Court was required to consider the scope, applicability, and impact of the Charter. The Court’s most recent decision, R. v. Grant (2009), represented a major change to Canada’s constitutional exclusionary rule. A critical analysis of the Grant test will evaluate whether s. 24(2) provides a test that is rigorous enough to preserve the integrity of the administration of justice. This thesis will address criticism relating to the notion that the police conduct inquiry has become a determinative factor governing the admissibility of evidence. Under the first line of inquiry, the Court provides greater leeway for police conduct at the expense of individual rights and freedoms. This creates an imbalance between competing societal and state interests. A newly articulated s. 24(2) test that expands the scope of Charter-protected rights and constrains police powers will attempt to resolve this tension. This will be achieved by incorporating privacy interests into the s. 24(2) consideration and placing limitations on the concept of good faith. In doing so, this test will allow the Constitution to progressively adapt to changing societal needs, increasing knowledge, and technological advancements. These modifications will achieve a better balance between the rights-protection and truth-seeking functions of s. 24(2).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".