A Moral Reconstruction of Freedom of Association in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1987, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected arguments that the freedom of association in section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereafter, the Charter) protected a positive right to bargain collectively over working conditions. Between 1987 and 2007, the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on freedom of association was marked by certain tensions. In particular, the Court rejected arguments that freedom of association could have a collective dimension. In addition, the Court adopted a so-called negative approach to freedom of association, stating that section 2(d) of the Charter could not be used to create obligations for the state. The idea that freedom of association conferred negative (as opposed to positive) individual protection against state interference is typical of a liberal view of rights and freedoms. However, in 2007, in Health Services, the Supreme Court relied on underlying Charter values (specifically autonomy, liberty, equality, democracy and dignity) to extend constitutional protection to the right to collective bargaining. In 2015, this constitutional protection was extended to the right to strike. The use of moral values in constitutional adjudication is widespread. In Canada, Charter values are used both to interpret Charter provisions and to weigh competing rights, notably in the proportionality exercise under section 1 of the Charter. Using moral reconstruction as a methodological approach, this thesis examines the use of the values identified in Health Services throughout the Supreme Court's body of case law. From these values, the thesis develops a so-called republican reconstruction of freedom of association. While liberalism emphasises the freedom of the individual from the state, republicanism aims to ensure non-domination in both the private and public spheres. Equality, when considered from a republican perspective, becomes relational equality. Republicanism is particularly relevant to labour law, which is based on a relationship of subordination identified by republican theorists as a relationship of domination. The final chapter of the thesis explores alternative models for protecting republican freedom in the workplace.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".