After the Revolution: Being Pragmatic and Functional in Canada's Trial\nCourts and Courts of Appeal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a 1998 decision, Pushpanathan v Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada synthesized and revised the previous jurisprudence on "pragmatic and functional analysis" - the approach used since the late 1980's to determine the appropriate standard of deference in substantive review of administrative decision making. The next year, in Baker v. Canada, the Court expanded the reach of the pragmatic and functional analysis by applying it to the exercise of administrative discretion. This paper examines approximately 275 lower court decisions to determine how courts across Canada are responding to and implementing the doctrinal change initiated by the Supreme Court. Patterns discerned in the detailed analysis of cases are then used as a basis for reflections about the current approach to substantive review and possible future directions.
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 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".