Section 9 of the Canadian Charter & Arbitrary Laws: A Taxonomy, an Organizational Ideal, and a Path Forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the conditions for a detention not to be arbitrary under s. 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom is that it must be authorized by a law that is itself not arbitrary. The Supreme Court’s pronouncements about what makes a law arbitrary have been brief, question begging and, at times, conflicting. This article takes stock and proposes a path forward. \n \nFirst, it reviews the Supreme Court’s case law with the goal of developing a taxonomy of its various accounts of arbitrary laws. It identifies three: a formal account (with a procedural check), a purpose-sensitive account, and a discrimination/improper considerations account. It then evaluates these accounts in light of the purpose of s. 9, which is to ensure that detentions are adequately justified from the perspective of the ideal of the rule of law. It argues that, when properly interpreted, the Court’s three accounts correspond to different aspects of this ideal. As such, they should be applied cumulatively, and continue to be developed along that purposive axis. \n \nFinally, the article considers the Supreme Court’s use of the ancillary powers doctrine to create new powers of detention at common law. It argues that this doctrine, which currently evades direct section 9 scrutiny, should also incorporate a distinct assessment of arbitrariness along the lines identified—especially since, properly understood, it is itself a doctrine aimed at advancing the rule of law. \n \nOverall, the article suggests that the key parameters for a consistent and principled approach to what makes laws arbitrary are already present in the Supreme Court’s s. 9 case law (and related aspects of its ss. 7 and 15 case law). What is needed is for the Court to organize them systematically based on the purpose of s. 9, and to commit to advancing them, whenever applicable, through its evolving interpretation this section.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".