Assessing the Impact of Unilingualism at the Supreme Court of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite growing concerns worldwide about the place of multilingualism in politics and law, Canadian scholars have little to offer in terms of empirical analyses about their own experience. Although numerous normative debates have provided different reasons for favoring bilingualism in judicial and political institutions, few empirical studies have looked at the actual impact of unilingualism and bilingualism in Canadian judicial institutions. Recent debates about the possibility of requiring bilingualism for Supreme Court justices have prompted many doctrinal writings on the status of both languages but none have explored the fundamental question: Does bilingualism (or unilingualism) make any difference after all? This paper surveys the main debates and arguments concerning the requirement of bilingualism at the Supreme Court of Canada and discusses the framing of the debate as either a “legal” or an “identity” requirement. The paper summarizes the main normative arguments in favor of mandatory bilingualism at the Supreme Court of Canada and tests those normative theories by using empirical data to see if unilingualism has had an impact on the Supreme Court decision-making process. The paper studies the effect of unilingualism on panel composition, assertiveness, linguistic composition of individual wordloads and the level of deference towards francophone decisions by unilingual and bilingual justices. Our results suggest that there is a correlation between the fluency in French the first three elements. However, our results also suggest that there is no difference in the level of deference across linguistic groups towards francophone lower courts. The general picture that emerges is that language proficiency seems to superimpose itself as another kind of legal specialization in the functioning of the Supreme Court of Canada. These findings, though admittedly exploratory in nature, warrant further research on the impact of language proficiency on judicial behavior both in Canada and elsewhere.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".