Written Submission to the House of Commons’ Justice and Human Rights Committee on Bill C-9: An Act to amend the Judges Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a brief entered into evidence before the Canadian House of Commons’ Justice and Human Rights Committee during its consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act. Bill C-9 was introduced on First reading by the Government of Canada on December 16, 2021. The amendments in Bill C-9 concern the procedures by which the Canadian Judicial Council handles complaints of judicial misconduct. The brief argues that the Bill C-9 presents problems of transparency that undermine accountability of the judiciary in the face of concerns of misconduct. It seeks to demonstrate that Bill C-9’s effort to hide from view both the “Reasons for referral of a complaint to a [Review] Panel” and the “Report of the Review Panel” strikes at a key foundation for independence of the judiciary, namely, that the independence of the judiciary and indeed our entire approach to the rule of law depend to a significant extent on the giving of reasons by the judiciary and the publication of those reasons so that the legal profession, the public, scholars, and legislators can understand, apply, critique, and reform the law as it evolves. \n \nThe brief also draws attention to two broad conceptual and discursive moves that the Canadian Judicial Council has tried to make in various fora–and that inform while not being completely endorsed by Bill C-9. On the one hand, CJC legal counsel argue that CJC decision-making up to the stage of Panels of Inquiry (the current system) / Hearing Panels (the C-9 system) is a purely administrative regime no different from any other professional regulatory body, in such a way that reasons can be kept secret until forced to light by disclosure obligations in the rare instances of judicial review. On the other hand, before the courts, the CJC has sought to frame the administration of the judicial misconduct as a sacrosanct preserve of the CJC based on a highly overdrawn conception of the independence of the judiciary and its self-regulatory powers (so far, an unsuccessful effort before the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal). The brief argues these rationales are inconsistent with both the special substantive role of a constitutionally-responsible judiciary in society and with the foundations of the constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary that include the open court principle and corollary practices of transparent, public reasoning (practices with obvious relevance also for the principle of the rule of law). \n \nThe brief ends with eight recommended amendments to the amendments to the Judges Act proposed by Bill C-9.
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 | 0.017 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.033 |
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".