Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various organizations and governments throughout Canada have attempted to reduce the phenomenon of impaired driving through public awareness campaigns as well as governmental policy. In September 2018, the Government of Canada, amended the Criminal Code of Canada (hereinafter, CCC) using Bill C-46 which, increased powers of peace officers. CCC Section 320.27(2) now allows peace officers to request a breath sample from any lawfully stopped driver without needing reasonable suspicion of impairment. The new legislation however, may not be compatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter: CR+F). This paper analyzes whether or not CCC section 320.27(2) is compatible with Section 8 of the CR+F that protects Canadians against unreasonable search and seizure. This legal analysis was conducted to evaluate if the legislation could be upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) as a future legal challenge is highly likely. It was found through legal analysis that CCC section 320.27(2) is unlikely to be determined compatible with the CR+F as it fails to pass the reasonableness standard as found in R v Bernshaw (1995). Oakes Test analysis was therefore conducted to evaluate whether or not the legislation could be upheld using the section 1 “reasonable limits clause” of the CR+F. It was determined that CCC section 320.27(2) will likely be upheld as a reasonable limit on Charter rights as per the Oakes Test, as the legislation is as minimally impairing on Charter rights as possible and helps to achieve a pressing and substantial legislative objective. Oakes Test analysis however, would be impacted if the Government cannot show compelling evidence to prove their case.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.014 |
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".