Rights, reason and respectthe separation of powers and the application of Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the influence of the debate over the legitimacy of constitutional rights judicial review ("CRJR") on the judicial application of section 1 of the 'Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ' (the "limitations clause"). Chapter I is mostly historical. It aims at putting arguments over CRJR and the "limitations clause issue" in proper their context i.e. the Canadian constitutional discussions which took place over the second part of the 20th century. It shows that sophisticated arguments were made for and against CRJR during those discussions and that these arguments ended up influencing the debate over the limitations clause. Chapter II revolves around the Supreme Court's 'Oakes' decision, which establishes the general approach to be followed in the application of s. 1. It begins with a brief excursion through pre-'Oakes' judicial decisions and then proceeds to a detailed analysis of the Court's reasons in 'Oakes'. It concludes that although it is somewhat overly "CRJR-enthusiastic", 'Oakes' established an adequate general framework for an examination of whether 'Charter'-infringements are justified. Chapter III, in turn, examines how this framework can be applied more or less stringently to reflect "separation of powers" considerations. It thus contrasts two models of s. 1 decision-making: the more interventionist "Counter-Majoritarian/Basic Rights Model" and the less interventionist "Communitarian-Democratic Model". The remainder of chapter III is devoted to a discussion of further clashes of these models in the Supreme Court of Canada. In the end, it is concluded that the more versatile Communitarian-Democratic Model is the better one. Chapter IV is the thesis' most theoretical chapter and mainly attempts to explain and justify the Supreme Court of Canada's move towards the Communitarian-Democratic Model. The chapter delves into the theoretical debate over the legitimacy of CRJR. It reviews Jeremy Waldron's powerful objections to CRJR and concludes that although Waldron raises important concerns, CRJR can still be shown to be legitimate in appropriate circumstances.
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 | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".