Are the medical inadmissibility provisions of Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA, 2001) inconsistent with the human rights principles with respect to the treatment of persons with disabilities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper provides a legislative account of Canada's law of entry restrictions with respect to persons with disabilities and argues that Canadian immigration law and policies contradict the principles of inclusion and accommodation that dominate international and domestic human rights law in this area and create vast barriers to full participation of immigrants with disabilities in Canadian society. First, human rights principles for disabled individuals are extracted from a number of international covenants and domestic sources, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Human Rights Act and Ontario Human Rights Code with accompanying jurisprudence. Second, the medical inadmissibility provisions with their jurisprudence are analyzed, and their conflict with human rights principles highlighted. The third section focuses on how Canadian immigration policy could be changed with the aim of incorporating human rights law in terms of allowing the entry to Canada of those who have health impairments.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".