Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Dans divers regimes reglementaires canadiens, le legislateur – autant au federal qu’au provincial – a cree un droit d’en appeler d’une decision a l’interieur d’un organisme administratif. Quelles normes doit alors appliquer l’instance d’appel?La problematique de la norme de revision a l’interieur d’un organisme reglementaire est devenue de plus en plus pressante depuis la reformulation de la jurisprudence canadienne en matiere de droit administratif effectuee par la Cour supreme dans l’arret Dunsmuir. Nombreux sont les tribunaux de justice canadiens qui ont insiste depuis Dunsmuir sur l’application de la norme deferentielle aux appels a l’interieur de l’administration. Cette tendance est troublante, parce qu’elle impose une limitation importante sur les pouvoirs des instances d’appel. En meme temps, nombreux egalement sont les tribunaux de justice qui ont nie l’applicabilite des concepts tires du controle judiciaire au contexte administratif. Bien que nous soyons plutot d’accord avec ce dernier groupe de tribunaux, le manque de coherence dans la jurisprudence canadienne nous inquiete. Il est donc opportun de proposer un encadrement commun qui pourrait etre applique a divers regimes reglementaires.Dans un premier temps, nous ferons le point sur les justifications et moyens de reviser des decisions administratives. Deuxiemement, nous aborderons la problematique de la norme de controle en droit administratif canadien. Nous precisons que l’analyse de la norme de controle est appropriee seulement dans le contexte du controle judiciaire. Troisiemement, nous proposerons un encadrement general. Quatriemement, nous finirons avec une analyse de la norme de controle applicable lorsqu’un tribunal de justice doit determiner si une instance d’appel a bien compris le role que le legislateur lui a accorde.Nous pouvons resumer des le depart notre solution a la problematique: 1) Reexamen = analyse de la norme de controle requise suivant les enseignements de Dunsmuir; 2) Appel a. Appel a un tribunal de justice = analyse de la norme de controle requise suivant les enseignements de Dunsmuir. b. Appel ordinaire a un tribunal generaliste = appel de novo sur des questions de droit, mais seulement des erreurs manifeste et dominante de fait seraient aptes a etre corrigees. c. Appel portant sur la substance a un tribunal specialise = l’instance d’appel doit tenir ses propres conclusions juridiques et factuelles tout en soupesant les conclusions du decideur de premiere instance. d. Appel de novo a un reviseur externe = dans des cas limites, l’instance d’appel ne sera aucunement liee par les conclusions du decideur de premiere instance.Notre objectif est d’elaborer un encadrement afin de mieux expliquer la structure des appels administratifs au Canada.English Abstract: In many Canadian regulatory regimes, federal and provincial, there is a right of appeal to the administration. What standard should the appellate body apply in its decision-making?The internal standard of problem has become more and more pressing since the reformulation of Canadian administrative law doctrine in the Dunsmuir case. Many courts have applied the teachings of Dunsmuir to administrative appeals, requiring the application of a deferential standard. This is a troubling development, which imposes an important limitation on the powers of appellate bodies.However, other courts have denied that judicial review methodology can be applied in the context of administrative appeals. This position should be strongly defended. In order to do so, I propose a general framework that can be applied to many regulatory regimes.First, I discuss the justifications for and means of establishing administrative appeal structures. Second, I discuss the concept of the standard of review of administrative action in Canadian law, dismissing the idea that it applies in the context of administrative appeals. Third, I lay out my proposed general framework, which posits three basic possibilities: de novo appeals; substantive appeals; and ordinary appeals. Fourth, I discuss the standard of review of the choice by the appellate body as to how it is to go about its task. My objective in this paper is to provide a solid base for administrative appeals in Canada, one that is distinct from judicial review of administrative action.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.002 |
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".