The impact of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on Canadian administrative law /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be interpreted in two ways regarding its relation with administrative law. First, as an alternative statutory remedy against government; second, as a general democratic mandate to reconsider the foundations of Canadian administrative law. Nevertheless, in spite of the entrenchment of the Charter, the former interpretation has prevailed. Indeed, since 1982, the Charter has developed as a distinct body of rights operating separately from administrative law remedies. The interpretation of the Charter as a distinct statutory remedy has caused problems in both the definition of administrative power under the Charter and in the judicial review of administrative action. First, the interpretation of the Charter as autonomous remedy has polarized the definition of administrative power insofar as administrative authorities can either apply or not apply the Charter. However, both solutions are extreme: administrative authorities are not superior courts; conversely, the notwithstanding clause set aside, the power to give effect to the Charter cannot validly be withdrawn. Second, at the judicial level, even though it is part of the Constitution, the Charter has been treated as an autonomous cause of action against government, thus distinct from inherent judicial powers. This has prompted a separate regime of judicial power under the Charter, and separate constitutional and administrative law standards of review. However, the autonomy of the Charter and administrative law, at both administrative and judicial levels, is being reconciled through the integration of the Charter into the process of statutory interpretation, thus minimizing the distinction between "administrative law" and the "law of the Charter".
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".