Principle and Imagination in Judging: A Conversation with Mr. Justice James MacPherson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the fall of 2005, Mr. Justice James MacPherson of the Ontario Court of Appeal began his visiting term at the Dalhousie University Faculty of Law. During his visit, Justice MacPherson spoke with two students about several issues that have engaged him during his career as a lawyer, academic and judge. The conversation raised a number of questions about Canada’s changing legal landscape, and how the judiciary has attempted to balance the role of legal principle and judicial imagination in law-making. How, for example, has the public’s sceptical perception of our evolving justice system subjected judges to a higher degree of scrutiny? The result has often been an apparent trade-off between principle and perception. What are the new dilemmas in our administration of justice? More than ever before, an applicant’s right to a principled and fair hearing has been compromised by systemic problems preventing access to the courts. Consequently, courts are being pressed to be more imaginative. To what extent, then, should judges articulate the intuitive (and sometimes personal) premise that often lies at the heart of their judgement? The weight of all these issues has placed judges in a position to re-consider their role in the justice system, and how they can balance principle and imagination to better adapt to the needs of society. Justice MacPherson brings his unique perspective to these issues from his vast experience in the legal system. He was counsel for the Government of Saskatchewan in many early landmark constitutional decisions, he served as an officer in the Dickson Court, and was later involved as a judge in several high profile decisions, such as the recent Ontario same-sex marriage appeal, Halpern. v. Canada. A graduate of Dalhousie Law School in 1976, Justice MacPherson has had a remarkable legal career. He began as a law professor at the University of Victoria, spent time as Director of the Constitutional Branch of Saskatchewan, and later was Executive Legal Officer of the Supreme Court of Canada. He was the Dean of Osgoode Hall Law School until his appointment as a judge of the Ontario Superior Court, and later the Ontario Court of Appeal.
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 | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".