Remedies for Non-Citizens Under Provincial Nominee Programs: Judicial Review and Fiduciary Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, more and more people get permanent residency under Provincial and Territorial Nominee Programs (PTNPs). Despite this new reality, there is today no detailed examination of the consequences of PTNPs for immigrants’ rights and protections. In this paper, we seek to fill this gap. As we show, PTNPs have no statutory basis and officials who administer these programs do not exercise statutory authority of any kind. An alternative would be that these programs become “law”; then the decisions made under them would be judicially reviewable for conformity with that law. However, it is unlikely to happen because “flexibility” is seen as the key characteristic of PTNPs. We contend that the concept of a fiduciary relationship and fiduciary obligation has evolved greatly in the last decades in Canadian law, and we suggest, as an alternative to judicial review, extending a fiduciary duty to public decision makers. As in any new subject area of research, we hope that our findings will form the basis for further study on this understudied, and yet very important topic. Les personnes qui obtiennent la residence permanente par le biais des Programmes des candidats des provinces et des territoires (ci-apres PCPTs) sont de plus en plus nombreuses au Canada. Malgre cette nouvelle realite, il n’existe pas, a l’heure actuelle, d’examen detaille portant sur les consequences de ces programmes pour les droits et protections des etrangers. Dans cet article, nous souhaitons combler le vide en la matiere. Nous montrons que les PCPTs n’ont pas de fondement legislatif et les fonctionnaires administrent donc ces programmes sans autorite legale. Une alternative pourrait etre que les provinces ou territoires edictent ces programmes sous forme de loi, ce qui permettrait alors aux tribunaux d’evaluer la conformite de ces decisions en fonction de ce que prescrit la loi. Cependant, il est peu probable que cela se produise, car la caracteristique premiere de ce programmes, c’est leur « flexibilite .» Nous pretendons que les concepts de « relation fiduciaire » et d’« obligation fiduciaire » ont connu une evolution importante dans le droit canadien au cours des dernieres decennies, et nous suggerons qu’une alternative a la revision judiciaire pourrait se trouver dans la reconnaissance d’une obligation fiduciaire du decideur public envers le candidat a l’immigration sous les PCPTs. Comme pour tout nouveau sujet de recherche, nous esperons que nos conclusions susciteront d’autres etudes sur ce sujet encore peu explore, et pourtant tres important.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".