Bibliographic record
Abstract
The doctrine of “interjurisdictional immunity” is part of the framework of principles of Canadian federalism aimed at reconciling federal values with the reality that laws enacted by one level of government will inevitably have an impact on matters within the jurisdiction of the other level of government. The law on interjurisdictional immunity has undergone considerable evolution in the last few decades, with the most recent development being the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Canadian Western Bank and Lafarge, which were decided in 2007. Historically, the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity was narrowly applied and the issue was whether a provincial law sterilized, paralyzed or impaired a federal undertaking or subject. This strict test was relaxed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the seminal cases of Bell 1966 and Bell 1988, which held that provincial legislation was inapplicable to federal undertakings whenever it “affected” a vital part of a federal undertaking or core of federal jurisdiction. In Canadian Western Bank and Lafarge, the Supreme Court shifted the balance of federalism in the direction of the provinces by reverting back to a more restrictive approach to interjurisdictional immunity. In the first part of this paper, the authors describe the interjurisdictional immunity doctrine and distinguish it from the doctrines of pith and substance and paramountcy. In the second part, the authors discuss the history and development of interjurisdictional immunity, and in the last part, they provide comments on the wisdom of the Supreme Court’s move to a more restrictive application of interjurisdictional immunity in Canadian Western Bank and Lafarge.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| 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".