Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the traditional “Blackstonian” approach, a section 52(1) declaration of constitutional invalidity is deemed to be fully retroactive based on the the ory that a government does not have authority to enact an unconstitutional law. Without abandoning this traditional approach, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a fully retroactive declaration is not always a practical solution and for this reason, among others, has strayed from the traditional approach and limited the retroactive nature of declarations of invalidity in many cases. This paper examines the ways in which the Supreme Court has limited the fully retroactive nature of declarations of invalidity, namely (i) temporary suspensions; (ii) prospective overrulings accompanied by transition periods; (iii) the doctrine of qualified immunity; (iv) the general rule limiting individual remedies in combination with a declaration of invalidity; and (v) res judicata and the de facto doctrine. It the n proceeds to analyze the Court’s decision in Hislop v. Canada, in which the Court attempts to reconcile its previous rulings on the retroactive nature of declarations with the traditional the oretical approach. Finally, this paper critically analyzes the new test developed in Hislop to determine whether a section 52 declaration has retroactive effect.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".