Bibliographic record
Abstract
Murray-Hall v. Québec (Attorney General) provides needed certainty and coherence regarding the scope of the criminal law power. Murray-Hall reconciles the criminal law power with the principle of cooperative federalism which favours giving effect to legislation of the provinces and federal government enacted within their respective (potentially overlapping) areas of legislative competence. An expansive interpretation of the criminal law power could upset the balance between federal and provincial powers articulated in section 91 and section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Murray-Hall articulates three principles that limit the scope of the criminal law power, helping to reconcile the criminal law power with cooperative federalism. First, in Murray-Hall the Court affirmed that the criminal law power is prohibitory in nature and does not bestow freestanding or positive rights. Second, the Court confirmed that there is a high burden of proof to establish federal legislation is paramount to provincial legislation by reason of operational conflict or conflict of purpose. This is particularly so where the legislative subject matter has a double aspect. Third, the Court recognized that provincial legislatures may validly consider traditional criminal law purposes when legislating in their sphere of jurisdiction. The articulation of these principles and reaffirmation of the importance of the double aspect doctrine help to delineate the boundaries of the criminal law power and protect the delicate balance between overlapping federal and provincial jurisdiction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".