Roncarelli v. Duplessis and Damages for Abuse of Power: For What Did It Stand in 1959 and For What Does It Stand in 2009?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, Roncarelli v. Duplessis is most celebrated for the contributions that Justice Rand’s judgment in particular made to a rule of law—based conception of the exercise of discretionary power. However, from a contemporary perspective, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision was seen not only as another significant judicial reining in of the Duplessis government’s treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also as an important development in the law governing governmental liability for abuse of power. In this paper, the author explores the latter dimension of the judgment with a view to establishing the grounds on which the Court found Duplessis personally liable in damages to Roncarelli, and the extent to which it transcended the particular provision on which liability was based (article 1053 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada ) and had application at common law. He also evaluates the subsequent impact of this aspect of the judgment. How have later courts read the judgment’s articulation of the principles of delictual liability, and what are the current principles on which the liability of state actors for abuse of power are based? Here too, the author concludes that the current state of the law is closer to that espoused by Justice Rand than the bases on which the other members of the majority predicated liability.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it