Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the state of federal and Québec law as regards judicial notice of statutory instruments. The position in respect of federal instruments is first surveyed by reference to the provisions of the Canada Evidence Act and Canadian and British cases on the subject ; mention is then made of the now superseded Regulations Act of 1950 and the questions of interpretation that arose from it; and finally the impact of s. 23 of the Statutory Instruments Act of 1971 is evaluated in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in R. v. The « Evgenia Chandris ». The position in Québec law appears to be somewhat more confused. While the rule that regulations should be a matter for judicial notice seems well secured by s. 105 of the Summary Proceedings Act, this obviously only settles the point as regards penal proceedings under provincial statutes. In civil litigation, in the absence of any clear statement that regulations are to be judicially noticed, caution would seem to advise litigants to specifically plead and evidence the existence of regulations they intend to rely on. The author concludes by calling on the Québec Legislature to state explicitly the rule that regulations are a matter for judicial notice in any kind of proceedings.
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 | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".