From en ventre sa mere to Thawing an Heir: Posthumously Conceived Children and the Implications for Succession Law in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid and continued advancements in assisted reproductive technology now make it possible for children to be both conceived and born after the death of a genetic parent. While succession legislation across Canada recognizes situations in which a child is conceived before, but born after, the death of a genetic parent, the majority of provincial legislative schemes are silent with respect to the succession rights of posthumously conceived children, specifically, the right to inherit on intestacy. Many of the provincial legislative schemes governing intestate succession were enacted before the development of assisted reproductive technology, and the legislatures perhaps did not contemplate these developments and the implications these advancements can have on succession law. As technology continues to advance, these implications, including the rights of posthumously conceived children to inherit on intestacy, warrant consideration. The purpose of this paper is to examine the implications of posthumously conceived children on estate litigation and succession law in Canada, as well identify and explore possible ways of addressing this emerging issue. Any consideration, however, requires a balanced approach. By examining the ways in which other jurisdictions have addressed this issue, this paper seeks to outline possibilities and considerations for reform.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".