Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part one of this article provides a brief overview of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ward including not only its upholding of a $5000 damages under s. 24(1) of the Charter for an unconstitutional strip search, but its overturning of a $100 award for an unconstitutional seizure as not needed to compensate, vindicate or deter Charter violations. The second part examines threshold issues such as court of competent jurisdiction of small claims courts and statutes of limitations. The remedial purposes of compensation, vindication and deterrence of Charter violations are examined in the third part and the fourth part examines how governments may discharge their burden of establishing that Charter damage claims are not appropriate or fair to the government because of good governance concerns and the availability of alternative remedies. It suggests that Ward has largely rejected concerns about the overdeterrence of individual officials. The last part suggests that the quantum of Charter damages should be driven by consideration of the remedial purposes of compensation, vindication and deterrence and that the $5,000 award should not be seen as either a starting point or a cap on Charter damages. The interrelated issues of quantum and access to justice are likely to be the most important factors in determining whether Charter damages blossom after the late spring set off by the Court’s promising decision in Ward.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".