Mandatory relief and supervisory jurisdiction : when is it appropriate, just and equitable?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both the Constitutional Court of South Africa and the Supreme Court of Canada have affirmed the ability of judges to issue complex and mandatory relief and to retain supervisory jurisdiction in constitutional cases. In Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (No 2),1 the Constitutional Court indicated that ‘a mandamus and the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction’may be necessary to ensure an effective remedy for a breach of any constitutional right, including a socio-economic right. A year later, the Supreme Court of Canada held in Doucet-Boudreau v Nova Scotia (Minister of Education)2 that a trial judge could, after ordering that a government build minority language schools, retain jurisdiction over the case and require the government to report back to the judge with affidavits on its progress in complying with the order. These two important decisions make clear that both SouthAfrican and Canadian judges are not limited to declaratory or one-shot remedies. The decisions of both courts are a welcome affirmation of the wide powers of courts to fashion effective remedies, but were not without controversy. In TAC (No 2), the Constitutional Court refused to follow the structural interdict or injunction ordered by the High Court, on the basis that ‘the government has always respected and executed orders of this Court. There is no reason to believe that it will not do so in the present case’.3 In a related case, the Court rejected submissions that an order to provide a drug where medically indicated was impermissibly vague and violated the principles of the separation of powers.4 The Supreme Court of Canada was very closely
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 | 0.038 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".