The development of Charter damages jurisprudence in Canada : guidelines from the Supreme Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Canada in Vancouver (City) v Ward [2010] 2 SCR 28 (SCC) have provided Canadian courts the long-awaited guidelines on the determination of claims for damages as the and just relief for breach of entrenched rights under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982 (the Charter). Faced with such a claim, the court must ask itself four pertinent questions. First and foremost, has a breach of a Charter right occurred? Secondly, if so, will damages serve the functional purpose of compensation, vindication and deterrence? If these questions are answered in the affirmative, the third question is whether the State could adduce any good governance considerations, probably, in the form of defence(s), to negate the claim. Finally, what, in monetary terms will be the appropriate and just award to the plaintiff having regard to the nature of the violation and the injury sustained. At that stage, the court may consider whether it will be necessary to award the plaintiff punitive damages. This article critically analyses in detail these guidelines in light of Commonwealth precedents on constitutional damages. It concludes that the judgment in Ward is more comprehensive, extensive, less rigid and more workable as against the Maharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (2) [1978] 2 All ER 670 (PC) formula. Indeed, it provides Commonwealth constitutional jurisprudence a third option in addition to the existing Maharaj/Simpson v Attorney General [1994] 3 NZLR 667 (NZCA) (Baigent's case) formulation and the Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 3 SA 786 (CC) approach.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".