Parens Patriae as a Basis for Provincial Standing in Judicial Review of Federal Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a general rule, legal action can only be pursued by those who have a right infringed in a court that is able to remedy the infringement. Courts can remedy breaches of private rights and public rights. Typically, purely public rights can only be asserted in a court by the Attorney General. In a federal system, the role of the Attorney General as the parens patriae endowed with jurisdiction to assert public or sovereign rights in court on behalf of the nation-state is bifurcated. As such, courts must address the issue of standing when a regional government is relying on public rights to seek judicial review of federal decisions. In the United States, the courts have recognized that states should have special treatment with respect to standing where they are seeking to protect "quasi-sovereign" interests. Quasi-sovereign interests include the right of a state and its citizens to full and equal participation in the federation. Canadian courts have addressed this form of standing peripherally but not in any great detail. This article will examine the nature of the parens patriae form of standing in a federal system and examine whether this form of standing should be recognized by Canadian courts.
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 | 0.034 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".