Reining in the Crown’s Authority over Dissolution: The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act of the United Kingdom versus Fixed-Date Election Laws in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the key differences between the sources of authority of the Crown of the United Kingdom versus those of the Crown of Canada in order to compare and contrast the fixed-date election laws in Canada (at the federal and provincial levels) with the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, 2011 of the United Kingdom.The United Kingdom operates on parliamentary supremacy and an uncodified constitution; the British Parliament can therefore invoke its sovereign right to limit or put into abeyance any prerogative authority of the British Crown at will.The authority of the British Crown derives from three sources: statute, prerogative, and the Crown's capacity as a legal person.In contrast, Canada has always operated on a system of constitutional supremacy.Currently, the authority of the Crown of Canada derives from four sources: the constitutionally entrenched executive authority, the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, statute, and its status as a legal person.The first two sources of authority enjoy protection from statutory encroachment under section 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982.This is precisely why the Canadian fixed-date elections laws have deliberately preserved the Crown's authority over dissolution and the Prime Minister's or Premier's capacity to advise and take responsibility for early dissolution.In contrast, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, 2011 puts the prerogative of dissolution of the British Crown into abeyance by removing the Queen and Prime Minister from dissolution altogether, and thus truly eliminates the possibility of so-called "snap elections" that First Ministers have called for their own perceived political gains.Finally, Canadian jurists and scholars have long misapplied the British concept of "prerogative" to the Crown of Canada.A.V. Dicey defined a prerogative as "the residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority, which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the Crown."Dissolution therefore cannot properly be called a "prerogative" in the Dicean sense in Canada because only a formal constitutional amendment under section 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not a statute, could eliminate the Crown's authority over dissolution (at either the federal level or in a province) in the same manner that the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, 2011 has put the prerogative of dissolution into abeyance in the United Kingdom.The Parliament of Canada does not enjoy the unfettered sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.In reality, the circumstances do not even have to be extraordinary -as the five precedents showed between 2008 and 2015. VII: The Early Dissolution of 2008: Constitutional Conventions and Critique of Heard, Aucoin et al., and the Conacher RulingsFurthermore, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act also largely insulated the Prime Minister May from the consequences of leading the Conservative and Unionist Party to a loss, from majority to plurality, and provided a secure foundation for the agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".