Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of whether courts can order the Crown to spend public monies in the absence of an appropriation has been a source of perennial legal controversy in Canada. Although a number of scholars have argued in favour of public funding orders, relatively limited attention has been paid to the underlying issue of whether courts have the jurisdiction to order the Crown to disburse public funds in the absence of an appropriation. Courts in Canada have generally exhibited caution when asked to make public funding orders. In justifying this deferential stance, Canadian courts have frequently relied upon dicta from the Privy Council’s 1924 decision in Auckland Harbour Board v The King, where Viscount Haldane held that any “payment out of the consolidated fund made without Parliamentary authority” was “illegal and ultra vires” and therefore properly recoverable “by the Government.” The author challenges the received orthodoxy that Auckland Harbour Board precludes courts from ordering the Crown to spend public funds. The author maintains that insofar as Auckland Harbour Board has been read as creating a blanket prohibition against public funding orders, it has been misunderstood and overextended. While there is no question that the Crown cannot order the dispensation of public funds without authority, this does not completely bar courts from making public funding orders. It is only where a court makes an order that effectively demands Parliament to appropriate funds, or which requires the payment of funds absent or in contravention of an appropriation, that Auckland Harbour Board has any real purchase.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".