Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The government of Alberta recently passed the Crown's Right of Recovery Act (1) (the Act), which will enable the Province to recover the costs of health services from automobile accidents, convicted persons, and, perhaps most significantly, tobacco manufacturers. Alberta's legislation received Royal Assent in November of 2009. It is the second last province to enact legislation that enables the provincial government to litigate against tobacco manufacturers in order to recoup health care costs. (2) Over the last several decades, tobacco litigation has had a steadfast presence in the courts, both in Canada and internationally. Health care cost recovery is the latest and, arguably, most successful, trend in tobacco litigation. The Act has already garnered some attention, but not for its attempt to recover costs from tobacco manufacturers. (3) There has been little discussion concerning the power the Act confers upon the province of Alberta to sue tobacco companies. This may be a reflection of the fact that suing tobacco companies to recover health care costs, and the controversy that comes with such litigation, is old news. Alberta's legislation was preceded over a decade earlier by legislation in British Columbia. (4) It may also reflect the growing recognition in society that tobacco use is associated with increased health care costs, even for non-smokers. The following article intends to situate the Act within the context of tobacco litigation, particularly as it pertains to the state's right of recovery. It will begin with a brief examination of the Act before situating it within the broader context of right of recovery legislation and litigation. This will include a discussion of the origin and development of right of recovery statutes, the challenges and critiques that right of recovery statutes face, and of some of the possible outcomes and issues associated with litigation. The Crown's Right of Recovery Act In many respects, the Crown's Right of Recovery Act is identical to its predecessor in British Columbia, the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. (5) The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that British Columbia's legislation is constitutional (6) is undoubtedly the reason why Alberta and the majority of provinces have adopted legislation that is virtually identical. In light of the similarities, and the fact that British Columbia's legislation has been subject to considerable attention in the courts and in the literature, it is unnecessary to thoroughly review Alberta's legislation. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to highlight some its key provisions. The Act extends to the province of Alberta a direct and distinct action against a manufacturer to recover the Crown's cost of health services caused or contributed to by a tobacco-related wrong (s. 42(1)). The cost of health services is defined as the sum of the total expenditure by the province for health services provided for insured persons as well as the estimated expenditures that could be reasonably expected will be provided to insured persons that have resulted from tobacco-related disease or the risk of tobacco-related disease (s. 41(1)(a)). The term 'health services', in turn, is broadly defined and includes, among other things, in- and out-patient services, services as defined in Alberta Health Care insurance Act, and public health services. The parties that the province can seek recovery from are considered manufacturers. Under the Act, manufacturers include any person who manufactures or has manufactured a tobacco (s. 41(1)(i). This definition includes, among others, persons who cause the manufacturing of tobacco products (s. 41(1)(i)(i)), derive at least 10% of revenues from the manufacture or promotion of tobacco products (s. 41(1)(i)(ii)), or engage in or cause others to engage in the promotion of a tobacco product (s. 41(1)(i)(iii)). The legislation does not specifically address what is meant by disease. …
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 | 0.002 | 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".