Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interim remedies are granted before the court has been able to come to a final determination of the issues raised by the case. Canadian courts are reluctant to grant interim remedies that would restrain the application of a constitutionally challenged law. Ordinarily, the public interest in the orderly administration of duly enacted laws has been found to prevail over the claimant’s right to interim protection of a claimed constitutional right. This article examines the reasons used to justify this cautious approach and argues that it is not entirely consistent with the Charter’s promise of effective remedies. The rule limiting consideration of the merits of the claim on interim applications should be relaxed, especially where refusing an interim remedy will cause the immediate and irretrievable loss of a constitutional right. This would bring Canadian law into line with English, American and international law and would better protect fundamental rights and freedoms. Greater use should be made of interim remedies that exempt litigants from constitutionally challenged laws rather than suspend the operation of the law entirely.
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 | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".