Remedies in Canadian Administrative Law: A Roadmap to a Parallel Legal Universe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Administrative law in Canada, as in many other common law countries, centres around judicial review doctrine. Sometimes, one may even get the sense that administrative law and administrative law remedies begin at the point at which a party to an administrative action seeks judicial review of that action through the courts. Yet an overly tight focus on court action misses the hugely important first step in real-life administrative action: the varied and sometimes creative, purpose-built remedies that a tribunal itself may impose. This chapter, which has been revised and updated for the third edition of this leading text on Canadian Administrative Law, seeks to provide a broader, plain language overview of administrative law remedies as a whole, including not only judicial review but also tribunal decisions at first instance, internal and external appeals, enforcement mechanisms, extralegal strategies, and private law remedies. Along the way the chapter examines some of the unique characteristics of administrative agencies; the potential of and limits to judicial remedies for systemic problems, such as toxic organizational culture and embedded discrimination; the ever-shifting border between policy and legal decisions (including around the duty to consult in Aboriginal Administrative Law); the line between public law remedies and private law remedies, such as damages; and the Supreme Court of Canada’s evolving understanding of the Rule of Law as a dialogue between branches of government.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".