Effective Remediation in Public Procurement: Contract Damages Versus Judicial Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, contract liability is the primary means for addressing public contract award disputes. However, while courts are also recognizing the role that judicial review can play therein, public authorities are increasingly falling back on exclusions of liability in order to limit recourse to civil litigation. This development is important given that governments across Canada have committed themselves through international trade agreements to give suppliers the right to remedies. The questions that arise are: (1) to what extent Canadian law measures up to this international standard and, (2) how tendering remediation can be made more effective. This essay explains to what extent contract liability for lost profits can be described as the principal means of regulating the public tendering process and the problems associated with this declining trend. The essay then turns to practical steps that can be taken so as to avoid public liability while ensuring fairness and respecting Canada's international commitments. The author argues in favour of a more financially effective approach to remediating tendering disputes, taking into account comparative perspectives on understanding the complementary role of damages and judicial review.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".