MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391600269 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1438

The Significance of R. v. Albashir in the Evolution of Constitutional Remedies

2023· article· en· W4391600269 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne M. Turley, Zoe Oxaal

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the impact of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Albashir on constitutional remedies under section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Albashir marks a step in the evolution of constitutional remedies by adding to the list of factors that can justify a court declaring a law invalid on a prospective-only basis. It recognizes a new exception to the presumption of retroactivity that applies when a court declares a law to be invalid. Where a court suspends its declaration of invalidity, once the suspension expires, the effect of the declaration may be prospective only, if that is necessary to give effect to the purpose of the suspension. Prospectivity is justified where retroactivity would undermine the very purpose of the suspension. Albashir is also significant for confirming that a remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter is available to offset any negative consequences that prospective declarations might have. Any accused whose conduct had been unconstitutionally criminalized under the prospectively invalidated law, would have recourse to an individual section 24(1) remedy such as a stay of proceedings. The paper also examines the guidance given by the Supreme Court that courts should be more explicit about the temporal application of their remedial declarations. Albashir sets a new standard for remedial clarity, urging courts not only to explain their reasons for suspending declarations of invalidity, but also to explicitly address whether a declaration is to operate retroactively or purely prospectively once the suspension expires. The Court further provides suggestions on temporal clarity to lawmakers in crafting remedial legislation, through retroactive criminal legislation and transition provisions, although these seem unlikely to lead to the desired certainty. An annex to the paper including a “roadmap” chart, distills the relevant remedial principles to aid litigants in future cases involving declarations of constitutional invalidity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.030
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207