Features of Canada’s Sanctions Legislation and Trends in Sanctions Appeal Jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors have considered Canada’s sanctions legislation, as well as the jurisprudence of its application. As a result, they have quantified the existing sanctions regimes and made a classification distinction between thematic and regional sanctions. It was found that among the sanctions regime legally formalized in Canada, 5 are thematic sanctions and 25 are regional ones. It is determined that the regulatory framework is formed by 4 laws and 27 by-laws. In addition to direct sanctions restrictions (entry ban, asset freezing), the Canadian system of sanctions provides for related measures such as criminal prosecution for violations of the sanctions regimes and restrictions under the migration law. The authors conclude that the right to judicial review of sanctions in Canadian law is presumed, while administrative appeal is determined by specific regulations. Canadian courts in sanctions appeals focus more on the legality of the acts themselves and move away from the question of the actual violation of the rights and legitimate interests of the sanctioned persons, as well as the proportionality of the measures taken and the reasons for the listing. The amendments to the Canadian legislation adopted in April 2022 effectively legalized the confiscation of property under the sanctions restrictions, which was the world’s first departure from the classic formula of blocking assets while retaining the property rights of the sanctioned person. The authors conclude that the innovation is legally weak and that it is highly likely to be subject to judicial appeal.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".