Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the cause of action of constructive expropriation recently restated in Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality. It argues that this cause of action came into existence through a series of Supreme Court of Canada decisions that deviated from principle, precedent, and respect for legislative supremacy, culminating vividly in Annapolis itself. The result, it argues, is a common law chimera — a cause of action that seems unique in private law. This raises a puzzle: taxonomically, what is constructive expropriation in law? This article argues that constructive expropriation is best seen as a tort, even though it sits uneasily beside its more established tort brethren. Framing the post- Annapolis constructive expropriation cause of action as a tort reveals the incoherencies between constructive expropriation and other doctrines of private law. Drawing on the jurisprudential history of constructive expropriation before the Supreme Court, this article argues that the courts are ill-equipped to make constructive expropriation more coherent on their own. It therefore argues that legislative intervention is warranted, either to restructure the cause of action or to abolish it altogether.
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 | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".