Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to address the issue of how evidence obtained in violation of a Charter-protected right is to be dealt with in civil forfeiture proceedings. In arriving at the answer, the governing jurisprudence in this area of the law will be canvased to provide a contextual background that informs the parameters of this discussion. However, it will ultimately become clear by the end of this paper that evidence obtained in violation of a Charter-protected right should be dealt with by way of section 24(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the use of a modified Grant test. Civil forfeiture is the process by which the state commences legal action to obtain property that was seized as an instrument or proceed of unlawful activity. Although property can be forfeited through a number of different mechanisms, the scope of this paper is limited to forfeiture proceedings commenced by way of civil action under provincial legislation with a focus on British Columbia. The case law presented in this paper will focus primarily on appellate court decisions from across the country due to the scarce attention this area of the law has received. These cases will highlight the endeavours of litigants who sought to undermine civil forfeiture proceedings through the use of common law principles and the Charter. Finally, commentary will be provided on the direction future research in this area of the law should take.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".