Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of refugees come from destabilized states and conflict zones where threats and fear are endemic, and immediate escape is not always possible. These environments may necessitate that a person commit crimes to prevent harm to themselves or third parties before they cross borders and seek international protection. Under Canada's current refugee regime, such persons may be prevented from accessing refugee protection and status on the basis of criminality. Doctrinal complexities concerning available defences and procedural incoherencies complicate Canada's refugee decision making and have the potential to perpetuate grave injustices against refugee claimants. The author argues that defences should be available in any refugee case where status is denied on the basis of criminality, and emphasizes the unique and enhanced role that defences should play in this context. Further, that current confusion about when and how defences ought to be applied by decision makers in Canada's refugee system must be resolved such that all exculpatory factors are fully and properly considered where criminality is alleged. Uncertainty over relevant sources of law underpins significant inconsistency in decision making and is problematic given important substantive differences between domestic and international criminal law. The article discusses the implications for the defence of duress in particular, given its relevance to many refugee claimants. The author identifies sources of law that must be considered by decision makers in refugee inadmissibility and exclusion cases, and specifies three aspects of the defence of duress that are critical in this context: temporal connection, implied threats and the modified objective standard.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".