SUBJECT: Appeals by Crown to the Court of Appeal and Supreme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
POLICY This policy outlines the minimum requirements that must be met before an appeal to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court of Canada will be approved. The fact that the criteria are met does not necessarily mean that an appeal will be initiated. Cases meeting the requirements will be considered on their own merits by the Director, CASP or designated Court of Appeal Crown Counsel. This policy recognizes that not every unfavourable result can or should be appealed and that the appeal process is onerous for both the Crown and the accused/respondent. This policy recognizes the value of finality in the administration of criminal justice and, to that end, generally discourages a second litigation of issues which a trial court has already decided. Subject to the policy entitled Environmental Prosecutions- ENV 1, all Crown appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada are to be approved by the Director of Criminal Appeals and Special Prosecutions (CASP) or the designated Court of Appeal Crown Counsel. Appeal Against Acquittal to the Court of Appeal No appeal against acquittal or judicial stay of proceedings will be approved unless: 1. it involves a question of law alone (section 676(1)(a)); 2. a reasonable argument can be made that the verdict would not necessarily have been the same if the error in law had not been made (Vezeau v. The Queen (1976) 28 CCC (2d) 81 (SCC)); and 3. the public interest requires an 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.198 | 0.144 |
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".