MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W212664854

International Class Actions in the Canadian Context: Standing, Funding, Enforceability and Trial

2012· article· en· W212664854 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Glenn M. Zakaib, Jeremy M. Martin

Notice bibliographique

RevueDefense Counsel Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésClass actionContext (archaeology)JurisdictionLiabilityLawClass (philosophy)Settlement (finance)Action (physics)Political scienceRes judicataBusinessMultinational corporationLaw and economicsSociologyFinance
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

CANADIAN CLASS proceedings are commonly brought simultaneously with parallel actions in other jurisdictions. Due to the legal and factual overlap between these actions and the ongoing litigation in other countries, the conduct and conclusion of the Canadian cases must be carefully managed in the process of achieving coordinated resolutions of global claims. Naturally, the most pressing questions legal advisors of multinational defendants have when their clients are facing ancillary actions in Canada are those that have the most significant impact on their global defense strategy: How are Canadian class actions different from class actions in other countries? Who may bring an action, and how large a class can be defined? What resources does that class have available? Will a successful judgment or satisfactory settlement be enforceable in Canada, and will it conclusively resolve all future Canadian claims in the matter? The most pressing question, however, invariably is whether or not it will be necessary of desirable to take a Canadian class proceeding to trial. In order to come to a considered conclusion on this point, it is necessary to establish an understanding of the other critical concerns in managing an ancillary class action in Canada. This understanding will prove exceptionally important to defence counsel internationally in the increasing number of cases in which Canadian courts assume jurisdiction over global class actions, particularly in the securities and product liability contexts, it may not be long before concerns about ancillary actions in Canada evolve into concerns about bet-the-company, ostensibly conclusive global actions that happen to be tried in a Canadian court. I. Policy and Structure of the Canadian Class Action Class actions are actively promoted in Canada by both the judiciary and the various levels of government. The frequently expressed concern in many civil law jurisdictions that class actions do not facilitate recovery for class members and merely represent a form of entrepreneurial lawyering for the benefit of class counsel, who claim a percentage of class recovery or a multiple of their costs in the action, has been explicitly rejected by Canadian courts. Canadian courts consider class counsel to be taking on the role of private attorneys general, fulfilling a necessary regulatory function by collecting individually non-viable actions into a single, efficient proceeding and requiring wrongdoers to internalize the costs associated with their wrongdoing. While class actions are universally encouraged by Canadian lawmakers, the structure of Canada's constitution and the interpretation of its class proceedings statutes have prevented Canadian class actions from operating as seamlessly as all interested parties would wish. The uniformity of Canadian class proceedings leaves something to be desired, and fundamental constitutional issues continue to plague the class actions bar with the persistent threat that a seminal case may challenge the very capacity of Canadian courts to determine class actions on a nationwide scale. A. Constitutional Considerations The conduct and structure of Canadian class proceedings are largely dictated by Canada's unique constitutional arrangement. The Canadian constitution divides powers between a federal government and ten provincial governments. Canada also has three sparsely populated northern territories that are in large part governed as though they were provinces. The Constitution assigns exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights, as well as power over the administration of justice, to the ten provincial governments. (1) As a result of this separation of powers, provincial courts of general competence have jurisdiction to hear class proceedings concerning most civil actions, and provincial governments have jurisdiction to legislate with regard to the conduct of class proceedings that concern property and civil rights. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,167
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,966

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,025
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0300,015
Communication savante0,0250,005
Science ouverte0,0040,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0120,010
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0210,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,060
Tête enseignante GPT0,291
Écart entre enseignants0,231 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDefense Counsel JournalMême sujetDispute Resolution and Class ActionsTravaux en français237 207