Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The author begins by looking at the nature of the discrimination as a harm and how it fits with the personal interests that tort law is meant to protect. Discrimination comes in different forms and contexts. Furthermore, a distinction can be made between intentional (direct) and systemic (indirect) discrimination. A case can be made in support of including all systemic discriminatory harms within the scope of the tort of negligence. Here, the author restricts arguments to matters that can be described as intentional discrimination and how this kind of direct harm relates to the overall objectives that the intentional torts such as trespass and nervous shock are intended to protect. The author will then consider the various approaches adopted by courts to address the barriers in Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology v Bhadauria. The wall established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bhadauria is full of holes and potentially more holes are developing as courts attempt to carve out various avenues of civil relief in response to problems with the legislated human rights system. The author will also examine how loosening the recognized medical injury criteria in nervous shock would open up the possibility of claims for discrimination. Other developments in the law of torts may also make room for inclusion of discriminatory harms. These include arguments favouring an innominate intentional tort which would make Bhadauria essentially irrelevant. What Donoghue did for negligence, an innominate intentional tort would do for intentional harms, opening up the scope of harms that can be captured, including harms caused by discriminatory conduct. The third part of the paper examines the weakening rationale of Bhadauria itself in light of human rights administration and judicial experiences since Bhadauria was decided. The rationales offered in Bhadauria hinged, in large part, on an assumption that human rights machinery would be efficient and enhance access to justice. This assumption has been shown to be misguided. The final section addresses a rather novel argument that Bhadauria is no longer a barrier to the existence of a tort of discrimination because the tort of discrimination has effectively been adopted by the common law from the jus cogens of international customary law – a matter of tort law development arguably decided per incuriam by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bhadauria.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».