Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian legal landscape on corporate directors' liability has been quiet since the release of the Supreme Court of Canada's landmark decision in Peoples Department Stores Inc. (Trustee of) v. Wise. In Peoples, the Court decided against imposing a duty on directors to consider the interests of creditors when carrying out their fiduciary duties to a corporation approaching insolvency. It appears, however, that an American doctrine that holds directors and related third parties liable for 'deepening the insolvency' of the corporation when its life has been wrongfully prolonged, and one that is on the radar in Canada, has the potential to affect the way Canadian courts view director liability. Peoples may have closed the door to imposing director duties to creditors but the American doctrine of 'deepening insolvency', if adopted in Canada, has the potential to do an end run around Peoples by indirectly providing protection for creditors when the corporation is facing insolvency. The author discusses the implications of adopting the deepening insolvency doctrine in Canada and concludes that the doctrine is not necessary, as Canadian business law already has several functionally equivalent or similar remedies to address the harms deepening insolvency seeks to overcome. Most importantly, the oppression remedy, a doctrine deemed by the Supreme Court of Canada to deal with situations of near insolvency, could be expanded to address the concerns of creditors. Other potential avenues include claims for breach of fiduciary duties and duties of care, as well as claims for negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".