Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although common law courts have historically rejected mere confidentiality as a justification for not disclosing relevant information in litigation or keeping it from public access, the Supreme Court of Canada, in its recent decision in Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), appears to have lowered the bar for protecting confidential commercial information from public disclosure by acknowledging a litigant’s commercial interest as an important value that must be protected. More so than ever, the confidential nature of commercial documents may be, if properly articulated, a justification for denying public access to court documents. However, it is too early to tell how courts will apply Sierra Club. There is a risk that courts will apply it in a manner that would essentially negate the entire confidential commercial information exception to the general rule of open access to the courts.This article is organized as follows. It begins by contrasting the protection of confidentiality of court documents with other measures that may be taken to protect the confidentiality of commercial information in the course of a civil proceeding. Part II will describe the history of the jurisprudence related to the protection of confidential commercial documents that become part of the court file. Part III will analyze the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision Sierra Club and examine the cases that have implemented its two- part test for determining when the public should be denied access to confidential commercial documents that have become part of the court file. Finally, Part IV will outline some practical advice and strategies that can be used to help increase the probability that confidential commercial documents do not become public in a civil proceeding.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".