Cost Strategies for Litigants: The Significance of R. v. Caron
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At first blush, Caron is not a very interesting development in the advance costs jurisprudence. at best it represents a modest “liberalization” of the jurisprudence and may thus make obtaining such awards ever so slightly easier than in the past, even if such awards will always remain “exceptional”. In its deference to the rulings of the lower courts, the Court may have sent a signal that an order for advance costs will be less reviewable than in previous years, so counsel had better plan on getting their orders from the trial court lest there be no order at all. Where Caron may turn out to be more interesting is not so much on the law of advance costs, but rather on the extent of the superior court’s inherent jurisdiction to come in aid of inferior courts and tribunals. The Court held that superior courts have jurisdiction to come in aid of inferior tribunals where it is “essential to avoid an injustice”, leaving the possibilities for new applications of this rather ancient doctrine intriguing. As well, the Court’s refusal to comment on the correctness of the earlier Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision that the provincial court lacked jurisdiction to award interim costs, coupled with Abella J.’s concurring judgment, leaves open the possibility that inferior courts, and even administrative tribunals, the mselves hold the power to award interim costs in circumstances where the criteria for such an award are otherwise met and where such a power is necessary for the m to perform their intended functions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".