Sex Discrimination, Accountability of Public Authorities, And the Public/Private Divide in Tort Law: An Analysis of Doe V. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses a novel legal action in Canada in which a woman successfully sued the police both in tort and for a violation of her constitutionallyguaranteed equality and security of the person rights, for their failure to warn her about a serial rapist of whom she ultimately became the fifth victim. Much of the legal analysis revolved around evidence that sex discrimination was the cause of the police’s decision not to warn, and for their under-resourced criminal investigation. Focusing mainly on the action in tort, this paper shows that it is impossible to examine the broader implications of this decision without recognizing the challenge that it poses to the idea that a tort claim itself can be contained within a traditional private law analysis that rejects any connection to public policy issues. In fact, the tenuousness of the public/private distinction becomes clear in Jane Doe, because much of the same evidence grounded both the private law and the public law claims. The case is significant for its holding that a public authority, such as the police, can be held accountable in private law for discriminatory attitudes and practices leading to the negligent performance of a duty of care. I use an analysis of this case to make broader arguments not only that private tort law has public aspects to it, but that private law must be developed with an eye to contextual, political and social factors. I conclude that Doe v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police marks an important change in the tort liability of public authorities, and actually led to a change in police practices. I also use this case to engage larger questions about imposing civil liability on public authorities as a mechanism for ensuring their effective oversight, and, more specifically, about seeking state accountability for violence against women.
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 | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".