Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Pettkus v. Becker, the Supreme Court of Canada developed the constructive trusts remedy to prevent unjust enrichment. In Soulos v. Korkontzilas, the court held that the constructive trust remedy could also be used to prevent wrongful conduct, providing certain conditions are met. This article focuses on the second of the four conditions imposed by the court in Soulos; the assets in the defendant’s hands must have resulted from deemed or actual agency activities of the defendant. A review of the case law shows that the deemed agency requirement has led to confusion by the lower courts about whether unjust enrichment is necessary to the constructive trust remedy. Soulos has been taken to stand for the proposition that proof of unjust enrichment is not necessary to the constructive trust meant to prevent wrongful conduct. However, this is incongruous with the premise underlying the deemed agency requirement that prevention of unjust enrichment is the only legitimate function of the constructive trust remedy. This article concludes that clarification of the Supreme Court’s position on the constructive trusts remedy is needed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".