MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021063160 · doi:10.7202/042413ar

L'autorisation d'exercer le recours collectif

2005· article· en· W2021063160 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mario Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsStudents Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParagraphConstitutionPlaintiffClass (philosophy)LawPolitical scienceCharacter (mathematics)Unitary stateSociologyEpistemologyPhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is basically an analysis of art. 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Québec. Following a brief survey of the origins of class actions in English and American law, the Québec class action is defined as a form of procedure available to plaintiffs only, based on the existence of a group acting through a representative. It is then distinguished from similar forms of procedure, whether under Québec law (art. 59 and 67 C.C.P.) or foreign law ( constitution de partie civile , relator, Adhasionsprozess , etc.). The introductory part goes on to examine the relationship of class actions to basic principles of civil procedure in Québec (such as the rules on standing), to challenge some widely-held beliefs concerning class actions and their social and economic impact, and finally to underline the unitary character of class actions under Québec law. Brought under closer analysis, the introductory paragraph of art. 1003 underscores the requirement of a hearing by the court, indicates the nature and timing of judicial authorization, and determines the scope and extent of the conferment of representative status. The case of groups referred to in art. 1048 C.C.P. is examined in this connection. The paper then surveys in turn each of the lettered paragraphs of art. 1003 C.C.P., in the light of similar provisions in Québec and other jurisdictions, with special reference to the American Federal rule. Similitudes and contrasts are thereby brought into view. It thus appears that paragraph d) is alone in showing definite American influence; indeed, discussion of this paragraph centres on foreign law. A critical review is made of the cases under each of the paragraphs. Certain approaches to the construction of art. 1003 are also criticized, especially those implying further conditions to the grant of representative status or involving the use or irrelevant tests in this regard, in spite of differences between American and Québec procedures or between the American and Canadian constitutions. Finally, the paper underlines the requirement, imposed by art. 1022 and 1024 C.C.P., that conditions laid down by art. 1003 continue to exist throughout the duration of the case. The paper concludes that the Québec class action is probably the most liberal of all, and may open up new approaches toward using court proceedings to implement policy. However, it is feared that the courts may prove unreceptive to the innovative spirit behind this form of action; indeed, some cases decided so far seem to show a serious misapprehension of its character.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207