MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W212664854

International Class Actions in the Canadian Context: Standing, Funding, Enforceability and Trial

2012· article· en· W212664854 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Glenn M. Zakaib, Jeremy M. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueDefense Counsel Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass actionContext (archaeology)JurisdictionLiabilityLawClass (philosophy)Settlement (finance)Action (physics)Political scienceRes judicataBusinessMultinational corporationLaw and economicsSociologyFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CANADIAN CLASS proceedings are commonly brought simultaneously with parallel actions in other jurisdictions. Due to the legal and factual overlap between these actions and the ongoing litigation in other countries, the conduct and conclusion of the Canadian cases must be carefully managed in the process of achieving coordinated resolutions of global claims. Naturally, the most pressing questions legal advisors of multinational defendants have when their clients are facing ancillary actions in Canada are those that have the most significant impact on their global defense strategy: How are Canadian class actions different from class actions in other countries? Who may bring an action, and how large a class can be defined? What resources does that class have available? Will a successful judgment or satisfactory settlement be enforceable in Canada, and will it conclusively resolve all future Canadian claims in the matter? The most pressing question, however, invariably is whether or not it will be necessary of desirable to take a Canadian class proceeding to trial. In order to come to a considered conclusion on this point, it is necessary to establish an understanding of the other critical concerns in managing an ancillary class action in Canada. This understanding will prove exceptionally important to defence counsel internationally in the increasing number of cases in which Canadian courts assume jurisdiction over global class actions, particularly in the securities and product liability contexts, it may not be long before concerns about ancillary actions in Canada evolve into concerns about bet-the-company, ostensibly conclusive global actions that happen to be tried in a Canadian court. I. Policy and Structure of the Canadian Class Action Class actions are actively promoted in Canada by both the judiciary and the various levels of government. The frequently expressed concern in many civil law jurisdictions that class actions do not facilitate recovery for class members and merely represent a form of entrepreneurial lawyering for the benefit of class counsel, who claim a percentage of class recovery or a multiple of their costs in the action, has been explicitly rejected by Canadian courts. Canadian courts consider class counsel to be taking on the role of private attorneys general, fulfilling a necessary regulatory function by collecting individually non-viable actions into a single, efficient proceeding and requiring wrongdoers to internalize the costs associated with their wrongdoing. While class actions are universally encouraged by Canadian lawmakers, the structure of Canada's constitution and the interpretation of its class proceedings statutes have prevented Canadian class actions from operating as seamlessly as all interested parties would wish. The uniformity of Canadian class proceedings leaves something to be desired, and fundamental constitutional issues continue to plague the class actions bar with the persistent threat that a seminal case may challenge the very capacity of Canadian courts to determine class actions on a nationwide scale. A. Constitutional Considerations The conduct and structure of Canadian class proceedings are largely dictated by Canada's unique constitutional arrangement. The Canadian constitution divides powers between a federal government and ten provincial governments. Canada also has three sparsely populated northern territories that are in large part governed as though they were provinces. The Constitution assigns exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights, as well as power over the administration of justice, to the ten provincial governments. (1) As a result of this separation of powers, provincial courts of general competence have jurisdiction to hear class proceedings concerning most civil actions, and provincial governments have jurisdiction to legislate with regard to the conduct of class proceedings that concern property and civil rights. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0300.015
Scholarly communication0.0250.005
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0120.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDefense Counsel JournalSame topicDispute Resolution and Class ActionsFrench-language works237,207