Lost in Transition: Answering the Questions Raised by the Supreme Court of Canada's New Approach to Jurisdiction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes the emerging answers to four questions raised by Canada’s new jurisdictional principles flowing from Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye. First, must a real and substantial connection be established in cases where the defendant is served inside the province? Second, must a real and substantial connection be established in cases where the defendant submits to the court’s jurisdiction? Third, must a real and substantial connection be established if the defendant is served not in another province but rather outside of Canada? Fourth, in cases where the defendant is outside the province, to what extent can the real and substantial connection requirement be satisfied by fitting the case within the province’s established bases, set by regulation, for service abroad? For each of these four questions, the analysis starts by considering what the Supreme Court of Canada has said on the issue. It then examines how those statements have been interpreted and applied in subsequent provincial court decisions, focusing on those from British Columbia and Ontario. Finally, the article suggests an answer to each question.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".