MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2261090877

Solicitors’ Conflict of Interest and the Wider Fiduciary Question

2007· article· en· W2261090877 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anthony Duggan

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiduciaryConflict of interestLaw and economicsPolitical scienceLawBusinessSociologyDuty
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses the 2007 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 3469420 Canada Inc. v. Strother, with particular reference to the difference of views in the majority and minority judgments on the relationship between contract and fiduciary obligations and on the function of the account of profits remedy. The article argues that the minority was right in saying that the fiduciary relationship between solicitor and client is subject to the terms of the contract between them and, conversely, that the majority was wrong in suggesting that fiduciary obligations are imposed as a matter of law and may go beyond what the parties have agreed. The article also argues that he majority was right in holding that the account of profits remedy may be used for deterrence purposes and that the minority was wrong in suggesting that the remedy should not be imposed unless the plaintiff has suffered loss.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207