Bibliographic record
Abstract
The meaning of corporate control was settled in Buckerfield's in 1964 as the right of control that rests in ownership of such a number of shares as carries with it the right to a majority of the votes in the election of the Board of Directors. The Buckerfield's test was reaffirmed and some issues regarding its application were resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada in Duha Printers, in 1998. Yet there remain a number of unanswered questions and hard cases. This article explores some of the circumstances in which the result of applying the traditional de jure control criterion is uncertain, such as various situations involving simultaneous control and the exercise of control of a corporation through a trust, agent, or partnership. Certain peculiarities of the Duha Printers restatement of the Buckerfield's test are observed. These include the nature of the unanimous shareholders' agreement and the distinction between the power to nominate and the power to elect directors. Finally, the author briefly reviews several aspects of the statutory control in fact test that supplements the de jure rule in certain cases. The focus is on how the test has been judicially applied.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".