Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author begins by looking at the nature of the discrimination as a harm and how it fits with the personal interests that tort law is meant to protect. Discrimination comes in different forms and contexts. Furthermore, a distinction can be made between intentional (direct) and systemic (indirect) discrimination. A case can be made in support of including all systemic discriminatory harms within the scope of the tort of negligence. Here, the author restricts arguments to matters that can be described as intentional discrimination and how this kind of direct harm relates to the overall objectives that the intentional torts such as trespass and nervous shock are intended to protect. The author will then consider the various approaches adopted by courts to address the barriers in Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology v Bhadauria. The wall established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bhadauria is full of holes and potentially more holes are developing as courts attempt to carve out various avenues of civil relief in response to problems with the legislated human rights system. The author will also examine how loosening the recognized medical injury criteria in nervous shock would open up the possibility of claims for discrimination. Other developments in the law of torts may also make room for inclusion of discriminatory harms. These include arguments favouring an innominate intentional tort which would make Bhadauria essentially irrelevant. What Donoghue did for negligence, an innominate intentional tort would do for intentional harms, opening up the scope of harms that can be captured, including harms caused by discriminatory conduct. The third part of the paper examines the weakening rationale of Bhadauria itself in light of human rights administration and judicial experiences since Bhadauria was decided. The rationales offered in Bhadauria hinged, in large part, on an assumption that human rights machinery would be efficient and enhance access to justice. This assumption has been shown to be misguided. The final section addresses a rather novel argument that Bhadauria is no longer a barrier to the existence of a tort of discrimination because the tort of discrimination has effectively been adopted by the common law from the jus cogens of international customary law – a matter of tort law development arguably decided per incuriam by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bhadauria.
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".