Bibliographic record
Abstract
The summary judgment procedure is designed to improve the efficiency of civil litigation by enabling the striking out of claims or defences that can be decided without a full trial. In 2010, the Ontario rule on summary judgment changed to facilitate this goal by conferring additional powers on motion judges to weigh evidence, draw inferences and evaluate credibility. In December 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified the application of the new rule in its Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch decision. The purpose of the new rule is to allow more cases to be decided by way of summary judgment, and the Combined Air decision helped clarify the extent to which the new rule has increased the mandate of motions judges to grant summary judgment. The author posits that the change adds a new category of cases that are appropriate for a summary trial: cases in which the motions judge is satisfied that a full trial is not required to serve the "interest of justice". Even with the new rule and the additional guidance from the Court of Appeal, Ontario courts continue to take a relatively conservative approach. Though the new rule widens the ambit of cases courts may find appropriate for summary judgment, and also widens the mandate of the judges who hear these motions, the author questions whether this means that significantly more cases will be resolved under the new rule. She notes a lasting traditional concern that only a trial with oral evidence will allow for a "full appreciation" of the record. The tradition from which this concern stems idealizes the continuous oral trial as a focal point of litigation and, according to the author, persists at the sacrifice of other efficiency-maximizing options, such as the "summary trial" procedure adopted in British Columbia.
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 | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.016 |
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".