Recent developments in Canada in the areas of trusts and estates law
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have recently been significant changes and proposed changes to the law of trusts and estates in Canada. These developments demonstrate several themes. First, there are signs that the provincial governments are willing and attempting to modernize and harmonize legislation pertaining to Wills and the administration of estates. The best example of this is the recently enacted Wills and Succession Act (SA 2010, c W-12.2) in Alberta (the WSA). The WSA demonstrates an understanding on the part of the Alberta government that the world is changing and that it is not often practical, logical or necessary to rely on dated formalities. Second, it is clear that there are provinces taking steps to better control and restrict how individuals deal with estates, powers of attorney for property, Wills and trusts. Ontario, for example, is moving towards greater regulation in the administration of estates. The province is also assuming responsibility for the protection of the elderly and vulnerable. Finally, there has been a concerted effort by the legislatures, taxing authorities and courts in attacking trust structures, both domestically and internationally. This is mainly being done in an effort to provide greater certainty respecting the taxation of trusts and to close loopholes to better protect the tax base. This article endeavours to highlight these recent changes in an effort to help better understand the direction Canadian governments and courts are heading in the areas of trusts and estates law.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it