La responsabilité criminelle des organisations en matière d'infractions d'ordre économique (The Criminal Liability of Organizations for Economic Crimes)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The English version of this paper can be found at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2499521.French Abstract: L’entree en vigueur du projet de loi C-45 en 2004 a modifie de maniere considerable le droit penal canadien en matiere de responsabilite participative des organisations pour la commission d’infractions criminelles. Les amendements apportes au Code criminel avaient pour objet principal de faciliter la condamnation des organisations suivant la perpetration d’infractions par ses representants, afin d’inciter celles-ci a prendre davantage de mesures pour proteger leurs employes et le public. D’ailleurs, la jurisprudence recente, plus particulierement les affaires R. c. Petroles Global inc. et Canada c. Maxzone Auto Parts (Canada) Corp., demontre que les organisations font desormais face a des risques accrus d’etre poursuivies et condamnees au criminel pour les gestes et omissions de leurs representants, particulierement pour la commission d’infractions de mens rea subjective prevues a la Loi sur la concurrence et au Code criminel. Bien que les changements apportes au Code criminel datent aujourd’hui de pres de 10 ans, ce n’est que recemment que les tribunaux ont ete amenes a analyser l’effet et la portee des changements apportes. Au regard de la jurisprudence recente, cet article discute des impacts qu’ont eu les amendements de 2004 en matiere d’infractions de mens rea subjective. En outre, cet article analyse et commente la portee des amendements du projet de loi C-45 en matiere d’infractions d’ordre economique en ce qui a trait a la responsabilite participative des organisations, a la determination de la peine et a l’imposition de conditions de probation propres aux organisations.English Abstract: When Bill C-45 came into force in 2004, it introduced major modifications to the Canadian penal law system concerning the participatory liability of organizations for the commission of criminal offences. The main purpose of the Criminal Code amendments was to facilitate the conviction of organizations further to the commission of offences by its representatives, to induce them to do more to protect their employees and the public. Meanwhile, recent case law developments, more specifically the cases of R. v. Petroles Global Inc. and Canada v. Maxzone Auto Parts (Canada) Corp., demonstrate that, going forward, organizations will face a greater risk of criminal prosecution and conviction for the acts and omissions of their representatives, especially for subjective mens rea offences under the Competition Act and the Criminal Code. Although the changes made to the Criminal Code are now nearly 10 years old, it was only recently that the courts were called upon to analyze the effect and scope of the changes. In light of recent case law, this article discusses the impacts of the 2004 amendments in terms of subjective mens rea offences. In addition, this article analyzes and comments on the scope of the Bill C-45 amendments as they relate to economic offences and the participatory liability of organizations, the determination of the sentence, and the imposition of probation conditions suitable to organizations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".