Limiting the Legal Liability of Religious Institutions for their Clergy: Cavanaugh v. Grenville Christian College
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to explore the case law relating to the potential legal liability of ecclesiastical institutions for the conduct of their clergy and lay employees in the tort of negligence, vicarious liability and breach of fiduciary duty. While a number of cases have resulted in findings of liability, especially in those relating to the Indian residential schools, a recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal, Cavanaugh v. Grenville Christian College, suggests ways of thinking about the limits and scope of liability for institutions whose charitable purposes are occasionally betrayed by rogue persons over whom they may have little control. Cet article a pour objectif d’examiner la jurisprudence sur la responsabilite legale potentielle des institutions ecclesiastiques pour la conduite de leurs membres et de leurs employes laics dans les delits de negligence, dans les affaires de responsabilite du fait d’autrui et de manquement a l’obligation fiduciaire. Quoique de nombreux jugements, en particulier ceux qui ont trait aux pensionnats autochtones, ont conclu a la responsabilite des institutions, une decision recente de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, Cavanaugh v. Grenville Christian College, suggere des pistes de reflexion sur l’ampleur et les limites de la responsabilite pour les institutions dont les objectifs caritatifs sont parfois trahis par des delinquants sur qui elles peuvent n’avoir que peu de controle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".