Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article illustrates the imbalance of power between the mortgagor and mortgagee, which is particularly apparent for individual mortgagors. Prepayment and due on sale provisions are standard mortgage terms that contribute to this imbalance. Although these clauses purport to operate separately, in reality, both are frequently triggered by the sale of a property; the law of contract suggests that these provisions should not be enforceable. Relevant legislation is lacking in this area and should be reformed to provide more effective consumer protection while acknowledging that banks operate with the goal of maximizing business. A reasonable compromise would involve basing the transferability of mortgages on objective criteria such as the size of the down payment provided by the buyer, rather than leaving it purely to the discretion of the lender.\nThis article is helpful for readers seeking to learn more about: \nmortgages, mortgage penalties, prepayment clause, due on sale clause, penalty clauses, financial services, class actions, borrowing rates, enforceability of clauses, consumer protection, unconscionability \nTopics in this article include: \nreal estate, consumer protection, imbalance in power, legislative protection, economics, contract law, equity, common law \nAuthorities cited in this article include: \nInterest Act RSC 1985, c I-15 \nLand Registration Reform Act RSO 1990, c L4 \nMortgages Act RSO 1990, c M40
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
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".