Canada Update: February 2011 through April 2011 Highlights of Significant Court Cases Abroad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THIS update of the Canada Reporter will consider two cases, Bou Malhab v. Diffusion Mitromidia CMR, Inc. and Ontario (Att'y Gen.) v. Fraser.In Bou Malhab, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the appellants had not proven their case for damages in a class action suit for defamation.In its analysis, the court expounded on factors to consider when analyzing the injury element in defamation suits.In Fraser, the Supreme Court of Canada analyzed the constitutionality of Ontario's Agricultural Employee's Protection Act, finding that it meets the requirements of good faith and collective bargaining to preserve freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, supporting its decision in Health Services and Support-Facilities Subsector Bargaining Ass'n v. British Columbia.Fraser both clarifies the court's understanding of Health Services and exemplifies some remaining contentions. I. BOU MALHAB V. DIFFUSION MtTROMADIA CMR, INC.-DIFFICULTY IN PROVING INJURY FROM DEFAMATION WITH A DIVERSE CLASSAlmost a decade after Montreal cab drivers were verbally assailed on public radio, the Supreme Court of Canada found that Bou Malhab, the lead plaintiff in a class action defamation suit brought by Quebec taxi drivers, had not shown that each member of the class had sustained an injury and, as a result, was not entitled to class action damages.'In Bou Malhab v. Diffusion Mgtromidia CMR, Inc., J. Deschamps, writing for the majority, expounded on a non-exhaustive set of six factors to consider *Juris Doctor, SMU Dedman School of Law 2011.This is Mr. John's last update as Canada Reporter.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.009 |
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".