A Critical Analysis of Civil Procedure Rules 187 and 190: Stringency without Efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the ongoing effort to modernize and improve the civil process, the Alberta Rules of Court were amended in 1999. Affidavits of records are automatically required within a fixed period of time and non-compliance is sanctionable by a virtually automatic right to double costs. This article traces the genesis of these new, uniquely Albertan procedural rules, then identifies several concerns and critically analyzes them. It concludes that in practice, the five year old amendments generally do not serve to expedite proceedings, reduce litigant or public costs, facilitate settlement on the substantive merits of the dispute, nor enhance the overall public perception of the administration of civil justice. In fact, they may have the opposite effect from what was intended of encouraging settlement and the prudent use of court time. The authors recommend that the current Alberta Law Reform Institute's Rules of Court Project should propose rescission of these recent amendments and return to the demand model reinforced by judicial case management and costs discretion.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".