La Contribution du Juge Lebel au Droit Judiciaire et à la Tradition Civiliste (The Contribution of Justice LeBel to Procedural Law and the Civilian Legal Tradition)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Le juge LeBel nous a legue un heritage inestimable en droit judiciaire quebecois. Analysant celui-ci, l’auteure utilise une approche thematique et transversale mettant l’accent sur quelques decisions phares du juge LeBel dans cette sphere juridique. Cette etude nous donne un apercu de sa methodologie judiciaire unique tenant compte des origines mixtes de la procedure civile quebecoise. Les decisions selectionnees explorent le dilemme des juges devant interpreter et appliquer le droit judiciaire quebecois lorsque les dispositions ou les problemes en litige emanent de la common law et du role qui devrait etre donne aux precedents et principes de la common law dans cette interpretation. Dans les decisions qui traitent des sujets herites de la common law comme l’interrogatoire prealable, le privilege du secret des sources des journalistes et le recours collectif, le juge LeBel nous enseigne qu’une application systematique de la common law doit etre rejetee pour favoriser une interpretation autonome coherente avec la tradition civiliste, a savoir une grille d’analyse civiliste. Cependant, meme en invoquant l’identite distincte du droit judiciaire quebecois, son approche n’est jamais fermee d’esprit. Il admet qu’avec la prudence et l’adaptation appropriees, la common law peut, le cas echeant, jouer un role suppletif. English Abstract: Justice LeBel bequeathed us an invaluable legacy in terms of Quebec procedural law. Analyzing that legacy, the author uses a thematic and transversal approach focusing on a few landmark decisions by Justice LeBel in this realm of the law. The study gives us insight into his unique judicial methodology which reflected the dual origins of Quebec civil procedure. The selected decisions explore the dilemma faced by judges who must interpret and apply Quebec procedural law where the provisions or problems in issue stem from common law, and the role that should be assigned to common law precedents and principles in that interpretation. In the decisions addressing subjects inherited from common law, such as examination for discovery, the privilege covering journalistic sources, and the class action, Justice LeBel teaches us that a systematic application of common law must be rejected in favour of a coherent autonomous interpretation based on the civil law tradition, namely a civil law analytical grid. However, even by invoking the distinct identity of Quebec procedural law, his approach is never closed minded. He admits that with prudence and proper adaptation, common law can sometimes play a complementary role.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".