Recent Judicial Decisions of Interest to Energy Lawyers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article summarizes a number of recent judicial decisions of interest to energy lawyers. The authors review and comment on the past year’s case law in several areas including contractual interpretation, employment and labour law, Aboriginal law, constitutional law, intellectual property, bankruptcy and insolvency, and selected developments relating to summary judgments. Specific topics addressed include the appropriate standard of review, workplace drug and alcohol testing policies, appellate intervention in commercial arbitration, the appropriateness of granting summary judgments, valuation of dissenting shareholders’ shares, a duty to consult, the applicability of municipal bylaws when they conflict with federal legislation, and the rights and obligations of oil and gas companies placed into receivership. For each case, some background information is given, followed by a brief explanation of the facts, a summary of the decision, and commentary on the outcome.
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 | 0.037 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".