Repeat Bankruptcies and the Integrity of the Canadian Bankruptcy Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the often-cited purposes of bankruptcy law is to permit the rehabilitationof the debtor as a citizen unfetteredby past debts. The bankruptcy regime thus allows an honest but unfortunate debtor toobtain a fresh start through the discharge. However, Canadian bankruptcy law has long taken the position that a repeat bankruptcy will preclude an order of an absolute discharge. The different treatment of repeat bankrupts suggests that there are other policy objectives at play beyond rehabilitation. While the court must consider the interests of the debtor and creditors in a contested discharge hearing an equally important consideration is the protection of the integrity of the bankruptcy system. Where there are repeatbankruptciesthe court'sfocusshiftsfrom rehabilitationof the debtor to the integrity of the bankruptcy regime, the protection of creditorsand the public.\nThese traditional considerations have been altered by recent amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. These amend- ments permit a second-time bankrupt to obtain an automaticdischarge after 24 months (if no surplus income and no objection) or after 36 months (if surplus income and no objection). This articleconsiders how the Canadianbankruptcy regime deals with second-,third-,fourth- andfifth-time bankruptcies. The article also examines whether mandatory counselling has had any impact on reducing repeat bankruptcies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".