THE SUPREME COURT, COMMERCE AND THE CONSUMER: MAKING THE MOST OF LIMITED OPPORTUNITIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay, Professor Cuming examines three related areas of commercial law that have been influenced by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada: secured financing law, Crown priorities and bankruptcy law. Major public policy choices made by the Court when interpreting provincial and federal legislation are noted. He concludes that the Court has had a very positive effect on the development of secured financing law. In his opinion, the Court's practice of reading down statutory provisions designed to subordinate prior in rein third party interests to claims of the Crown should cause legislators to approach tax collection in less detrimental ways. According to the author the Court's record in dealing with important bankruptcy issues is mixed. He applauds the Court's approach to the protection of non-corporate bankrupts through rejection of the concept of self settlement. However, when it comes to the Court's application of section 136 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Professor Cuming is less supportive. He questions why the very constructive approach employed by the Court when addressing the interface between the federal legislation and provincial personal property security laws was not applied where secured creditors of bankrupt debtors employ section 136 to circumvent provincial legislation designed to protect unpaid former employees of bankrupt organizations or crucial provincial revenue sources.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".