SOME RECENT DECISIONS ON THE ELEMENTOF UNLAWFULNESS IN INTENTIONAL TORTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some recent decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal have changed the legal landscape with respect to the economic torts. The Court now construes the element of unlawfulness in the economic torts more narrowly than it did previously, thus making the economic torts less available to a plaintiff. The Court’s analysis brings to the fore the concept of a directly actionable wrong. If a wrong is directly actionable, then it cannot serve as the unlawful element in the torts of conspiracy and intentional interference with contractual relations, thus making these torts less available to a plaintiff. The result of the recent decisions is that the criteria for finding that a defendant has committed an economic tort are more stringent, and that some of the older jurisprudence must be treated with caution. The Court’s approach attempts to follow the contours of the recent decisions of the House of Lords. While the outline is relatively clear, the detailed development has yet to be worked out.
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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| 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".