TOWARDS A COSTS JURISPRUDENCE IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article the authors contend that the most critical variable affecting the long-term health of public interest litigation in Canada is “whether, and to what extent, we are committed to developing a coherent and distinct costs jurisprudence in public interest litigation.” In British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, the authors suggest that the Supreme Court of Canada has recently taken a significant step in this direction. This decision exhorts trial courts to take “public benefit” and “access to justice” concerns into account when crafting costs orders in public interest cases. While the decision breaks important new ground, the authors contend that it can also be seen as a logical elaboration of established Canadian costs law principles, and one that is consistent with existing and emerging public interest costs jurisprudence in the United States and various Commonwealth jurisdictions. The article also grapples with a variety of doctrinal issues that await judicial consideration in this context including attendant procedural reforms, challenges associated with defining “public interest litigation”, and the applicability of public interest costs principles in litigation involving private parties.
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 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".