THE ATTACHMENT OF CHARITABLE PROPERTY AT LAW AND IN EQUITY: OR, WHY THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL IN RE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS OF IRELAND IN CANADA IS RIGHTS AND ITS CRITICS ARE WRONG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Re Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada, the Court of Appeal for Ontario explained why all of a charity’s property—even property the charity holds in trust for charitable purposes—can be used to pay the charity’s debts. The charity and trust bar think that the Court of Appeal’s decision is in error. They think that without good reason the Court of Appeal gave creditors access to property held on a charitable trust in violation of the trustee indemnity principle. In fact, it is the critics who are wrong. All property that is held by a charity, whether in trust or otherwise, is dedicated to a socially desirable purpose or purposes, not for the private benefit of any person or persons. For this reason, principles of law or equity that are based on private property rights—such as the trustee indemnity principle—cannot automatically be applied to property held for charitable purposes. When applied to property held for charitable purposes, the trustee indemnity principle, for example, prevents that property from being used to pay any liabilities. This is a form of charitable immunity, which has long been rejected in the law. This paper explains why, as a matter of well established principle, logic and policy, charitable property—even property held in trust for charitable purposes—may be attached to pay for the charity’s liabilities and must be so used once the charity becomes insolvent.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".