Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reaching an outcome that they admitted to appear unjust, the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada in Schreyer v Schreyer affirmed that the husband’s discharge from bankruptcy released him from an unliquidated equalization claim owed to his wife under provincial family law. The Court’s assertions that the outcome, though unavoidable, looked unfair and that Parliament should amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act invite further analysis. The Court might have been less prescriptive in its call for reform, given that its judgment did not attend to complexities arising from the provincial law respecting spousal entitlements and exemptions from seizure. The first part of this paper presents the facts and decision. The second part critically draws out the Court’s attitude towards variation within family law across Canada, notably its objection to the ordinary effects of divided legislative competence in a federation and to doctrinal distinctions. The third part highlights the potential role of an application for lifting the bankruptcy stay. The Court approved that remedial route for spouses regarding assets that are exempt from seizure and this endorsement may be the judgment’s most lasting contribution. The fourth part argues that the Court’s focus on the federal statute and on exempt assets as a class led it to overlook the specificity of the asset at issue, a family farm. The source of injustice to women underscored by this judgment may lie not in federal law, but in provincial law and policy. That is, even absent a bankruptcy, gendered assumptions about the character of farm families and the overweening concern for preserving family farms may deprive a spouse of her equitable share of family property.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".