Assumed Jurisdiction in Canada: Identifying and Interpreting Presumptive Connecting Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The common law of assumed jurisdiction in Canada now consists of judges interpreting and applying the presumptive connecting factors established for tort claims in Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda and identifying and fleshing out the contours of presumptive connecting factors for claims other than tort. There is a pressing need for detailed analysis. While the presumptive connecting factor of a tort committed in the forum has been easy to apply in some cases, such as motor vehicle collisions, it has been much harder to apply in cases of defamation, misrepresentation, deceit and conspiracy. Beyond tort, presumptive connecting factors for certain causes of action such as breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, or reversal of an unjust enrichment remain under-analysed. Little consensus exists on what aspects, if any, of these claims would constitute a sufficient connection for assumed jurisdiction. There are also important questions about how the presumptive connecting factor approach operates for several federal and provincial statutory causes of action, which differ in important ways from common law claims, and for assumed jurisdiction with respect to concurrent claims.
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 | 0.014 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".