The Curial Review of Arbitral Awards After Vavilov
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, the Supreme Court of Canada revised the framework for determining the standard of review applicable to the judicial review of administrative action. The Court’s conclusion that the presumption of reasonableness will be rebutted where the legislature provides for a statutory appeal from an administrative decision marked a significant departure from its existing jurisprudence. A statutory right of appeal now signals legislative intent that appellate standards of review apply to statutory appeals of administrative decisions. Vavilov did not explicitly pertain to arbitration. However, the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence has definitively linked administrative law standards of review to appeals of arbitral awards. Vavilov thus presents an opportunity to assert that more probing standards of review also apply to appeals of arbitral awards. In this article, however, it is submitted that Vavilov should not be interpreted as such. To do so would be to take an undue step back from the pro-enforcement stance towards arbitration that has been adopted throughout Canada and other common law jurisdictions.
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 | 0.017 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".