Retenue Judiciaire et Déférence, Révision Arbitrale et Jurisprudence : Pourquoi Les Tribunaux au Canada Devraient Exercer Une Très Grande Déférence En Révision Judiciaire Envers Les Sentences Arbitrales Commerciales (Deference Deference Shall You Do, For This Is Arbitral Review: Why Canadian Courts Should Exercise Maximal Deference When Reviewing Commercial Arbitral Awards)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Souvent, les juges canadiens siegeant en revision judiciaire des mesures administratives se serrent les dents en declarant que certaines decisions sont « raisonnables », decisions avec lesquelles ils pourraient, bien sur, etre en desaccord. Au final, c’est la deference qui definit l’approche canadienne du droit administratif, obligeant les juges a ne pas substituer leur point de vue sur le droit a celui des tribunaux specialises constitues pretendument d’experts. Dans l’affaire Sattva Capital Corp. c. Creston Moly Corp., la Cour supreme du Canada a reconnu que les tribunaux d’arbitrage commercial prives doivent faire preuve de la meme deference, quoique ce soit pour des raisons un peu differentes. Comme l’a fait la Cour dans l’affaire Sattva, on pourrait etablir des paralleles entre les tribunaux administratifs et les tribunaux arbitraux, surtout concernant la presomption d’expertise dont jouit le decideur. Il y a aussi des differences importantes. Le present article soutient que le cadre relatif a la norme de controle judiciaire des appels des sentences arbitrales commerciales portant sur des questions de droit, cadre qui a ete etabli par la Cour supreme dans l’arret Sattva, bien qu’il soit generalement juste, contient une faille : il repose trop sur les principes du droit administratif. Plus precisement, l’auteur soutient que la Cour a commis une erreur en retenant en bloc deux categories de questions appelant un controle selon la norme de la decision correcte sans deference inspiree par la decision de la Cour dans l’affaire Dunsmuir c. Nouveau-Brunswick : 1) des questions d’ordre constitutionnel; 2) des questions d’importance capitale pour le systeme juridique et etrangeres au domaine d’expertise du decideur administratif (« questions d’importance capitale/questions etrangeres au domaine d’expertise ») English Abstract: Canadian judges sitting in judicial review of administrative action regularly grit their teeth and declare “reasonable” decisions they might disagree with. Deference has come to define the Canadian approach to administrative law, requiring judges to abstain from substituting their views on the law for those of putatively expert tribunals. In Sattva Capital Corp. v Creston Moly Corp, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that private commercial arbitration tribunals are due similar deference, albeit for somewhat different reasons. As the Court did in Sattva, one might draw parallels between administrative tribunals and arbitral tribunals, most notably the presumptive expertise attributable to the decision-maker. But important differences also exist. This paper contends that while the Supreme Court’s standard of review framework for appeals of commercial arbitral awards on questions of law set out in Sattva is largely apt, it contains a flaw rooted in overreliance on administrative law principles. Specifically, the Author argues the Court erred in retaining wholesale two categories of questions calling for non-deferential correctness review inspired by the Court’s decision in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick: 1) constitutional questions; and 2) questions of central importance to the legal system and outside the decision-maker’s expertise (“central importance/ outside expertise questions”).
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 | 0.024 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".