Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter discusses the law on creditor claims in Canada. The general approach is that all claims to which the debtor is subject when the reorganization or liquidation commences should be ‘brought into’ the proceeding, and creditors should receive a distribution based on their relative entitlement vis-à-vis the debtor. While the treatment of claims is generally consistent among the various insolvency proceedings, the proceedings are not identical, particularly regarding the priority of claims and procedures for establishing them. For example, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act provides a statutory claims procedure for both liquidations (bankruptcies) and reorganizations (proposals), but that procedure is not applicable in reorganization proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) or in the distribution of the proceeds realized by a receiver. In reorganization proceedings under the CCAA, and where a receiver is appointed, the court determines the procedure to establish claims. The chapter then deals with insolvency claims, administration claims, and non-enforceable claims in turn. Each section covers: the definition and scope of the claim; rules for submission, verification, and satisfaction or admission of claims; ranking of claims; and voting and other participation rights in insolvency proceedings.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.277 | 0.082 |
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".