MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251398286 · doi:10.4324/9781843145790-19

Canadian Pacific Hotels Ltd v Bank of Montreal [1987] 1S.C.R. 71

2012· book-chapter· en· W4251398286 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facts: A number of forged cheques were drawn on the chequing account, at respondent bank, of one of appellant’s operating units and were made payable to defendant companies which were controlled by defendant Sands. The cheques in issue were drawn during the period April 1976 to July 1977 inclusive on the chequing account, at the respondent Bank of Montreal (‘the Bank’), of the operating unit or division of the appellant Canadian Pacific Hotels Limited (‘CP Hotels’), at the Toronto International Airport, known as the Chateau Flight Kitchen (sometimes referred to as the ‘Malton Flight Kitchen’ and hereinafter referred to as the ‘Flight Kitchen’). The banking operations of CP Hotels, including those of the Flight Kitchen, were part of the over-all banking arrangements made with the Bank by Canadian Pacific Limited (‘CP’) for itself and its subsidiary and associated companies. CP operated a centralised banking arrangement known as Treasury under which the Flight Kitchen maintained separate deposit and disbursement accounts with the Bank and a Treasury account with CP. During the relevant period the defendant Sands forged the signature of Saunders on all 23, and the signature of Hird on 19, of the cheques for which the claim is made. He made the cheques payable to the defendant companies, Dundas Discounts Limited and Sig-Mor Sales Limited, which were controlled by him. The forgeries were not discovered until August 1977. CP Hotels gave the Bank notice of them on 25 August 1977. In its defence the Bank alleges that CP Hotels is ‘estopped or otherwise denied’ from recovering the amounts debited in respect of the forged cheques by the breach of a duty, arising out of the banker and customer relationship, to check its bank statements and vouchers on at least a monthly basis, with a bank reconciliation for such purpose, and to notify the Bank immediately of any errors. The Bank also sets up in relation to this alleged duty the defence of a stated or settled account. The Bank further alleges the breach by CP Hotels of a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent fraud by its employees in relation to dealings with the Bank by the maintenance of adequate supervision and internal accounting controls and also invokes the responsibility of a principal for the fraud of an agent acting within the scope of his actual or apparent authority.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207