Duha Printers Revisited: Issues Regarding Corporate Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Duha Printers. This was the first case dealing with the concept of de jure control of a corporation that the court had considered since its decision in Imperial General Properties in 1985. In Duha Printers, the court effectively restored the Buckerfield's test of control and set out a schematic basis for determining the person (if any) that controls a corporation at a particular time, and the evidentiary basis on which that person could be legally deprived of such control. The court's reasons for judgment raise a number of issues in respect of the concept of de jure control, including the scope of application of the decision, the continuing authority of the Supreme Court's two decisions previous to Duha Printers that appeared to have strayed from the Buckerfield's test of control, the limitation of the category of agreements that may be relevant to the control question, and the scope of and rationale for exceptions to that limitation. This article explores a number of de jure control issues decided or commented on by the court, and raised by the reasons for judgment, in Duha Printers.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".