Il potere di rectification del giudice negli ordinamenti di common law in caso di errore dell’avvocato (Canada, Slightam v Ag of Canada, 2023)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tesi Il giudice dell’Ontario può modificare l’atto istitutivo di un trust, attraverso il potere di rectification, per rimediare all’errore commesso da un avvocato in un progetto di pianificazione patrimoniale, non aderente alle intenzioni del disponente e dalle conseguenze fiscali indesiderate. Secondo la giurisprudenza della Supreme Court of Canada, l’esercizio di tale potere è possibile a condizione che le parti non intendano modificare il loro accordo ma solo l’atto che lo formalizza e che tale modifica non sia voluta per ottenere una pianificazione fiscale retroattiva. Nel diritto italiano non esiste una norma equivalente al potere di rectification, che discende dall’equity, ma sono presenti due previsioni che permettono di giungere a un simile risultato. Il codice civile permette di rettificare l’errore in un contratto con l’intervento giudiziale e la legge notarile consente di correggere l’errore in un atto notarile senza che le parti debbano essere presenti. The author’s view The Ontario court may amend a trust deed, through the power of rectification, to remedy a lawyer's mistake in an estate planning project that did not reflect the settlor's intentions and had undesirable tax consequences. According to Supreme Court of Canada case law, the exercise of this power is possible provided that the parties do not intend to amend their agreement but only the instrument recording it and that such amendment is not sought to achieve retroactive tax planning. In Italian law there is no equivalent rule to the power of rectification, which derives from equity, but there are two provisions that allow a similar result. The civil code allows the rectification of an error in a contract with judicial intervention and the notarial law allows the rectification of an error in a notarial deed without the requirement of the parties being present.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".