Tawdry or Honourable? Additional Payments to Representative Plaintiffs in Ontario and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Certain class action practices have always fit uncomfortably within the traditional model of civil litigation, not least the payment of honoraria (“additional payments”) to representative plaintiffs. This subject has received little attention in Canada and elsewhere. However, recent decisions in Ontario and the United States have put a spotlight on this practice. These decisions raise crucial questions about the purpose of such payments and the purposes of class actions generally. This article considers the doctrinal and theoretical basis for additional payments, and whether they should be permitted at all. It then proposes a structure for the awarding of additional payments, based on the representative plaintiff’s time and expenses together with a trauma-informed approach. This article brings conceptual clarity to an overlooked area of class actions and provides practical guidance to judges and lawyers on whether and when additional payments should be made.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".