L’autorisation D’actions Collectives Mondiales au Canada : Deux Solitudes Aux Antipodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last two decades, a substantial number of applicants across Canada have brought motions to certify class actions on behalf of international classes (i.e. classes including non-Canadian residents). Considering that Quebec has long been known for its permissive and liberal authorization standard, it would be fair to assume that the province is a favorable land for applicants seeking the authorization of global class actions. However, following our comparative law analysis, we have found that it is more arduous for applicants to achieve the authorization of global class actions in Quebec than it is elsewhere in Canada, for two main reasons. First, Quebec’s framework to establish jurisdiction over foreign members is considerably less favorable to petitioners than the one developed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Airia Brands and currently applied in the rest of the country. Second, Quebec courts seem particularly reluctant to authorize global class actions when they consider that practical difficulties will emerge along the proceedings. Specifically, the multitude of applicable laws is often seen as an impediment to the authorization of global classes in Quebec, whereas it does not appear to be an issue in most Canadian provinces where a wait and see approach seems rather preferred. Moreover, a recent ruling from the Quebec Court of Appeal further put the future of global class actions in the province in jeopardy as the court’s majority developed a new criterion based on the proportionality principle that increases the applicant’s burden when it comes to global class actions. Résumé : Durant les deux dernières décennies, un bon nombre de demandeurs à travers le Canada ont présenté des demandes d’autorisation d’actions collectives au nom de groupes mondiaux (c.-à-d. des groupes comprenant des résidents non canadiens). Considérant que le Québec est reconnu depuis longtemps pour ses critères d’autorisation souples, il serait tout à fait avisé de supposer que la province constitue la juridiction canadienne par excellence pour obtenir l’autorisation d’actions collectives mondiales. Or, au terme de notre analyse comparée, nous concluons qu’au contraire, il s’avère généralement plus ardu pour les demandeurs d’obtenir l’autorisation de telles actions collectives au Québec qu’ailleurs au Canada. Deux distinctions fondamentales expliquent ce qui précède. Premièrement, le cadre d’analyse permettant d’établir la compétence des tribunaux québécois sur les membres putatifs étrangers est nettement moins favorable à l’autorisation d’actions collectives mondiales que celui élaboré par la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario dans l’affaire Airia Brands, qui est actuellement en vigueur dans le reste du pays. Deuxièmement, les tribunaux québécois semblent particulièrement réticents à autoriser des actions collectives mondiales lorsqu’ils considèrent que des difficultés pratiques surgiront en cours d’instance. Précisément, nous avons constaté que la multiplicité des régimes juridiques applicables est souvent perçue comme constituant une barrière à l’autorisation d’actions collectives mondiales au Québec. Inversement, cela ne semble pas être vu comme un obstacle dirimant dans la plupart des provinces canadiennes où une approche wait and see est plutôt préconisée. Puis, dans un arrêt de 2020, la Cour d’appel du Québec a potentiellement mis en péril l’avenir des actions collectives mondiales dans la province en développant un nouveau critère, fondé sur le principe de proportionnalité, lequel vient augmenter considérablement le fardeau incombant au demandeur au stade de l’autorisation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".