The Precarious State of the <i>Ragoonanan</i> Principle in Ontario
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ragoonanan Principle requires each named defendant in a class proceeding to have a corresponding representative plaintiff asserting a cause of action against them. The Principle, first articulated by Cumming J in Ragoonanan Estate v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, is only in force in Ontario and has been expressly rejected by most other Canadian jurisdictions. However, in 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Bank of Montreal v Marcotte, where it stated that “[n]othing in the nature of class actions … requires representatives to have a direct cause of action against, or a legal relationship with, each defendant in the class action.” Subsequently, there was a lingering question as to whether Marcotte overturned Ragoonanan and opened the door for representative plaintiffs to bring multi-defendant class actions without a cause of action against each defendant. However, in his 2021 decision Vecchio Longo Consulting Services Inc v Aphria Inc, Perell J seems to have shut that door, holding that the Ragoonanan Principle was not overturned by Marcotte and is still applicable in Ontario. This article argues that Perell J’s holding was erroneous and that the principles set out in Marcotte did overturn Ragoonanan.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it