<i>L’oratoire Saint-Joseph du Mont-Royal V JJ</i> and the Growing Complexity of Quebec’s Authorization Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: In this case comment, the author analyses L’Oratoire Saint-Joseph du Mont-Royal v JJ, a decision in which a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the authorization of a class action against two religious institutions in the context of alleged sexual abuse. Among other things, the decision highlights discrepancies between various justices as to how the criteria for authorization contained in the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure1 should be conceived and applied. Rather than clarifying the state of the law when it comes to authorization, it is arguable that the decision — which contains vigorous dissenting opinions by the Court’s civilian members — complicates matters further for lower court judges, practitioners, and litigants alike. The common law majority’s expansive approach to assessing the arguable case criterion of article 575(2) CCP also runs the risk of giving the green light to class actions that are deficient on their very face, contrary to the interests of proportionality.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".