Shared Goals, Divided Jurisdiction: The Uneasy Relationship Between Class Actions and Administrative Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Access to justice is a critical problem facing Canadian courts. To address access to justice issues in the civil context, legislatures created both the class action procedure within the courts and administrative schemes as alternatives to the courts. Despite their shared access to justice goals, administrative law principles prevent class actions from being advanced in areas that are governed by an administrative scheme. This paper explores the practical effect of this jurisdictional conflict by comparing the relative benefits of class actions to statutory dispute resolution processes. In cases where jurisdictional conflicts arise, the prospective class members who suffer the most when a claim is diverted to an administrative scheme are those who require provisions such as contingency fee arrangements, a representative plaintiff, and the protections afforded by the judicial oversight of litigation. I suggest that the legislature could further the access to justice and judicial economy objectives of both class proceedings and these administrative schemes by incorporating these provisions into administrative schemes, or by allowing the superior court to assume jurisdiction of mass claims in appropriate circumstances.
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 | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".