Religious Tribunals and the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991: The Catalyst for Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RtsuMg L'introduction de la Loi de 1991 sur l'arbitrage en Ontario en 1992 a marqu6 le debut d'une nouvelle politique en faveur du rbglement de litiges prives avec un minimum d'intervention de la part des tribunaux.L'indtpendance des parties 6tait respecte en ce qui concerne le choix de l'instance dtcisionnelle et le choix du rdgime de droit applicable au litige.La proposition rdcente de tribunaux de la charia, qui appliqueraient le regime du droit musulman dans l'arbitrage priv6, a relanc6 le dtbat sur la privatisation de la justice.Le d~bat met en contraste les principes et les objectifs du mode alternatif de r~glement des conflits avec ceux de l'6galit6, du multiculturalisme et du droit familial.Le gouvernement de l'Ontario nomma Marion Boyd, l'ex-procureure gtn~rale de l'Ontario, et lui confia le mandat d'6tudier la possibilit6 de r~concilier les politiques concurrentes.Le rapport Boyd, Resolution des diffirends en droit de la famille: pour protdger le choix, pour promouvoir l'inclusion, fut publi6 en dtcembre 2004.Le rapport contient quarante-six recommandations qui proposent des changements radicaux et une uniformisation des procedures de mddiation et d'arbitrage.I1 appuie l'arbitrage comme m~canisme de rbglement des diffdrends dans les cas de conflits familiaux et les principes religieux comme choix possible en tant que r~gles de droit applicables dans 'arbitrage priv6.Cet article examine les politiques divergentes sous tendant le dtbat, fait une critique des recommandations Boyd et identifie certains sujets de preoccupation.T he recent proposal of sharia tribunals 1 has initiated a debate centred on principles in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), family law, and possible modifications to the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991.In the report Protecting Choice Promoting Inclusion, released in December 2004, Marion Boyd, former attorney general of Ontario, attempts to balance these concerns.Forty-six recommendations propose sweeping change and standardization to mediation and arbitration practice.Although many of these recommendations relate only to the areas of family and inheritance law, one cannot ignore the implications for arbitration practice as a whole.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".