MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W653657508 · doi:10.60082/0829-3929.1005

"But Only on a Question of Law": Examining the Scope of Appellate Review of the Landlord and Tenant Board

2009· article· en· W653657508 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Toby Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandlordScope (computer science)LawPolitical scienceSociologyBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RtSUMkSelon la Loi sur la location i usage d'habitation, 2006, la competence d'un tribunal d'appel en revision de decisions de la Commission de la location immobili~re est limit~e aux questions de droit.Cet article a deux objectifs principaux : rexamen des limites et des contours de ce qui pourrait constituer o une question de droit> aux fins d'appel de la Commission et lexamen de la norme de contr6le judiciaire applicable.La norme de contr6le judiciaire applicable d6pend en grande partie de la nature de la (< question de droit > soulev~e en appel, et dans ce cas la norme est semblable h celle appliqu~e aux appels de decisions judiciaires.I1 est g~n~ralement admis que la norme est celle de la decision correcte quant aux questions de droit, et de ce fait, il est de la plus haute importance de pr~ciser ce qui constitue une question de droitce qui n'est pas toujours facile.Cet article 6tudie h fond comment extraire des questions de droit a partir de questions de fait ou de questions mixtes de fait et de droit.De plus, certaines questions de droitc.-A-d.les r~gles de la justice naturelle, le devoir d'quit6 de la procedure et le pouvoir discr& tionnaire conf~r6 par la loifont appel h une norme diff~rente du fait d'approches analytiques distinctes appliqu~es a ces types de questions juridiques.Larticle passe en revue Dunsmuir c. Nouveau-Brunswick, [2008] 1 R.C.S. 190, oil la Cour supreme du Canada a 6clairci le fait qu'il n'existe plus A present que deux normes de revisioncelle de la d6cision correcte et celle de la raisonnabilit6et 6value t'impact de cet 6claircissement sur la norme en usage A la Commission.IEarticle fait valoir que Dunsmuir n'aura pas un impact d'importance a la Commission et cela largement du fait que la Commission ne poss~de pas d'expertise hautement sp~cialis~e.Toby Young is a Director of Legal Services at the Human Rights Centre Legal Support Centre.He is the former Provincial Director of the Tenant Duty Counsel Program at the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario.He specialized in residential tenancy law for over a decade.This article expresses the personal views of the author and reflects the law as of June 2008.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.252
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.252
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0180.037
Scholarly communication0.0220.019
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0200.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Social PolicySame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207