<i>Townshend v. Townshend</i> & <i>Buttar v. Buttar</i>: Gifts, Exclusions, and Intentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comment looks at two fairly recent decisions by the Ontario Court of Appeal, Townshend v Townshend (2012 ONCA 868) and Buttar v Buttar (2013 ONCA 617) with respect to the courts' handling of the exclusion of gifts under section 4(2) of Ontario's Family Law Act (RSO 1990, c F.3). In Ontario, gifts made by third parties outside the marriage to one spouse may be excluded from the calculation of a spouse's Net Family Property (NFP). Property may cease to be excludable if it is not kept separate or if it is used to the benefit of the family. In both Townshend and Buttar, the court had to grapple with fungible gifts and decide to what degree the gifts should be excluded from the NFP calculations. In both decisions, the courts relied upon a line of reasoning that placed too much weight on the intentions of the donor when deciding whether (or to what extent) to exclude the gifts while simultaneously undervaluing the subsequent behaviour of the donees after delivery of the gift. One worry these decisions raise is that, if donees of gifts may rely merely on the fact of a gift and not on their actions subsequent to delivery of the gift, litigants will become emboldened to find far more “gifts” among their property. Even more worrisome, however, is that the courts may be willing to grant exclusions regardless of post-delivery behaviour and thereby undermine the purpose of the NFP calculations: namely, as the preamble of the Family Law Act says, to allow the court to order an “equitable settlement of the affairs of the spouses”.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".