Where Are We Now? Accessing the Current Ontario Family Justice System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is the current family justice system more accessible than ever before? This paper considers the significant changes that have been made to the Ontario family justice system in recent years, including those made as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, to determine if the “fundamental overhaul” and “bold innovation” called upon by the national Action Committee has occurred, bringing Ontario closer to a more accessible family justice system.\nSeveral prominent legal scholars have identified access to family justice in Canada as a crisis and have made strongly worded recommendations on how the family justice system could be more accessible. As a result, small but significant reform was implemented. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Ontario's family justice system made additional changes, including technological advancements to improve access to justice. Were these the “fundamental” and “bold” changes needed to end the access to justice crisis in Ontario family law?\nLooking at key reports and articles on access to family justice reform, as well as changes made in recent years, including changes made as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper argues that the current Ontario family justice system is more accessible, but more work needs to be done to ensure we do not continue to leave the most vulnerable behind.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".