“Paradise Lost”?: Rethinking Quebec’s Reputation as a Haven for Class Actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quebec has often been labelled a “class action paradise” in which petitioners’ motions for authorization to institute class actions are “rubber stamped” by courts biased against corporate defendants. This perception has encouraged many defendants to reserve their time, energy, and money to challenge such actions at a trial on the merits, rather than at the authorization stage. However, Quebec defendants and their counsel should not be entirely pessimistic about the likelihood of defeating a proposed class action either before or at the authorization stage. Indeed, an examination of the caselaw over the last thirteen years reveals that Quebec’s class action regime is not as petitioner-friendly as it has been made out to be. While the province’s class actions regime is comparatively broad and flexible where defendants deploy their resources in a targeted and effective manner, the preauthorization stage and authorization hearing can serve as an invaluable opportunity to put an end to a class action before costly trials on the merits. Ultimately, making smart choices and investing resources at an early stage of proceedings can end up saving defendants precious time and money.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".