Bibliographic record
Abstract
Class actions can be very expensive. Certification motions are hotly contested. Trials can be long and expensive. In Ontario, at every step of the process, the representative plaintiff (and any law firm that agrees to indemnify the representative plaintiff) can be liable for significant adverse cost awards. For many years, the Class Proceedings Fund (the Fund) was the only option available for plaintiffs requiring financial assistance. In exchange for 10 percent of any settlement or judgment, the Fund would agree to provide funding for disbursements and to be liable for any adverse cost awards. More recently, other options have become available to plaintiffs requiring financial assistance to bring class actions. Third party companies have offered equivalent arrangements to the Fund, at cheaper cost. While the Fund’s assistance is permitted by statute, there is no equivalent statutory framework to regulate third party financing of class actions. The issue potentially engages questions of champerty and maintenance, as well as other issues, including the amount of control the funder should have over the litigation itself. The paper reviews the historical approach to third party funding of class actions in Ontario and the more liberal approach to these arrangements in recent years. It examines how courts in other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia have sought to regulate and address third party financing of class actions. The paper draws on these approaches to suggest a framework for third party financing of class actions in Ontario.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".