Carriage Motions in Ontario: Inconsistent Application of an Indeterminate Test
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act does not explicitly provide judges with the jurisdiction to decide carriage motions. As a result, a discretionary test has been developed over the last sixteen years for what factors judges are to consider in deciding carriage in Ontario. While almost twenty factors are listed to be considered, the list is non-exhaustive. In this paper, through a review of recent carriage decisions in Ontario, Manitoba, and British Columbia, I show which factors are typically applied and the way in which they are applied. I use this quantitative analysis to show that factors are not applied consistently and new factors are added when old ones are not determinative. I argue that the inconsistent application of an indeterminate test creates problems with consistency and predictability for the parties, and creates delays and extra cost that are ultimately borne by the class. Given that this test has been cited and used to decide carriage in other provinces, the importance of creating a consistent test for carriage extends beyond the scope of Ontario’s Act. Lastly, considering that the test is non-exhaustive, I argue for the addition of a new factor: diligence of prosecution in relation to the time of filing. Through a recent carriage motion decision and a settlement approval hearing, I show how, in certain circumstances, this factor should be enough to tip to scales of carriage.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it