Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal released three decisions regarding the certification of overtime class actions. In each of the three cases, the court revisits the application of the certification test set out in section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act. By reviewing the court’s judgments, this article aims to develop a framework that can be used to enable the certification of overtime class actions. The Ontario Class Proceedings Act was enacted twenty years ago, yet it remains disputable whether the legislation has achieved its intended benefits. Few cases have passed the high certification hurdle and even fewer have been resolved through post-trial judgments. If class actions are ever to become a viable forum for enforcing workers’ rights, courts must strictly observe and vigorously employ the principles established in the overtime trilogy. Ontario is ready for full-fledged class proceedings; it is now up to the judiciary to give the province’s class actions legislation the generous application it deserves.
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 | 0.022 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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; 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".