Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines creditors' use of the oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act and its provincial equivalents from historical and critical perspectives, assesses the consequences of the increasing willingness of Canadian courts to make the remedy available to creditors and concludes by offering some solutions to the problems that are identified. Part I traces the historical development of the oppression remedy, first in the United Kingdom and then in common law Canada. Next, the current state of the law relating to the oppression remedy is briefly examined, followed by a review of recent developments with respect to the use of the oppression remedy by creditors. Part II is a critical review of the evolving law with respect to creditors' use of the oppression remedy. This part of the thesis focuses on: (i) the relationship and potential conflict between the oppression remedy and other available remedies; and (ii) the impact of creditors' uses of the oppression remedy on the relationship between the corporation and its other stakeholders, including issues of shareholders' and directors' liability. In Part III, it is argued that the present use of the oppression remedy by creditors is not being developed in a coherent and principled manner. Certain guidelines are offered to provide the courts with reasonable controls on and principles to guide the use of the oppression remedy by creditors. In particular, it is argued that the oppression remedy should not be available to creditors when there are, either under corporate legislation or other, general legislation, appropriate remedies already available. The result would be that the oppression remedy should be available to creditors only in the limited category of cases where the creditor has no other effective remedy and the conditions for the use of the oppression remedy are met.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".