The necessity of a broadened, cost-effective, and widely recognized common law invasion of privacy tort in technocentric Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a strong causal relationship between the rapid advances in technology and thedevaluation of personal privacy as an intangible commodity. Considering this, common law provinces in technocentric Canada are in need of a potent, cost-effective, and widely recognized invasion of privacy tort.While a veritable jungle of laws exist that provide for significant privacy protection in thecriminal, constitutional, quasi-constitutional, and a host of other realms, relatively little attentionhas been paid to the civil sphere. The result of this oversight is a lackluster system of civilredress (specifically in common law provinces) against citizens who, either negligently or intentionally, invade the privacy of other citizens.Beginning with the conception of privacy itself, this work will explore the myriad ofdifficulties that have been associated with defining this historically elusive term. Additionally, byborrowing directly from Charter jurisprudence, criminal cases, and academic literature, thiswork will put forth an amalgamated approach to privacy that should be utilized in the contextof a robust common law invasion of privacy tort in Canada. The reader will be able to juxtaposethis approach to the other, arguably weaker, methods that Canadian jurisdictions have utilized toaddress privacy invasions in the civil sphere. The weaknesses of the legislative enactments, theuse of the traditional or good enough torts, and most recently, the intrusion upon seclusion causeof action established by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Jones v Tsige will be explored in depth.Finally, considering the definition of privacy suggested by the author and the previously utilizedlegal mechanisms for protecting privacy, a potential approach to a (mostly) Canadian made tortfor invasion of privacy will be espoused.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".