MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W96810772 · doi:10.29173/alr320

The Legislature Strikes Back: The Effect of Ontario’s Bill 152 on the Statutory Duty of Care in the Peoples Decision

2009· article· en· W96810772 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Darcy L. MacPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutyLegislatureLawPresumptionStatutory lawSupreme courtDuty of careCorporationUltra viresRepealParliamentStatutory interpretationCreditorPolitical scienceBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author critically analyzes the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Peoples Department Stores Inc. v. Wise. This decision interpreted s. 122(1) of the Canada Business Corporations Act in a way so as to declare that it was “obvious” that the duty of care placed on directors and officers is owed to a broad range of beneficiaries, including creditors. The author argues that the decision, while defensible, was neither “obvious” nor was it appropriate. The amendments to the Ontario Business Corporations Act may come closer to the intentions of Parliament in passing the Canada Business Corporations Act. Furthermore, the rules of statutory interpretation are employed to demonstrate that the broadened duty of care found by the Supreme Court may actually cause directors and officers to be more self-interested, rather than putting the interests of the corporation ahead of their own. Such a change in approach may lead to statutory absurdity or a violation of the presumption against tautology. Therefore, a narrower duty of care, owed only to the corporation, as enacted by the Ontario legislature, should be recognized.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207