Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2007 Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Whitefish Lake Band of Indians v. Canada (Attorney General) sets out, for the first time, a set of guidelines for establishing compensation for cases in which the Crown allegedly breached its fiduciary duties to a First Nation band. The influence and financial implications of this decision are far reaching, extending well beyond the Ontario courts. Indeed, going forward, it is difficult to imagine a case in Canada of breach of duty by the Crown in which the Crown or Plaintiff's arguments regarding compensation will fail to take account of the Whitefish decision. Nonetheless, a consensus concerning this decision has not yet emerged; all parties agree that Whitefish is important and yet, for the same set of circumstances, the financial implications of Whitefish are said to differ, not just between the Crown and Plaintiff’s positions but sometimes also among the "experts". This would seem to suggest that the implications and implementation of the Whitefish guidelines are legitimately open to different interpretations. This article demonstrates that this view is wrong. It establishes that the only internally consistent and empirically grounded framework for implementing Whitefish is the standard economic model of consumption-saving decision making. Other interpretations implicitly make assumptions about individual behaviour that are at odds with known data, rational economic behaviour and common sense. The article also clarifies which historical data need to be applied to limit the range of feasible compensation, consistent with the application of the standard economic model, for any given case.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".