Justice Gonthier and Disability Rights: The Case of Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we explore how Justice Gonthier’s decision in Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin contributed significantly to disability rights law. The legislation found to be unconstitutional in Martin created a separate track of benefits, limited to only four weeks, for individuals with chronic pain conditions. We argue that the decision was consistent with the best traditions of critical disability theory which focuses on eliminating structural barriers that impede the participation of people with disabilities in activities of daily living such as working, transportation and recreation. We maintain that Justice Gonthier’s decision embodied many of the central principles of critical disability theory including putting the person with a disability at the centre of one’s legal analysis and embracing a broad definition of disability. Finally, we use these insights to critique the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision in Downey v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal.)
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".