Environmental Discrimination and the Charter’s Equality Guarantee: The Case of Drinking Water for First Nations Living on Reserves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many First Nations communities living on reserves in Canada do not have consistent access to one of the most essential requirements for life—clean and safe drinking water. This article analyses the Charter’s equality guarantee to determine whether it offers a remedy. The analysis shows that the experience of First Nations communities living on reserve without access to clean water is discriminatory within the meaning of s 15 of the Charter, and that this discrimination would not be saved by s 1. The most significant hurdle to a s 15 claim is the fact that there is no single law which categorically excludes First Nations reserve communities from its protection. While the courts have not considered a case with similar facts, the article argues that the Charter’s equality protections extend to the full range of government action (and inaction) regardless of whether the action stems from one law, regulation or policy, or a set of laws that, acting together, creates discrimination. An interpretation that would limit s 15 protections based on a narrow, formalistic interpretation of the word “law” in section 15 would not only run counter to the interpretations of the section in recent decisions, but more importantly would run afoul of the Charter’s purpose of promoting substantive equality.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| 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".