The Duty to Consult and Accommodate: Procedural Justice as Aboriginal Rights
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the development and application of the “duty to consult and accommodate” from an administrative law perspective and more broadly con- siders the promise and limitations of procedural justice through the context of ab- original rights. The question addressed in this article is the relationship between procedural justice and substantive outcomes in the context of aboriginal rights in Canada. More specifically, by developing a “duty to consult and accommodate” on the part of the Crown with aboriginal communities who have asserted but not yet proven land claims, has the Court advanced the potential for reconciliation, or provided a roadmap for Government to avoid the underlying issue of the rights of aboriginal peoples? The article considers to what extent the duty relies on administrative law concepts such as the duty of fairness and the standard of review of reasonableness and whether this is appropriate. This analysis is divided into three sections. The first section explores the idea of procedural justice within the context of the judicial role in dispute resolution. The second section examines the duty to consult and accommodate. The third and concluding section considers the implications of procedural justice for reconciliation between the state and aboriginal communities. The article concludes that while procedural justice holds considerable promise as a purpose, reconciliatory procedural mechanism, its limitations increase as time passes without significant procedural enhancements such as the Crown’s “duty to consult and accommodate” ab- original communities leading to more just outcomes.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 it