Lessons From History: The Recent Applicability of Matrimonial Property and Human Rights Legislation on Reserve Lands in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1986 decisions Derrickson v Derrickson and Paul v Paul highlighted the legislative gaps in the Indian Act with respect to the division of on-reserve matrimonial property. Provincial family property legislation could not apply to account for the absence of matrimonial land rights provisions in the federal Indian Act. This is because the Supreme Court of Canada rigidly applied the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. Indigenous women have been disproportionately affected by the lack of on-reserve matrimonial real property provisions. The recent enactment of the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (MIRA) is meant to finally address the absence of matrimonial real property provisions in the Indian Act. The MIRA allows band councils to enact their own matrimonial property laws and provides default federal rules for band councils that do not enact their own provisions. This article examines possible post-separation outcomes that may arise under the MIRA. It suggests the challenges that Indigenous women will face seeking redress under the MIRA will likely parallel the historical challenges they continue to face in disputes regarding status discrimination. It also suggests potential remedies for addressing discriminatory outcomes that may arise under this legislation. This paper ultimately emphasizes the importance of consultation with Indigenous women when enacting laws under the MIRA, and the importance of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as a forum for drawing attention to the larger problems regarding the division of property on-reserve that the MIRA alone fails to address.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".