Clarifying the parameters of the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate in the context of decision-making by energy tribunals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous communities in the context of decision-making by Canada’s national energy regulator, the National Energy Board (NEB). While the Court reached a different conclusion on the merits in the two cases, the cases do articulate a common understanding of the relevant legal rules. As a consequence, the decisions offer important insights as to what will suffice to discharge the Crown’s obligations and what will not. The article outlines the evolution of the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate in the context of the relationship between Indigenous communities and settler society within Canada and then examines the two decisions for the additional guidance that they offer to decision-makers and their advisers in the particular context of independent regulatory tribunals like the National Energy Board.
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 | 0.024 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| 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".