Marginalized by Sui Generis - Duress, Undue Influence and Crown-Aboriginal Treaties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the constitutional entrenchment of treaty rights in 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada has sought to define a path that recognizes the unique, nature of treaty promises. This paper investigates a question that has yet to be explored in detail by the Canadian courts in relation to treaty rights, namely the extent to which exploitative conduct or misrepresentation by the Crown at the time of the treaty will give rise to legal remedies for the Aboriginal party to the treaty. For various reasons, the domestic law of contracts is not and should not be applicable to Crown-Aboriginal treaties. Nevertheless, the absence of equivalent legal content in relation to the treaty formation seems to be a significant gap in the treaty law applied by domestic courts. This paper explores the possible relevance of the principles underlying the common law doctrines of duress and undue influence to the question of consent in historic Crown-Aboriginal treaties. It suggests that those principles are worthy of consideration, at least as minimal reference points, in the development of the sui generis principles applicable to the formation of treaties. The unique relationship of the Crown and Aboriginal peoples renders the use of such reference points more, not less, imperative in the treaty context. The precise sui generis rules governing the effect of coercion and improper pressure in securing consent to a treaty must develop in a manner that respects the special nature and historical context of each treaty.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".