The Current State of the Law in Canada on Crown Obligations to Consult and Accommodate Aboriginal Interests in Resource Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified that the duly to consult with Aboriginal groups and. where indicated, to accommodate their interests lies with theCrown alone. In the context ofproject development, the duty to consult and accommodate may be satisfied by the Crown providing opportunities for meaningful involvement in regulatory and environmental assessment processes and addressing Aboriginal concerns. This includes engaging directly with the Aboriginal group, soliciting and listening carefully to concerns, and attempting to minimize the impact on Aboriginal rights. In recent decisions, the courts have repeatedly focused on the honour of the Crown and, in designing remedies, have emphasized the need to balance Aboriginal interests with those of the broader society. Where the duty to consult has not been satisfied, the courts have more frequently ordered ongoing consultation and have less frequently quashed permits and approvals. Prudent project proponents will continue to engage potentially affected Aboriginal groups in a meaningful way. attempt to identify Aboriginal concerns, discuss with Aboriginal groups potential strategies to minimize or avoid infringements of Aboriginal rights, and communicate accurately these efforts to government decision-makers.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".