Bibliographic record
Abstract
In line with global trends, there has been an increase in human rights-based climate litigation brought in Canadian courts in recent years. Some litigants invoke human rights as found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to push federal and provincial governments to take seriously the implementation of their climate obligations. Other litigants invoke procedural environmental human rights to engage in free speech and peaceful protest in the face of government action supporting fossil fuel consumption or expansion. At the same time, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that Canadian courts could develop civil remedies for corporate violations of customary international law, opening the door to future human rights-based corporate climate accountability litigation. Due to the nascent stage of climate litigation in Canada, this paper maps a broad variety of emerging cases into three interrelated sections: substantive, procedural and corporate accountability litigation. It also highlights emerging and potential future trends, such as the high level of youth and Indigenous plaintiffs. The paper aims to provide a critical overview of emerging Canadian developments in human rights-based climate litigation brought against the state, and reflects on potential strategies for future litigation, including against transnational corporate actors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".