Implementing UNDRIP Article 27 in Canada: assessing the role and promise of joint indigenous-crown adjudication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Crown’s duty to consult Indigenous peoples on potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal Rights and Title has become a cornerstone of Canadian Aboriginal law over the past 20 years. However, critical gaps remain in available legal protections. For instance, while administrative decisions, such as permitting for natural resource extraction, are subject to the duty to consult, they cannot be challenged for potentially infringing rights until the alleged infringements have occurred and affected Indigenous groups can marshal the resources necessary to bring their claims to court. This vulnerability has hindered the potential for section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to recognize and uphold Indigenous laws and jurisdiction. We argue that good-faith implementation of UNDRIP Article 27 – calling for the establishment of joint Indigenous-Crown processes for adjudicating issues relating to the rights of Indigenous peoples – would help address such gaps and vulnerabilities. We examine statutes, bills and government-to-government agreements that recognize Indigenous law-making power, as well as recent court decisions, notably Montour (QCSC 2023), and Restoule (SCC 2024), to assess how implementation of Article 27 might cohere with and further develop the current state of the law.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".