Developments in Aboriginal Law: The 2011-2012 Term – Charter Rights, Constitutional Rights, Taxation and Sentencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This year the Supreme Court of Canada released reasons for six major Aboriginal Law cases. In Lax Kw'allams Indian Band v Canada (Attorney General), the Court considered an application for a declaration that a First Nation possessed a constitutionally protected right under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 to engage in a general commercial fishery. This application was unsuccessful, as the Court found that the evidence did not support the claim. As well as developing the jurisprudence regarding claims with commercial aspects, this case also provides insight into pleadings and how the subject matter of rights evolves over time. The Court also heard a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v Cunningham. This case considered whether a partial statutory prohibition against individuals who are registered Indians also being members of Metis settlement communities violated equality rights, or the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The Court upheld the legislation, finding that section 15(2) shielded the exclusionary provisions, and that liberty interests were not offended. [...] The Court also heard a pair of taxation cases, Bastien Estate v Canada and Dube v Canada. Each case involved an appeal regarding whether investment income was exempt from taxation pursuant to section 87(1)(b) of the Indian Act. In each case, the Court found the income was indeed exempt. [...] The Court also heard two criminal law cases, R v Ipeelee and R v Ladue. The legal issue was the proper approach to sentencing Aboriginal offenders pursuant to section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, and whether this provision applied to sentences for breaching conditions imposed as part of a long-term supervision order. In these cases, the Court both affirmed the approach to sentencing that had been described in R v Gladue, and wrote responses to the scholarly critiques that have been levelled against the relevance of Gladue and section 718.2(e) for reducing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal persons within penal institutions.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".