NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v. B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union’ and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Native Child and Family Services of Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In NIL/TU,O and Native Child, the Supreme Court of Canada held that unions applying for certification to represent employees of Indigenous-run child and family agencies ought to be certified under provincial labour relations legislation. The majority in both cases applied a presumptive rule that labour relations are generally provincial matters. This presumption was not displaced by the fact that both agencies were Indigenous-run organizations. The Indigenous nature of the organizations, their clientele, staff, and governance, or their own preferences for labour regimes made no difference to the Court’s analysis.\nHeld: Appeals Allowed.\n1.\nThe appeals should be allowed. Treating Indigenous peoples merely as subjects has, for too long, facilitated both federal and provincial government neglect of matters that are of fundamental importance to Indigenous nations and has failed to protect Indigenous communities against assimilative forces. In other words, the old approach has caused Indigenous communities harm. Nowhere is this perhaps more apparent than in the context of child welfare. The Supreme Court failed to be sensitive in these cases to the unique Indigenous context and the interplay of a number of constitutional principles, including treaty federalism, federalism, subsidiarity, the presumption of conformity with international law, substantive equality, reconciliation, and the honour of the Crown. Indigenous groups are governments in their own right, with their own law-making powers and responsibilities. The Canadian conception of federalism, read in harmony with other constitutional principles, is capable of accommodating this change.\n*The Indigenous Nations Court (INC) is not a real court and this is not an actual appeal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".