The best interests of the child? The stolen generation in Canada and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The common policy of the Australian and Canadian governments of removing Aboriginal children from their families and placing them in institutions is now well documented. The key basis for such removals was a policy of assimilation. As a consequence of these revelations, litigation has been undertaken by members of the stolen generations in both Canada and Australia. This article considers the key cases in Canada and Australia in regard to three entwined strands of such claims: vicarious liability, non-delegable duties and duty of care. While the plaintiffs in the leading Canadian cases were ultimately successful under at least one of their heads of claim, the approaches in these cases in regard to the Crown’s liability for breach of the duty of care and non-delegable duties is inconsistent. Thus, even in Canada, key legal issues pertaining to the Crown’s liability for the Aboriginal residential school experience continues to be unresolved. Within this framework, the article also considers the key Australian decisions where the plaintiffs’ claims against the Crown for vicarious liability and breaches of duty of care were rejected. The discussion in this article indicates that the doors for legal redress are not closed to members of the Australian stolen generation. This article also focuses on whether there was a breach of any such alleged duty of care arising out of the Canadian and Australian removal policies. This is potentially important in both jurisdictions, not just Australia, as the plaintiffs in the Canadian cases that have been determined to date were physically and/or sexually abused whilst detained in institutions pursuant to this removal policy. Thus the main focus in those cases has been on whether the assaults constituted actionable breaches.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".