20092 research outputs found
Sort by
Anishinabek Knowledge and Climate Disaster
No full textAn Anishinabek-specific framing of climate-related problems and approaches highlights place-based examples of relationships affected by climate change. Policy framings that exclude and undermine Indigenous nations and communities in domestic and international contexts have dominated for generations in North America and elsewhere. While not being prescriptive, Indigenous approaches offer elemental considerations for inclusion of multiple. Innovative perspectives that can address problems caused by climate change and other environmental degradations. By drawing from Anishinabek Traditional Knowledge and peoples’ relationship to place, climate change is understood as a relational problem, through multiple angles that foreground Indigenous history and reality to bring insight on understanding responsibilities between species
Aligned with the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights? An Artificial Intelligence Transparency Evaluation of Company Privacy Notices and Explanations
No full textIn 2022, U.S. President Biden\u27s administration released a Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. The Blueprint lists “notice and explanation” as one of five principles fundamental to delivering consumer protections as artificial intelligence (AI) is developed and used. This qualitative assessment of 40 company websites evaluates the extent to which privacy/AI notices align with this call for AI transparency. The assessment assigns full, half, or zero stars on ten transparency criteria, including (among others): whether notices are accessible via company websites and in plain language, reference applicable laws, explain how AI systems work, their risks, data retention policies, and data storage/processing policies. Findings suggest companies convey privacy transparency elements but disclose few details about the use/implications of AI. The average score across the sample is 2.95/10 stars. Each company provides homepage access to notices and information about applicable law. Many provide details about data storage/processing though only eighteen describe data retention. While some provide minimal definitions of automated systems, few explain how AI systems work or the risks of use. 34/40 require a grade twelve or higher reading-level, and most provide AI details away from the privacy policy. To support the auditability of AI systems via consent-based protections companies should improve upon these transparency efforts. Companies should better-align with calls for AI transparency like those from the Biden White House, currently accessible via the U.S. National Archives. Accessible and plain language notices are recommended, as are details about how AI systems work, and the implications of AI development and use
The Section 32(1) Analysis: Clarifying Eldridge in Light of York Region District School Board
No full textThe Eldridge framework, a stable feature of Canadian Charter jurisprudence for decades, sets out part of the framework for determining when entities or activities qualify as “government” under section 32(1), the Charter’s application section. In light of this stability, the Supreme Court of Canada’s analysis of the section 32(1) issue in York Region District School Board v Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario was surprising. It raised the question: Why did the Court in York Region deviate from well-settled law on the Eldridge framework and, in the process, seemingly change the framework’s thresholds? This question arises because the Court in York Region does not acknowledge or explain its departure from settled law. This, in turn, raises another question: What is the impact of York Region on the Eldridge framework and on the interpretation of section 32(1) in future cases?
In response, this paper argues that York Region should not be read to lower the threshold for what counts as “government” under the first branch of the Eldridge framework or as diminishing the deliberation expected in applying the framework. Instead, the Court’s analysis of the section 32(1) issue in York Region rests on a common but flawed premise: that Eldridgegoverns every inquiry into whether an entity is “government” under section 32(1). To identify and overcome this flawed premise, this paper maps the structure of a complete section 32(1) analysis and argues that, properly understood, Eldridge is neither the first step in the section 32(1) analysis nor a necessary step. Rather, the Eldridge framework is the final step in the analysis, engaged only when the entity in question does not fall within an established category of “government”.
The paper goes on to explain the analytical path that the Court should have followed in York Region when concluding that Ontario’s public school boards are “government” and thus bound by the Charter. In this sense, York Region highlights not a doctrinal shift in the law of section 32(1) of the Charter, but rather the need to clarify and discipline the use of Eldridge in future cases
When Digital Platforms Intrude Into the Regulation of Paid Domestic Work: The Case of Formalisation in Argentina
Full text linkPaid domestic work is governed simultaneously by several normative frameworks that have different sources. Traditionally, it has been regulated by what Adelle Blackett defines as the “law of the household workplace,” as well as by state law. Thus, the tension between these two normative frameworks makes effective access to rights uncertain for domestic workers, even those with formal labour contracts. In addition, when digital platforms intervene, their rules also apply. From a sociological perspective, and using the categories forged by historical institutionalism to study dynamics of institutional change, this article aims to understand how different normative systems — formal and informal — come into tension when regulating paid domestic work. It does so by focusing on the formalisation of the labour relationship. The question confronted here is not why formalisation occurs (or, more often, why it does not), but rather when it occurs (or when employers and domestic workers expect it to occur). This question appears to be linked to the particular uses and interpretations of three key issues: the trial period established by labour law, the time required to build a relationship of trust according with the “law of the household workplace,” and the “satisfaction guarantee” established by the digital platform. I argue that the overlap between these three competing, albeit co-existing, normative frameworks creates a space of regulatory ambiguity that allows domestic workers, employers, and the digital platform to reinterpret the legal norms and tailor enforcement mechanisms to their own interests
Probative of Prejudice: Procedural Unfairness Underlying Security Threat Group Classifications in Canadian Prisons
Full text linkAchieving meaningful oversight and enforcement of prisoners’ rights has long been a challenge for those incarcerated in Canada’s prison system. This is illustrated in part by how the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) applies the Security Threat Group (STG) classification to Black prisoners. CSC disproportionately classifies Black prisoners as being members or affiliates of STGS–even when those allegations are of unknown reliability. This paper analytically highlights how this practice impacts the liberty interests of these prisoners on the basis of unproven allegations. It also considers how a lack of procedural safeguards in this context contributes to a larger pattern of systemic anti-Black racism within Canadian prisons. This paper argues that requiring STG involvement to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before an independent decision-maker would serve as an important reform toward addressing this issue. While such a measure would not remedy the systemic nature of anti-Black racism within CSC, it could nevertheless meaningfully reduce instances of unfounded STG classifications for all prisoners, avoid arbitrarily prolonging periods of incarceration, and serve as a basis to expand procedural safeguards in response to other forms of over-securitization
Preface
No full textThe articles in this issue address questions of deep relevance to contemporary labour law and policy. They reflect a high standard of research and offer rich comparative and theoretical insights that we are confident will be of value to our readership. We are grateful to the guest editors for their stewardship and to the authors for their contributions, and we are pleased to help ensure that this important work reaches the public domain
Strike Law and Workers’ Power Resources in Global Supply Chains and Platform Giants
No full textThe right to strike is a key feature of freedom of association and effective collective bargaining. We consider how the legal regulation of strikes and boycotts affects the power resources available to workers and unions to improve working conditions and workers’ voice in firms, such as global supply chains and platform giants, that utilize network-of-contracts business models. We begin by bringing the literatures on power resources theory and supply chain and platform capitalism into conversation. Treating law as a form of institutional power influencing workers’ ability to exercise other power resources in network-of-contracts business models, we then examine how the laws regulating strikes influence workers’ ability to mobilize their other power resources to affect the terms and conditions of work. We investigate the Make Amazon Pay campaign and related strikes to gauge how the legal regulation of strikes affects workers’ power to disrupt supply and production under network-of-contracts business models. We conclude by highlighting the need to revise the law of strikes to fit the power relations under supply and platform capitalism
The Last Human Job: The Work of Connecting in a Disconnected World by Allison J. Pugh, Princeton University Press, 2024
No full text“I FEEL SO SEEN!” has become a Gen-Z catchphrase for the sense of personal validation when something you experience resonates with your own way of being in the world — say, when you learn that a lyric you’ve always misheard is also misunderstood by someone else, or that a guilty pleasure in which you indulge isn’t unique to you. These days, the phrase is often thrown around light-heartedly online in response to memes or TikTok videos. But the experience of really “being seen” is far from trivial; it’s a form of recognition essential to human functioning and community. Seeing another person — bearing witness to their circumstances and experiences and reflecting that understanding back to them — is a surprisingly central function of many jobs up and down the socioeconomic ladder, from physicians to funeral directors
Rethinking the Applicability of Section 8 of the Canadian Charter for the Information Age and Beyond
No full textThe Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has remained fairly stable since the adoption of the Charter. Or at least, that is how the Court’s section 8 jurisprudence to date makes it seem. Yet, in some recent decisions dealing with digital communications and the internet—culminating in the 2024 case of R. v. Bykovets—the Court has, implicitly, brought into question the foundational principle based on which the right has historically been circumscribed. Or so I argue in this article, contending further that this development should be applauded and pave the way for a rethinking of the scope of applicability of the section. In section I, I explain the orthodox position about the applicability of section 8 and outline key controversies that arose in its development and have since remained unaddressed. I then seek to problematize the position further by identifying some questionable implications that the Court has held it to have over the years. In section II, I situate and review the recent decision in Bykovets and show how it invites a rethinking of the scope of applicability of section 8. In section III, I argue that the logic of the Bykovets majority opinion should lead the Supreme Court to expand the reach of 8 section to all non-accidental gatherings of information about individuals by the state. In an era in which, more than ever before, information is power, I argue that, for section 8 to protect us meaningfully against unjustified informational overreach by the state, all such collections should be subject to the rule of law and the attendant possibility of judicial control