Preface

• Author: Kevin Menz - Lauren Sutherland
• Pages: 1-2

APPEAL VOLUME 25

n

1

PREFACE

Kevin Menz and Lauren Sutherland

We take pride at Appeal Publishin g Society in describing our journal a s “student run,” but

the term does not truly convey t he work students put into all aspects of the journal. Appeal :

Review of Current La w and Law Reform is student driven. Our b oard members, including

ourselves, are student s. Our podcast, Stare Indecisis, is produced by students. A majority of

our authors, year af ter year, are students. e volunteers listed in the introduction page s

of our journal are student s. Student eorts are behind our journal’s 25 years of succe ss.

Volume 25 marks a milestone for Appeal. Our journa l, now a staple within the University

of Victoria Faculty of Law, started i n 1995. e rst issue, its editorial add ress reads, was

borne when several students saw t he possibility of producing a  rst-rate law journal run

by students. e goal: “to provide a forum for dis cussing the state of Can adian law and

possibilities for its reform in a man ner that was accessible, chal lenging, and representative

of the views of tomorrow’s law-makers.” e rst board sought to be, in the members’ own

words, “alternative.” e editors committed to publishing s tudent work, to providing an

outlet for students to express their obs ervations and ideas.

Twenty-ve years later, the vision still holds strong.

e journal this ye ar is, once again, driven by top student work.

Volume 25 features pieces from seven authors, including th ree current University of

Victoria students—JD ca ndidates Leila Gai nd and Katie Dakus a nd JD/MPA student

Suzy Flader— and two authors—Sydne y McIvor and Chase Blair—w ith undergraduate

degrees from the un iversity.

Gaind chal lenges the rhetoric surrounding t he police practice of “well-being check s” in

her work, “A Rose by Any Other Name: Well-Being Checks, a New Man ifestation of

Discriminatory Policing ?” While police fra me well-being checks as a nec essary tool for

promoting the social welf are of vulnerable communit y members, Gaind argues t hat the

practice is simply another form of di scriminatory policing.

Dakus’s article, “From Ring ing to Impinging: e Intrusion of Technology into the

Employment Relationship,” calls out the need for Can ada’s labour laws to protect employees

in an age of technolog y in which pressures to respond to often const ant after-hours emails,

text messages , and phone call s lead to the performa nce of unpaid labour.

Flader, whose review of Putting Trials on Trial: Sexual Assau lt and the Failure of the Legal

Profession was published in las t year’s Appeal journal, is again featured i n Volume 25. Her

piece, “Fundamental R ights for All: Toward Equality as a Principle of Funda mental Justice

under Section 7 of the Charter,” contends that expa nding the principles of f undamental

justice to include equalit y will allow courts to a ssess claimants’ unique and interse ctional

societal positions when ru ling on section 7 Charter claims of marginalized claimants.