Preface

• Author: Kean Silverthorn - Christopher VanBerkum
• Pages: 1-2

APPEAL VOLUME 23

n

1

PREFACE

Kean Silverthorn and Christopher VanBerkum

Earlier this ye ar, at a get-together similar to t hose that many lawyers will rec all fondly—

and those outside of law school would look at and wonder how some students get a nything

done—the discu ssion shifted to Appeal’s most recent Cal l for Submissions.

Students started di scussing papers they recently rea d and case commentaries they t hought

were interesting. ey al so talked about the ar ticles they read in Appeal. And then they

talked about their ow n research. Reca lling those disc ussions, one student talked about

a paper she had in progress on environmenta l law and taxation; another discussed his

work on public policy and remedies. ose stud ents—and others—describ ed their work

with passion and precision and a s advocates; they cut through the noise all around us,

commanding att ention and advancing debate a nd discussion.

ose are the sorts of authors (and ar ticles) the Editorial Board seeks out when publishi ng

Appeal; and af ter blinding the submissions sent to Appeal , the Editorial Board found

seven authors who were able to command our attention—and eight articles we wanted

to share with you.

is volume includes a paper on the Site-C hydroelec tric project by Rachel Gutman, who

asserts Treaty 8 must be under stood with respect to the perspective of the sign atory First

Nations, which would put the decision al lowing that hydroelectric project to proceed on

“sh ak y gr oun d.”1 is volume also pre sents a paper on British Columbia’s recently enacted

Water Sustainability Act, and Kathryn Gullason argues t hat this legislation mi sses an

opportunity for British C olumbia to retire its colonial-era water regime and to recogn ize

First Nations’ water rights.2

Although thi s volume’s articles on children appear completely d issimilar, reading t hem

together, they reveal a common conclusion: legal practitioners must listen to ch ildren.

Jerey Nels Westman ack nowledges that the law ha s had diculty li stening to minors,

though they ca n be accommodated, and t hey can be accepted a s truth-tellers at tria l.

And addressing C arter v Canada (Attorney General) (“Carter”), Jessica Bond’s article

acknowledges recent a mendments to the Criminal Code are not necessarily constitutional,

as the regulator y regime adopted as a response to Carter could con ict with children’s

already accepted r ights to life, liberty, and security of the person.3

is volume includes two ar ticles by Sarah Cha ster. In the rst, she addresse s recent

developments on mandatory mini mum sentencing in Canada, and she sug gests Parliament

should amend t he Criminal Code, adopting a “legislati ve exemption clause” as a response

1 Treaty No 8 (21 June 1899), online; 00100028813/110010002885

3> archived at ; Rachel Gutman, “The Stori es We Tell: Site-C,

Treaty 8, and the Duty to Consult and Accom modate” (2018) 23 Appeal 3 at 19, 27.

2 Water Sustainability Act, [SBC 2014] c 15.

3 Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5.