AuthorSamrah Mian - Aaron Francis
I must go back here to the partic ular incidents which occur to my thoughts of the time of th e
visitation, and partic ularly to the time of their shutting up houses in the  rst part of their
sickness; for before the sickness w as come to its height people had more room to make their
observations than they h ad afterward; but when it was in the ext remity there was no such
thing as communication with one an other, as before.
Daniel Defoe, A Journa l of the Plague Year, 1722
Welcome to our journal of a pandemic year. 2020 has c hanged all our lives. Some of
us have lost loved ones. We have all strugg led to keep connected, and to maintain the
relationships that sust ain us in times of happiness and dicu lty.
Yet, this is not Daniel Defoe’s plague. True, in 2020, “there was no such t hing as
communication with one another, as before”. But we have other tools to stay vir tually
is is the rst ti me—and, we hope, the last time— that Appeal is produced entirely
virtua lly. In most cases, our e ditors have never met in person. A ll our meetings were held
online, and all ou r conversations and delibe rations mediated through technology. We
learned to “unmute” ourselves, to put our comments i n the “chat”, to “reply in thread”.
Despite these peculia rities, it has been an incredible year for Appeal . We had a record
number of submissions. A signic ant number of volunteers turned out for our submissions
review sessions. A s always, our expert reviewers were incred ibly generous with their t ime
and expertise . We are grateful to t hose who submitted ar ticles and to everyone who freely
gave their time and eor t to put this project toget her under trying circumstanc es.
Volume 26 features works by six authors, including t wo from the University of Victoria
Faculty of Law. e rst part of t he volume addresse s Indigenous issues within the scope
of Aboriginal tit le and rights, child protection, and representation on juries. e latter
half exa mines critical areas requiri ng legal reform in environmental remediation, the dut y
of care owed by universities, a nd the gendered aspects of family relocation.
In 2001, Mitchell v Minister of National Revenue set out gu idelines on interpreting
modern Aborigina l rights. Alexandra Potamianos c onsiders how courts since have used
the decision to restrict the ad mission of oral history evidence and nds t hat, in eect,
Mitchell’s restrictive approach ha s limited the ability of Indigenous groups seekin g to
claim Aborigi nal title and rights.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT