The Challenges of Indigenous Oral History Since Mitchell v Minister of National Revenue
This article answers two questions: How has the Supreme Court of Canada’s Mitchell v Minister of National Revenue decision been operationalized by trial-level courts? Based on these findings, does this decision make room for Aboriginal title and rights claimants to contest dominant understandings of Indigenous presence in the Canadian settler state? Examining the reasoning of six trial-level court decisions, this article finds that Mitchell was operationalized in four of the cases to exclude Indigenous oral history evidence. In its application by trial courts, this article argues that Mitchell does not create opportunities for Indigenous challenges to colonial spatial relationships.
The opinions expressed in APPEAL are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Editors or the Faculty of Law. APPEAL is a refereed review. While every effort is made by the Publisher and the Editorial Board to ensure that APPEAL contains no inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement, the information and opinions contained within are the sole responsibility of the authors. Accordingly, the Publisher, the Editorial Board, the Editors and their respective employees and volunteers accept no responsibility or liability for the consequences of any inaccurate or misleading information, opinion or statement.
Copyright © (2018) Appeal Publishing Society.
All rights reserved. Requests for permission to reproduce or republish any material from anyedition of Appeal should be sent to Appeal Publishing Society.