Where do your constitutional protections begin and end? The dividing line between private actions and state authority forms the heart of a fascinating BC Court of Appeal decision that clarifies when ordinary citizens become "agents of the police."

The case centers on Loomis Courier employees who, at police direction, set aside suspicious packages for warrantless seizure during a drug investigation. Unlike previous cases involving independent security guards or school administrators, these employees were acting on specific police instructions. The Court established that the key test is whether individuals would have conducted themselves the same way "but for" police involvement—a crucial distinction that determines whether evidence can be excluded from criminal trials.

Privacy rights received further examination in a separate ruling that overturned a class action against the doctor rating website RateMDs.com. The Court determined that publicly available professional information—like a doctor's office address or phone number—doesn't carry a reasonable expectation of privacy protected under BC's Privacy Act. This distinction between truly private information and professional details available through other sources highlights the contextual nature of privacy protections in the digital age.

The Court also addressed the tension between professional standards and constitutional freedoms in a case involving a lawyer disciplined for sharing inappropriate "locker room talk" about a judge with a client. While not condoning the behavior, the ruling emphasized that regulatory bodies must balance conduct requirements against fundamental rights like freedom of expression—even when regulating professionals whose speech carries special responsibilities.

These rulings collectively illustrate how courts navigate the complex intersection of individual rights, professional obligations, and state authority. They remind us that understanding these boundaries is essential in a world where the line between private and public actions continues to blur. What private actions in your life might unexpectedly cross into constitutional territory?

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

What happens when the line between victim and perpetrator blurs in the eyes of the law? When a homeowner confronts a crossbow-wielding intruder or store employees stop a car theft, should they face criminal charges or civil lawsuits for defending themselves and their property?

Barrister Michael Mulligan unpacks the controversial legal landscape of self-defense in Canada, explaining how the 2012 amendments to the Criminal Code created a complex "reasonableness" requirement for those protecting themselves or others. This means that even when facing deadly threats in your own home, the law expects you to consider factors like the relative size, age, and gender of your attacker before responding. As Mulligan notes, "When you're fighting for your life or to save your children, you don't need to worry about weighing up how old this person is and what their gender is."

The discussion extends beyond criminal liability to civil lawsuits, highlighting a case where a self-described "career criminal" is suing grocery store employees who prevented him from stealing a car, claiming they damaged his self-esteem. This mirrors Alberta's experience, where a rancher faced legal action from a thief after firing a warning shot. The provincial response—legislation preventing "criminal trespassers" from suing unless force was "grossly disproportionate"—offers a potential model for other provinces.

The episode also examines a revealing case about Uber's wheelchair accessibility requirements in BC. Instead of mandating accessible vehicles, the government collects a 90-cent fee per non-accessible trip—money that disappears into general revenue while wheelchair users remain unable to use the service. When one wheelchair user won a $35,000 human rights award, the BC Supreme Court overturned it, revealing the tension between regulation and actual solutions.

These cases raise fundamental questions about our legal priorities: Should we better protect those defending themselves and their property? And when regulations like Uber's accessibility fee don't solve the actual problem, what's their real purpose? Listen for an eye-opening look at where our laws might be failing those they're meant to protect.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed. 

What happens when a legal system designed for small claims is used to tackle complex issues involving international companies and constitutional requirements? Barrister and Solicitor Michael Mulligan takes us inside a fascinating recent case that exposes serious flaws in British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal system.

Originally created to efficiently handle disputes under $5,000 and minor strata disagreements, the CRT has been expanded into areas far beyond its capabilities. The recent decision involving Twitter/X reveals a troubling reality: secret decisions and unenforceable orders against international companies, with no authority to address constitutional challenges, and vulnerability to exploitation through AI-generated submissions. The tribunal found itself ordering a Texas company to mail a $100,000 penalty to a Victoria PO box - an exercise in futility that undermines confidence in our justice system.

The conversation then shifts to a cautionary tale about insurance coverage that every homeowner needs to hear. A family lost hundreds of thousands in coverage when their house burned down from a prayer candle fire - not because of any wrongdoing related to the fire, but because they failed to disclose an abandoned marijuana grow operation in a distant outbuilding. This case demonstrates the critical "utmost good faith" principle in insurance: failing to notify your insurer in writing about any material change in risk can void your coverage completely, even when that change has nothing to do with your claim. Consider all the renovations, changes, or activities on your property that might constitute "material changes in risk" - your financial security may depend on proper disclosure.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

Fentanyl trafficking sentences in BC just got a major overhaul. The BC Court of Appeal has mapped out clearer sentencing guidelines, creating a three-tier system that reflects the devastating impact of the deadly opioid crisis. Street-level dealers now face 18 months to 3 years, mid-level traffickers 4-7 years, and wholesale distributors 8-15 years behind bars. The Court emphasized this framework still allows judges to tailor sentences to individual circumstances, but makes clear that the gravity of fentanyl trafficking demands serious consequences. With over 14,500 British Columbians having lost their lives to toxic drugs in just eight years, the justice system is responding with a structured approach to punishment.

At Simon Fraser University, academic freedom and freedom of association collided when faculty members challenged their own Faculty Association's resolutions on Gaza. The controversial statements narrowly passed but sparked a legal battle under the Societies Act. The case highlights a fascinating tension - what happens when you're required to belong to an organization that takes political positions you fundamentally oppose? The court ultimately allowed the Faculty Association broad latitude in its activities, continuing a precedent that permits professional associations to venture beyond their core employment-related purposes. This ruling affects anyone in Canada who must maintain membership in unions or professional organizations.

We wrap up with a constructive dismissal case that seems straight out of a comedy sketch - except it was all too real for the employee involved. A 63-year-old comptroller was given notice of termination but required to keep working for eight months while being gradually replaced by someone actually named "Mr. Bean." Adding insult to injury, the employee was relocated to an interior office without air conditioning (at an air conditioning company!). The court recognized these cumulative actions created an intolerable work environment, awarding 15 months' severance and confirming employers cannot circumvent termination obligations by making work conditions unbearable.

Have questions about how these legal developments might affect you? We'd love to hear your thoughts on these fascinating intersections of law and everyday life. Subscribe to catch our weekly legal insights and join the conversation about how our justice system continues to evolve.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

When does a driving mistake become a crime? The latest Court of Appeal ruling tackles this haunting question through the case of a driver who missed a red light, causing a collision that killed an 18-month-old child and seriously injured the father. Despite the devastating outcome, the court upheld the driver's acquittal on dangerous driving charges, drawing a careful distinction between tragedy and criminality.

The case illuminates the legal threshold for dangerous driving in Canada. Unlike provincial traffic violations, criminal dangerous driving requires a "marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver." This distinction carries enormous consequences in BC's no-fault insurance system, where criminal convictions can leave drivers personally liable for millions in damages with no insurance coverage. The ruling affirms that momentary lapses in attention, while potentially catastrophic, don't automatically cross into criminal territory.

Also examined was a fascinating estate case spanning nearly four decades. When a terminally ill woman created her will in 1984, she couldn't have anticipated her modest $50,000 home would be worth $1.2 million by the time her partner died 37 years later. The court had to determine whether her children should receive half the original value or half the current value—ultimately ruling that the original value prevailed. Finally, we explored how "unexplained wealth orders" in civil forfeiture cases can force individuals to account for suspicious assets like million-dollar properties and cash hoards that don't match their declared income.

These cases remind us how legal decisions shape lives in profound ways, whether determining criminal liability for split-second errors, interpreting decades-old intentions, or requiring explanations for suspiciously acquired wealth. Subscribe to our podcast for more insightful legal analysis that makes complex Canadian law accessible and meaningful.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

The foundation of property ownership in British Columbia faces a potential earthquake with the landmark Cowichan Tribes decision. After what may be Canada's longest trial—spanning over 500 days—the judge delivered an 800-page ruling that could fundamentally alter who truly owns land throughout the province.

Michael Mulligan breaks down this complex legal battle by explaining the collision between two powerful forces: BC's Torrens property system and Aboriginal title claims under Section 35 of the Constitution. The Torrens system provides what legal experts call "indefeasible title"—conclusive proof of ownership registered with the government that enables secure property transactions and mortgage lending. But the judge has ruled that Aboriginal title is "a prior and senior right to land" that can exist simultaneously with registered property ownership, potentially superseding private property rights despite the Torrens system's guarantees.

The implications are profound. If Aboriginal title claims—which cover virtually the entire province, often with overlapping claims from multiple Indigenous groups—can override registered property ownership, what happens to homeowners who've worked their entire lives to pay for their properties? The economic consequences could be equally severe, as mortgage lending depends on the certainty of ownership. As Mulligan observes, the legal system ultimately depends on public acceptance: "If I tell you that the house you worked for and paid for is no longer yours, I don't know that that's generally going to be accepted." With BC already announcing its intention to appeal, this case will likely progress through higher courts, where judges must balance constitutional obligations to Indigenous peoples with maintaining a functional property system. Listen now to understand what's at stake for every property owner in British Columbia.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discsused. 

A fascinating exploration of justice, liberty, and the limits of government power unfolds through three recent BC legal cases. When a minimum-security prisoner at William Head was caught embracing a senior correctional officer, the warden's decision to transfer him to a higher-security facility backfired spectacularly. The BC Supreme Court ruled the decision "unreasonable," highlighting how even prisoners retain certain liberties that can't be arbitrarily removed. The judge particularly noted the warden's failure to address the significant power imbalance between the inmate and staff member – a consideration that might have led to very different outcomes had gender roles been reversed.

Border security technology stars in our second case, where sophisticated imaging detected 64 kilograms of cocaine hidden in the wall of a semi-trailer truck cab. The driver's claim of being a "blind courier" unraveled when experts testified that the elaborate hidden compartments would have cost upwards of $60,000 and taken weeks to install – an investment no one would make only to hand the vehicle over to an unwitting driver. The case reveals not only the sophisticated methods of drug detection at the border but also provides expert confirmation that cocaine primarily flows northward from Central America through the US into Canada, contradicting certain political narratives about cross-border drug trafficking.

Our final case demonstrates the limits of property rights in Canada as BC mink farmers lost their final appeal against the government's pandemic-era decision to permanently shut down their industry. Unlike the United States, Canada offers significantly less constitutional protection for private property, allowing governments broad regulatory powers without triggering compensation requirements. Whether you're concerned about prisoner rights, border security, or government regulation of business, these cases illuminate the delicate balance between individual liberties and state authority in Canadian society. What other industries might face similar regulatory challenges in the future?

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

Frustrated by an airline refusing compensation for your delayed flight? You might have more power than you think. Legal expert Michael Mulligan walks us through a fascinating Civil Resolution Tribunal case where passengers successfully challenged WestJet's weather-related excuses and secured $1,000 each in compensation. By gathering evidence showing other airlines operating during the supposedly problematic conditions, these passengers demonstrated how everyday Canadians can effectively navigate the Air Passenger Protection Regulations through BC's accessible online tribunal system.

The conversation shifts to judicial impartiality with a cautionary West Vancouver demolition dispute. When a judge ordered a fire-damaged house demolished, no one realized she had previously advised the municipality on that very case before her appointment to the bench. This oversight led the Court of Appeal to cancel the injunction, highlighting the critical importance of judicial independence and the challenges judges face in identifying conflicts without the robust database systems used by law firms.

Perhaps most eye-opening is the revelation about what your modern vehicle knows and remembers about your driving. Event data recorders in today's cars capture crucial information during accidents - your speed, whether you were wearing a seatbelt, and if you applied the brakes before impact. In a groundbreaking decision, a court determined that this extracted data constitutes a "thing" rather than a "document" under criminal code provisions, requiring police to obtain judicial permission to retain it when no charges have been filed. This legal distinction reinforces important protections against indefinite police retention of digital evidence.

Whether you're planning air travel, wondering about judicial ethics, or simply curious about what your car might reveal after an accident, this discussion offers valuable insights into how our legal system addresses everyday challenges in an increasingly technological world.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed. 

What happens when legal formulas, charge approval standards, and competing legitimate needs collide with real human lives? Today's deep dive examines three significant cases that reveal the profound human impact of our justice systems.

The Hockey Canada sexual assault trial verdict brings crucial lessons about the presumption of innocence and the value of detailed judicial reasoning. Unlike jury trials that provide no explanation, this judge-alone trial delivered a comprehensive analysis of why all the accused were acquitted. The judge methodically explained finding the complainant neither credible nor reliable, citing multiple conflicting statements and video evidence contradicting later allegations. This case powerfully demonstrates why we cannot start from assumptions of guilt when allegations are made, regardless of how emotionally charged the circumstances might be.

Meanwhile, a shocking Civil Resolution Tribunal decision exposes the harsh reality of ICBC's no-fault insurance system. A driver suffering permanent vision impairment after being rear-ended received zero compensation because his "floating pink blob" injury—though permanent and debilitating—didn't fit neatly into the mandatory mathematical formula. This case starkly illustrates how dehumanizing rigid regulatory systems can be when they fail to account for individual circumstances. Those ICBC rebates come at a steep cost: significantly diminished rights for accident victims.

Finally, a Songhees Nation land dispute reveals painful competing needs. Elderly mobile home residents face eviction and potential homelessness as the Nation reclaims land to address severe housing shortages for its members. Despite decades of paying property taxes, the court found these residents have no special protections since provincial mobile home regulations don't apply on reserve lands. Both sides have legitimate needs, yet our legal framework offers no elegant solution.

These cases remind us that behind every legal decision are real people facing life-altering consequences. How do we balance competing rights? When should human judgment override mathematical formulas? What protections should our justice systems provide? Listen now to explore these essential questions about justice in our communities.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed. 

The boundaries of judicial authority in Canada have been redrawn by a groundbreaking Supreme Court ruling that empowers judges to conduct murder trials without juries—even when prosecutors object. This remarkable case emerged from the early pandemic when COVID-19 made traditional jury trials nearly impossible. A defendant, unwilling to face further delay, requested a judge-alone trial, but prosecutors refused consent. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the trial judge who proceeded anyway, establishing that protecting a defendant's right to timely justice can override prosecutorial preferences.

This ruling fundamentally reshapes our understanding of what falls within a prosecutor's untouchable "core discretion" versus what judges can override to protect Charter rights. Legal scholars are now watching closely to see how this precedent might extend to other prosecutorial decisions previously considered untouchable.

Property rights received equal attention through a fascinating case where a regional district built what the court bluntly called an "ugly dam" on part of a 157-acre ranch property in the Kootenays. Though only a small portion of land was taken, it transformed a pristine natural lake into an artificial-looking reservoir with an unsightly rocky dam. The court awarded the owner $340,080 in compensation, reinforcing the principle that the government must pay not just for land taken but for how the taking diminishes a property's overall market value.

Most controversial is the Nanaimo murder case, challenging Canada's mandatory 25-year parole ineligibility period for first-degree murder. A man who brutally killed someone with a baseball bat argued that, without the now-eliminated "faint hope clause" (which once allowed parole reviews after 15 years), this sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Though the judge found the elimination of this clause unconstitutional, the offender still received the full 25-year parole ineligibility due to the brutality of his crime.

These cases collectively demonstrate how our legal system constantly balances competing interests—public safety against individual rights, government needs against property ownership, and societal punishment against constitutional protections against cruelty.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.