A signed page beside a will. A daughter who gave up her life to care for her parents. A court is asked to decide whether a single sheet of paper can rewrite an estate. We dig into a recent BC Supreme Court ruling to unpack how WESA’s formal requirements and the curative power of section 58 actually work when intention, capacity, language, and timing collide. If you’ve ever wondered whether “wishes” are enough, this story shows why two witnesses, translation, and dated execution details matter more than heartfelt words.

Then we pivot from probate to plumbing with a small claims case that starts with a jailhouse phone call and ends with a $34,000 invoice. The homeowner’s mom acted as go‑between while crews replaced pumps, chased leaks, and tackled a failing septic system. With spotty records and no signed work authorizations, the judge had to reconstruct a contract from dispatcher notes, GPS logs, and receipts. The result lies between free fix and blank cheque: agency is recognized, unjust enrichment is avoided, and the final award is trimmed to what’s reasonably proven.

Across both cases, one theme holds: intent without process is a gamble. For families, that means executing wills to WESA standards, confirming capacity, and ensuring translation for non‑fluent testators. For trades and contractors, that means written scope, clear rates, change orders, and contemporaneous records that survive scrutiny. These aren’t legal niceties; they are the difference between peace and protracted fights—between getting paid and getting pared down.

If this conversation helps clarify how to protect your wishes and your work, follow the show, share it with someone who needs it, and leave a quick review so others can find it. Your feedback helps us tackle more real cases with practical takeaways.

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

A single sentence in the Criminal Code can decide whether you can legally remove someone from your home—or whether you’re suddenly the one at risk of an assault charge. We break down a fresh BC Supreme Court ruling that reads purpose into Parliament’s 2011 reforms on self-defence and defence of property, answering a practical question with big stakes: if you invite someone in and later revoke consent, can you use reasonable force to make them leave? Short answer: yes, if you give a reasonable time to go and the force is proportionate, because the law was never meant to grant squatters’ rights to rowdy guests and stubborn salespeople.

From there, we follow the thread of “reasonableness” into family law. British Columbia treats partners who live together in a marriage-like relationship for two continuous years as spouses for property division, but the crucial trigger is separation. The two-year limitation period starts when you separate, not when the romance finally fizzles. In the case we unpack, on‑again, off‑again reunions couldn’t reset the clock. If you plan to claim division of property, mark the separation date, organise documents, and act before the window closes.

We close with a cautionary tale about civil procedure and proportionality: a $9,000 used SUV, mechanical trouble, and a claim that ballooned to $250 million. The court ordered security for costs, balancing access to justice against the burden of defending an outsized, low‑merit case with little chance of recovering expenses. Together, these stories showcase how Canadian courts weigh text, purpose, and fairness—guarding property rights, enforcing clear timelines, and filtering litigation through practical safeguards.

If you enjoyed the analysis, follow the show, share it with a friend who loves real‑world law, and leave a quick review to help others find us. 

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

Ever wondered when a judge’s questions stop clarifying and start tilting the scales? We dive into a BC sexual assault case where the trial judge’s heavy-handed interventions—pages of pointed questioning, steering how evidence was led, and relying on answers personally elicited—pushed the process past what a reasonable observer would call fair. The conviction didn’t fall because of proven bias, but because the appearance of fairness matters just as much as the verdict, and the court ordered a new trial to reset the game.

From that courtroom moment, we zoom out to a piece of Canadian legal history that still shapes modern practice: private prosecutions. Yes, “anyone” can lay an information, but today the pathway runs through built-in safeguards—judicial screening, notice to Crown Counsel, and the power for Crown to take over and stay proceedings. We explain when that discretion is virtually unreviewable, and when it crosses into abuse of process due to bad faith, improper purpose, or actions that undermine the integrity of the justice system. Along the way, we examine a real-world attempt to weaponize private prosecutions against police, prosecutors, and politicians, why it failed on evidentiary grounds, and how courts use tools like summary dismissal and ad hoc Crown to keep the system credible.

If you care about fair trials, judicial neutrality, prosecutorial discretion, and the rare but critical safety valves that keep politics in check, this conversation offers a clear, grounded tour of the law in action. Subscribe, share with a friend who loves legal deep dives, and leave a review to tell us where you think the line should be drawn.

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

A 20-year online feud that began on a community website ended with a meticulously planned attack inside a BC courtroom—red clothes to hide blood, a packed suitcase, a knife and a hammer, and alcohol for courage. We walk through how the trial judge weighed mental health evidence against extensive planning, why the NCRMD standard remains a high bar, and how appellate courts defer to sentencing judges unless there’s a clear error. You’ll hear exactly why a 12-year sentence held firm despite arguments for reduced moral culpability.

Then we pivot to a case that could change how your parcels land at your door. Consumer Protection BC ruled that “delivered to the consumer” means more than GPS at your address and a hand-off to an unknown person. When a buyer never saw his $500‑plus item, Amazon leaned on coordinates and history; the regulator leaned on the statute. The result: a full refund, legal costs, and a $10,000 penalty. We break down distance sales contracts, the 30‑day delivery rule, and why terms of service can’t erase statutory rights. For shoppers, this means real recourse when packages vanish. For sellers, it means building proof that the consumer actually received the goods—think signatures, verified IDs, or explicit consent for alternative delivery methods.

Along the way, we highlight the role of courthouse sheriffs in preventing tragedy, the practical meaning of mitigation at sentencing, and the evidence standards that separate suspicion from proof in both criminal and consumer contexts. If you care about justice, safety, and what “delivered” really means, this conversation will sharpen your understanding and give you steps you can use today.

If you found this useful, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a quick review so more listeners can find it. What’s your take: should high‑value deliveries always require a signature?

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

Think “bail reform” will clean up street disorder? We take a hard look at what Bill C‑14 really changes and why it targets the wrong problem. From the presumption of innocence to the right to remain silent, we trace how symbolic tweaks and reverse onus proposals collide with Charter protections while doing little to speed justice or improve safety. If the true bottleneck is time to trial, then the fixes live in courtrooms, staffing, treatment, and housing—not in performative reminders to judges about conditions they already use.

We map the actual bail framework: primary grounds to ensure appearance in court, secondary grounds to protect the public, and tertiary grounds to maintain confidence when the case is overwhelming. Then we examine the principle of restraint, a constitutional guardrail that forbids using bail as punishment or a shortcut to rehabilitation. Along the way, we challenge the idea that adding factors like “outstanding charges” will move the needle when judges already account for risk and record. Tough talk can’t replace trial capacity, and piling on conditions cannot stand in for a system that’s too slow to deliver verdicts.

The conversation shifts to life‑or‑death stakes with the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act and the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Wilson. Parliament’s aim was direct: remove the fear of possession charges when someone calls 911 and stays to help, so more people survive overdoses. The Court agreed that immunity from being charged or convicted necessarily blocks arrests for possession in that context, preventing end‑runs that chill emergency calls. Police still have tools for other offences when grounds exist, but they can’t use possession as a pretext at overdose scenes. It’s a decision that aligns law with public health and trust.

If you want a justice system that is fair and effective, this episode offers a clear roadmap: defend core rights, invest in speed and capacity, and design laws that solve real problems. Listen, share with a friend who cares about public safety and civil liberties, and leave a review to keep these conversations moving forward.

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

A guilty plea, a forgotten past, and a courtroom test of how identity meets justice. We open with a 2011 assault case resolved by a joint submission: an 18‑month conditional sentence after the accused conceded his force exceeded self‑defence. Years later, he discovered his father was Indigenous and obtained status, then sought an out‑of‑time appeal to revisit both plea and sentence. We walk through the legal gatekeeping for late appeals—intention, prejudice, merit, and the interests of justice—and unpack why section 718.2(e) and the Supreme Court’s Gladue jurisprudence require more than ancestry alone. Without a Gladue report or concrete evidence tying personal background to the offence and sentence, the Court of Appeal found no basis to disturb a non‑custodial disposition, underscoring the balance between individualized justice and finality.

Then the floor drops out on a modern confidence game. A Victoria woman was lured by “1% per day” crypto returns, saw early profits, re‑mortgaged her home, and pushed $671,000 through a cryptocurrency exchange to a third‑party wallet. Could the exchange be liable in negligence? We break down duty of care, standard of care, causation, and damages, and why the court concluded the platform did everything a reasonable exchange should: prominent written warnings, live calls from staff and a supervisor urging her to stop, risk scoring on the destination wallet, and documented customer pressure to proceed. The claim failed, and the case now stands as a sharp warning about irreversible blockchain transfers and the psychology of fraud.

If you care about Canadian criminal law, Indigenous sentencing principles, or investor protection in crypto, this story delivers practical takeaways: build a real record for Gladue considerations; treat “guaranteed” returns as a red flag; and know that platforms can warn you, but they can’t always save you. Like what you heard? Follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a quick review to help others find thoughtful legal analysis that cuts through the noise.

Follow this link for a transcript of the case and links to the cases dismissed.

A notorious criminal case and a sweeping policy change collide in one packed hour, and the throughline is unmistakable: how law balances dignity, proof, and practical consequences. We start by unpacking the latest development in the Robert Picton matter: with the RCMP ending their investigation and holding thousands of seized items—some believed to be human remains—families sought a court order to keep everything preserved for a civil occupiers’ liability claim against Picton’s estate and his brother. We walk you through why the judge refused. The key: meticulous police documentation, DNA profiles, and forensic records made the physical remains unnecessary to the civil issues, while the coroner is legally mandated to identify, notify families, and ensure respectful disposition. It’s a difficult ruling with a humane core—moving evidence out of limbo and toward answers.

From there, we pivot to construction law’s next big shake-up: Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act. If you build, supply, wire, pour, or manage, this matters. We break down the “proper invoice” requirements, the 28-day payment clock (plus seven days per tier), and the new adjudication system designed to unstick payment disputes before they snowball. We map real-world risk: multi-layered chains, scope changes, and deficiency claims colliding with statutory deadlines. And we examine oversight, including how judicial review is framed, why documentation will be your best defence, and how to align contracts, invoicing, and site practice so cash keeps moving.

By the end, you’ll understand why the court’s decision may bring families closer to closure—and why construction businesses need to prepare now for compliance, adjudication, and potential work stoppages if payments fail. If this conversation helps you think differently about evidence, dignity, and getting people paid, follow the show, share it with your team, and leave a review to help more listeners find it.

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

A seven‑month marriage sparked on a sugar‑arrangement site, a $12,000/month support bid, and a dog named Frankie—this one has layers. We open with a candid walk‑through of interim spousal support: what it’s for, how courts weigh “capacity to pay,” and why selling capital assets to fund an opulent lifestyle isn’t the same as earning income. The applicant’s luxury‑level budget meets judicial scrutiny, while the respondent’s push to impute escort income and point to family wealth hits legal limits. The end result—$4,000/month plus a retroactive lump—shows how judges balance short marriages, realistic needs, and the difference between lifestyle and income.

Then the plot thickens. A same‑day, ex parte protection order leads to disputed removals from the home and a tussle over Frankie. We unpack how BC’s Family Law Act treats companion animals: not as handbags, but through factors like who provided care, safety concerns, and well‑being. On an interim basis, Frankie stays put—illustrating how courts separate urgent stability from final outcomes and insist on full candour when seeking protective relief.

The second half pivots to evidence law and a rare rebuke: the province sought a lifetime ban on a man from a welfare office, relying on an internal incident report as a “business record.” Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal said no. We explain why “ordinary course of business” demands reliability—think automated receipts and bank statements—not a narrative drafted post‑incident for litigation. Even beyond admissibility, the appellate court flags proportionality: a permanent injunction is an extraordinary remedy, not a default response.

If you care about how courts actually draw the line between income and spending, how interim orders stabilize without deciding the future, how pet custody really works, and when business records are admissible, this conversation is your blueprint. Listen, share with a friend who loves law done plainly, and leave a quick review to help others find the show.

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

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.