A will that looks proper on paper can still fall apart under real scrutiny. We walk through a striking Court of Appeal decision where a 92‑year‑old’s revised will took 18 nieces and nephews from life‑changing inheritances to token gifts, while siblings stood to gain over a million each. The key isn’t drama; it’s doctrine. When circumstances around a will raise well‑grounded suspicion—undue influence, unclear capacity, or radical shifts without explanation—the usual presumption of validity drops away, and the burden flips to the person pushing the will to prove it’s sound.

We unpack how that burden‑shifting works, why “residue” can hide huge sums, and what evidence is needed to show the testator actually understood the size and consequences of their choices. You’ll hear how earlier documents, contradictory statements, and who drafted instructions can become powerful facts. In the end, the appellate court restored the original 2001 will, returning substantial shares to the nieces and nephews and offering a roadmap for spotting red flags in estate planning.

Then we change gears to civil costs in British Columbia. A neighbour dispute over excavation damage led to a modest award in the Supreme Court, raising hard questions about forum selection, mitigation duties, and how costs can swing based on strategy and behaviour. One twist: the self‑represented plaintiffs relied on AI, which produced fake case citations. Thankfully, counsel caught the hallucinations immediately, but there were still cost consequences—and a clear lesson. Use AI as a starting point, never an authority. Verify every citation on CanLII, read the full text, and note up decisions to see what the law is today, not yesterday.

If you care about clean estate planning, sound litigation strategy, and staying safe with legal tech, this conversation is your checklist. Subscribe, share with someone who needs it, and leave a quick review to help others find the show. What part challenged your assumptions most?

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

What happens when a charity’s promise of affordable homeownership collides with tenancy law, a defendant’s faith collides with courtroom rules, and a tiny ownership share collides with a big tax bill? We dig into three BC Court of Appeal storylines that ripple through daily life, showing how legal reasoning protects public purpose, fair trials, and housing policy.

First, we unpack a pivotal ruling that keeps Habitat for Humanity’s early occupancy model alive. A participant who entered a home through sweat equity and income-based “occupancy fees” argued she was a tenant protected by the Residential Tenancy Act. The Court of Appeal took a purposive view: those flexible, sometimes zero-dollar payments weren’t rent, and the agreement aimed at ownership, not tenancy. By restoring the original adjudicator’s call, the court preserved a pathway for families to move toward buying, without forcing a charity into a role it wasn’t designed to fill.

Next, we tackle the sharp line between mental illness and trial fitness. A woman facing a firearm charge held intense religious beliefs, rejected medication, and said Jesus would represent her. The Crown claimed she was unfit; the judge said she understood the nature and consequences of proceedings and could communicate with counsel. The takeaway is clear: the law presumes fitness and respects even poor or unconventional choices unless a mental disorder blocks basic comprehension. Faith-informed thinking isn’t the same as being unable to have a fair trial.

Finally, we clarify a costly misconception about the foreign buyer tax. A couple split title 95/5 between a Canadian and a foreign national, hoping the surcharge would apply only to the small share. The court said the tax hits the full property value when any buyer meets the foreign buyer definition, reflecting legislative intent to deter workarounds through fractional title or trusts. If you’re structuring a purchase, this ruling sets expectations and helps avoid expensive surprises.

If you found these insights useful, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review telling us which ruling changed your mind.

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

A small BC registry faced an outsized problem: one litigant’s avalanche of quasi‑legal letters and “certificates” that looked official enough to demand hours or days of staff time to sort, scan, and check. We trace how the Attorney General sought an injunction and how the court landed on a careful middle ground—no more bulk mail, but full access for legitimate filings in person, by agent, or through Court Services Online, with authority to discard items that don’t meet the Rules of Court. It’s a practical fix aimed at protecting open courts from being gamed by invented paperwork, without closing the door on real claims.

From there, we pivot to the high‑stakes world of civil forfeiture and unexplained wealth orders in British Columbia. Unlike criminal forfeiture, these tools can target property without a conviction and sometimes on reasonable suspicion alone. We break down how the civil standard shifts burdens, why Section 8 privacy arguments matter, and what “in rem” actions mean when the state goes after assets rather than people. You’ll hear how cross‑border conduct can still count as “unlawful activity,” what judicial discretion really looks like at this threshold, and why “constitutionally permissible” isn’t the same as wise policy.

Across both stories runs a shared question: how do we keep the justice system open, efficient, and fair when it’s pulled between access and abuse, privacy and enforcement? We offer clear explanations, grounded examples, and practical context to help you form your own view on filing limits, registry triage, property rights, and the true cost of suspicion‑based powers. If this conversation helps you see the legal system with sharper edges, share it with a friend, subscribe for more thoughtful breakdowns, and leave a review to tell us where you stand.

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

Courtrooms, campus corridors, mountain slopes, and border tarmacs: we connect them through three rulings that change how you navigate rights, rules, and risk. We start with a Vancouver Island University protest case where banners, ladders, and megaphones escalated into disruptions of exams. The student fought a two‑year suspension, arguing misidentification, unfair process, and—most ambitiously—freedom of expression under the Charter. We walk through why the court said no, revisiting Dolphin Delivery and the baseline that the Charter restrains government, not institutions acting independently. In BC, universities aren’t automatically treated as government actors, so Charter arguments usually fail unless legislation compels the action. The practical takeaway is clear: campus discipline lives under university policy and administrative law, not constitutional guarantees.

Then we climb into the backcountry with a Wildlife Act prosecution that turned on what “full curl thinhorn ram” actually means. Is it age, horn length, or both? At trial, experts wrangled over true versus false annuli, and the hunter was convicted. On appeal, the court read the regulation’s “or” as a real alternative: either eight years as proven by annuli or a horn tip that extends beyond the nose bridge plane when viewed squarely from the side. That interpretation aligns with field reality, where counting ridges through binoculars is guesswork. For hunters, this sets a safer path: document the side view and horn tip position to meet the length criterion without winning a lab fight over annuli.

We land with a hard deadline at the border. A sniffer dog allegedly damaged a multi‑million‑dollar helicopter during a customs search. The owner complained immediately and filed a claim, but the later lawsuit missed a little‑known limit: the Customs Act requires claims within three months. The court enforced the clock and dismissed the case, even while acknowledging the fairness concerns. If border searches damage your property, act fast—document everything, get estimates, and file in the correct court before the window slams shut.

Want practical law without the jargon? Press play for a grounded guide to: when free expression stops at the campus gate, how one word in a regulation can flip a conviction, and why a hidden limitation period can decide your whole case. If this helped you spot risks early, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a quick review telling us which case hit home.

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

A 76-page justice overhaul just landed, and we’re diving into what actually changes for victims, accused persons, and the people who keep our courts running. We break down how Bill C-16 reframes parts of criminal law—naming femicide as a route to first-degree murder, tackling AI-generated intimate images and deepfakes, and defining coercive control—while asking the hard question: can an already stretched system carry the weight?

We walk through the new femicide framework and why proving patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour will demand careful evidence and clear jury instructions. Then we turn to the digital front: offences targeting realistic AI fabrications, “nudify” apps, and the spread of synthetic sexual content. You’ll hear how the “likely to be mistaken” standard may hinge on context, labelling, and expert testimony, and why enforcement will test both legal doctrines and tech literacy.

Delay is the thread that ties it all together. We explore how pretrial screening in sexual offence cases—lawyers for complainants, notice periods, and multiple hearings—slows trials, and how C-16’s timing tweaks may help at the margins but won’t replace the need for more judges, Crown, defence, and courtrooms. On sentencing, we unpack the shift that lets courts set aside mandatory minimums when they would be grossly disproportionate for the individual—fairer outcomes, but likely more litigation. We also highlight humane changes that support witnesses, including broader remote testimony and support animals.

To ground the legal theory in real life, we close with a BC case on who qualifies as a spouse under the Family Law Act. The two-year marriage-like rule sounds simple—until on-and-off relationships, shared business ties, and disputed “gifts” like a six-figure SUV enter the picture. The result is a cautionary tale about continuity, documentation, and the legal weight of domestic arrangements.

If you care about safer communities, fair process, and workable courts, this conversation maps what’s coming—and what still needs funding and focus. If the analysis helped, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a quick review to help others find thoughtful legal content.

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

A single sentence can change a career. We open with a real-world case: a shuttle driver on SFU property tells a flagger she’s “unbelievably beautiful” and suggests modelling. Security documents the exchange, the university issues a campus ban, and the employer fires him. He then pushes for the complainant’s identity under FOIPPA, arguing that the decision-makers needed complete, accurate information. We walk through why FOIPPA binds public bodies but not private companies, how section 28 actually works, and why the court said disclosure wasn’t required when the driver admitted the key facts. Plus, we flag the sting in the tail: special costs when you sue the wrong parties.

From there, the stakes rise. Mid-trial in Vancouver, a mother asks to relocate her eight-year-old to Thailand. The judge says no on best-interests grounds. She leaves anyway, hides her location, and starts a case abroad. We explain how habitual residence anchors jurisdiction, why the Hague Convention exists to stop jurisdiction shopping, and how credibility findings—false affidavits, financial misstatements—reshape custody, support, and costs. The practical takeaway is stark: unilateral moves during active proceedings invite severe legal consequences and can fracture future parenting arrangements.

We close with the Lytton wildfire class action. Plaintiffs allege a passing train ignited the fire; the defendants point to onboard video, sensors, and clean inspection data. The court certifies the case, clarifying that the standard is some basis in fact, not proof. Timing, location near the tracks, tinderbox conditions, and a supportive expert opinion clear the threshold. Certification doesn’t decide liability—it ensures a fair, efficient path to test common issues, expert evidence, and causation at trial.

If you value clear, no-spin explanations of how law affects real people—from campus discipline and privacy to cross-border parenting and community-scale claims—follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review telling us which case challenged your assumptions.

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

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.