Your face might already live in a searchable database—and BC’s courts just drew a sharp line around what companies can do with it. We break down a major ruling that upholds the privacy commissioner’s order against Clearview AI, unpack why “publicly available” doesn’t mean “free to scrape,” and explain how a province can regulate a US firm with no brick-and-mortar presence. This is a story about jurisdiction in the age of the internet, biometric data rights, and the limits of consent on social media platforms Canadians use every day.

From there, we pivot to a wildfire zone, where a tiny drone met a big legal problem. When a helicopter pilot fighting the Kelowna blaze was irritated and distracted by a nearby drone, the court found that distraction alone interfered with fire control under the Wildfire Act. We walk through the difference between strict and absolute liability, why due diligence matters, and how “no harm done” isn’t a shield when public safety is at stake.

We close with a sign of the times: 3D printed suppressors that triggered prohibited device charges. Beyond the plastic parts and lab delays, the headline is new criminal exposure for simply accessing or possessing digital files intended to produce firearms or key components. We talk through how Canadian firearms law treats suppressors, why courts imposed a conditional sentence rather than jail in this case, and what makers and hobbyists need to know before downloading a file that could cross a legal line.

If privacy, drones, or maker tech lives anywhere near your world, this episode offers clear, practical takeaways: don’t assume public equals fair use, steer drones far from emergency operations, and think twice before clicking on gun-printing files. Subscribe, share with a friend who needs a reality check on tech and law, and leave a review to tell us where you think the line should be drawn next.

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

A live wiretap, a lawyer on the line, and a rule that said “stop listening”—which police ignored. We dive into a rare Supreme Court of Canada decision where constitutional safeguards, solicitor-client privilege, and the search for truth collide. The stakes are real: can a lawyer use privileged communications to defend themselves when facing criminal allegations, and what happens when the state breaches explicit limits on surveillance?

We walk through why solicitor-client privilege is foundational, who actually owns it, and how the Court carved a tight “innocence at stake” exception without gutting client confidence. You’ll hear how a two-step threshold protects privilege in most cases while safeguarding against wrongful convictions. Then we examine the Charter lens under section 24(2): why the entire recording was tossed, how the seriousness of the breach mattered, and why the absence of reprimand or corrective steps by authorities weighed heavily against admission.

From there, we turn to a different kind of wall: Crown immunity. A survivor’s civil claim alleging sexual assault by jail guards in 1972 confronted the hard edge of history. Before the 1974 Crown Proceedings Act, the province couldn’t be sued, and the courts have held that the change is not retrospective. We unpack why a late-stage defence amendment was allowed, why a novel “duty of care” theory against opposing counsel failed, and how statutory limits can leave profound harms without civil recourse. It’s a sobering picture of how legal architecture protects rights, constrains power, and sometimes forecloses remedies.

If you value smart, practical analysis of criminal law, Charter rights, and civil liability against the state, you’ll find clarity and context here. Follow the show, share this episode with a friend who loves legal deep dives, and leave a review telling us where you think privilege should bend—or hold firm.

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

Big wins, bigger rules, and the fine print that shapes how money and data move in British Columbia. We start with the sourced cash condition that kicks in when casino buy‑ins exceed $10,000 and follow a frequent winner who challenged the requirement as unfair. The court weighed his argument against a framework that aims to deter money laundering with minimal burden, landing on a pragmatic outcome: reasons should usually be given, but receipts and bank trails are a reasonable gate to the high‑cash floor.

From the cage to the checkout line, we then trace how Home Depot shared hashed email addresses from e‑receipts with Facebook to measure ad performance. The privacy class action clears a major hurdle, and the Court of Appeal signals that common issues can proceed even when individual impacts vary. One notable wrinkle: corporations aren’t automatically excluded from privacy protection where legislation is silent. For customers, it’s a real‑world lesson in how ad‑tech works behind the scenes; for businesses, a reminder that consent, transparency, and vendor integrations must line up with privacy law.

We close with a difficult truth about B.C.’s no‑fault auto insurance and the absence of robust wrongful death damages. After a fatal crash caused by a driver fleeing police, grieving families face strict limits on compensation despite criminal convictions. The law values economic loss far more than grief, leaving young victims’ families with modest benefits that feel stark compared with the harm. It’s a policy choice with real human cost, and we explore what meaningful reform could look like.

If this conversation helped you see the legal landscape a little clearer, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a quick review to tell us what you want to hear next.

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

A courtroom isn’t a referendum on character, and we dig into why that principle matters. We break down the Supreme Court of Canada’s updated guidance on Corbett applications—the rules that govern when an accused’s criminal record can be used to challenge credibility. We talk plainly about the balancing test judges apply: weigh probative value against unfair prejudice. Dishonesty offences like fraud and perjury can be highly relevant to truthfulness; dated youth convictions for non‑deceitful violence usually are not. In the case we cover, the trial judge erred by admitting the latter, but the conviction still stood because the evidence was overwhelming. It’s a sharp lesson in tailoring cross‑examination to credibility, not propensity.

Then we pivot to travel law with a surprising twist: a passenger burns his hand serving oatmeal in an airline lounge and sues. We map the Montreal Convention’s strict liability regime and why “embarking” is the line that matters. Being in a branded lounge past security isn’t enough; you need to be within the airline’s boarding control, like lined up at the gate. With the Convention off the table, the claim turns on occupiers’ liability. Reasonable safety does not mean perfect safety, and common sense counts. Hot food is hot, a clear flame symbol was present, and there was no proof of excessive temperature or unsafe setup—so no negligence.

We close with a procedural reality check: reopening a case after you lose is rare. Courts will only allow it to prevent a miscarriage of justice, not to offer a second chance to fix gaps in evidence. Across these stories, a consistent theme emerges: Canadian law protects fairness through careful boundaries—on what juries hear, when airlines are strictly liable, how far safety duties go, and when a judgment is truly final. Enjoy the tour through credibility, common carriers, and courtroom finality—and if this resonates, follow, share, and leave a review to help others find the show.

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

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.