Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Acts have, perhaps, the least exciting names imaginable. 

Sometimes, however, these acts bundle together legal changes that can be significant. 

If passes in BC, a recently introduced Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act will make changes that will have meaningful consequences for people. 

On the show, two of these changes are discussed. 

One of the proposed changes will require ICBC to withhold licence and insurance renewals for people with unpaid COVID related fines. 

A similar approach is used in an attempt to collect other fines, and debts including child support payments. 

The challenges with this approach include both the collections costs being transferred by the government to what is supposed to be an insurance company, and the fact that some people will respond by driving without insurance. 

An alternative approach is discussed on the show: deducting unpaid COVID related fines from COVID relieve cheques that would otherwise be sent to people. This approach would work more reliably, save money, and avoid unintended consequences. Mailing people with unpaid fines $500 or $1,000 cheques and then trying to compel payment by withholding insurance doesn’t make much sense. 

In addition, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act further expands the definition of “family violence” in the BC Family Law Act. 

This term has already been defined in a way that captures both actual violence, as well as things such as damage to property or the unreasonable restriction financial or personal autonomy. By defining a term, which has an ordinary English meaning, to include things that are not violence, needless litigation as resulted from people objecting to being labeled in this way. 

Ensuing litigation has resulted in findings of “family violence” for things including the sending of an email threatening to close a dental practice, a father saying that a mother’s actions were “contrary to scripture and sinful” and a mother interfering with a father’s access to children.  

Also on the show, the leak of COVID-19 information that the provincial government had been keeping secret is also discussed in the context of a decision to grant vaccine priority to judges and Crown Counsel in Vancouver without explanation for failing to do the same for other people working in the justice system including sheriffs, court clerks, defence counsel, and registry staff. 

Based on a review of the COVID-19 report that was leaked, it would appear that the government decided to release information selectively in order to encourage safer behavior. Information concerning the specific location of outbreaks and specific data concerning vaccine distribution was not released to the public. 

The trouble with this approach is that it undermines confidence in public health information and may cause long term harm by reducing the number or people will to be vaccinated. 

 In a democracy, there should be a very high threshold for keeping public information secret. 

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

Many criminal cases are resolved by way of joint sentencing submissions by Crown and defence counsel. 

This means that the accused person is agreeing to plead guilty and both lawyers have agreed on what the appropriate sentence should be. 

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that, in these circumstances, judges are not permitted to impose a sentence different than what is proposed unless the proposed sentence was “so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would leave reasonable and informed persons … to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down.” A high threshold indeed.

The BC Court of Appeal recently allowed an appeal from the decision of a judge who refused to implement a joint submission.

One of the reasons that judges are not simply permitted to substitute their judgment for that of the Crown and defence is that the lawyers involved often had a much better understanding of the circumstance and issues which underly a proposed resolution. 

Because of the importance of an open and transparent court process, judges are not ordinarily provided with all of the evidence, reports, and witness statements that counsel would have access to. Judges need to make their decisions based on evidence and submission presented in open court so that it’s clear what is being considered. 

In addition, if judges were permitted to routinely depart from joint submission, fewer cases would resolve, and more unnecessary trials would result. 

Where a judge concludes that the high threshold for not imposing a joint submission has been met, they are required to provide “clear and cogent reasons” for doing so. Failing that, or if the reasons are not sufficient, the Court of Appeal may, as in the case discussed, allow a sentence appeal and impose the sentence that was agreed to. 

Also on the show, a new Supreme Court of Canada case is discussed concerning prosecutorial immunity. 

This case involved Toronto police officers suing Crown Counsel for how they conducted a prosecution. 

The original case involved the arrest of two men for armed robbery and unlawful confinement. The men who were arrested testified that police officers had strip-searched and beaten them into providing confessions. One of the men had a broken rib. 

The police officers involved alleged that Crown Counsel had mishandled the case because they believed the evidence of the accused men and did not call the police officers to testify at trial. 

The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the police were not able to sue Crown Counsel for decisions such as this because of prosecutorial immunity which is intended to prevent civil claims like this so that Crown Counsel aren’t concerned about the possibility of civil liability when making decisions about a case. 

Finally, on the show, a case involving a defamation claim arising from inquiries made in the course of an ICBC claim is discussed. 

The claim was dismissed because of the concept of “absolute privilege” which precludes defamation claims for statements made in court, in pleadings, or in the course of duties relating to pursuing a client’s interest during the conduct of a case.

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

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

The BC Government has proposed police roadblocks to enforce travel restrictions between health authorities, in order to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

Because there are significantly different rates of infection in different parts of the province, this objective is understandable. 

Unfortunately, contrary to the premier’s assertion that police will be able to conduct roadblocks of this kind without any new authority, that is not the case. 

Police have the authority to stop vehicles for motor vehicle-related purposes, such as to ensure the sobriety of the driver, that the driver has a valid licence, and the vehicle is properly insured and mechanically sound. 

Police do not have the authority to stop vehicles for other kinds of investigations unless, at a minimum, they already have reasonable grounds to suspect that the occupants are connected to particular criminal activity. The police would not be permitted to, for example, pull cars over at random, or set up a roadblock, to search for drugs or stolen property.

In addition, police are independent of government: they are not obliged to set up roadblocks at the direction of the government. Some police representatives have already made clear that they are not prepared to participate in the proposed scheme. 

Finally, the province has not provided vaccines to police officers so asking them to conduct roadblocks of the type suggested would put both the police officers and people being stopped, at risk. 

There is, however,  a safe and lawful means to accomplish the government’s objective. 

Section 23 of the Public Health Act permits health officers to stop a person or vehicle for purposes including determining if “a health hazard exists or likely exists in or on the vehicle or place, or in relation to the activities of the person…”. The government could designate nurses, or other medical professionals, as health officers pursuant to section 71 of the Public Health Act.

Unlike police, the designated medical practitioners would have the legal authority to conduct checks or cars at ferry terminals or elsewhere. They would also be vaccinated. 

This approach would also address many of the concerns expressed by the BC Civil Liberties Association, The BC Assembly of First Nations, the Criminal Defence Advocacy Society, and others relating to the use of police checkpoints. 

Also on the show, a COVID-denier, who attended a Flat Earth conference in South Carolina, had his claim against the Premier, AG, and others, dismissed after he was arrested and held in jail for 4 days following three alleged breaches of the Quarantine Act, upon his return to BC. 

In dismissing the man’s claim, the judge hearing the case said that he was not without sympathy, because the man learned the hard way that laws do not work on an “opt-in” basis. 

Finally, on the show, Small Claims rules for civil claims between $5,001 and $35,000, have been amended as a result of COVID-19 to permit various steps in the process to be conducted by phone or video connection. 

Other steps, such as a trial, would presumptively be conducted in person. 

On application, a judge has the authority to depart from the default online or in-person option.

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

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

The USA and Canada have a treaty that provides for mutual legal assistance in the investigation of criminal matters. 

Pursuant to this treaty, the Minister of Justice of Canada, at the request of the USA, applied for and obtained a search warrant for two Vancouver companies being investigated for sending fraudulent mass-mailed solicitations that were believed to be financially exploiting vulnerable people. 

Applications for search warrants occur without the defendant being present or having an opportunity to respond. Accordingly, after a search warrant is executed, the party being searched can request a review to determine if the warrant should have been issued. This kind of review is referred to as a Garafoli Review.  Garafoli is the name of a case setting out how these reviews should take place. 

A judge conducting a Garafoli Review is not substituting their view for that of the judge who authorized the search. Instead, taking into account further evidence, the existence of fraud, non-disclosure, or misleading information in the search warrant application, the reviewing judge needs to determine if a judge could properly have authorized the search in the first place. 

In the case discussed, the reviewing judge concluded that the search warrant was properly authorized. 

Also on the show, a BC Provincial Court judge has concluded that the court did not lose jurisdiction over thousands of accused people when their cases were mass adjourned at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The BC Provincial Court is a statutory court: it derives all of its authority from legislation that authorizes the court to do various things. This is distinct from the BC Supreme Court, which is a court of inherent jurisdiction. It has authority that is not derived from legislation. 

In the ordinary course of a criminal case, there needs to be some authority to compel an accused person to attend court. Absent this, the accused person could simply not show up. 

The initial obligation to attend court could take a number of forms including a summons, undertaking, or warrant. Once an accused person attends court, a judge could adjourn their case to a different date. 

The mass adjournments due to COVID-19 involved the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court issuing a Notice to the Profession (NP 19), directing that all out of custody criminal cases, for a prescribed time period, had been adjourned. 

Once the court had plexiglass installed, and various protocols put in place to deal with matters remotely where possible, cases recommenced. 

The judge reviewing what occurred concluded that jurisdiction was not lost when the cases were adjourned. He concluded that the Criminal Code provisions that permit the court to make procedural rules permitted the adjournments. In addition, he concluded that there was jurisdiction to adjourn the cases in this way because it was a part of the court's authority to control its own process. 

Finally, on the show, an apartment building in Prince Rupert was acquitted of a bylaw offence for having an overflowing and unsightly garbage bin. 

The bylaw in question specified that “No owner or occupier of real property shall allow that property to become or remain unsightly.” 

Because the unsightly garbage bin was in a back alley, there was no evidence that it was on the property owned or occupied by the apartment building. 

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

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

In August of 2015, Mr. Upton was attempting to straighten a bent metal plate from the steering mechanism of his 1955 Chevrolet Bel Air. He had removed it from the vehicle, placed it on a concrete step in his backyard, and was hitting it with a sledgehammer.

Mr. Sexsmith was visiting Mr. Upton and watching his car repair efforts.

Unfortunately, on the last occasion Mr. Upton struck the metal plate with the sledgehammer, the plate flew into the air and struck Mr. Sexsmith in the face causing significant injuries to his eye and face.

Mr. Sexsmith was a professional hockey goalie. In 2007 he was drafted by the San Jose Sharks.

The injuries Mr. Sexsmith suffered ended his hockey career.

Mr. Upton had a $1 million homeowners insurance policy from Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company. This policy excluded claims arising from the “use or operation” of “any motorized vehicle”.

Mr. Upton also had $5 million in insurance on the 1955 Chevrolet Bel Air from ICBC. This policy does not cover any claim that is not a result of the “use or operation” of the Bel Air.

In addition to the duty to indemnify an insured for a covered loss, an insurance company has a duty to defend a claim. This required the insurance company to pay for a lawyer to defend the claim.

ICBC did not want to share the cost of defending the claim. They alleged that repairing the bent metal plate was not the “use or operation” of the car.

The duty to defend a claim is quite broad and is triggered when there is a possibility that the allegations could result in a loss that would be covered by a policy. As s result, the judge hearing the case concluded that ICBC did need to pay half the cost of defending the claim.

There are numerous cases that have concluded various other efforts to repair vehicles are included in the “use or operation” of a vehicle as long as the plan was to repair the vehicle so it could be driven again.

Also on the show, a case involving a man driving a courtesy car from the US to Canada, with 13 kg of heroin in the trunk of the car, is discussed.

In order to be convicted of importing or possessing drugs for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown must prove that the person knew they had the drugs.

In this case, none of the fingerprints on the drug packaging matched the man driving the car, and there was no drug residue on the gloves the man had with him.

The man driving the car testified that he did not know the drugs were in the trunk and, while the judge didn’t necessarily believe the man, he was unable to conclude that he wasn’t telling the truth and so found him not guilty.

Finally, on the show, a case involving a Chinese telephone scam is discussed.

The fraudsters were able to persuade a retired home care worker to send her life savings of $90,000 to a Chinese bank, via a third party, and through a small wire transfer company.

The funds were initially deposited into an account at CIBC. CIBC then provided a bank draft payable to the small wire transfer company.

Upon being presented with the bank draft the wire transfer company sent funds to the bank in China.

Before the bank draft had cleared CIBC became suspicious of the transaction and froze the money in the account.

Both the small wire transfer company and the retired home care worker wanted the $90,000 in the CIBC bank account.

Ultimately, the judge ordered that the funds be returned to the retired home care worker.

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

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

Land title fraud can result in the loss of your home.  Efforts to fraudulently impersonate property owners have increased along with the use of remote transactions. 

With property, other than real estate, if someone steals something and then sells it to an innocent third party, the original owner of the property stills owns it. The legal concept is the namo dat rule. The thief doesn’t own the stolen item and so can’t sell what they don’t own. 

If the stolen property is located, it would be returned to the original owner, and the innocent third party purchaser would need to locate and sue the thief to get their money back.

In British Columbia, the rules are different with respect to real estate. 

Real estate is treated differently to permit greater certainty of ownership and in order to make transactions easier.

If you applied the namo dat rule to real estate, a purchaser would need to be concerned about all of the previous transactions involving the property to determine if the person selling it was actually the legal owner and able to transfer the property to them. This could involve attempting to verify many previous transactions because if any of them was improper, the current “owner” might not own anything at all. 

In BC, we have a Torrens system for land titles. This involves the concept of indefeasible title. If someone is the registered owner of real property, they own it and this can’t be revoked or made void, absent very limited circumstances. 

If, however, a fraudster is able to impersonate a property owner and is successful in having a property sold to an innocent third party, the new purchaser becomes the owner. In this circumstance, the original owner, who was impersonated, would be compensated from a special fund. They would not, however, get their property back. 

Over the past ten years, there have been two people who were compensated as a result of their property being stolen in this way. 

Also discussed on the show is a recent case involving a BC woman making false claims on Facebook, and in instant messages, that another woman had engaged in child sexual abuse.

In order to be liable for defamation, the plaintiff needs to establish that:

1)    The impugned words were defamatory in that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person;

2)    That the words referred to the plaintiff; and

3)    That the words were published; i.e. communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.

In the case discussed, all three of these requirements were met. The wrongly accused woman was awarded $20,000 in general damages, and an additional $10,000 in aggravated damages because the woman posting the false accusations continued to do so after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from the plaintiff’s lawyer. 

The judge hearing the case also issued a permanent injunction to stop posting the false claims. 

Finally, on the show, a high-conflict family court case results in a 12-day trial over various issues and a $34,481 costs award against an ex-wife. The ex-wife then declares bankruptcy, which would avoid her needing to pay the costs award. 

The ex-husband was ordered to pay retroactive child support, in the amount of $19,475. 

The ex-husband tried, unsuccessfully, to have the judge apportion all of the costs award to the issue of child support, because child support, and costs awards relating to it, are not eliminated by bankruptcy. 

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

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

In 2003 there was a coastal forestry worker strike in BC. It involved thousands of employees and multiple unions. After three weeks the strike was eventually ended by back-to-work legislation. 

One of the impacted union locals, led by Sonny Ghag, was not happy about this. Mr. Singh organized the storming of a sawmill owned by Mainland Sawmills Ltd. during which employees were assaulted, people were threatened, and the mill was forced to close. 

The mill owner, and employees who were assaulted, sued Mr. Ghag and the union local that he was the president of. Ultimately, this case was successful.  The union local further sued Mr. Ghag, on the basis that he had acted without authorization in organizing the violent storming of the sawmill. 

Mr. Ghag ended up owing $437,706.21.

That, however, was not the end of the matter as Mr. Ghag transferred all of his assets to his 18-year-old son, in 2013, declared bankruptcy to avoid paying the judgment. 

If someone disposed of property in order to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors, or others, such a transaction can be voided pursuant to the Fraudulent Conveyance Act. 

A judge concluded that this was exactly what Mr. Ghag had done. As a result, the transfer of seven properties to Mr. Ghag’s son were voided. The property will now be available to his creditors to collect the unsatisfied judgment. 

Also on the show, Johnson & Johnson Inc. was unsuccessful in trying to strike out a claim made by a first nations woman who suffered a blood clot, and stroke, after using an Ortho Evra contraceptive patch. 

Johnson & Johnson argued, amongst other things, that a “Black Box Warning” advised the plaintiff, who had a grade 10 education, of the risks of using the contraceptive patch. The warning referend a risk of “venous thromboembolism” and conflicting studies that compared the risk of this to the risk of this compared to using oral contraceptives. 

The judge hearing the application concluded that there very much a triable issue with respect to whether or not the warning misrepresented the risk of using the patch. 

Finally, on the show,  lawyers for Capital City News Group Ltd. are applying to remove or vary, thirty-five sealing orders relating to production orders, search warrants, and other judicial authorizations concerning the investigation of the 2008 murder of Lindsay Buziak, a real estate agent in Victoria, BC. 

The lawyers making the application were asking that they have access to the documents, on their undertaking not to disclose them to anyone, so as to permit them to make submissions with respect to their client’s application. 

The judge hearing the application refused to permit access, even in this way,  referencing in camera evidence that confirmed investigations into the murder remain active and ongoing. 

As a result, even though the documents have been provided to lawyers for the Saanich Police Department, and the Province of BC, who are opposing the application, the lawyers for the news organization will need to make submissions without knowing what is in the documents.

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

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

Mr. Eisler was born in 1932. He left school at age 14 and started work as a farmer and shepherd. By age 18 he was working in the Alberta oil fields. By 22 he was a field supervisor and by age 31 he had started his first company. 

At age 79 Mr. Eisler was fired by the board of directors of a mining company he started and had worked at for twenty-four years. 

Mr. Eisler sued for wrongful dismissal but, sadly, died a few months before the wrongful dismissal trial. After he died, the company claimed that they had cause to fire Mr. Eisler because of events many years earlier. 

Mr. Eisler’s executor carried on with the case, succeeded, and had this decision upheld in the BC Court of Appeal. The company had no cause to fire Mr. Eisler. 

As discussed on the show, while an employer is permitted to fire a non-union employee without cause, they are required to provide either notice or pay in lieu of notice. Typically, the amount of notice, or pay, would be calculated based on the provisions of the BC Employment Standards Act, or common law principles that would take into account the length and nature of the employment. 

In Mr. Eisler’s case, however, he had a written agreement with respect to the terms of his employment that provided for payment if he was fired without cause. As a result, his estate received an award of $72,500 plus costs. 

Also on the show, a Vancouver police officer sued for $1.5 million claiming that she was seriously injured in two car accidents. 

The judge who heard the case did not believe the police officer. He examined photographs of the vehicles which showed very minor damage and took into account cross-examination of the police officer including on an application form for her job as a police officer where she described herself as “physically fit active with ability to work for long hours”. 

In addition to finding the plaintiff police officer to not be a credible witness regarding the extent and longevity of her accident-related pain, the judge also disbelieved the plaintiff’s boyfriend. The judge described the boyfriend’s evidence as overly rehearsed and partisan and found that he plainly embellished the impact of the second accident. The boyfriend, as it turns out, had also been hired as a police officer in Vancouver. 

The case demonstrates the importance of cross-examination and testing of claims. Having trials of issues like these with an independent judge is valuable not only for plaintiffs but for defendants, including ICBC. 

Finally, on the show, a decision of the Civil Resolution Tribunal is found to be patently unreasonable on judicial review. The judge reviewing the decision concluded that the tribunal “exercised its discretion arbitrarily and on the basis of predominantly irrelevant and/or non-existent facts.”

The case involved a driver who was attempting to review ICBC’s decision that they were 100% responsible for an accident because this would result in their insurance rates increasing.

The Civil Resolution Tribunal adjudicator in the case misunderstand the nature of a civil claim being made by the other driver in the case and wrongly thought that this would resolve the issue of who was responsible for the accident. 

Had the Civil Resolution Tribunal decision not been overturned the driver asking for a review would have been left with no way to challenge the ICBC decision concerning who was at fault.

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

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

The Douglas Lake Cattle Company is the largest cattle range in Canada. It is owned by US billionaire Stan Kroenke, who also owns the Colorado Avalanche and the Denver Nuggets, amongst other things. The ranch is so large it completely surrounds two lakes that belong to the Province of BC. For years Mr. Kroenke has been trying to stop people, including members of the Nicola Valley Fish and Game Club, from fishing in the lakes. 

The legal dispute concerning the public’s right to access the lakes involves the interpretation of an 1895 Crown grant of land that is now owned by The Douglas Lake Cattle Company. 

The grant of land did not include the lakes, but there was a dispute concerning the ownership of a road that gets close to the lakes and a trail from the road to the shoreline.

Until recently the ranch had attempted to block access to the road by putting logs across it. 

At trial the Nicola Valley Fish and Game Club was successful. The judge concluded that not only the lakes, and the road, but also the trail, were not included in the land grant and so remained accessible to the public. 

In the Court of Appeal, however, The Douglas Lake Cattle Company was successful in persuading the three judges that the trail was included in the 1895 Crown grant of land. 

As a result, while the lakes, and the road, are accessible to the public, there is no way to get to the lakes from the road.  

In other provinces, there is provincial legislation that permits members of the public to cross over uncultivated land in order to access areas like publicly owned lakes. The British Columbia government should consider whether such legislation should be enacted, as it was urged to do by the trial judge. 

Also on the show a recently introduced BC bill entitled the Firearms Violence Prevention Act is discussed. If passed, the legislation would, amongst other things, restrict the sale of “low-velocity firearms” to minors, and permit the impoundment of vehicles that have firearms or other items in them, when the person licenced to have them is not in the vehicle. 

Several problems are apparent with the bill, as currently worded, include an error concerning the definition of “low-velocity firearms” which would inadvertently include all firearms, and the absence of an appropriate appeal mechanism for the impoundment of vehicles.

As discussed on the show, hopefully, the errors in the bill will be corrected during the legislative process. 

Finally, a case involving a dispute over a will involving section 56 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act is discussed. 

This section provides that, subject to a contrary intention in a will, when spouses separate gifts in a will, and appointments as an executor or trustee, are revoked. 

The court case discussed on the show involved a spouse, who separated from the deceased 18 months before his death, arguing, unsuccessfully, that she had not ceased to be a spouse.

In the case, evidence of the separation included a signed separation agreement, payment of child support, and the filing of tax returns by the claimant indicating that she was single. 

The case is really a cautionary tale about the importance of updating your will when you are married, or separated, to reflect your wishes and to avoid unnecessary disputes.

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

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

To ensure their independence, Superior Court Judges hold office on good behavior, until age 75, and can only be removed by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons. 

The point of this is that you don’t want judges to be fired when they made decisions that the government doesn’t like.

If you have a dispute with the government, you want to know that the judge hearing the case isn’t worried about being fired if they decide in your favour. 

This protection would not be very meaningful if the government was able to transfer decision-making authorly to people who were not independent. 

As a result section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 has been interpreted so as to restrict the ability of governments to transfer authority over the core jurisdiction of superior courts to other bodies. 

As part of a plan to move to a mandatory a no-fault automobile insurance system, the province of British Columbia attempted to transfer authority over claims of up to $50,000, as well as the authority to determine if an injury was “minor”, so as to cap compensation, to a body called the Civil Resolution Tribunal. 

Employees of the Civil Resolution Tribunal work on short-term contracts for the provincial government. They have none of the protections afforded judges and could be fired, or not have their contracts renewed if they made decisions which the government didn’t like. 

From a fairness perspective, it’s not appropriate to have employees of one of the parties to a dispute making decisions about it. 

From a legal perspective, Chief Justice Hinkson determined that the attempt to transfer authority over claims up to $50,000, and the power to determine if injuries were “minor” was unconstitutional because of section 96.

As a result, people who have a dispute about these matters with ICBC will be able to have a  judge, rather than a Civil Resolution Tribunal employee, decide. 

Also on the show: an example of where the Civil Resolution Tribunal is an appropriate forum to resolve small disputes between private parties: a family was able to avoid paying $4,998.54 for a return Air Canada flight from India which was canceled due to COVID-19. The adjudicator concluded that the contract with a travel agent was frustrated when the return flight was canceled and could not be rebooked in a reasonable period of time. 

Finally, the BC Supreme Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a BC Human Rights Tribunal decision which refused to accept a complaint by a Pastafarian and member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The Pastafarian wished to wear a pasta colander, or a three-cornered hat known as a pirate’s tricorn, for his driver’s licence photo on the basis that he claimed these to be religious headgear. 

The BC Human Rights Tribunal refused the complaint on the basis that ICBC was not required to accommodate a practice satirizing religious practices. 

The Pastafarian argued that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a duly constituted society and in good standing in BC and that neither its constitution nor its bylaws mandate the mocking of religious beliefs or religious practices.

Follow this link for links to the cases discussed.