Navigating mental health crises poses profound challenges for families watching loved ones deteriorate without effective intervention options. This episode sheds light on a powerful yet underutilized legal tool - Section 28 of BC's Mental Health Act, which allows family members and concerned individuals to apply directly for a "warrant of apprehension" when someone exhibits dangerous mental health symptoms.

A recent Colwood court judgment outlines exactly how this process works, revealing that applications have increased significantly recently. The warrant enables initial 48-hour detention for proper assessment when someone displays behaviour indicating they may harm themselves or others. We dissect the legal criteria judges consider: reasonable belief in mental disorder, need for treatment, purpose of protection, and inability to proceed voluntarily. This mechanism empowers families who previously felt helpless, though its effectiveness ultimately depends on available treatment facilities and mental health resources.

We also examine two significant Court of Appeal decisions with far-reaching implications. First, a dangerous offender designation was upheld for an individual with decades of sexual offending against young boys, illustrating how the justice system handles those deemed to present an unmanageable risk to society. Second, a class action lawsuit against WestJet regarding passengers with disabilities who require multiple seats can proceed despite jurisdictional questions between federal transportation regulations and provincial discrimination laws. This fascinating exploration of "paramountcy" shows how courts attempt to harmonize seemingly conflicting legislation rather than automatically favouring federal authority. Have you encountered situations where knowledge of these legal mechanisms might have helped someone you know? We'd appreciate hearing your experiences.

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

Privacy rights take center stage as the BC Court of Appeal delivers a powerful message to organizations handling sensitive information. When an ICBC employee sold policyholder data to criminal organizations, resulting in targeted arson and shooting attacks against numerous victims, the insurance giant fought tooth and nail to minimize compensation. The Court ultimately upheld a $15,000 award for each affected individual, establishing a crucial precedent that privacy violations cause significant harm even without visible damage.

The ruling recognizes that having your personal details sold to criminals creates genuine suffering, even when physical attacks don't materialize. This landmark decision enforces the principle that employers bear responsibility for their employees' actions when handling sensitive data. For anyone concerned about their digital privacy, this case represents a significant step toward protecting personal information in an increasingly connected world.

Meanwhile, the courts navigate the complex territory where art meets evidence. A murder trial in Surrey broke new ground by allowing expert testimony on drill rap—a subgenre where violent lyrics are often performative rather than autobiographical. The defence successfully argued that without understanding this cultural context, jurors might mistakenly interpret rap about violence as literal confessions. This raises fascinating questions about how we evaluate artistic expression in criminal proceedings and acknowledges potential racial biases in interpreting such content.

In Victoria, justice persisted despite a defendant's violent refusal to participate in his own trial. Charged with beating someone with their own wheelchair during a robbery, the accused fought with sheriffs and refused to enter the courtroom. The judge's ruling that this behaviour constituted "absconding" demonstrates how our legal system adapts to maintain functionality even when faced with extreme disruption.

These cases highlight how Canadian courts are evolving to address modern challenges while upholding fundamental principles of justice. Have you ever wondered how much your privacy is actually worth in the eyes of the law? This week's developments provide some compelling answers.

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

The boundaries between student life and financial freedom come under scrutiny in this fascinating examination of a groundbreaking Supreme Court of Canada decision. When does your status as a "student" truly end? According to Canada's highest court, returning to school—even part-time and self-funded—resets the seven-year countdown clock that protects government student loans from bankruptcy proceedings.

Through a split 6-3 decision, the court delves into the subtle nuances of legal language, including how the French version of Canadian law influenced their interpretation. The case presents a sobering reality for those hoping to discharge student debt through bankruptcy: even brief returns to education could extend the period during which these loans remain protected, regardless of how many years have passed since the original borrowing.

We also explore a high-profile Victoria murder case appeal that examines the legal distinction between different paths to first-degree murder charges. The court's analysis reveals how planning and deliberation carry a different standard of participation than murders committed during other serious offences like forcible confinement—a nuanced difference that upheld the conviction in this tragic case, where two escaped prisoners killed a man in his own home.

The conversation concludes with an examination of what legally constitutes a "firearm" under Canadian law, determining that a handgun tested without its original magazine still qualifies as a firearm if it can function with alternative components. This technical but significant ruling emphasizes a weapon's capability over its specific configuration at the time of seizure.

These cases collectively illuminate how judicial interpretation of seemingly straightforward legal language can profoundly impact real lives, whether determining the dischargeability of student debt, the severity of murder charges, or what constitutes a regulated weapon. Subscribe to hear more analyses of how the law affects everyday Canadians in unexpected ways.

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

What happens when someone experiencing a psychotic episode intentionally crashes into a motorcyclist they believe is a "demon"? This fascinating exploration of mental illness and legal liability takes us through a landmark BC case that transforms how we understand responsibility when reality breaks down.

The distinction between criminal and civil liability becomes crucial as we follow the story of a man with no prior psychiatric history who suffered a complete psychotic break in 2018. While criminal law might find him not responsible due to mental disorder, civil law focuses on compensation rather than punishment. The judge's nuanced approach reveals how liability extends beyond just the final moment of incapacity—examining the gradual deterioration that preceded the collision provides vital context for understanding accountability.

This case carries profound implications for anyone interested in mental health advocacy, legal rights, and public safety. The court's finding of both negligence and battery resulted in a substantial award to the injured voice actor while also creating complex insurance issues since intentional acts typically aren't covered by policies. Perhaps most strikingly, the vehicle owner—the driver's then-girlfriend—was also held liable despite her desperate attempts to prevent him from driving once she realized his condition.

We also delve into a separate but equally compelling case involving a Green Party deputy leader whose sentence for criminal contempt was reduced on appeal due to a misapplication of the "step-up principle." This illuminating example shows how judicial sentencing is constrained by legal principles that ensure proportionality and fairness rather than simply escalating punishments for repeated offences.

Whether you're a legal professional, mental health advocate, or simply curious about how our justice system navigates these complex intersections, this episode offers valuable insights into how responsibility, compensation, and accountability function when mental capacity is compromised. Share your thoughts on these rulings and join the conversation about where personal responsibility begins and ends.

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

The complex interplay between law, morality, and human tragedy takes center stage in our latest episode examining three compelling legal cases that highlight how our justice system navigates competing interests.

We begin by exploring the "rescuer doctrine" - a legal principle establishing that if someone's negligence creates a dangerous situation, they can be liable for injuries sustained by those who attempt to help. This emerged in a heartrending case involving a woman who rushed to save a person whose wheelchair became stuck on railway tracks as a train approached. Despite her heroic efforts, she couldn't free the wheelchair in time, resulting in the death of the wheelchair user and injuries to herself. The railway company's attempts to avoid a jury trial were rejected by the judge, allowing this sympathetic rescuer to have her day in court.

The tension between access to justice and financial realities takes shape in our second case, where a woman with limited means sought to appeal the dismissal of her medical malpractice claim. When the doctor requested she provide $5,000 security for potential legal costs, the court faced a dilemma: demanding full security might deny her right to appeal, while waiving it entirely would unfairly burden the doctor with legal expenses for what appeared to be a weak claim. The Court of Appeal struck a compromise, requiring just $1,000 security and extending the payment deadline - demonstrating how judges must sometimes find middle ground when principles collide.

Finally, we delve into the emotionally charged issue of faith-based hospitals refusing to provide medical assistance in dying. When a terminal cancer patient had to be transferred from St. Paul's Hospital for MAID services, causing her additional suffering, it sparked litigation questioning whether religious exemptions can override patient rights. The case has attracted numerous interveners representing various perspectives, revealing how our courts manage cases with broad societal implications.

Have you encountered situations where competing rights created difficult legal questions? Share your thoughts and join our conversation about how the justice system balances competing interests.

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

Premier David Eby's partial retreat on the Economic Stabilization Tariff Response Act marks a significant moment in BC's response to US tariff threats. While the government has agreed to remove Part 4 of Bill 7—the section granting powers to amend legislation without parliamentary approval—legal expert Michael Mulligan reveals why serious concerns remain.

The bill still contains provisions allowing the government to unilaterally cancel contracts, change procurement practices, and impose taxes without legislative debate. Particularly troubling is language that prevents affected parties from seeking judicial review of government actions—a fundamental protection in democratic systems. "Protection against legal proceedings" suggests the government wants to shield itself from court challenges, raising serious questions about accountability.

Mulligan's analysis cuts to the heart of democratic governance: should we empower executives with unilateral authority, even during international disputes? He draws a striking parallel between the chaos of Trump's tariff decisions and the risks of BC's proposed response: "Left-wing populism is not a good response to right-wing populism." The comparison to Ontario Premier Doug Ford's hasty electricity tariff—quickly announced, then withdrawn—serves as a cautionary tale about reactive governance without deliberation.

The remaining sections of Bill 7 grant more extensive powers than were used during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite facing only economic threats rather than a public health emergency. As Mulligan notes, "We are not at war with the United States." Want to understand the delicate balance between government authority and democratic safeguards? Listen to this essential breakdown of how emergency powers can fundamentally reshape governance when we're not looking closely enough.

Follow this link for links to the legislation discussed.

The latest Legally Speaking segment with Michael Mulligan takes listeners on a fascinating journey through British Columbia's alternative dispute resolution landscape, revealing both promising innovations and concerning pitfalls in our justice system.

The conversation begins with an extraordinary Civil Resolution Tribunal case in which a woman abandoned $95,000 of her $100,000 claim to proceed in a forum designed for minor disputes—only to lose everything. This cautionary tale illustrates the critical importance of forum selection and the permanent consequences of claim abandonment. Mulligan explains how the tribunal determined responsibility in a sophisticated WhatsApp fraud case, applying the principle of "who most enabled the third-party fraud" to conclude that ignoring explicit financial institution warnings proved fatal to the claim.

Equally compelling is the examination of a Vancouver tenant's fight for $82,380 in compensation (twelve months' rent) from a landlord alleged to have never moved into a property after eviction. This high-stakes dispute raises constitutional questions about provincial tribunal jurisdiction while highlighting fundamental procedural fairness requirements that cannot be circumvented. When an adjudicator dismissed a key witness, imposed arbitrary time limits of just minutes for closing arguments, and failed to provide adequate hearing time, the Supreme Court intervened despite high thresholds for judicial review.

These cases reveal the complex tensions within our legal system as it attempts to balance accessibility, efficiency, and fundamental fairness. Mulligan's expert analysis shows how legislative interventions in contractual relationships, particularly between landlords and tenants, have created increasingly fractured relationships, leading to novel litigation that tests the boundaries of our justice system.

Ready to learn more about navigating legal disputes effectively? Subscribe to catch future episodes of Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan, where complex legal concepts become accessible wisdom you can use to protect yourself in an increasingly complicated world.

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

Democracy stands at a crossroads in British Columbia as Michael Mulligan delivers a powerful analysis of the NDP's proposed Tariff Response Act (Bill C-7). Drawing on historical parallels that send shivers down the spine, Mulligan unpacks how this legislation bears troubling similarities to Nazi Germany's 1933 Enabling Act—legislation that effectively rendered their legislature irrelevant and set the stage for catastrophe.

The bill's provisions would allow the government to make retroactive amendments to laws, shield officials from judicial review for procurement decisions, and potentially criminalize non-compliance with up to two years imprisonment. Most alarming is how the exclusion of the Offense Act creates a backdoor to criminal prosecution under Section 127 of the Criminal Code—potentially criminalizing actions that weren't illegal when performed. "The response to right-wing populism and erratic behaviour ought not to be a populist, left-wing, arbitrary response," Mulligan warns, as he urges Green Party MLAs who hold the balance of power to consider the weight of history before supporting such a transfer of power.

In the second segment, Mulligan discusses a recent Victoria case with significant implications for homeowners and contractors. The court ruled that consumers can cancel construction contracts lacking specific completion dates within 12 months under the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. When a sunroom company demanded an additional $17,310 and dumped materials "the size of a small car" in a homeowner's driveway after cancellation, the judge ordered a full refund plus damages for trespass. Take note whether you're planning renovations or providing services—completion dates aren't just good business practice; they're legally required. Have you checked your contracts lately?

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