Advertise on podcast: Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan

An 11% drop in advance voting sounds simple until you ask the uncomfortable question: who stayed home, and what does that change on election night? We start by unpacking the newest Elections BC advance poll totals, then zoom out to what we learned last election when early voters and election-day voters broke in different directions. It is a reminder that election data is never just numbers; it is behaviour, incentives, and timing. Then we get into one of the most personal policy fights in British Columbia: ICBC no-fault insurance and the care-based model. We talk candidly about why no-fault can feel efficient for minor collisions, yet become deeply unfair when someone is seriously injured, especially if their future earnings do not match their income on the day of the crash. We also trace the political backstory, including the role of the Move Up union and how organized support for monopoly ICBC coverage shows up during a campaign. We close with two sharp legal explainers. First, a complaint about an “official-looking” election mailer and what Elections Act section 234.4 actually prohibits, including the carve-out for parody or satire. Second, a BC Court of Appeal decision on a fire insurance claim that was denied because of an undisclosed risk that had nothing to do with the fire, a practical lesson under the Insurance Act for every homeowner. If you found this helpful, subscribe, share the episode with a friend who follows BC politics, and leave a review with your take on what the advance voting drop really means. Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

No-fault auto insurance is sold as the simple answer: fewer lawsuits, faster benefits, lower premiums. But what happens when the crash is not a fender bender, and someone’s life is permanently changed? We walk through why BC’s ICBC no-fault model has erupted into a provincial election fight, and why the promise of “enhanced care” can feel very different depending on whether you have a minor injury or a catastrophic one. We’re joined by Michael Mulligan, a criminal defence lawyer in Victoria, to unpack the real-world trade-offs between a tort system and no-fault insurance. We talk about fairness for seriously injured people, the problem of predicting future earning potential, and why “you’ll get taken care of” is not the same thing as having an independent court able to review decisions. We also push back on popular claims about limits, legal fees, and what compensation looks like when you can sue versus when you cannot. Then we get into the structure of the market itself: ICBC’s monopoly on basic auto insurance, the argument for private sector competition, and why choice matters if you believe a public insurer is truly offering the best deal. If you care about ICBC, BC car insurance rates, and what rights drivers give up for lower premiums, this conversation will sharpen your view fast. Subscribe for more, share this with someone debating no-fault versus a hybrid model, and leave a review with your take: should BC bring back the right to sue for serious crashes? Follow this link for a transcript of the show.

A criminal trafficking charge sounds straightforward until you look at what’s happening on the ground in British Columbia’s overdose crisis. We dig into a BC Supreme Court decision sparked by the Drug User Liberation Front (DULF), a group that received Vancouver Coastal Health funding for drug checking and overdose prevention, then went further by buying drugs on the dark web, testing them, and providing them at cost to people who use drugs. After media attention and political blowback, funding ended, police searched the site, and the founders faced possession for the purpose of trafficking charges. From there, the story becomes a deep, practical Charter section 7 debate about life, liberty, and security of the person under Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. We break down the evidence the judge relied on, including the scale of overdose deaths, and the argument that a tested non-medical supply can reduce fatalities. We also explain why the usual “just get an exemption” answer isn’t so simple, what happened when DULF applied for a federal exemption, and how delays and denial collide with an urgent public health emergency. We also sort out a confusing but crucial distinction: supervised consumption sites with federal exemptions versus overdose prevention sites approved provincially without the same legal cover. Add in the bottlenecks in prescribed safer supply, limited access to doctors, and real-world mismatch between prescriptions and what people will use, and you can see why the court calls the current framework a near-blanket ban with no meaningful safety valve. The judge declares the law unconstitutional in B.C., suspends the decision for six months, and tees up an appeal and a policy response that could reshape harm reduction and drug trafficking law nationwide. If you found this useful, subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review. What do you think Ottawa should do next? Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

Government changing the rules for how lawyers are regulated sounds technical until you ask one blunt question: can a legal system stay fair if the bar is not independent from the state? We dig into British Columbia’s Bill 21 (the Legal Professions Act) and the ongoing court challenge over whether the independence of the legal profession is a constitutional requirement, not just a tradition. When the government is a frequent opponent in civil claims, Charter litigation, and criminal prosecutions, who should control the regulator that sets lawyers’ rules and discipline? A key development lands before the main appeal even starts: twelve different organizations apply to intervene at the BC Court of Appeal. We explain the test for intervention, the difference between a direct interest and public interest standing, and why the court decides these groups can add useful perspectives without turning the hearing into a free-for-all. The interveners range from national legal bodies to groups raising issues like DRIPA implementation, an Indigenous council within the proposed scheme, and serious concerns about a regulator potentially compelling medical or mental health treatment. Then we shift to a tragic negligence lawsuit from a municipal pool in Burnaby, where a four-year-old fell from the side of a three-metre diving board during “playtime” in swimming lessons. We unpack the standard of care for instructors, what the judge finds negligent, and how Canadian damages work, including the cap on non-pecuniary damages and the much larger numbers tied to loss of future earning capacity. If you care about public law, civil liability, and how courts actually reason, subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review with your biggest question from the cases. Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

One missing question can be the whole appeal, and that’s where we start. We walk through a B.C. Court of Appeal decision arising from a judge-alone second-degree murder trial where the accused admits indignity to human remains but denies murder, claiming an accidental death during consensual sex and blaming memory gaps on intoxication. The legal tension is sharp: if the Crown wants to argue the intoxication story is fabricated, do they have to put that allegation directly to the accused in cross-examination? From there, we explain the Brown and Dunn principle in plain language and why it sits at the centre of fairness in Canadian evidence law. We talk about what it means to confront a witness with your theory, what counts as a real opportunity to respond, and why appellate courts look at the entire trial record instead of treating the rule like a technical “gotcha.” If you care about criminal procedure, credibility findings, and how appellate review actually works, this is a must-hear breakdown. We then shift into the NCRMD system, where the words “not criminally responsible” can be deeply misunderstood. A woman with treatment-resistant schizophrenia grabs a child on a bus, truly believing the child is hers, and ends up in secure psychiatric custody for years. We unpack Review Board decisions, the “significant threat to the safety of the public” test, and how mental health law can mean detention with no fixed end date. To close, we tackle a home invasion conviction built on circumstantial evidence like DNA on masks and cell tower data, plus a thorny issue about a trial judge relying on material in a court file that was not marked as an exhibit. Subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review, then tell us: where should courts draw the line on fairness and proof? Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

A judge relying on AI that invents case law is the stuff of nightmares, but it already happened, and Quebec’s courts are responding. We walk through brand-new guidance aimed at keeping generative AI out of the core judicial function while still acknowledging that the tools are everywhere. The key idea is simple: judges can’t delegate judgment, legal reasoning, or responsibility to a system that only simulates reasoning and cannot be accountable. From there, we get practical about risk. We talk about confidentiality and why it matters if a draft decision, private notes, or details from an ongoing case are pasted into a cloud AI tool. We also look at the bigger threat surface as AI gets baked into word processors, phones, tablets, and even wearables that can summarize what they hear. Court technology policy now has to think not just about “using AI” but about the quiet ways AI features can ingest sensitive information. Then we shift to a British Columbia case that shows how the criminal law responds to modern harm: distributing intimate images without consent under Criminal Code section 162.1, including the fact that threats can be crimes too. We break down how the judge approaches sentencing, why a conditional sentence is rejected, how Gladue factors are weighed for an Indigenous offender, and what probation adds after custody. If you care about AI in courts, privacy, judicial ethics, or criminal sentencing in Canada, this one connects the dots. Subscribe for more Canadian legal analysis, share the episode with someone who follows court tech, and leave a review so more listeners can find us. What limits would you put on AI in courtrooms? Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

Someone can’t outrun the Criminal Code by crossing a provincial line, so why does it sometimes feel that way in Victoria? We dig into the real mechanics of out-of-province warrants in British Columbia, including when a warrant applies Canada-wide and when it needs a local endorsement under section 528 of the Criminal Code. Then we get honest about the part nobody likes saying out loud: the decision to return a person often turns into a budget question about flights, officers, and whether the originating province is willing to pay.  We also unpack BC’s fugitive return program, the memorandum of understanding behind it, and the numbers that show how small the program is compared with what police are seeing on the ground. If Victoria Police are dealing with dozens of people wanted elsewhere in a matter of months, what does that mean for local resources, public safety, and the basic promise that the rule of law is applied consistently across Canada?  From there, we shift to a striking BC Supreme Court case that proves accountability does not stop with a criminal conviction. A neighbour shooting leads to a civil lawsuit, a trial conducted from prison over Microsoft Teams, and substantial damages for both the person who was shot and the spouse who witnessed it and develops PTSD. We walk through how civil damages work, why assets like a home matter for collection, and what the court can do to preserve property while judgment enforcement ramps up.  If you find this kind of practical legal breakdown useful, subscribe, share the episode with a friend in BC, and leave a review so more Canadians can find the show. What part of this system would you change first? Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

“Everyone gets the same benefit” sounds like the definition of fairness until you look at who gets squeezed when the rules change. We start with a Surrey teachers’ parental leave top-up dispute that has taken a surprising turn: adoptive parents argue that equal top-up pay can still be discriminatory because adoption can bring immediate, higher support needs for children, including trauma histories, disability, or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We unpack how the policy evolved from older, birth-mother-only benefits, through earlier discrimination findings, and into a negotiated model where all new parents receive the same top-up. Then we dig into the key legal question now headed to the Human Rights Tribunal: can identical treatment create disproportionate harm that human rights law must address? Next, we shift to criminal law and the rare reality of perjury charges. Michael Mulligan explains a case where a man, acquitted of manslaughter after a fatal one-punch incident, later pleaded guilty to perjury for lying under oath about whether his relationship had ended. We break down why courts treat perjury as so serious, how sentencing is assessed, and why the BC Court of Appeal upheld a 20-month jail term even where the lie might feel “peripheral.” We close with consumer protection and the Competition Act concept of drip pricing, using the Honk Mobile parking app class action as a real-world example. Nearly a million people are part of the settlement, with an average claim around 35 cents, raising practical questions about notice, redemption by promo code, and whether small-dollar justice actually reaches consumers. Subscribe for more legally grounded stories, share this with a friend who loves policy and court decisions, and leave a review with the question you want us to tackle next. Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

A government can detain someone for mental health reasons, but can it also force treatment without first asking a harder question: are they actually capable of deciding for themselves? We walk through a major British Columbia decision on involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act, where the court finds a section 7 Charter breach because director-approved treatment can override a patient’s wishes without a meaningful capacity process. Along the way, we unpack why consent, bodily autonomy, and dignity are not optional extras in Canadian health law, even when the patient is involuntarily hospitalized. We also dig into what changed midstream, including the repeal of “deemed consent”, and why that still didn’t fix the underlying problem. BC stands out compared with other provinces that use capacity assessments, advance directives, representation agreements, or substitute decision-makers to navigate informed consent and psychiatric care. The court suspends its ruling for six months, putting pressure on the province to amend the legislation or consider an appeal, while leaving the policy design to elected lawmakers. Then we pivot to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling with national impact: Parliament cannot legislatively prevent judicial review of administrative decisions. Using the WE Charity conflict of interest complaint and Democracy Watch’s challenge as the backdrop, we explain how the rule of law and section 96 of the Constitution Act protect the superior courts’ core role in reviewing whether government power is exercised lawfully and reasonably. If you care about mental health rights, government accountability, and the real meaning of the rule of law in Canada, this one connects the dots. Subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review, then tell us: where should courts draw the line on state power? Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discssed.

One word can change everything when it comes from a legal regulator. We dig into the BC Law Society’s mandatory Indigenous education course, the controversy over how it described the Kamloops Residential School site, and why some lawyers pushed to add a qualifier like “potential” when claims have not been independently confirmed. When that request was publicly framed as racist and then amplified through the Law Society’s own channels, the dispute escalated into a defamation lawsuit and ended with a settlement that included revised course wording, removed material, and a carefully worded public statement. From there, we zoom out to the bigger Canadian legal questions sitting behind the headlines: how professional regulators should communicate, how accusations of racism should be made responsibly, and what it would mean if governments moved toward criminalizing “residential school denialism” as hate speech. It’s a conversation about truth claims, harm, and the risks of turning contested facts into mandatory orthodoxy. We also break down a BC Adoption Act decision that shows how consent really works when a step-parent adoption is opposed by a biological parent. A nine-year-old’s views, a father’s substance-use struggles, and the court’s “best interests of the child” analysis collide in a ruling that legally severs one relationship while still urging space for connection when it’s safe, and the child wants it. If you care about Canadian law, family law, defamation, and freedom of expression, subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review with your take on where the line should be. Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

Bail has become the go-to explanation for everything people hate about crime and disorder, but the law is more stubborn than the politics. We sit down with Michael Mulligan to sort out what Bill C-14 actually does, what it cannot do because of the Charter, and why the presumption of innocence and section 11(e) still drive the core rules of judicial interim release. If you have ever wondered why “just hold them until trial” is not a simple switch, this conversation puts real legal guardrails around the debate.  We also talk about the part that rarely makes headlines: the system’s capacity. When courts are overloaded and under-resourced, cases spill over, trials get adjourned, and everyone pays the price in time and public confidence. We explore the Supreme Court’s principle of restraint, why bail conditions must be tied to specific risks, and why legislative “reminders” may sound tough while changing little on the ground.  Then we pivot to two practical cases. First, a mistrial application after a witness under cross-examination violates a common order not to discuss evidence. We unpack the “fair trial” north star and the remedies a judge can use short of scrapping the trial. Second, we dig into privacy law and modern surveillance: police obtain a neighbour’s security video of an accused person’s front door without a warrant, and the court finds no reasonable expectation of privacy, raising big questions for anyone living around cameras.  If this helped you think more clearly about Canadian bail law, mistrials, and privacy rights, subscribe, share the episode, and leave us a review so more people can find the show. What part of this debate do you think is most misunderstood? Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

A campus sticker dispute, a GST mistake that snowballs for years, and a pre-COVID work-from-home fight all end up in the BC Court of Appeal, and the common thread is proof. We walk through a defamation claim tied to “I Heart Hamas” stickers attributed to a UBC social justice group and explain the first hurdle many people miss: whether the plaintiff is even a legal entity that can sue. When the “group” is an unincorporated association, the case shifts to an individual trying to show the publication points to him personally, and we break down how courts analyze identification in Canadian defamation law.  Next, we dig into a small business GST problem caused by bad bookkeeping advice. We clarify the GST small supplier threshold, why you can still owe uncollected GST, and when voluntary registration can help through input tax credits. The case also highlights practical warning signs: invoices that exaggerate qualifications, vague LinkedIn claims, and the “pay me cash with no invoice” request that should make any business owner stop and reassess.  Finally, we look at a human rights and employment accommodation claim involving a TELUS worker who wanted to work from home based on vague symptoms and a thin doctor’s note. The court’s message is blunt and useful: an employer’s duty to accommodate is judged on the medical information available at the time, not on a diagnosis that appears later. If you found this helpful, subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review so more listeners can find these real-world legal takeaways. Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

A province says a police misconduct record is sealed and destroyed. The Supreme Court of Canada says a fair trial can’t work that way. We walk through a major ruling on criminal disclosure and why it matters when the credibility of an investigating officer is on the line, especially where past discipline involves dishonesty or reliability. From Stinchcombe to O’Connor to McNeil, we connect the dots between first-party disclosure, third-party records, and the real-world question defence lawyers face: what information must the Crown provide so an accused person can properly challenge the case against them?  Then we pivot to the financial wreckage left behind by a long-running Ponzi scheme. When the operator is bankrupt and the money is gone, the bankruptcy trustee has one practical tool left: clawbacks. We explain “net winners” versus “net losers”, why payouts often aren’t profits at all but other victims’ funds, and how concepts like fraudulent preference and fraudulent conveyance can unwind transactions to spread losses more fairly. If you’ve ever wondered what happens after a fraud collapses, this is the legal playbook.  We close with a sharp lesson on conditional sentence orders (house arrest) and breach allegations. A late-night compliance check leads to a simple defence, “I slept through it”, and a deeper legal issue: can the Crown jail someone for the rest of their sentence without proving intention? The BC Provincial Court says mens rea still matters, and we break down what that means for curfews, door-answering conditions, and proof.  If you find this kind of Canadian law breakdown useful, subscribe, share the episode with a friend, and leave a review so more listeners can find us. Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

A court ruling can change more than a headline, it can change how safe you feel about the basics: owning property and trusting the people who handle your money. We walk through a remarkable British Columbia Aboriginal title dispute connected to lands in Richmond and the Cowichan Tribes, where a private property owner tried to jump back into years of litigation after the trial decision raised alarms about fee simple ownership. When a judgment hints that Aboriginal title could affect private land, the stakes are not abstract. Think mortgages, resale value, and whether ownership still means you can sell without someone else’s consent. From there, we step back and ask a bigger question about the role of courts in Canada. When legal interpretations create sweeping policy consequences, what does judicial modesty or judicial restraint look like in practice? We talk about why public confidence matters and why sudden shifts can create uncertainty that spreads far beyond a single case. Then we pivot to employment law and personal finance with a wrongful dismissal fight involving an Investors Group advisor. We break down the difference between an employee, an independent contractor, and a dependent contractor, and why that classification decides whether notice is owed. We also unpack after acquired cause and how misconduct discovered after a firing can still justify termination. Along the way, we connect the case to a hard truth about financial advice in Canada: if you are not paying directly, commissions on mutual funds and investment products may be shaping the recommendation. Subscribe for more clear, practical legal analysis, share this episode with a friend who owns property or invests for retirement, and leave a review with the question you want us to tackle next. Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

A province suing over opioids is one thing. A province passing a statute that makes it easier for itself to sue, then launching a sweeping class action on that foundation, is something else entirely. We walk through British Columbia’s opioid litigation strategy, the allegations about marketing and addiction risk, and how the Opioid Damages and Health Care Cost Recovery Act reshapes the usual civil rules around limitation periods, damages, and liability. If you’ve ever wondered what “government cost recovery” really looks like in court, this is the clearest real-time example. We also unpack the Court of Appeal’s decision on class action certification, because that early procedural stage often decides the real leverage in mass litigation. We talk about what certification is actually meant to test, why appellate courts don’t treat appeals as a second kick at the can, and what it means when dozens of lawyers show up to fight over whether a case can proceed as a class action at all. Along the way, we flag a practical concern that’s easy to miss: cross-border enforceability and why a judgment that looks unfair can trigger resistance in other jurisdictions. Then we switch gears to a BC civil forfeiture case involving a 2015 Dodge Challenger and allegations of dangerous driving. The fight isn’t just about speeding facts; it’s about whether the province can sell property before trial to avoid storage costs, and what “instrument of unlawful activity” means when no criminal conviction is required. If civil forfeiture, due process, and proportionality have ever seemed abstract, this one makes it concrete. Subscribe, share the episode with a friend, and leave a review telling us which issue matters more to you: opioid accountability or civil forfeiture powers. Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.