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.