Navigating the legal maze of property transactions and civil judgments requires understanding nuances that aren't always obvious. Michael Mulligan, barrister and solicitor with Mulligan Defence Lawyers, unpacks two fascinating cases that illuminate these complexities.

First, Mulligan explores a cautionary tale about what constitutes a "fixture" in home purchases. When buyers discovered a beloved dresser missing after taking possession—revealing holes in the wall behind it—they sued for $7,430 in damages. The case hinged on whether the dresser qualified as a fixture that should remain with the property. The legal test? If an item is attached to the property in a way that removal would cause damage, it's likely a fixture. Those IKEA bookshelves you've secured to walls? They might legally transfer with your home unless specifically excluded in the sale contract.

The same dispute involved "conversation sets" on patios—a vague term that led to confusion when the sellers removed chairs and a large wicker sectional. Despite going to court, the buyers received just $100 for their trouble, demonstrating how ambiguous contract language and litigation costs can result in pyrrhic victories. Mulligan's advice is crystal clear: be specific in contracts about what stays and what goes when selling or buying property.

The conversation shifts to a disturbing case involving a disbarred lawyer convicted of sexually assaulting a potential client in his office. When sued civilly, he claimed any judgment would be pointless as he'd simply declare bankruptcy again. This reveals a common misconception about bankruptcy protection. While bankruptcy can discharge many debts, Section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act specifically excludes sexual assault damages, intentional torts, fraud, and court fines from discharge. The $270,000 judgment against him would survive bankruptcy—though collecting from someone without assets remains challenging regardless.

These cases illustrate critical principles: precise language prevents expensive disputes, bankruptcy won't erase obligations from intentional wrongdoing, and winning a judgment doesn't guarantee collection. Whether you're buying a home or seeking justice through civil courts, understanding these legal realities can save you significant time, money, and heartache.

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

Ever wondered if your dog could land you in legal hot water? Or what happens when your neighbour's business becomes an unbearable nuisance? Legal expert Michael Mulligan returns to Legally Speaking with three captivating cases that reveal the fascinating intersection of everyday life and Canadian law.

The spotlight first falls on Juliet, a miniature Australian shepherd whose elevator encounter led to a $4,800 claim after she allegedly bit a woman's hand. Mulligan unpacks the surprising legal doctrine that essentially gives dogs "one free bite" before owners face liability. The Civil Resolution Tribunal's dismissal of the case highlights the important distinction between a single incident and established patterns of behaviour in animal liability cases. Dog owners across British Columbia might breathe easier knowing that, without prior knowledge of aggressive tendencies, they're unlikely to face legal consequences for an otherwise well-behaved pet's first transgression.

Things heat up with the case of a small-town gas station that found itself embroiled in a 20-day trial complete with acoustics and vapour experts. When the station relocated its underground tanks, neighbouring residents endured years of noise, fumes, and bright lights from fuel deliveries. Though the court acknowledged these disturbances constituted a legal nuisance, it rejected demands to shut down operations. Instead, the judge awarded $80,000 to the affected family, demonstrating how Canadian courts balance individual property rights against broader community needs. The Court of Appeal's affirmation of this approach reveals the remarkable discretion judges maintain when crafting remedies that serve competing interests.

The final case delivers a cautionary tale featuring a BC Housing tenant known variously as "Lover-Peace" and "Emotions Universe," whose troublesome behaviour resulted in his designation as a "vexatious litigant." After breaching an agreement to vacate public housing in exchange for rental supplements, his attempt to appeal his eviction order led to a full-day hearing where his pattern of harassing behaviour toward legal professionals came to light. The $2,500 special costs penalty imposed sends a clear message about the consequences of abusing the legal system.

Want to explore more fascinating intersections of law and everyday life? Join us next week for another edition of Legally Speaking, where Michael Mulligan continues to demystify Canadian jurisprudence one compelling case at a time.

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

The BC Court of Appeal has delivered a significant ruling that serves as a stark warning to property sellers: crossing out questions on disclosure forms doesn't eliminate your responsibility to be truthful. When a seller drew lines through all disclosure questions, writing only that the property was tenant-occupied and he'd never lived there, he created a legal nightmare for himself. After discovering an unpermitted addition, the buyer backed out – but the seller kept the $300,000 deposit and sued for more. Though initially successful, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding the seller knew about the problem and his line-crossing technique didn't absolve him of responsibility.

The case highlights a critical point for anyone engaging in real estate transactions: disclosure forms are binding components of your contract. If you choose to complete one, everything you state (or strategically avoid stating) can have serious financial consequences. Sellers must either be meticulously accurate or explicitly mark properties as sold "as is" with no representations or warranties.

In a separate ruling that exposes the troubling state of Indigenous child welfare, the Court restored a $150,000 human rights award to a First Nations mother who successfully proved discrimination by an Indigenous child protection agency. The statistics remain deeply concerning – Indigenous children represent a staggering 68% of those in government care despite comprising just 6% of BC's population. The case offers a glimpse into a system still struggling with its approach to Indigenous families.

These rulings demonstrate how the courts continue to shape responsibilities in property transactions and protect human rights in child welfare matters. Whether you're buying, selling, or navigating family services, understanding these legal precedents could save you from costly mistakes or help you assert your rights when systems fail.

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