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.

A Canadian adult entertainment company faces an $850,000 fine after Health Canada's undercover operation exposed a lucrative scheme selling "natural health products" that secretly contained prescription medication. Michael Mulligan walks us through how MFH International Enterprises marketed pills called "Harmony" and "Passion Femme" as herbal alternatives while charging premium prices of nearly $140 for just 10 tablets. Health Canada's testing revealed these products contained triple doses of erectile dysfunction medications - putting unwitting consumers at serious risk, especially those with heart conditions.

The case raises alarming questions about consumer safety in the natural health product market. As Mulligan points out, "Not everything natural is necessarily good for you," noting that even legitimately natural ingredients with exotic names like "horny goat weed" and "tomcat" deserve scrutiny. The court's substantial fine was carefully calculated to exceed the company's profits while remaining collectible over five years - though Mulligan questions whether corporate shell games might ultimately prevent full payment.

The episode also examines a sobering reality about Canada's "not criminally responsible" verdicts. A man found NCR in 2012 for criminal harassment and uttering threats - offences that typically wouldn't result in lengthy prison terms - has now spent twelve years under involuntary psychiatric detention. His case starkly illustrates how NCR findings can lead to indefinite confinement rather than the "get out of jail free card" commonly assumed by the public.

Closing with an analysis of British Columbia's proposed Economic Stabilization Act, Mulligan warns about delegating sweeping regulatory powers that bypass legislative debate. The bill would allow the government to rapidly impose tolls, fees, and restrictions through regulation alone - potentially creating chaotic policy shifts similar to what we've seen with international tariffs. While quick responses to economic challenges are appealing, Mulligan cautions that such broad authority demands careful consideration: "We should slow down... if you grant sweeping powers to do things which could seriously impact people's lives and livelihoods, sometimes you're going to cause serious harm."

Note: Legally Speaking With Michael Mulligan is now live on CFAX 1070 at 12:30 pm rather than 10:30 am every Thursday.

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

The spectre of trade wars looms as social media announced tariffs threaten to disrupt the Canada-US relationship, but a powerful alternative to the traditional tit-for-tat approach exists. Rather than punishing ourselves with counter-tariffs that make goods more expensive for Canadians, we could follow Brazil's remarkably successful strategy from 2010.

When faced with harmful US cotton subsidies, Brazil obtained WTO approval to suspend American intellectual property protections on pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and entertainment. The threat alone was so effective that the US capitulated, passing corrective legislation and paying compensation. This approach targeted America's post-industrial economy, where true value lies not in manufacturing but in patents, copyrights, and intellectual property.

Looking at our trade history, intellectual property protection forms the cornerstone of agreements from NAFTA to the 2020 USMCA. These agreements dramatically restricted Canada's generic drug industry, extended copyright terms to 75+ years, protected US semiconductor designs, and created digital IP frameworks that primarily benefit American companies. Since these protections exist because of the very agreements being violated through tariff threats, suspending them represents a logical and asymmetrical response.

The beauty of this approach is its win-win nature for Canada – consumers would save substantially on medications, technology, and entertainment while applying maximum pressure to US interests. When auto executives warned of catastrophic consequences from parts tariffs, Trump backed down within 24 hours. Imagine the lobbying pressure from every pharmaceutical, technology, and entertainment giant facing the loss of their international intellectual property protections. As our legal expert notes, this approach has proven effectiveness has legal standing through WTO processes, and would target "most of the US economy" – making it a strategic option Canada shouldn't overlook as trade tensions escalate.

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

Explore the intricate landscape of Canadian immigration law with us in this episode, where we unravel the surprising realities that can lead to deportation for long-term residents. Our primary focus is a captivating case involving a UK citizen who, after living in Canada for over 70 years, finds himself facing deportation due to organized criminality. The conversation sheds light on the legal definitions that can suddenly place an individual at risk, even for what may seem minor infractions.

Additionally, a heart-wrenching tale on an exploding stove illustrates the challenges individuals face within civil legal systems, highlighting the importance and protection that jury trials provide in civil matters.

As we continue our discussion, we touch on the implications of harsh pre-trial conditions, showing how they may alter parole eligibility for those convicted of murder. Listeners are encouraged to consider the broader context of these legal decisions and how they intersect with mental health and personal histories. This rich dialogue not only educates about the law but also reflects wider societal values and challenges.

Join us in this compelling conversation that not only informs but also provokes critical thinking on justice, fairness, and the legal hurdles many immigrants face. Don’t miss out—subscribe, leave a review, and share your thoughts with us!

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

What legal responsibilities do towns have when a simple stroll through a park turns tragic? Join us as we sit down with Michael Mulligan to uncover the layers of liability and negligence that come into play when public spaces fail to safeguard their visitors. Through the lens of a heart-wrenching case involving a young boy in Gibsons who became tetraplegic after a dead tree fell on him, we explore the critical question of whether the town fulfilled its duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act. Michael helps us dissect the legal obligations and expectations placed on municipalities to ensure safety, including how standards like the Wildlife Danger Tree Assessors course influence these responsibilities.

Pivoting to the realm of marine life, we navigate the murky waters of marine mammal regulations with a keen eye on a legal case that raises questions about the fairness of prosecution. When a woman was accused of disturbing killer whales while paddleboarding, it highlighted the labyrinth of modern legal statutes that can ensnare even the most well-meaning individuals. Michael guides us through this legal conundrum, addressing the principle that ignorance is no defence and the peculiar world of licensing fees for hunting marine mammals. We spotlight the legal processes, from evidence handling to upholding an individual's right to a fair trial, ensuring that justice remains not just a concept but a reality.

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