A notorious criminal case and a sweeping policy change collide in one packed hour, and the throughline is unmistakable: how law balances dignity, proof, and practical consequences. We start by unpacking the latest development in the Robert Picton matter: with the RCMP ending their investigation and holding thousands of seized items—some believed to be human remains—families sought a court order to keep everything preserved for a civil occupiers’ liability claim against Picton’s estate and his brother. We walk you through why the judge refused. The key: meticulous police documentation, DNA profiles, and forensic records made the physical remains unnecessary to the civil issues, while the coroner is legally mandated to identify, notify families, and ensure respectful disposition. It’s a difficult ruling with a humane core—moving evidence out of limbo and toward answers.

From there, we pivot to construction law’s next big shake-up: Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act. If you build, supply, wire, pour, or manage, this matters. We break down the “proper invoice” requirements, the 28-day payment clock (plus seven days per tier), and the new adjudication system designed to unstick payment disputes before they snowball. We map real-world risk: multi-layered chains, scope changes, and deficiency claims colliding with statutory deadlines. And we examine oversight, including how judicial review is framed, why documentation will be your best defence, and how to align contracts, invoicing, and site practice so cash keeps moving.

By the end, you’ll understand why the court’s decision may bring families closer to closure—and why construction businesses need to prepare now for compliance, adjudication, and potential work stoppages if payments fail. If this conversation helps you think differently about evidence, dignity, and getting people paid, follow the show, share it with your team, and leave a review to help more listeners find it.

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

A seven‑month marriage sparked on a sugar‑arrangement site, a $12,000/month support bid, and a dog named Frankie—this one has layers. We open with a candid walk‑through of interim spousal support: what it’s for, how courts weigh “capacity to pay,” and why selling capital assets to fund an opulent lifestyle isn’t the same as earning income. The applicant’s luxury‑level budget meets judicial scrutiny, while the respondent’s push to impute escort income and point to family wealth hits legal limits. The end result—$4,000/month plus a retroactive lump—shows how judges balance short marriages, realistic needs, and the difference between lifestyle and income.

Then the plot thickens. A same‑day, ex parte protection order leads to disputed removals from the home and a tussle over Frankie. We unpack how BC’s Family Law Act treats companion animals: not as handbags, but through factors like who provided care, safety concerns, and well‑being. On an interim basis, Frankie stays put—illustrating how courts separate urgent stability from final outcomes and insist on full candour when seeking protective relief.

The second half pivots to evidence law and a rare rebuke: the province sought a lifetime ban on a man from a welfare office, relying on an internal incident report as a “business record.” Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal said no. We explain why “ordinary course of business” demands reliability—think automated receipts and bank statements—not a narrative drafted post‑incident for litigation. Even beyond admissibility, the appellate court flags proportionality: a permanent injunction is an extraordinary remedy, not a default response.

If you care about how courts actually draw the line between income and spending, how interim orders stabilize without deciding the future, how pet custody really works, and when business records are admissible, this conversation is your blueprint. Listen, share with a friend who loves law done plainly, and leave a quick review to help others find the show.

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

Where do your constitutional protections begin and end? The dividing line between private actions and state authority forms the heart of a fascinating BC Court of Appeal decision that clarifies when ordinary citizens become "agents of the police."

The case centers on Loomis Courier employees who, at police direction, set aside suspicious packages for warrantless seizure during a drug investigation. Unlike previous cases involving independent security guards or school administrators, these employees were acting on specific police instructions. The Court established that the key test is whether individuals would have conducted themselves the same way "but for" police involvement—a crucial distinction that determines whether evidence can be excluded from criminal trials.

Privacy rights received further examination in a separate ruling that overturned a class action against the doctor rating website RateMDs.com. The Court determined that publicly available professional information—like a doctor's office address or phone number—doesn't carry a reasonable expectation of privacy protected under BC's Privacy Act. This distinction between truly private information and professional details available through other sources highlights the contextual nature of privacy protections in the digital age.

The Court also addressed the tension between professional standards and constitutional freedoms in a case involving a lawyer disciplined for sharing inappropriate "locker room talk" about a judge with a client. While not condoning the behavior, the ruling emphasized that regulatory bodies must balance conduct requirements against fundamental rights like freedom of expression—even when regulating professionals whose speech carries special responsibilities.

These rulings collectively illustrate how courts navigate the complex intersection of individual rights, professional obligations, and state authority. They remind us that understanding these boundaries is essential in a world where the line between private and public actions continues to blur. What private actions in your life might unexpectedly cross into constitutional territory?

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