What happens when a sophisticated scammer steals over half a million dollars in Bitcoin through a phone company's security failure? And more importantly, can you even take them to court?

The answer is more complicated than you might think, as we explore in this eye-opening legal examination of consumer rights in the digital age. A British Columbia resident fell victim to an elaborate fraud when someone impersonated a Rogers technician, convinced a retail employee to enable screen sharing, and accessed the Rogers customer database. After extracting personal information, the scammer performed a SIM swap and drained the victim's cryptocurrency account, assets that later appreciated to a staggering one million dollars.

When the victim attempted to sue Rogers, they encountered the hidden trap of arbitration clauses—those pages of legalese we all scroll through and accept without reading when setting up our services. Despite recent changes to BC consumer protection laws specifically banning these clauses, the court ruled in favor of Rogers on a fascinating technicality involving "retroactive" versus "retrospective" legislation. We break down this crucial distinction and explore how legislative language can determine whether consumers have access to justice.

The episode also examines a compelling Vancouver assault case that showcases the notorious unreliability of eyewitness identification. Despite a police officer's "100% certainty" about identifying a suspect from security footage, the court wasn't convinced, particularly when the officer failed to notice the suspect's distinctive "benzo gait," a hunched walking style common among drug users in the Downtown Eastside. This case provides a powerful reminder of why confident witnesses don't necessarily make reliable ones.

Whether you're concerned about protecting your digital assets or fascinated by the evolving landscape of consumer rights, this discussion offers valuable insights into how our legal system struggles to keep pace with technological change. Have you read the fine print in your service agreements? After hearing this, you might want to.

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

What happens when a child's life depends on a medication that costs nearly a million dollars per year? In this eye-opening conversation with Michael Mulligan of Mulligan Defence Lawyers, we take a deep dive into the tragic case of nine-year-old Charleigh Pollock from Langford, who suffers from the rare genetic disorder Batten disease.

Mulligan walks us through the complex web of legislation governing medication coverage in British Columbia, revealing the stark truth about how these life-or-death decisions are made. Despite common misconceptions about universal healthcare, the reality is that medication funding falls under provincial jurisdiction through the Pharmaceutical Services Act. For expensive drugs treating rare conditions, the process involves a Drug Benefits Council making recommendations, but final decisions rest with government ministers and are primarily financial rather than medical.

The most troubling aspect of Charleigh's case is that she had been receiving the $844,000-per-year treatment for some time before funding was abruptly discontinued. This withdrawal of established treatment raises serious legal questions that distinguish her situation from initial denials of coverage. Mulligan discusses a current groundbreaking case moving through BC courts that might provide a legal pathway forward, exploring potential arguments around negligence, Charter rights regarding cruel and unusual treatment, and judicial review of administrative decisions.

What emerges from this discussion is a sobering reality: when politicians claim they "shouldn't interfere with medical decisions," they're being disingenuous. The system is explicitly designed to make politicians the final arbiters of these treatments after doctors make their recommendations. The criteria for deciding which children receive life-saving medications are, at their core, about money, raising profound questions about how we value human life in our healthcare system. Listen in and consider what changes might be needed to create a more just approach to rare disease treatment in Canada.

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

The legal landscape in Canada continues to evolve with significant implications for sexual assault cases, courtroom procedures, and sentencing guidelines.

A groundbreaking Supreme Court of Canada decision has overturned a British Columbia sexual assault conviction in a case where prosecutors introduced evidence about the complainant's sexual inexperience without proper screening. The Court established that "sexual inactivity evidence" – including statements about virginity or lack of sexual interest – must face the same strict admissibility standards as evidence about past sexual activity. This landmark ruling recognizes that just as past consent doesn't imply present consent, past abstinence doesn't imply present non-consent. The decision extends protections against "twin myth reasoning" to both sides of the courtroom, requiring voir dire hearings whenever either Crown or defence wishes to introduce evidence about sexual history or the lack thereof.

Meanwhile, the BC Supreme Court has issued a fascinating new practice direction on witness oaths and affirmations. While the Bible remains available in courtrooms, witnesses wishing to swear upon other religious or cultural items must now bring their own. The directive specifically addresses concerns about ceremonial practices that might compromise courtroom "dignity, decorum and/or safety" – a provision likely influenced by historical oath ceremonies involving chicken beheadings, candle-burning rituals, saucer-smashing, and other culturally-specific practices. This raises profound questions about the continued relevance of religious declarations in modern court proceedings and whether simply affirming to tell the truth might better serve justice.

The courts also clarified the binding nature of joint submissions in a manslaughter case involving a man whose push led to his girlfriend's accidental fatal fall from a cliff. The BC Court of Appeal emphasized that judges cannot "tinker" with sentencing agreements between prosecution and defence unless they would "bring the administration of justice into disrepute." This high threshold protects the plea bargaining system that keeps our courts functioning. These cases collectively demonstrate how Canadian courts continue to balance procedural fairness, cultural sensitivity, and practical administration of justice in an evolving society. Subscribe to hear more analysis of pivotal legal developments that shape our justice system and reflect our changing social values.

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