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.

What happens when crucial evidence is withheld from the defence in a murder case? The devastating consequences unfolded in a tragic BC case where a woman's life was completely shattered after being wrongfully convicted in connection with a toddler's drowning death.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently ordered an acquittal for a woman who served a year in prison after pleading guilty to criminal negligence causing death. She made this plea without knowing that Crown prosecutors had withheld 140 pages of material questioning the reliability of the medical examiner whose opinions were central to the case against her. The consequences went far beyond her prison sentence—she lost custody of her four children, faced community ostracism, developed drug addiction, and eventually became homeless.

This miscarriage of justice highlights the critical importance of proper evidence disclosure in our legal system. Even the family of the deceased toddler supported the acquittal, recognizing the compounded tragedy when justice fails. Adding a bizarre twist to this case, the Alberta government recently issued an apology to the medical examiner, stating "there have been no miscarriages of justice" connected to his work - apparently contradicting the findings of both the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

In another revealing case, a permanent resident faces deportation after 34 years in Canada due to impaired driving convictions. Despite police violating his rights by video recording him using the toilet in his cell (which the judge acknowledged warranted some sentence reduction), the court declined to artificially lower his sentence below the six-month threshold that triggers deportation proceedings. With 32 driving prohibitions on his record, the judge was "flabbergasted" that the Crown wasn't seeking maximum penalties.

These cases offer crucial warnings: for legal professionals about proper evidence handling, for permanent residents about pursuing citizenship when eligible, and for law enforcement about respecting constitutional rights even when dealing with repeat offenders. When our justice system fails, the human cost can be immeasurable.

Subscribe to hear more stories about the intersection of law, justice, and human lives on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan.

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

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.

What does it take to sentence a dog to death? Far less than you might think. In our latest deep dive into fascinating legal territory, we explore a heartbreaking case from Kamloops where a pit bull named Ferb faced the ultimate penalty under BC's dangerous dog laws.

The story weaves through a tragic background - Ferb, stabbed five times as a puppy before being rescued, later found himself implicated in the killing of a neighbour's collie. What makes this case particularly compelling is how it illuminates the stark difference between animal and human justice systems. While humans receive the protection of "beyond a reasonable doubt," Ferb's life hung on the much lower "balance of probabilities" standard. Through expert testimony on pack mentality and circumstantial evidence, the court determined Ferb's fate in a process that raises profound questions about how we balance public safety against animal welfare.

We also unpack a creative but unsuccessful class action against ICBC that claimed drivers were overcharged for cross-border liability insurance during COVID travel restrictions. The case's dismissal reveals the complex regulatory framework governing insurance rates and the limited recourse available to consumers who feel they've paid for services they couldn't legally use. Finally, we examine a fascinating business dispute involving proprietary nasal spray technology that demonstrates unique aspects of injunctive relief when enforcing negative covenants. Together, these cases paint a vivid picture of our legal system's intricate balance of competing interests and the frameworks created to resolve conflicts across vastly different contexts.

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