A criminal trafficking charge sounds straightforward until you look at what’s happening on the ground in British Columbia’s overdose crisis. We dig into a BC Supreme Court decision sparked by the Drug User Liberation Front (DULF), a group that received Vancouver Coastal Health funding for drug checking and overdose prevention, then went further by buying drugs on the dark web, testing them, and providing them at cost to people who use drugs. After media attention and political blowback, funding ended, police searched the site, and the founders faced possession for the purpose of trafficking charges.

From there, the story becomes a deep, practical Charter section 7 debate about life, liberty, and security of the person under Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. We break down the evidence the judge relied on, including the scale of overdose deaths, and the argument that a tested non-medical supply can reduce fatalities. We also explain why the usual “just get an exemption” answer isn’t so simple, what happened when DULF applied for a federal exemption, and how delays and denial collide with an urgent public health emergency.

We also sort out a confusing but crucial distinction: supervised consumption sites with federal exemptions versus overdose prevention sites approved provincially without the same legal cover. Add in the bottlenecks in prescribed safer supply, limited access to doctors, and real-world mismatch between prescriptions and what people will use, and you can see why the court calls the current framework a near-blanket ban with no meaningful safety valve. The judge declares the law unconstitutional in B.C., suspends the decision for six months, and tees up an appeal and a policy response that could reshape harm reduction and drug trafficking law nationwide. If you found this useful, subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review. What do you think Ottawa should do next?

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

Government changing the rules for how lawyers are regulated sounds technical until you ask one blunt question: can a legal system stay fair if the bar is not independent from the state? We dig into British Columbia’s Bill 21 (the Legal Professions Act) and the ongoing court challenge over whether the independence of the legal profession is a constitutional requirement, not just a tradition. When the government is a frequent opponent in civil claims, Charter litigation, and criminal prosecutions, who should control the regulator that sets lawyers’ rules and discipline?

A key development lands before the main appeal even starts: twelve different organizations apply to intervene at the BC Court of Appeal. We explain the test for intervention, the difference between a direct interest and public interest standing, and why the court decides these groups can add useful perspectives without turning the hearing into a free-for-all. The interveners range from national legal bodies to groups raising issues like DRIPA implementation, an Indigenous council within the proposed scheme, and serious concerns about a regulator potentially compelling medical or mental health treatment.

Then we shift to a tragic negligence lawsuit from a municipal pool in Burnaby, where a four-year-old fell from the side of a three-metre diving board during “playtime” in swimming lessons. We unpack the standard of care for instructors, what the judge finds negligent, and how Canadian damages work, including the cap on non-pecuniary damages and the much larger numbers tied to loss of future earning capacity. If you care about public law, civil liability, and how courts actually reason, subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review with your biggest question from the cases.

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

One missing question can be the whole appeal, and that’s where we start. We walk through a B.C. Court of Appeal decision arising from a judge-alone second-degree murder trial where the accused admits indignity to human remains but denies murder, claiming an accidental death during consensual sex and blaming memory gaps on intoxication. The legal tension is sharp: if the Crown wants to argue the intoxication story is fabricated, do they have to put that allegation directly to the accused in cross-examination?

From there, we explain the Brown and Dunn principle in plain language and why it sits at the centre of fairness in Canadian evidence law. We talk about what it means to confront a witness with your theory, what counts as a real opportunity to respond, and why appellate courts look at the entire trial record instead of treating the rule like a technical “gotcha.” If you care about criminal procedure, credibility findings, and how appellate review actually works, this is a must-hear breakdown.

We then shift into the NCRMD system, where the words “not criminally responsible” can be deeply misunderstood. A woman with treatment-resistant schizophrenia grabs a child on a bus, truly believing the child is hers, and ends up in secure psychiatric custody for years. We unpack Review Board decisions, the “significant threat to the safety of the public” test, and how mental health law can mean detention with no fixed end date.

To close, we tackle a home invasion conviction built on circumstantial evidence like DNA on masks and cell tower data, plus a thorny issue about a trial judge relying on material in a court file that was not marked as an exhibit. Subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review, then tell us: where should courts draw the line on fairness and proof?

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

A judge relying on AI that invents case law is the stuff of nightmares, but it already happened, and Quebec’s courts are responding. We walk through brand-new guidance aimed at keeping generative AI out of the core judicial function while still acknowledging that the tools are everywhere. The key idea is simple: judges can’t delegate judgment, legal reasoning, or responsibility to a system that only simulates reasoning and cannot be accountable.

From there, we get practical about risk. We talk about confidentiality and why it matters if a draft decision, private notes, or details from an ongoing case are pasted into a cloud AI tool. We also look at the bigger threat surface as AI gets baked into word processors, phones, tablets, and even wearables that can summarize what they hear. Court technology policy now has to think not just about “using AI” but about the quiet ways AI features can ingest sensitive information.

Then we shift to a British Columbia case that shows how the criminal law responds to modern harm: distributing intimate images without consent under Criminal Code section 162.1, including the fact that threats can be crimes too. We break down how the judge approaches sentencing, why a conditional sentence is rejected, how Gladue factors are weighed for an Indigenous offender, and what probation adds after custody. If you care about AI in courts, privacy, judicial ethics, or criminal sentencing in Canada, this one connects the dots.

Subscribe for more Canadian legal analysis, share the episode with someone who follows court tech, and leave a review so more listeners can find us. What limits would you put on AI in courtrooms?

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

Someone can’t outrun the Criminal Code by crossing a provincial line, so why does it sometimes feel that way in Victoria? We dig into the real mechanics of out-of-province warrants in British Columbia, including when a warrant applies Canada-wide and when it needs a local endorsement under section 528 of the Criminal Code. Then we get honest about the part nobody likes saying out loud: the decision to return a person often turns into a budget question about flights, officers, and whether the originating province is willing to pay.

We also unpack BC’s fugitive return program, the memorandum of understanding behind it, and the numbers that show how small the program is compared with what police are seeing on the ground. If Victoria Police are dealing with dozens of people wanted elsewhere in a matter of months, what does that mean for local resources, public safety, and the basic promise that the rule of law is applied consistently across Canada?

From there, we shift to a striking BC Supreme Court case that proves accountability does not stop with a criminal conviction. A neighbour shooting leads to a civil lawsuit, a trial conducted from prison over Microsoft Teams, and substantial damages for both the person who was shot and the spouse who witnessed it and develops PTSD. We walk through how civil damages work, why assets like a home matter for collection, and what the court can do to preserve property while judgment enforcement ramps up.

If you find this kind of practical legal breakdown useful, subscribe, share the episode with a friend in BC, and leave a review so more Canadians can find the show. What part of this system would you change first?

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

“Everyone gets the same benefit” sounds like the definition of fairness until you look at who gets squeezed when the rules change. We start with a Surrey teachers’ parental leave top-up dispute that has taken a surprising turn: adoptive parents argue that equal top-up pay can still be discriminatory because adoption can bring immediate, higher support needs for children, including trauma histories, disability, or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We unpack how the policy evolved from older, birth-mother-only benefits, through earlier discrimination findings, and into a negotiated model where all new parents receive the same top-up. Then we dig into the key legal question now headed to the Human Rights Tribunal: can identical treatment create disproportionate harm that human rights law must address?

Next, we shift to criminal law and the rare reality of perjury charges. Michael Mulligan explains a case where a man, acquitted of manslaughter after a fatal one-punch incident, later pleaded guilty to perjury for lying under oath about whether his relationship had ended. We break down why courts treat perjury as so serious, how sentencing is assessed, and why the BC Court of Appeal upheld a 20-month jail term even where the lie might feel “peripheral.”

We close with consumer protection and the Competition Act concept of drip pricing, using the Honk Mobile parking app class action as a real-world example. Nearly a million people are part of the settlement, with an average claim around 35 cents, raising practical questions about notice, redemption by promo code, and whether small-dollar justice actually reaches consumers.

Subscribe for more legally grounded stories, share this with a friend who loves policy and court decisions, and leave a review with the question you want us to tackle next.

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

A government can detain someone for mental health reasons, but can it also force treatment without first asking a harder question: are they actually capable of deciding for themselves? We walk through a major British Columbia decision on involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act, where the court finds a section 7 Charter breach because director-approved treatment can override a patient’s wishes without a meaningful capacity process. Along the way, we unpack why consent, bodily autonomy, and dignity are not optional extras in Canadian health law, even when the patient is involuntarily hospitalized.

We also dig into what changed midstream, including the repeal of “deemed consent”, and why that still didn’t fix the underlying problem. BC stands out compared with other provinces that use capacity assessments, advance directives, representation agreements, or substitute decision-makers to navigate informed consent and psychiatric care. The court suspends its ruling for six months, putting pressure on the province to amend the legislation or consider an appeal, while leaving the policy design to elected lawmakers.

Then we pivot to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling with national impact: Parliament cannot legislatively prevent judicial review of administrative decisions. Using the WE Charity conflict of interest complaint and Democracy Watch’s challenge as the backdrop, we explain how the rule of law and section 96 of the Constitution Act protect the superior courts’ core role in reviewing whether government power is exercised lawfully and reasonably. If you care about mental health rights, government accountability, and the real meaning of the rule of law in Canada, this one connects the dots. Subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review, then tell us: where should courts draw the line on state power?

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

One word can change everything when it comes from a legal regulator. We dig into the BC Law Society’s mandatory Indigenous education course, the controversy over how it described the Kamloops Residential School site, and why some lawyers pushed to add a qualifier like “potential” when claims have not been independently confirmed. When that request was publicly framed as racist and then amplified through the Law Society’s own channels, the dispute escalated into a defamation lawsuit and ended with a settlement that included revised course wording, removed material, and a carefully worded public statement.

From there, we zoom out to the bigger Canadian legal questions sitting behind the headlines: how professional regulators should communicate, how accusations of racism should be made responsibly, and what it would mean if governments moved toward criminalizing “residential school denialism” as hate speech. It’s a conversation about truth claims, harm, and the risks of turning contested facts into mandatory orthodoxy.

We also break down a BC Adoption Act decision that shows how consent really works when a step-parent adoption is opposed by a biological parent. A nine-year-old’s views, a father’s substance-use struggles, and the court’s “best interests of the child” analysis collide in a ruling that legally severs one relationship while still urging space for connection when it’s safe, and the child wants it. If you care about Canadian law, family law, defamation, and freedom of expression, subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review with your take on where the line should be.

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