This week on the Driving Law Podcast, I welcome back the wonderful Erik Magraken of MacIsaac and Company to talk about major changes to ICBC's litigation strategy. In particular, we discuss new limits on the number of experts a person can have in their personal injury trial and a recent court decision that lambasted ICBC for its heavy-handed strategies in trying to force unreasonable settlements.
I'm also pleased to announce that the Driving Law podcast is now part of the Cannabis Media Collective!
You can listen online on SoundCloud, PlayerFM, or subscribe on iTunes!
This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, we look at the case of how far one man will go for a box of crackers. Trust me, it’s way too far. We also look at the hilarious tale of a mistaken bomb threat in a Kansas Home Depot. And finally, we delve into the weird world of what illegal business takes place in the drive-thru lineup of Sonic Restaurants in Mississippi, and what steps the store has taken to combat it.
Click the link below to read the three weirdest and wackiest legal cases of this week!
This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, we look at how a weekly bingo event at a seniors home in Ontario could end with police attending -- and not for a dead body. Then, we examine yet another hilarious but possibly wrongful way to be terminated from your employment. Finally, I get to express a little jealousy over the case of an Australian man who appears to have gotten away with a crime that I would very much like to commit if I had a free pass.
Read on to find out what that is, and more on this week's edition of Weird and Wacky Wednesdays!
The recent shooting of a Vancouver Transit Police officer caused a great deal of tension in the community. Not only was a gunman on the loose for several days, creating a sense of fear in the Lower Mainland, but the alleged attacker was also so comfortable with a weapon that he was willing to use it on a police officer.
Police are not often shot in Canada, thankfully. That fact made the idea of someone on the loose who had allegedly shot a police officer that much more troubling.
As details about the shooting and the suspect emerged, however, the conversation changed from one of how horrible it was that a police officer was shot, to one of how horrible it was that a man who had already taken a life was loose on the streets, able to try to do it again.
And that brings up the difficult topic of statutory release.
This week on Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn't, we look at the duty of defence counsel to investigate their clients' cases, as well as information and allegations contained in the police reports. When does the duty arise, and how is it triggered? And how far are defence lawyers supposed to go in conducting investigations. All these issues could have been considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. Watch the video to learn more.
A recent article published by Manisha Krishnan for VICE told a harrowing tale. A woman, who uses medical
cannabis to treat her Multiple Sclerosis, was arrested and investigated for impaired driving on the basis of a positive test for cannabis.
The facts are simple: the woman went out to celebrate her son’s birthday. Before she left, she smoked half a tiny joint. She was pulled over on the way home. She admitted to having one drink, and was given a breathalyser. She passed. She was then asked to do a roadside saliva test for cannabis. The test came up positive for THC.
On the basis of that, she was arrested, taken to the police detachment, and subjected to the Drug Recognition Evaluation Program. Despite her medical condition, she managed to pass the DRE test. She was then released. But not before her vehicle was impounded and she was given a roadside suspension for cannabis use.
This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, we look at the complicated defence of "it's not mine" in the most impossible circumstances ever. Then, we examine a strange case of bologna-related criminal harassment. Finally, we look at a creative solution to a serial crime taking place on Washington State highways.
Click the link below and read on to learn about this week's weirdest and wackiest legal cases.
This week on Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn't! we talk about how the requirement for knowledge of lawful use of a vehicle in automobile accident cases involving passengers and whether that requirement is totally unfair. Check out the video to see why this case should have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I am pleased and excited to announce that I am working with the UBC Indigenous Legal Studies Program and Centre for Feminist Legal Studies to put on a women's suit drive.
We are accepting donations up until February 13, 2019 at 5:00 p.m.
Read on to find out why I wanted to put on this event, and to find out the details about how you can donate.
A call that I frequently get from clients is whether they should dispute a 90-day driving prohibition for DUI. Many people are concerned that because they blew “Fail” into two different breathalyzers or because they admitted to consuming alcohol to the police that they will not have any chance of success in their driving prohibition dispute. The reality is that this could not be further from the truth.
I have an excellent track record of success in disputing DUI charges and driving prohibitions, and so this blog post will outline a few of the reasons why you should not count yourself out before consulting with a lawyer.
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer with a focus on impaired driving, cannabis legalization and related issues, and immediate roadside prohibition defence.