What is wrong with no-fault insurance? It's definitely cheaper than the old insurance system we had, right?

That's true, but like with most things in life, you get what you pay for.

And to be honest, for minor injuries, it works fine.

There may be philosophical questions about whether people should be at fault for what they do, But if you're dealing with a fender bender and somebody who's off work for a day or two, or they've got a cast or something, it's not the end of the world.

And frankly, we had under the prior system, a hybrid system as well.

It was called part seven benefits, which would pay for like your cast and your, you know, a little bit of lost work, that kind of thing.

But the problem with no fault arises for very serious injuries.

Like, what are people complaining about? Your thoughts, Michael?

Hmm

...

if the, uh...

I mean, there may be philosophical questions about, uh, whether people should be at fault for what they do.

But if you're dealing with a fender bender and somebody's off work for a day or two or they've got a cast or something, it's not the end of the world.

And frankly, we had under the, uh, prior system a hybrid system as well.

It was called Part Seven benefits, which would pay for, like, your cast and your, you know, little bit of lost work, that kind of thing.

Hmm

What happened this week? Well, it's really a

fascinating decision, and it also serves as an interesting sort of repository of evidence about what's been going on with drugs in British Columbia.

So the case itself originated with respect to the two co-founders of an organization called the Drug User Liberation Front, the acronym D-U-L-F, DULF, I guess.

So the Drug User Liberation Front.

is an organization on the Lower Mainland.

And it had, it sounds like from the decision, funding from the provincial government via Vancouver Coastal Health for a number of years.

Back in 2022, they started receiving $200,000 a year to provide a drug checking program and overdose prevention services.

of drugs.

Hmm.

Um, and there were federal criticism there of the BC NDP, quote, "Giving hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to illegal drug dealers in addition to decriminalizing hard drugs." That's how that was characterized.

Uh, and it, uh, then, uh, produced a, uh, political, uh, response, uh, of, uh, uh, ending the funding from Vancouver Coastal Health to this group.

Uh, and then, uh, six days before this organization was to shut down for, I guess, not getting the money any longer, uh, the, uh, police, uh, conducted a search, uh, of their premises, and they found, uh, in the safe 192 grams of cocaine, 237 grams of heroin, and 364 grams of methamphetamine.

Uh, and that resulted in these criminal charges for being in possession for the purpose of trafficking, uh, which is a, a different and more serious offense than simply being in possession of drugs.

Uh, and so, uh, first of all, the judge, uh, uh, heard the trial and found subject to this constitutional argument, uh, the people involved guilty.

[laughs] Right? They, they were the people doing this.

Yeah

them,

Is it a circumstance where it would be in the public interest to, if there's a public interest in a public law issue, like a broader issue that affects the public generally? And would that group or individual bring a different and useful perspective on those issues to be assessed by the court? And so that's a broader category.

And then when the assessment is being made, there are a number of things that a judge from the Court of Appeal would need to consider.

including these things, like does the proposed intervener have a broad representative base? Is it just this one guy in his basement, or does this represent quite a few people, right? Are they legitimately engaged in what the issue is here? Is this just a busybody, or do they have some particular legitimate interest in it? Would they bring a unique perspective that might not be raised by the parties, for example? And then the flip side, you don't want to avoid expanding the scope of the thing, raising new issues that the parties aren't actually fighting about, potentially delaying things and getting the case off in a tangent.

And so that's what the judge from the Court of Appeal had to consider with respect to these dozen parties that wish to participate in the appeal.

And a couple of them maintained the position that they had a direct interest in it.

And they included the Canadian Bar Association and the Criminal Defense Advocacy Society.

What happened?

Yeah.

And in the case of all 12 of them, interestingly, the judge from the Court of Appeal concluded that, yes, they do all have that legitimate public interest standing and that it would add to the hearing of the appeal.

And they range from, for example, there's a group called the Federation of Law Societies for Canada.

It's like a group that represents all the law societies across the country.

They want to intervene.

They thought that would be useful.

On the government side, one was the Indigenous Bar Association, because one of the issues is this new legislation, in addition to having goals like implementing DRIPA, also creates an Indigenous Council.

What happened?

What happened?

Well, first of all, the fact pattern, like many of these murder cases, is never a good state of affairs, given where they clearly ended up at the end of things.

But this was a case involving a murder or charge of murder, conviction for second-degree murder, of a woman who was killed by strangulation, was the forensic evidence.

There was also a charge of doing an indignity to human remains, which is also not a good fact pattern.

That's a separate offense, by the way.

And in this case, the accused pled guilty to that, given the fact that the body, I think, had been cut into eight pieces and he had made a statement about ordering some lie to dispose of the body, which I think would squarely tick off those boxes.

The lie thing, by the way, and maybe this is the only kind of dark humor that criminal lawyers would get to enjoy, but There was a – lye is a substance that can be used to dispose of bodies.

here.

What happened?

Quite a bit.

So this dates back, originally the event dates back to 2016.

And it occurred in Vernon.

And the fact pattern was that this woman, who was charged with this, was a passenger on a bus.

And she's clearly somebody with mental illness.

We'll come to that in a moment.

What happened?

What's happening?

So this is really fascinating.

I mean, we've heard, all of us, I think, various stories of people like lawyers or unrepresented litigants filing things based on artificial intelligence where it's just made-up cases and so on, right? So that's...

There have been numerous reports of that.

There was, I think we might have touched on this briefly a few months ago.

There's actually a judge in Quebec that got caught who issued a judgment, which they had generated using artificial intelligence, which itself had hallucinated various authorities.

And that was the basis for the judge's decision, rather unsettling.

What happened?

What's happening?

So this is really fascinating.

I mean, we've heard all of us, I think, various stories of people like lawyers or unrepresented litigants filing things based on artificial intelligence where it's just made up cases and so on.

Right.

So that's there have been numerous reports of that.

There was I think we might have touched on this briefly a few months ago.

There's actually a judge in Quebec.

What happened?

How does that work, especially here in Victoria?

Well, it's an issue I think here in Victoria perhaps more than other places, because of course this is a nice place to be, right? [chuckles] If you're gonna be a fugitive, you might pick here.

And to give some idea of the sort of scope and scale of the issue, the Victoria Police dealt with, uh, 80 people in the first six months of this year, uh, who had outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions.

Um, and so far it would appear that few of those people, if any, have actually been removed.

And so I thought it would be useful to just provide some context in terms of the legal process involved, uh, the system that's in place, and what, uh, might be done to im- improve that, uh, uh, how that's operating.

Um, so first of all, it's important to know that in Canada, the Criminal Code, of course, is the Criminal Code of Canada, right? It's the same criminal law all across the country.

Uh, and so, uh, y- it's not like The, uh, Dukes of Hazzard where you can kind of jump into the next county and escape, uh, uh, the operation of the law in Canada.

Yeah

How does that work, especially here in Victoria?

Well, it's an issue, I think, here in Victoria, perhaps more than other places, because, of course, this is a nice place to be, right? If you're going to be a fugitive, you might pick here.

To give some idea of the sort of scope and scale of the issue, the Victoria police dealt with 80 people in the first six months of this year who had outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions.

And so far, it would appear that few of those people, if any, have actually been removed.

And so I thought it would be useful to just provide some context in terms of the legal process involved, the system that's in place, and what might be done to improve how that's operating.

So first of all, it's important to know that in Canada, the criminal code, of course, is the criminal code of Canada, right? It's the same criminal law all across the country.

And so it's not like the Dukes of Hazzard where you can kind of jump into the next county and escape the operation of the law in Canada.

It says a civil judgment, a substantial one, I think it says $767,000, it says, for, am I reading this right, shooting a man after the defendant was convicted of criminal offenses and jailed for the same thing?

It says a human rights claim by teachers with nine children alleging discrimination based on, does that say adoptive versus birth parents to proceed? What's happening here?

Well, I guess one way to sum it up would be sort of the toothpaste tube getting squeezed around in different places in terms of top-ups paid to different kinds of parents when they have a new child.

And the particular background of this case is a claim brought by two teachers who are both employed, apparently, for a long period of time in a – the Surrey School District.

And they had a big family, lots of children in total, in this case involved the adoption of their ninth child.

So wow, that's a busy household.

And The underlying issue here is one involving who should be entitled to a financial top-up that would be available to you to supplement the amount of money you might be getting from the government when you're going on leave, when you're either having a child or adopting a child.

And the case actually, sort of the origin of how this thing came to be dates all the way back to 2012 when there was a complaint brought by a father, actually back to 1998, even earlier, 1998.

What's all this about?

I'm reading here, it says a human rights claim by teachers with nine children alleging discrimination based on, does that say adoptive versus birth parents to proceed? What's happening here?

Well, I guess one way to sum it up would be sort of the toothpaste tube getting squeezed around in different places in terms of top-ups paid to different kinds of parents when they have a new child.

And the particular background of this case is a claim brought by two teachers who are both employed, apparently, for a long period of time in the Surrey School District.

And they had a big family, lots of children in total, in this case involved the adoption of their ninth child.

So, wow, that's a busy household.

And The underlying issue here is one involving who should be entitled to a financial top-up that would be available to you to supplement the amount of money you might be getting from the government when you're going on leave, when you're either having a child or adopting a child.

And the case, actually, the origin of how this thing came to be dates all the way back to 2012 when there was a, complaint brought by a father, actually back to 1998, even earlier, 1998.

What's all this about?

Interesting topics on the agenda for this week, including you and I have talked about at great length, involuntary mental health care and a recent court decision that impacts what rights a person who is being subjected to involuntary care does and does not have in terms of determining the course of their treatment.

Yeah, this is a very interesting and significant decision.

And it comes from a challenge brought by a group called the Council for Canadians with Disabilities.

And it was a constitutional challenge to the process we have in British Columbia to make treatment decisions about administering treatment to somebody who is an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act.

And the particular challenge was brought on the basis of an alleged breach of Section 7, which is the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Of interest, the challenge brought was not a challenge to the process whereby a person can become an involuntary patient in a mental health facility.

And broadly speaking, as we've talked about before, there is authority under the Mental Health Act to have somebody involuntarily admitted and to become a patient.

this is

Interesting topics on the agenda for this week, including you and I have talked about at great length, involuntary mental health care and a recent court decision that impacts what rights a person who is being subjected to involuntary care does and does not have in terms of determining the course of their treatment.

Yeah, this is a very interesting and significant decision.

And it comes from a challenge brought by a group called the Council for Canadians with Disabilities.

And it was a constitutional challenge to the process we have in British Columbia to make treatment decisions about administering treatment to somebody who is an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act.

And the particular challenge was brought on the basis of an alleged breach of Section 7, which is the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

And of interest, the challenge brought was not a challenge to the process whereby a person can become an involuntary patient in a mental health facility.

And broadly speaking, as we've talked about before, there's authority under the Mental Health Act to have somebody involuntarily admitted and to become a patient if they're a person with a mental disorder.

Yeah.

What happened?

So the background of this relates to a course that the BC Law Society made mandatory for lawyers back in 2024.

The Law Society, of course, is the organization that regulates lawyers in the province and And one of the things that it did was to make mandatory and Indigenous course intended to, I guess, improve relations or information about Indigenous justice and other issues in the province.

And when the course came in, it was controversial for one reason, because it was mandatory.

It's like a six-hour course.

But One of the – actually, the connection that produced this lawsuit that just settled related to a specific part of this mandatory course, which read at the time, quote, discovery of an unmarked burial site containing the bodies of 215 children on the former Kamloops Indian Residential School grounds, which – confirmed what survivors have been seeing all along.

That was one of the passages in this mandatory course.

What happened?

What happened?

So the background of this relates to a course that the BC Law Society made mandatory for lawyers back in 2024.

The Law Society, of course, is the organization that regulates lawyers in the province.

And one of the things that it did was to make mandatory an Indigenous course intended to, I guess, improve relations or information about Indigenous justice and other issues in the province.

And when the course came in, it was controversial for one reason, because it was mandatory.

It's like a six-hour course.

But one of the actual, the connection that produced this lawsuit that just settled related to a specific part of this mandatory course, which read at the time, quote, discovery of an unmarked burial site containing the bodies of 215 children on the former Kamloops Indian Residential School grounds, which confirmed what survivors have been seeing all along.

What happened?

Yeah.

And that basic principle is constitutionally enshrined, along with the presumption of innocence.

And in 11E of the Charter, it guarantees the right to reasonable bail absent just cause.

And it's been interpreted, keeping in mind that just general principle I've just spoken about.

Well, there are, I should say, legitimate issues with the criminal justice system and things that could be done to improve it.

You know, for example, one of the reasons why we're having this show at a special time today is because of just how busy it is in court.

That's where I was at the regular time, court running over when it would usually run, and that's largely a function of things like an inadequate number of judges, for example, right? We've got communities that grow quickly, and if you don't add resources, which means not just judges, but you also need court clerks and sheriffs and crown and In fact, in many cases, you also need to have legal aid funding.

justice system participants.

Yeah.

And that basic principle is constitutionally enshrined, along with the presumption of innocence.

And in 11e of the Charter, it guarantees the right to reasonable bail absent just cause.

And it's been interpreted, keeping in mind that just general principle I've just spoken about.

Well, there are, I should say, legitimate issues with the criminal justice system and things that could be done to improve it.

You know, for example, one of the reasons why we're having this show at a special time today is because of just how busy it is in court.

That's where I was at the regular time, court running over when it would usually run, and that's largely a function of things like an inadequate number of judges, for example, right? We've got communities that grow quickly, and if you don't add resources, which means not just judges, but you also need court clerks and sheriffs and crown and In fact, in many cases, you also need to have legal aid funding.

there,

[laughs] Yes.

Uh, and sort of globs of people can't sue.

And you can imagine the problem if globs of people could sue.

You would ar- You would have issues like, well, the glob of people was awarded some money.

Who gets it? Or the glob of people sued somebody unsuccessfully.

Who's paying the costs? Everyone would just scatter into the wilderness, right? Um, and so this entity, the Social Justice Center, unincorporated, uh, apparently had some 12 coordinators, no board of directors, 30 active members.

Uh, and, you know, it was just a glob.

Yeah.

some reason.

And then a final issue got crystallized back in 2009.

When the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the issue of what about disciplinary records for police that were involved in the investigation? What if the main investigator had been disciplined for dishonesty or something, right? What is that? Is that a first-party record? Is that like from that Stinchcombe case? Is that like the fingerprints the police collected at the bank? Or is that more like...

oh, some evidence collected in some other case or something that some other party might have.

And the Supreme Court of Canada in that case, McNeil, found that, broadly speaking, that sort of material, like records the police have about officers that were disciplined, who were integral to the case, witnesses, that that material is dealt with in a way closer to the first party records, like the evidence collected in the actual investigations.

And so Crown then would have an obligation, the Supreme Court of Canada made clear, to disclose information about police disciplinary records that could have relevance to the reliability or trustworthiness of a police officer, for example.

Well, what's happened since then is some jurisdictions, including in this case Alberta, passed provincial legislation and regulations that provided that after a period of time, even if a police officer had been disciplined, for example, for something relating to dishonesty, that those records would be sealed and destroyed and the officer could not be asked about them after a certain time period.

Michael, what's next on our agenda today?

And speaking of reconciliation and how it is treated by the law, what are we seeing in the couch and tribes matter?

I must say this is just a fascinating, of course, not of course, but almost never-ending piece of litigation.

And the most recent part of this case was an application brought by one of the landowners over in Richmond whose private ownership of land could be impacted by the trial judge's decision in that case.

And the particular application that was just decided was an application by the landowner to reopen the litigation to permit them to make submissions and participate in it.

And the background of that, it goes back to 2017.

When the litigation was getting rolling and at that point there was an application brought by the province and others to give notice to private property owners of the litigation so they could decide whether they wish to apply to participate in it.

And back in 2017, the Cowichan Tribe's position for the judge hearing that application amounted to saying that this litigation, that litigation, the particular litigation wouldn't affect fee simple ownership.

Is that supposed to say that twice? Am I understanding this right?

What is your take on this and the fact that even though it wasn't this listener's fault, or at least it doesn't seem like she was at fault, there they were left on the hook for this damage?

Sure.

So there are a number of things to bear in mind with respect to these devices.

And first of all, you're quite right.

There are reports of people being injured on them.

But it is important to know one of the things we don't have information about is the denominator.

How many people are using them? So we need to bear in mind, well, there may be an increased number of people reporting injuries.

Does that matter, do you think, even if we're in this realm of no-fault insurance? But with more of the devices, more crashes, does it matter that they're not insurable?

What's happening here?

So this all started a number of years ago in B.C., and it's an effort by the province of British Columbia and other provinces and the federal government, indeed, to try to collect money from various companies involved with opioid marketing, sales, and distribution to pay for the costs incurred by government companies for treating people with issues that have been caused by that.

And the core of it is a claim that the manufacturers of opioids marketed and promoted them when they were aware, marketed and promoted them claiming they were less addictive when they knew that that wasn't the case and also alleging that the drugs were not appropriate or effective for treating many of the things they were being prescribed for.

And in particular, it appears the claim is premised on An allegation that they would be perhaps appropriate for an acute pain like you're recovering from surgery, but not the appropriate treatment necessarily for your sore back, for example.

And so the claim itself is an interesting one.

And for one of the reasons it's interesting is that British Columbia passed legislation allowing them to sue, which is sort of like writing your own rules and then engaging them to try to, in the court case, not a lot of plaintiffs in court cases get to write all of the rules surrounding their litigation and then engage in the litigation.

But that's what's going on here.

Michael, what's up next on our agenda?