A single sentence can change a career. We open with a real-world case: a shuttle driver on SFU property tells a flagger she’s “unbelievably beautiful” and suggests modelling. Security documents the exchange, the university issues a campus ban, and the employer fires him. He then pushes for the complainant’s identity under FOIPPA, arguing that the decision-makers needed complete, accurate information. We walk through why FOIPPA binds public bodies but not private companies, how section 28 actually works, and why the court said disclosure wasn’t required when the driver admitted the key facts. Plus, we flag the sting in the tail: special costs when you sue the wrong parties.

From there, the stakes rise. Mid-trial in Vancouver, a mother asks to relocate her eight-year-old to Thailand. The judge says no on best-interests grounds. She leaves anyway, hides her location, and starts a case abroad. We explain how habitual residence anchors jurisdiction, why the Hague Convention exists to stop jurisdiction shopping, and how credibility findings—false affidavits, financial misstatements—reshape custody, support, and costs. The practical takeaway is stark: unilateral moves during active proceedings invite severe legal consequences and can fracture future parenting arrangements.

We close with the Lytton wildfire class action. Plaintiffs allege a passing train ignited the fire; the defendants point to onboard video, sensors, and clean inspection data. The court certifies the case, clarifying that the standard is some basis in fact, not proof. Timing, location near the tracks, tinderbox conditions, and a supportive expert opinion clear the threshold. Certification doesn’t decide liability—it ensures a fair, efficient path to test common issues, expert evidence, and causation at trial.

If you value clear, no-spin explanations of how law affects real people—from campus discipline and privacy to cross-border parenting and community-scale claims—follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review telling us which case challenged your assumptions.

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

A signed page beside a will. A daughter who gave up her life to care for her parents. A court is asked to decide whether a single sheet of paper can rewrite an estate. We dig into a recent BC Supreme Court ruling to unpack how WESA’s formal requirements and the curative power of section 58 actually work when intention, capacity, language, and timing collide. If you’ve ever wondered whether “wishes” are enough, this story shows why two witnesses, translation, and dated execution details matter more than heartfelt words.

Then we pivot from probate to plumbing with a small claims case that starts with a jailhouse phone call and ends with a $34,000 invoice. The homeowner’s mom acted as go‑between while crews replaced pumps, chased leaks, and tackled a failing septic system. With spotty records and no signed work authorizations, the judge had to reconstruct a contract from dispatcher notes, GPS logs, and receipts. The result lies between free fix and blank cheque: agency is recognized, unjust enrichment is avoided, and the final award is trimmed to what’s reasonably proven.

Across both cases, one theme holds: intent without process is a gamble. For families, that means executing wills to WESA standards, confirming capacity, and ensuring translation for non‑fluent testators. For trades and contractors, that means written scope, clear rates, change orders, and contemporaneous records that survive scrutiny. These aren’t legal niceties; they are the difference between peace and protracted fights—between getting paid and getting pared down.

If this conversation helps clarify how to protect your wishes and your work, follow the show, share it with someone who needs it, and leave a quick review so others can find it. Your feedback helps us tackle more real cases with practical takeaways.

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

A single sentence in the Criminal Code can decide whether you can legally remove someone from your home—or whether you’re suddenly the one at risk of an assault charge. We break down a fresh BC Supreme Court ruling that reads purpose into Parliament’s 2011 reforms on self-defence and defence of property, answering a practical question with big stakes: if you invite someone in and later revoke consent, can you use reasonable force to make them leave? Short answer: yes, if you give a reasonable time to go and the force is proportionate, because the law was never meant to grant squatters’ rights to rowdy guests and stubborn salespeople.

From there, we follow the thread of “reasonableness” into family law. British Columbia treats partners who live together in a marriage-like relationship for two continuous years as spouses for property division, but the crucial trigger is separation. The two-year limitation period starts when you separate, not when the romance finally fizzles. In the case we unpack, on‑again, off‑again reunions couldn’t reset the clock. If you plan to claim division of property, mark the separation date, organise documents, and act before the window closes.

We close with a cautionary tale about civil procedure and proportionality: a $9,000 used SUV, mechanical trouble, and a claim that ballooned to $250 million. The court ordered security for costs, balancing access to justice against the burden of defending an outsized, low‑merit case with little chance of recovering expenses. Together, these stories showcase how Canadian courts weigh text, purpose, and fairness—guarding property rights, enforcing clear timelines, and filtering litigation through practical safeguards.

If you enjoyed the analysis, follow the show, share it with a friend who loves real‑world law, and leave a quick review to help others find us.

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