What happens when the line between victim and perpetrator blurs in the eyes of the law? When a homeowner confronts a crossbow-wielding intruder or store employees stop a car theft, should they face criminal charges or civil lawsuits for defending themselves and their property?

Barrister Michael Mulligan unpacks the controversial legal landscape of self-defense in Canada, explaining how the 2012 amendments to the Criminal Code created a complex "reasonableness" requirement for those protecting themselves or others. This means that even when facing deadly threats in your own home, the law expects you to consider factors like the relative size, age, and gender of your attacker before responding. As Mulligan notes, "When you're fighting for your life or to save your children, you don't need to worry about weighing up how old this person is and what their gender is."

The discussion extends beyond criminal liability to civil lawsuits, highlighting a case where a self-described "career criminal" is suing grocery store employees who prevented him from stealing a car, claiming they damaged his self-esteem. This mirrors Alberta's experience, where a rancher faced legal action from a thief after firing a warning shot. The provincial response—legislation preventing "criminal trespassers" from suing unless force was "grossly disproportionate"—offers a potential model for other provinces.

The episode also examines a revealing case about Uber's wheelchair accessibility requirements in BC. Instead of mandating accessible vehicles, the government collects a 90-cent fee per non-accessible trip—money that disappears into general revenue while wheelchair users remain unable to use the service. When one wheelchair user won a $35,000 human rights award, the BC Supreme Court overturned it, revealing the tension between regulation and actual solutions.

These cases raise fundamental questions about our legal priorities: Should we better protect those defending themselves and their property? And when regulations like Uber's accessibility fee don't solve the actual problem, what's their real purpose? Listen for an eye-opening look at where our laws might be failing those they're meant to protect.

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

What happens when a legal system designed for small claims is used to tackle complex issues involving international companies and constitutional requirements? Barrister and Solicitor Michael Mulligan takes us inside a fascinating recent case that exposes serious flaws in British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal system.

Originally created to efficiently handle disputes under $5,000 and minor strata disagreements, the CRT has been expanded into areas far beyond its capabilities. The recent decision involving Twitter/X reveals a troubling reality: secret decisions and unenforceable orders against international companies, with no authority to address constitutional challenges, and vulnerability to exploitation through AI-generated submissions. The tribunal found itself ordering a Texas company to mail a $100,000 penalty to a Victoria PO box - an exercise in futility that undermines confidence in our justice system.

The conversation then shifts to a cautionary tale about insurance coverage that every homeowner needs to hear. A family lost hundreds of thousands in coverage when their house burned down from a prayer candle fire - not because of any wrongdoing related to the fire, but because they failed to disclose an abandoned marijuana grow operation in a distant outbuilding. This case demonstrates the critical "utmost good faith" principle in insurance: failing to notify your insurer in writing about any material change in risk can void your coverage completely, even when that change has nothing to do with your claim. Consider all the renovations, changes, or activities on your property that might constitute "material changes in risk" - your financial security may depend on proper disclosure.

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

Fentanyl trafficking sentences in BC just got a major overhaul. The BC Court of Appeal has mapped out clearer sentencing guidelines, creating a three-tier system that reflects the devastating impact of the deadly opioid crisis. Street-level dealers now face 18 months to 3 years, mid-level traffickers 4-7 years, and wholesale distributors 8-15 years behind bars. The Court emphasized this framework still allows judges to tailor sentences to individual circumstances, but makes clear that the gravity of fentanyl trafficking demands serious consequences. With over 14,500 British Columbians having lost their lives to toxic drugs in just eight years, the justice system is responding with a structured approach to punishment.

At Simon Fraser University, academic freedom and freedom of association collided when faculty members challenged their own Faculty Association's resolutions on Gaza. The controversial statements narrowly passed but sparked a legal battle under the Societies Act. The case highlights a fascinating tension - what happens when you're required to belong to an organization that takes political positions you fundamentally oppose? The court ultimately allowed the Faculty Association broad latitude in its activities, continuing a precedent that permits professional associations to venture beyond their core employment-related purposes. This ruling affects anyone in Canada who must maintain membership in unions or professional organizations.

We wrap up with a constructive dismissal case that seems straight out of a comedy sketch - except it was all too real for the employee involved. A 63-year-old comptroller was given notice of termination but required to keep working for eight months while being gradually replaced by someone actually named "Mr. Bean." Adding insult to injury, the employee was relocated to an interior office without air conditioning (at an air conditioning company!). The court recognized these cumulative actions created an intolerable work environment, awarding 15 months' severance and confirming employers cannot circumvent termination obligations by making work conditions unbearable.

Have questions about how these legal developments might affect you? We'd love to hear your thoughts on these fascinating intersections of law and everyday life. Subscribe to catch our weekly legal insights and join the conversation about how our justice system continues to evolve.

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