Law Cans Episode 4 – Rankin v. JJ (The Duty of Care) with Saro Turner

29th May 2018 Comments Off on Law Cans Episode 4 – Rankin v. JJ (The Duty of Care) with Saro Turner

Last Updated on May 29, 2018 by techtone

Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether a commercial garage owed a duty of care to a teenager who had broken into the garage and stole a car. The teenager was injured after the car was involved in a crash. He sued the commercial garage for negligence.

Saro Turner is a Partner at Slater Vecchio LLP, a prominent Vancouver personal injury law firm. He can be found at @saroturner online.

We discuss the Supreme Court decision, and Saro describes the four elements of a negligence lawsuit – the duty of care, the standard of care, causation and damages. It is Tort Law 101! Saro also tells people who have suffered losses what they should look for when choosing a personal injury lawyer.

1:20 – An overview of the facts of the case. In brief, two drunk teenagers steal a car from a commercial garage.  There is a car crash. One of the boys suffers a brain injury. He sues the garage.

2:41 – When you’re making out a claim of negligence what does the plaintiff have to establish? In brief, you have to establish a duty of care, a standard of care, causation and damages.

5:45 – What is a duty of care?

13:20 – What is a standard of care?

16:51 – What is causation?

19:45 – What are damages?

24:40 – What things should someone look for in a personal injury lawyer? If someone has been injured, how should they select their lawyer?

 

 » Read more about: Law Cans Episode 4 – Rankin v. JJ (The Duty of Care) with Saro Turner  »

Read more ›

Borderlines Episode 20 – An Overview of Canadian Medical Inadmissibility Law, with Erin Roth

16th May 2018 Comments Off on Borderlines Episode 20 – An Overview of Canadian Medical Inadmissibility Law, with Erin Roth

Last updated on May 29th, 2018

Last Updated on May 29, 2018 by techtone

Erin Roth is a Lawyer with Edelmann & Co. Her work involves court proceedings regarding Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance requests from foreign states and civil litigation on behalf of government agencies.

In this episode Deanna and Erin discuss issues in Canadian medical inadmissibility law.  When can someone be inadmissible to Canada because they are sick?  How does one confront such an allegation? What changes are upcomming?

1:30 – This episode was recorded in November 2017. Deanna, in an introduction to the episode, provides an overview of the changes to Canadian medical inadmissibility law that the Government of Canada announced would be taking place this summer.

6:30 She explains the conditions for which a country will extradite an individual, the international treaties that must have been ratified by the Parties as well as the concept of double criminality.

8:50 Amanda explains the second criteria for extradition which is that it be an indictable offence with a minimum prison sentence of two years.

13:00 We ask about the process of extradition from foreign countries to Canada. Amanda explains that her department is not responsible for these, and she describes the procedures to be followed in such scenarios.

14:45 Amanda explains the extradition treaties to which Canada abides to and the differences between them.

28:00 – 

 » Read more about: Borderlines Episode 20 – An Overview of Canadian Medical Inadmissibility Law, with Erin Roth  »

Read more ›

Law Cans Episode 3 – R v. Alex (Challenging Breathalyzer Results) with Kyla Lee

30th Apr 2018 Comments Off on Law Cans Episode 3 – R v. Alex (Challenging Breathalyzer Results) with Kyla Lee

Last updated on May 18th, 2018

Last Updated on May 18, 2018 by techtone

R v. Alex. is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether the Crown needed to prove that a police officer’s request that an individual blow into an approved screening device was reasonable before it could admit the results of the breathalyzer without having to call a toxicologist and a technician as a witness.

Kyla Lee is an Associate at Acumen Law Corporation, She is the host of Driving Law, a podcast which focuses on Canadian DUI law. She can be found at @IRPLawyer online.

1:20 – An overview of the facts of the case in R v. Alex. A person is pulled over during a seatbelt check in Penticton, British Columbia.  A police officer notices that he smelled an odour of liquor as he approached the vehicle and there was an open beer can on the floor near the passenger side. The driver, Mr. Alex, had “red cheeks” and “watery eyes.” There was nothing else to suggest that the person was impaired.  The driver had no difficulty parking the car and no difficulty exiting the vehicle. The police officer did not take any notes about why he thought Mr. Alex was drunk, but says that he wouldn’t have pulled him over if he did not think he had a reasonable suspicion.  The police officer requires that Mr. Alex use an approved screening device which he fails, which is almost double the legal limit of 0.08. He then takes him to a police station where his breath samples registered .140 and .130 mg of alcohol,

 » Read more about: Law Cans Episode 3 – R v. Alex (Challenging Breathalyzer Results) with Kyla Lee  »

Read more ›

Borderlines Episode 18 – An Introduction to Canadian Extradition Law, with Amanda Lord

25th Apr 2018 Comments Off on Borderlines Episode 18 – An Introduction to Canadian Extradition Law, with Amanda Lord

Last updated on May 17th, 2018

Last Updated on May 17, 2018 by techtone

Amanda Lord is a lawyer in the Criminal Law and International Assistance group at the Department of Justice of Canada. Her work involves court proceedings regarding Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance requests from foreign states and civil litigation on behalf of government agencies.

In this episode we discuss the Extradition and the State of Law.

2:30 Amanda Lord clarifies the distinction between extradition and immigration deporting proceedings. It is a different process with a different set of principles that apply, so it is important that people understand what extradition entails.

6:30 She explains the conditions for which a country will extradite an individual, the international treaties that must have been ratified by the Parties as well as the concept of double criminality.

8:50 Amanda explains the second criteria for extradition which is that it be an indictable offence with a minimum prison sentence of two years.

13:00 We ask about the process of extradition from foreign countries to Canada. Amanda explains that her department is not responsible for these, and she describes the procedures to be followed in such scenarios.

14:45 Amanda explains the extradition treaties to which Canada abides to and the differences between them.

18:45 An overview of the committal process and Charter protections.

25:45 The question of where an individual can be prosecuted is one that is commonly misunderstood. Amanda explains that certain offences such as child pornography or terrorism are to be prosecuted in Canada even if the offence took place in a foreign country.

36:13 An overview of how to challenge the prosecutor’s evidence.

 » Read more about: Borderlines Episode 18 – An Introduction to Canadian Extradition Law, with Amanda Lord  »

Read more ›

Law Cans Episode 2 – Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. (Global Injunctions) with Daniel Cowper

18th Apr 2018 Comments Off on Law Cans Episode 2 – Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. (Global Injunctions) with Daniel Cowper

Last updated on May 18th, 2018

Last Updated on May 18, 2018 by techtone

Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether a British Columbia company could seek a worldwide injunction to to enjoin Google from displaying any part of another company’s websites on any of Google’s search results worldwide.

Daniel Cowper is an Associate at Robert Fleming Lawyers, the law firm which represented Equutsek Solutions Inc. He can be found at @DanielCowper online.

0:56 – An overview of the facts of the case. Equustek, a small technology company in British Columbia launched an action against Datalink, a former distributor who allegedly copied and sold their product.  Datalink left British Columbia and continued to carry on its business from an unknown location. Equustek sought a worldwide interlocutory injunction to enjoin Google from displaying any part of Datalink’s websites on any of its search results worldwide.

6:30 – An overview of the test for an interlocutory injunction. There needs to be (1) a serious issue to be tried, (2) irreparable harm, and (3) the balance of convenience must favour the party seeking the injunction.

7:40 – Can someone seek an injunction against a non-party?

9:40 – Can a British Columbia court issue a world wide injunction against a company? In this case, it is appropriate for a British Columbia court to order Google to de-index a website from its search engines globally rather than just in British Columbia or Canada?

14:40 – Would requiring that Google de-index websites breach Google’s freedom of expression?

16:45 – Is there a risk of inconsistent judgements where courts start making global declarations as to what a company should do which render it impossible for the company to do both?

 » Read more about: Law Cans Episode 2 – Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. (Global Injunctions) with Daniel Cowper  »

Read more ›

Law Cans Episode 1 – Douez v. Facebook (Forum Selection Clauses) with Chris Rhone

2nd Apr 2018 Comments Off on Law Cans Episode 1 – Douez v. Facebook (Forum Selection Clauses) with Chris Rhone

Last updated on May 18th, 2018

Last Updated on May 18, 2018 by techtone

Doez v. Facebook is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine the enforceability of a forum selection clause.  The case involved a class action lawsuit brought in British Columbia alleging that Facebook’s Sponsored Stories breached their privacy.  Facebook argued that because its Terms of Use stated that users had to litigate any claims in California that the British Columbia courts lacked jurisdiction.

Christopher Rhone is a Partner at Branch MacMaster LLP Barristers & Solicitors. He represented Ms. Doez, the plaintiff, at the Supreme Court.

0:30 – The distinction between civil and commercial litigation.

1:50 – Could Ms. Douez sue Facebook in British Columbia despite its Terms of Service specifying that people would have to litigate disputes in California?

3:30 – Why is Ms. Douez arguing that Facebook breached her privacy rights under British Columbia law? What was Facebook’s Sponsored Stories product?

9:40 – An overview of the Pompey test for determining forum selection clauses, which consists of the following two steps.  First, the party must show that a form selection clause is clear and enforceable and that it applies to the cause of action before a court. If this is the case, then second, the other party must show strong cause for why a court should not follow the forum selection clause Reasons to not can include public policy, fairness, convenience, etc.

16:00 – What impact did the size of Facebook have on the Supreme Court’s decision? What is the scope of the ruling?

 » Read more about: Law Cans Episode 1 – Douez v. Facebook (Forum Selection Clauses) with Chris Rhone  »

Read more ›