Ever wondered what happens when one party drops 4 million documents on their opponent in a lawsuit? Michael Mulligan explains the fascinating legal concept of an "impermissible document dump" through the lens of a billion-dollar dispute over the North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant. The case reveals how modern litigation handles vast electronic records and when providing mountains of documents crosses from thorough disclosure to litigation obstruction.

The contrast couldn't be greater when we shift to a dispute over sofa cushions that need "fluffing." When purchasers discovered their $4,400 sofa required constant maintenance despite requesting one that was "solid and not floppy," they sought a full refund seven months later. The judge's decision offers a perfect example of how consumer protection laws balance remedies against practical realities. While the customers couldn't return a seven-month-used sofa for a full refund, they did receive $500 for the "inconvenience and distress" of cushion maintenance – a small but meaningful victory.

Perhaps most illuminating is our examination of what constitutes a "marriage-like relationship" under BC law. When a woman claimed two separate periods of cohabitation (18 months and 22.5 months) should qualify her as a spouse entitled to property division and support, the court had to determine if discontinuous periods could be combined. The judge's 39-page decision dissecting the intimate details of their relationship highlights the challenge of applying family law to complex human connections. The ruling that periods must be continuous serves as a critical warning about the unexpected legal implications of your living arrangements. This case demonstrates why clarity in relationship status matters and raises questions about whether our current approach to defining common-law relationships serves those it aims to protect.

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

What happens when a sophisticated scammer steals over half a million dollars in Bitcoin through a phone company's security failure? And more importantly, can you even take them to court?

The answer is more complicated than you might think, as we explore in this eye-opening legal examination of consumer rights in the digital age. A British Columbia resident fell victim to an elaborate fraud when someone impersonated a Rogers technician, convinced a retail employee to enable screen sharing, and accessed the Rogers customer database. After extracting personal information, the scammer performed a SIM swap and drained the victim's cryptocurrency account, assets that later appreciated to a staggering one million dollars.

When the victim attempted to sue Rogers, they encountered the hidden trap of arbitration clauses—those pages of legalese we all scroll through and accept without reading when setting up our services. Despite recent changes to BC consumer protection laws specifically banning these clauses, the court ruled in favor of Rogers on a fascinating technicality involving "retroactive" versus "retrospective" legislation. We break down this crucial distinction and explore how legislative language can determine whether consumers have access to justice.

The episode also examines a compelling Vancouver assault case that showcases the notorious unreliability of eyewitness identification. Despite a police officer's "100% certainty" about identifying a suspect from security footage, the court wasn't convinced, particularly when the officer failed to notice the suspect's distinctive "benzo gait," a hunched walking style common among drug users in the Downtown Eastside. This case provides a powerful reminder of why confident witnesses don't necessarily make reliable ones.

Whether you're concerned about protecting your digital assets or fascinated by the evolving landscape of consumer rights, this discussion offers valuable insights into how our legal system struggles to keep pace with technological change. Have you read the fine print in your service agreements? After hearing this, you might want to.

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

What happens when a child's life depends on a medication that costs nearly a million dollars per year? In this eye-opening conversation with Michael Mulligan of Mulligan Defence Lawyers, we take a deep dive into the tragic case of nine-year-old Charleigh Pollock from Langford, who suffers from the rare genetic disorder Batten disease.

Mulligan walks us through the complex web of legislation governing medication coverage in British Columbia, revealing the stark truth about how these life-or-death decisions are made. Despite common misconceptions about universal healthcare, the reality is that medication funding falls under provincial jurisdiction through the Pharmaceutical Services Act. For expensive drugs treating rare conditions, the process involves a Drug Benefits Council making recommendations, but final decisions rest with government ministers and are primarily financial rather than medical.

The most troubling aspect of Charleigh's case is that she had been receiving the $844,000-per-year treatment for some time before funding was abruptly discontinued. This withdrawal of established treatment raises serious legal questions that distinguish her situation from initial denials of coverage. Mulligan discusses a current groundbreaking case moving through BC courts that might provide a legal pathway forward, exploring potential arguments around negligence, Charter rights regarding cruel and unusual treatment, and judicial review of administrative decisions.

What emerges from this discussion is a sobering reality: when politicians claim they "shouldn't interfere with medical decisions," they're being disingenuous. The system is explicitly designed to make politicians the final arbiters of these treatments after doctors make their recommendations. The criteria for deciding which children receive life-saving medications are, at their core, about money, raising profound questions about how we value human life in our healthcare system. Listen in and consider what changes might be needed to create a more just approach to rare disease treatment in Canada.

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