A million-dollar poker run sounds like the ultimate loophole, until the CRA decides it looks like a job. We talk with criminal defence lawyer Michael Mulligan about a Supreme Court of Canada leave decision that leaves standing a key ruling on poker winnings and Canadian income tax, and the real lesson it carries for anyone who treats gambling like a serious side hustle or a full-time living.

We get into why most gambling winnings in Canada are generally tax-free under the Income Tax Act, then zero in on the exception: when the activity becomes business income. Hours spent, strategy, risk management, consistent profits, and relying on poker as your main source of income can all push you over the line. And if it’s business income, it can cut both ways, because deductions for losses and expenses may be available just like any other business.

Then we shift to a topic that frustrates the public and the courts alike: criminal cases that take too long. We unpack Jordan’s hard timelines under Charter section 11(b), what counts as delay, and how the Supreme Court now treats “exceptionally complex” prosecutions with many accused and mountains of disclosure.

If you care about Canadian law, taxes, and how court decisions affect everyday choices, hit subscribe, share this with a friend, and leave us a review. What do you think should count as “work” when luck is involved?

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

A locked gate at a kids’ camp sounds like a small-town nuisance until you trace it back to 1935 and forward to a trial date in 2027. We dig into a Greater Victoria dispute where companies say a historic public road, sometimes labelled Settlers Road or Glints Lake Road, should let them pass through Camp Thunderbird to reach adjacent land for a cell phone antenna. The twist is procedural: the lawsuit has dragged on since 2010, and the YMCA tries to have it tossed for want of prosecution after roughly 15 years of delay. We break down how BC Supreme Court judges weigh “inordinate delay”, excuses, presumed prejudice, and the interests of justice when time itself starts changing the evidence.

Then we pivot to a criminal law problem that hits even harder. Police recorded an interview where a key witness allegedly recanted, the investigation was closed, and years later the allegation returned with charges. The recording that could test credibility is gone. We unpack Charter section 7 disclosure rights, the duty to preserve evidence, and the line between an abusive process and “unacceptable negligence”, plus why the remedy often depends on how the rest of the trial unfolds.

We close with a Law Society discipline case involving client identification rules, anti money laundering safeguards, and a pro bono lawyer caught in the system. The fine gets overturned on judicial review, but the Court of Appeal blocks special costs against the Law Society, raising tough questions about accountability when a tribunal gets it wrong. If you value smart legal analysis grounded in real BC cases, subscribe, share this with a friend, and leave a review. What part of these rulings sits wrong with you?

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

A single Supreme Court of Canada decision can quietly change the ground rules for thousands of breakups, and this one just did. We unpack the Court’s creation of a new tort tied to intimate partner violence, described in terms of coercive control and coercive and controlling conduct, and we dig into what that really means when the behaviour isn’t limited to physical violence. If you’ve ever wondered how the common law can invent a new civil wrong, this is a live example with immediate consequences for family law and civil litigation in Canada.

We talk plainly about the hard part: definitions and incentives. The ruling points to emotional abuse, economic control, manipulation, isolation, and even improper litigation tactics, with broad language about autonomy, equality, and meaningful life choices. That may capture serious harm, but it also leaves lawyers and judges with little guidance on what crosses the line or how money damages should be measured. We explain why that uncertainty could turn more divorces into longer court battles, especially when property division is on the table and “fault” arguments start creeping back into a system built to avoid them.

Then we shift to a chilling criminal law case out of Victoria: two friends, drinking, cocaine, guns, and a so-called bulletproof vest that proves only bullet-resistant. The facts are grim, but the legal lessons are clear, from firearm offences and a polymer 80 type handgun to why you cannot legally consent to grievous bodily harm. We also break down how manslaughter works without an intent to kill, and why a firearm manslaughter conviction triggers a mandatory minimum prison sentence.

If you want more careful legal analysis that connects court decisions to real-world outcomes, subscribe, share this episode with a friend, and leave a review so more listeners can find us.

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

One email reply can feel harmless until it turns into a $17,500 invoice. We start with a recruiter placement fee fight that asks a deceptively simple question: when do you actually have a contract? A law firm agrees to work with an external recruiter, receives resumes, interviews a candidate, and hires them, then gets a “standard form” contract after the fact, demanding 17.5% of the salary. We unpack what contract law requires in British Columbia, why not every deal needs a signature, and why “sure” is not always acceptance of a price you never saw.

Then we shift to employment law and a fixed-term employment contract that ends right on schedule. A worker argues that passing a performance review and changing a title from manager to executive director effectively turns a one-year agreement into permanent employment. We walk through why the court rejects that theory, what a title change does and does not prove, and why clear written terms can prevent expensive ambiguity for both employers and employees.

We close with a cautionary tale from the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club: a 1969 wooden yacht collapses in a boat lift, and the owner sues for negligence, only to run into a signed waiver and a failed spoliation argument about overwritten video. The result highlights how enforceable waivers work, why evidence preservation matters, and how cost clauses can raise the stakes after a claim is dismissed. If you found this useful, subscribe, share the episode with a friend who signs things too fast, and leave us a review.

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

One decision can change a life, and another can quietly lock you into a guilty plea. We start with a heartbreaking civil claim tied to a mixed martial arts tournament and a kickboxing bout that leaves a 26-year-old UBC chemistry graduate in a permanent vegetative state. Because the event took place in space owned by Simon Fraser University, SFU ends up in the lawsuit and tries to shift responsibility to the province by pointing at the BC Athletics Commissioner, who approved kickboxing under the Criminal Code “prize fight” framework.

We dig into what that approval power really means, and why the BC Court of Appeal says it still does not create the kind of proximity needed for negligence. Using the Anns/Cooper analysis, we unpack duty of care, remoteness, and the core idea that a statutory decision-maker acting for the public good is not automatically on the hook for private damages when something goes wrong. It’s a clear look at the limits of government liability, even when a regulator could have said “no” and prevented the event from happening.

Then we switch gears to a BC Supreme Court ruling with everyday stakes: a speeding and driving-without-due-care ticket, a missed 30-day deadline under the Offence Act, repeated attempts on an online dispute portal, and the explanation that a cat damaged or “ate” the ticket. We walk through the extension-of-time test, what “arguable defence” requires, and why missing even one required factor can sink your application.

If you value practical legal takeaways and clear explanations of Canadian case law, subscribe, share the episode, and leave us a review. What part of these rulings do you think the courts got right or wrong?

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

A court system can have the best rules on paper and still grind to a halt when there is nowhere to hold people. We start with a fresh BC Supreme Court practice direction aimed at a problem that’s been building quietly across the province: accused people denied bail in communities with no correctional facility close enough to support a long trial. When daily transport is impossible and police detachments refuse to function as ad hoc jails, judges are left making hard calls that affect fairness, public safety and the Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

From chartered flights to the limits of small-town holding cells, we talk through why this is happening and what the court is now requiring through pretrial hearings. We also break down the real-world outcomes on the table: adjournments that risk delay arguments, moving trials away from the community where allegations arose, or releasing an accused from custody simply so the trial can proceed without collapsing under logistics. If you care about access to justice in British Columbia, this is where policy meets reality.

Then we turn to one of the biggest legal governance fights in BC right now: the constitutional challenge to the Legal Professions Act and the future of the Law Society of British Columbia. We dig into the idea of an independent bar as an unwritten constitutional principle, why that independence gives meaning to an independent judiciary, and what it could mean when legislation steers a legal regulator toward government priorities like UNDRIP while adding new approval structures and expanding appointment power. The trial decision lets the law stand for now, but the stakes are high and the next stop is likely the Court of Appeal.

Subscribe for more Canadian legal analysis, share this with someone who follows BC politics, and leave a review to help others find the show. What’s the bigger risk here: justice delayed by logistics or independence weakened by design?

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

A court decision appears online with almost everything blacked out: no registry, no lawyers, no location, no hearing date, and even the judge’s name is removed. All we’re left with is a disturbing question at the heart of Canadian criminal law: can someone become a confidential police informant without ever being clearly told they are one, and if so, what does that do to open court principles and public trust?

We walk through confidential informer privilege from the ground up, including why it is treated as near-absolute in Canada and why it can protect informants who are unreliable or acting for personal gain. Then we get into the moment that triggered the whole fight: after hours of a stalled interview, a detainee asks for a pen, writes “informal” on their hand, hides it from the camera, shows it to an officer who nods, and the recording suddenly goes off. The judge ultimately finds an implied promise of confidentiality on a balance of probabilities, despite the Crown’s opposition, raising real-world issues about secrecy, disclosure, and how policing actually works.

Then we shift to the Court of Appeal of British Columbia and a practical courtroom battle with huge stakes: when should a witness be allowed to testify by Zoom or Teams under the Criminal Code? In a referred murder conviction appeal after 17 years in prison, an officer who admitted recording key gunshot timings incorrectly wanted to testify remotely to avoid travel. The court said no, stressing the presumption of in-person evidence when credibility and fairness are on the line.

Subscribe for more Canadian legal analysis, share this with someone who cares about open courts, and leave us a review. Where do you draw the line between necessary secrecy and the public’s right to see justice done?

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

A court can end up deciding the fate of an island by looking at the scars on cedar trees and counting the rings inside them. We dig into a new British Columbia Court of Appeal decision on Aboriginal title for Nootka Island off Vancouver Island, where the key legal question is what “sufficient use” meant at the moment of sovereignty in 1846 under the Oregon Treaty. That one date forces everyone to reconstruct the past using expert anthropology, historical records, and physical evidence on the land.

We talk through the building blocks of an Aboriginal title claim in Canada: proving the proper Indigenous collective, demonstrating continuity and exclusivity, and even answering foundational questions such as whether the society had a concept of ownership. Then we get into the appellate turning point: culturally modified Western red cedar trees in the interior. The court challenges the idea that a marine-oriented culture only “used” the coastline, noting that canoes, paddles, ropes, hooks, clothing, and ceremonial items all come from forests. The discussion also tracks how the claim is framed to avoid competing interests for now, and why the ruling’s impact on the Forest Act and Parks Act raises real governance and resource questions.

We finish with a very different legal problem from Provincial Court near Enderby on Highway 97A: a tragic crosswalk death on Canada Day and a charge of driving without due care and attention. By breaking down Motor Vehicle Act section 179, we sort out right of way, what counts as being “on the highway,” the pedestrian duty not to step into traffic when it is impracticable for a driver to yield, and the role of reaction time evidence in the acquittal.

If you like practical legal analysis from BC courts with real-world stakes, subscribe, share the episode with a friend, and leave a review. What part of these rulings do you think will matter most going forward?

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