Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan – Details, episodes & analysis

Courtrooms, campus corridors, mountain slopes, and border tarmacs: we connect them through three rulings that change how you navigate rights, rules, and risk. We start with a Vancouver Island University protest case where banners, ladders, and megaphones escalated into disruptions of exams. The student fought a two‑year suspension, arguing misidentification, unfair process, and—most ambitiously—freedom of expression under the Charter. We walk through why the court said no, revisiting Dolphin Delivery and the baseline that the Charter restrains government, not institutions acting independently. In BC, universities aren’t automatically treated as government actors, so Charter arguments usually fail unless legislation compels the action. The practical takeaway is clear: campus discipline lives under university policy and administrative law, not constitutional guarantees.

Then we climb into the backcountry with a Wildlife Act prosecution that turned on what “full curl thinhorn ram” actually means. Is it age, horn length, or both? At trial, experts wrangled over true versus false annuli, and the hunter was convicted. On appeal, the court read the regulation’s “or” as a real alternative: either eight years as proven by annuli or a horn tip that extends beyond the nose bridge plane when viewed squarely from the side. That interpretation aligns with field reality, where counting ridges through binoculars is guesswork. For hunters, this sets a safer path: document the side view and horn tip position to meet the length criterion without winning a lab fight over annuli.

We land with a hard deadline at the border. A sniffer dog allegedly damaged a multi‑million‑dollar helicopter during a customs search. The owner complained immediately and filed a claim, but the later lawsuit missed a little‑known limit: the Customs Act requires claims within three months. The court enforced the clock and dismissed the case, even while acknowledging the fairness concerns. If border searches damage your property, act fast—document everything, get estimates, and file in the correct court before the window slams shut.

Want practical law without the jargon? Press play for a grounded guide to: when free expression stops at the campus gate, how one word in a regulation can flip a conviction, and why a hidden limitation period can decide your whole case. If this helped you spot risks early, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a quick review telling us which case hit home.

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

A 76-page justice overhaul just landed, and we’re diving into what actually changes for victims, accused persons, and the people who keep our courts running. We break down how Bill C-16 reframes parts of criminal law—naming femicide as a route to first-degree murder, tackling AI-generated intimate images and deepfakes, and defining coercive control—while asking the hard question: can an already stretched system carry the weight?

We walk through the new femicide framework and why proving patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour will demand careful evidence and clear jury instructions. Then we turn to the digital front: offences targeting realistic AI fabrications, “nudify” apps, and the spread of synthetic sexual content. You’ll hear how the “likely to be mistaken” standard may hinge on context, labelling, and expert testimony, and why enforcement will test both legal doctrines and tech literacy.

Delay is the thread that ties it all together. We explore how pretrial screening in sexual offence cases—lawyers for complainants, notice periods, and multiple hearings—slows trials, and how C-16’s timing tweaks may help at the margins but won’t replace the need for more judges, Crown, defence, and courtrooms. On sentencing, we unpack the shift that lets courts set aside mandatory minimums when they would be grossly disproportionate for the individual—fairer outcomes, but likely more litigation. We also highlight humane changes that support witnesses, including broader remote testimony and support animals.

To ground the legal theory in real life, we close with a BC case on who qualifies as a spouse under the Family Law Act. The two-year marriage-like rule sounds simple—until on-and-off relationships, shared business ties, and disputed “gifts” like a six-figure SUV enter the picture. The result is a cautionary tale about continuity, documentation, and the legal weight of domestic arrangements.

If you care about safer communities, fair process, and workable courts, this conversation maps what’s coming—and what still needs funding and focus. If the analysis helped, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a quick review to help others find thoughtful legal content.

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

A seven‑month marriage sparked on a sugar‑arrangement site, a $12,000/month support bid, and a dog named Frankie—this one has layers. We open with a candid walk‑through of interim spousal support: what it’s for, how courts weigh “capacity to pay,” and why selling capital assets to fund an opulent lifestyle isn’t the same as earning income. The applicant’s luxury‑level budget meets judicial scrutiny, while the respondent’s push to impute escort income and point to family wealth hits legal limits. The end result—$4,000/month plus a retroactive lump—shows how judges balance short marriages, realistic needs, and the difference between lifestyle and income.

Then the plot thickens. A same‑day, ex parte protection order leads to disputed removals from the home and a tussle over Frankie. We unpack how BC’s Family Law Act treats companion animals: not as handbags, but through factors like who provided care, safety concerns, and well‑being. On an interim basis, Frankie stays put—illustrating how courts separate urgent stability from final outcomes and insist on full candour when seeking protective relief.

The second half pivots to evidence law and a rare rebuke: the province sought a lifetime ban on a man from a welfare office, relying on an internal incident report as a “business record.” Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal said no. We explain why “ordinary course of business” demands reliability—think automated receipts and bank statements—not a narrative drafted post‑incident for litigation. Even beyond admissibility, the appellate court flags proportionality: a permanent injunction is an extraordinary remedy, not a default response.

If you care about how courts actually draw the line between income and spending, how interim orders stabilize without deciding the future, how pet custody really works, and when business records are admissible, this conversation is your blueprint. Listen, share with a friend who loves law done plainly, and leave a quick review to help others find the show.

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

Ever wondered about the potential pitfalls of inadequate paperwork and the enforceability of oral agreements? Well, buckle up! We've got Michael Mulligan, a seasoned Barrister and Solicitor, guiding us through some intriguing legal scenarios that just might make you rethink your decisions. We unpack a fiery dispute between two brothers over their mother's estate, a testament to the importance of arranging your affairs properly. The concept of consideration, joint tenancy and how your decisions could impact your family after you're gone are just a few things we'll be dissecting.

But that's not all. We're also diving into the complex world of conservation law, examining a case where UBC's housing development plans hit a snag due to an unanticipated obstacle - an eagle's nest! As we delve into the case, we highlight the intricacies of conservation efforts. Also on the menu is a discussion on the power and responsibility of the provincial legislature in maintaining smooth local governance. We're putting the spotlight on a recent case in Alberta, where a dysfunctional city council had to be ousted by the provincial government. So, join us as we navigate these riveting legal landscapes with our expert guide, Michael Mulligan.

Follow this link for a full summary of the episode, a transcript and links to the cases discussed. 

We start the episode by discussing the federal government's attempt to ban various plastic items. The ban was met with constitutional challenges from the Responsible Plastic Use Coalition and two provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan. The federal government tried to classify plastic as 'toxic', a categorization that was deemed unreasonable by the judge due to lack of evidence. Furthermore, the government's jurisdiction to regulate garbage and related matters was questioned, as it falls under provincial jurisdiction. This situation offers an insightful glimpse into the power struggle between federal and provincial governments and the limitations of criminal law power.

The episode then moves on to the government's mounting attempts to gain more control over the legal profession. We spotlight a recent case where the federal government tried to compel lawyers to report their clients' transactions to the tax department. This move raises alarming questions about the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of client-lawyer confidentiality. The episode highlights the efforts of law societies across the country to push back against such government intrusions.

This attempt to force lawyers to turn information over to the government about their clients is an example of why the BC government's proposal to take further control over their regulation of lawyers as part of a "Single Regulator" system is so problematic. 

The last segment of the episode dives into the intricacies of wills and estates, spotlighting a case where a woman passed away without completing her will. The case underlines the importance of having a will in place and the legal repercussions that follow when one isn't. A related case, where a judge validated a woman's wishes for her estate as expressed in a letter, underscores the importance of intent and reasonable action in such scenarios.

Overall, this episode provides a fascinating journey through the legal world's crossroads with societal issues. With expert insights from Michael Mulligan, it serves as an invaluable guide to understanding some of the most complex and contemporary legal challenges of our time.

From understanding the legal and constitutional implications of a plastic ban to the complexities of estate planning and government intrusion into the legal profession, this episode offers an enlightening deep dive into the labyrinth of the law. Whether you are a law enthusiast, a practicing lawyer, or a curious listener, this episode is sure to broaden your understanding of the intricate dynamics of the legal world.

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

In our recent podcast episode, we delved deep into the complexities of the British Columbia (BC) Constitution Act, focusing on the potential reasons a member of the legislative assembly (MLA) could forfeit their seat. These reasons can range from absenteeism and allegiance to foreign powers to dual citizenship and serious criminal convictions.

The subject has become a hot topic following recent upheaval over a Victoria city councillor's controversial letter. However, the BC Constitution Act goes beyond merely providing a framework for government operation; it also lays the groundwork for political accountability. Understanding the Act's intricacies allows us to better comprehend the checks and balances in place to ensure public officeholders adhere to expected conduct.

We also explored two notable legal cases that have recently made the news. The first case involved an injury-at-work incident that resulted in a $10,000 award under the human rights code. Despite the employer's best efforts to appeal, the decision was upheld, shedding light on the complexities of the human rights code in workplace situations.

The second case revolved around a property tax predicament. A couple faced a heavy 20% tax on their house purchase because one of them was not a permanent resident or citizen. This case highlighted the government's role in court cases and the importance of judicial independence.

Overall, these discussions underscore the government's significant role in court cases and the judicial system's critical independence. As citizens, it's essential to understand how these legal mechanisms work, not only to protect our rights but also to ensure we remain informed and active participants in our democracy.

The BC Constitution Act and the various legal cases we discussed underscore the vital interplay between politics and law. Whether it's the forfeiture of a political seat or the interpretation of human rights in a workplace injury case, these legal provisions and judgments shape our society's functioning. As such, understanding them is not just a matter of academic interest but of practical significance to every citizen.

Ultimately, this episode left us pondering the government's role in court cases and the critical significance of judicial independence. By dissecting these legal intricacies, we hope to provide our listeners with a deeper understanding of the BC Constitution Act and its impacts on both political careers and broader societal issues.

Follow this link for links to the cases discussed. 

In British Columbia, the Crown Counsel Association negotiates wages, salary hours or work, and working conditions for Crown Counsel.

In 2018, the BC government decided to have Crown Counsel, rather than the police, conduct bail hearings at night and on weekends.

Rather than negotiating with the Crown Counsel Association, the BC government made a unilateral decision to have Crown Counsel work evenings and weekends, claiming that the Attorney General had the power to do this under the Attorney General Act that says the Attorney General can "preside over" the Ministry of the Attorney General. 

The Crown Counsel Association grieved this decision, and an arbitrator concluded the government didn't have the authority to act unilaterally or attempt to negotiate with individual Crown Counsel: it had to negotiate the change with the hours Crown Counsel was required to work.

Rather than negotiating, the government appealed the Arbitrator's decision through a judicial review.

The judge on the judicial review found that the arbitrator's decision was transparent, intelligible, justified and reasonable and so upheld it and ordered the government to pay costs to the Crown Counsel Association. 

In addition to attempting to bypass collective bargaining with Crown Counsel, the provincial government is also engaged in litigation with the provincial government lawyers who are not Crown Counsel. After these lawyers voted to join a union, the government passed legislation forcing them into a different union they did not want to belong to.

A neighbour dispute over a fence and access to repair it is also discussed on the show.

After several years of refusing to permit access to their property for the purpose of repairing a fence, the neighbour on whose property the fence was located obtained an order pursuant to section 34 of the Property Law Act to permit them to access the neighbour's property for the purpose of maintaining the fence.

 This section of the Property Law Act permits a judge to order access to property for the purpose of repairing a building, structure or improvement on adjourning land when the consent of the owner of the adjoining land is refused or cannot reasonably be obtained.

The judge concluded that this section of the act, which was added in 2018, was applicable and that it also allowed the order to permit access on an ongoing basis without the need for repeated court applications.

Finally, on the show, the BC Court of Appeal upheld the eviction of a tenant as a result of them installing a dishwasher without permission and, more significantly, covering a smoke detector up with a cardboard box.

Section 47 of the Residential Tenancy Act permits a tenant to be evicted if the tenant has "seriously jeopardized the health or safety or lawful right of another occupant of the landlord and put the landlord's property at significant risk."

The Court of Appeal rejected the tenant's argument that they had a right to time to fix the problem. 

Follow this link for links to the cases discussed. 

Many professions such as doctors, engineers, and architects are regulated to ensure that people providing services to the public are properly trained and competent to practice. The need for this is clear: you want to ensure people receive good medical care and the buildings and bridges don't fall down.

The regulation of lawyers has this objective as well: you want to know that you're getting competent legal advice when you hire a lawyer.

Because lawyers are often engaged in work that is in opposition to the wishes of the government it is also important that the regulation of lawyers is independent of the government.

If you hire a lawyer to defend a criminal case,  prevent the government from apprehending your children, challenging the validity of a law, or pursue indigenous rights, you do not want the lawyer to be concerned about the professional consequences of acting in opposition to the government's wishes.

This independence is under threat in British Columbia as a result of a proposal to "modernize" the Legal Profession Act in such a way that the provincial government would be able to appoint an increased number of the benchers (directors) that govern the Law Society.

As discussed on the show, the government's immediate motivations to take greater control include a wish to avoid providing adequate funding for legal aid services by creating a system of paralegals with less training than lawyers to provide legal services for the poor.

The issue of adequate legal aid funding has been pursued by the Law Society for many years.

BC is the only province in Canada that imposes a special tax on legal services. The tax was introduced by an NDP government in 1992.

When the tax was introduced it was done for the express purpose of funding legal aid.

Quickly, however, the tax started collecting more money than the government was providing for legal aid and the extra funds were diverted to general revenue.

The government now diverts more than half of the funds collected pursuant to the special tax while dramatically underfunding legal aid services.

The diversion of tax revenue from legal aid has resulted in various challenges by the Law Society including a vote to censure a past Attorney General.

A history of the funding of legal aid in BC, the special tax, and the disproportionate impact the diversion of revenue from the special tax has had on women can be found here.

The government proposal has met with opposition from the Canadian Bar Association, the Victoria Bar Association,  the Law Society, and others.

As discussed on the show, one of the elected benchers from Victoria, Paul Pearson gave up his position because he works as Crown Counsel and concluded he couldn't effectively oppose the government initiative while also working for the provincial government.

His statement outlining the import of what has been proposed can be found here.

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

Get ready to plunge into the riveting world of legal complexities as we welcome Michael Mulligan, a seasoned barrister and Solicitor, to our podcast. Packed with insights and thought-provoking perspectives, we'll unravel the collateral consequences of committing an offence and the intricate aspects of third-party records in criminal cases. Mulligan guides us through the maze of evidence collection, especially in scenarios where the police don't possess the evidence, as in the case of a prison assault video. We also delve into the privacy concerns surrounding the people featured in such videos.

Moving on, we dive headfirst into the challenging terrain of the prison disciplinary process. Mulligan sheds light on the current system where a standard of "probably" is adopted while punishing inmates, a practice that could be at odds with the constitutional right of presumption of innocence until proven guilty. We debate the fairness of this system, especially for inmates awaiting trial while presumed innocent. To add to the mix, Mulligan paints a vivid picture of the realities of prison life, underscoring how this environment influences legal proceedings. Buckle up for this intense exploration of the legal intricacies within the prison system!

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

Who says law and property rights can't be riveting? Brace for a legal deep dive unravelling the complexities of the Short Term Rental Accommodations Act in British Columbia. It's not every day you get to compare it to governmental property seizure, but we dare to tread those intriguing waters. We pick apart the legal precedents for compensation in cases where the government appropriates property and delve into the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in the Annapolis Grouping v. Halifax Regional Municipality case. And that's just the tip of the iceberg!

 We also discuss building permits, how court decisions are interpreted, and even explore the Canlii website for a dose of free case law knowledge. This episode is a must-listen for anyone keen on property rights and the intricacies of the law!

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