BC Legal Consultation

[bclegalconsultation]

[bclegalconsultation]

B.C. government launches two-stage consultation on liquor law reform

The B.C. government launched a consultation on how to reform the province's liquor laws by sending letters on August 7 to what it calls"major stakeholders."

Parliamentary secretary for liquor policy reform John Yap's lettersask for written feedback and ideas for change. In the next few weeks, letters are expected to be sent to more than 10,000 liquor licensees and liquor agency store owners.

"I know many British Columbians have a lot of opinions and our government is open to hearing them as we move forward in this process," said Yap.

He will follow this feedback by meeting with industry, local governments, First Nations, police and health and social policy associations in September and October.

In the consultation's second stage, a liquor policy review website will be launched in September and will provide a platform for the B.C. public to provide feedback.

Yap is then expected to submit a report to Attorney General Suzanne Anton by November 25. That report will also be released to the public.

The B.C. government said in a press release that the goal of the consultation is to find practical, responsible solutions that improve consumer convenience and grow B.C.'s economy while ensuring public safety.

The government release noted some liquor laws that it currently deems to be "limitations to convenience and economic activity."

Those include:

not allowing minors that are accompanied by a parent or guardian into pubs that serve food during daytime hours;

not allowing wines and other local liquor to be sold at farmers' markets;

not allowing establishments like spas to be eligible for licensing permits; and

taking upwards of a year to obtain a licence for bars and pubs.

Business in Vancouver recently reported on industry advocates urging government to allow restaurant owners to alter the price of a drink during the day and for winery owners to open a second tasting room to sell direct to the public.

Source: http://www.biv.com/article/2013/8/bc-government-launches-two-stage-consultation-on-l/

[bclegalconsultation]

Insurer pays after wife sues 'negligent' husband

A Victoria woman denied compensation by her insurer for injuries suffered when her family's car struck a deer will get her payout after successfully suing the driver, her husband, for negligence.

Jennifer Freidooni was injured in July 2007 when she, her husband and their children were in the car on Highway 16 in Alberta en route to Vancouver.

Her husband, Vahid Freidooni, was behind the wheel when the car struck a deer that had dashed on to the highway.

The wife's lawyer, Wes Mussio, said Monday that her husband's insurer, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (ICBC), refused to compensate her, arguing the accident was an act of God.

Jennifer Freidooni was forced to look for a legal alternative, Mussio said.

Judge believed husband

"We had to sue her husband to get ICBC to cover the damages and losses she suffered," Mussio said.

In a ruling made public Monday, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled on April 23 that the husband was negligent after he admitted he was driving on cruise control at 20 km/h over the speed limit and was listening to music and drinking coffee when the car struck the animal.

The judge clearly found the husband's testimony credible, Mussio said.

"The court probably looks at the testimony of the husband with a very cynical eye, because, obviously, he would be biased in favour of … his wife."

Mussio could not make a precise estimate of the award, but said he believed compensation would exceed $100,000.

He expects ICBC to appeal, he said

The lawsuit was the family's only legal recourse, Mussio said, adding that the Freidoonis are still happily married.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/insurer-pays-after-wife-sues-negligent-husband-1.918814

[bclegalconsultation]

Legal aid awarded to woman fighting ex-husband's vacation plans

B.C. woman was originally denied legal aid to fight ex's plan to take children to India

                     In the wake of a B.C. Supreme Court challenge, the province's Legal Services Society has reversed a decision to deny legal aid to a Lower Mainland woman who wants to fight her ex-husband's plans to take their children to India.

Legal aid denied: woman asks court to overturn decision

The about-face comes as the Trial Lawyer's Association of B.C. says it is preparing to challenge the province next year in court over problems resulting from what the legal community claims is chronic under-funding of the legal aid system.

Meanwhile, the association says it expects more cases like that of P.G., the woman who filed a petition asking for a judicial review of a decision denying her application for legal aid.

P.G. fears her ex-husband won't return from India if allowed to take their two children on vacation, but she says she lacks the English skills to navigate the court system.

"This is affecting thousands of people and it basically has resulted in a lack of access to justice which is not really tolerable in our society," says Chris Johnson, a co-chair with the trial lawyers association.

"It creates an imbalance over and over again where one party is able to essentially crush the other party who doesn't have a lawyer."

Decision reviewed

P.G. filed a petition in B.C. Supreme Court this week with the help of the B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre. She claims her ex-husband is manipulative and emotionally abusive and she needs legal representation "to ensure my voice and concerns for my children are heard."

Mark Benton, CEO of the Legal Services Society, says a decision was made to give P.G. legal aid after reviewing the material she presented in court. 

"They assessed it based on that imminence of risk and the background and felt that it met the current criteria," he says.

Benton says the province drastically reduced legal aid funding in 2002. A priority is placed on criminal cases, meaning two-thirds of applications for help in family law are denied.

"It's enough to provide the current level of service, which is basically an emergency level of funding," he says.

"We've got thousands and thousands of people who show up, wait in the waiting room or wait on line to apply by phone because they need help, and we're refusing 60 to 66 per cent of them."

"It's reasonable to assume that anybody who's going to come and make that application is going to come because they feel they have a need."

Court challenge in 2015?

In a growing protest movement, trial lawyers are refusing to schedule legal aid matters in the first week of each month. The withdrawal now includes Vancouver, North Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey, Victoria and Kamloops. Johnson says he expects the protest to expand to Abbotsford and Chilliwack shortly.

He says the kind of fears and legal imbalance raised in P.G.'s petition reflect larger concerns about access to justice and rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

To that end, Johnson says the association recently retained outside counsel to produce an opinion on the possibility of taking the province to court over legal aid. He says they are currently raising funds to mount a challenge.

"That would be with respect to a broad range of areas where people have been denied access to justice; that would include family law, poverty law and mentally-ill persons," Johnson says.

"It's an issue that the government's going to have to deal with, and so far I think it's been too easy for them not to deal with it."

The province is providing the Legal Services Society $74.5 million in 2014-15, including a $2 million annual increase over three years to fund expansion of legal aid in family and criminal law.

Last week, Justice Minister Suzanne Anton announced a new legal aid project to provide mediation to families hoping to resolve conflicts of property, debt, spousal support or child-related issues without going to court.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/legal-aid-awarded-to-woman-fighting-ex-husband-s-vacation-plans-1.2841416

[bclegalconsultation]

Ottawa pilot project offers free legal information, but not advice

A new centre in Ottawa that provides free bilingual legal information is up and running after receiving $1.5 million from the federal government.

                                   The group behind the pilot project estimates they have enough money to run until 2018. (Hillary Johnstone/CBC)

The Ottawa Legal Information Centre, which opened its doors last week, offers free legal information and referral services, but not legal advice or representation.

"We don't represent in court, we won't evaluate a case's chances of success," said executive director Andrée-Anne Martel.

Martel says the centre will help Canadians who face legal issues but don't know what to do or can't afford to properly deal with their case.

It is offering legal information on everything from family and immigration law to tenants' rights, with the aim of helping people unfamiliar with the legal system get on an even footing.

The new centre on Albert Street is modelled after similar centres in Quebec.

Ontario Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur says the new centre will fill a void in the province.

"Let's say for a newcomer in Ontario and they have legal challenge...with immigration... it will help Ontarians to access justice a lot easier," said Meilleur.

The centre has enough funding to stay open until 2018. But the non-profit group that runs it — L’Association des juristes d’expression française de l’Ontario — hopes to find more funding and make the centre permanent.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-pilot-project-offers-free-legal-information-but-not-advice-1.2929525

[bclegalconsultation]

Ferguson gets legal advice on possible transit lane vote conflict

Ancaster councillor Lloyd Ferguson is getting legal advice on whether his investments in the taxi industry mean he should not participate in Wednesday's vote on the future of the bus lane.

A pro-transit activist says Ferguson should not vote, because his role in the industry puts him in a conflict of interest when it comes to supporting or rejecting transit service improvements.

Ferguson says he’ll know by Tuesday whether he can participate in the controversial vote to scrap the downtown bus lane — a vote that could determine the lane’s future. Ferguson is against the lane.

The councillor owns four taxi licence plates, which he leases to drivers. He has no involvement otherwise in the vehicles or their operation.

Ferguson says he’s checking with a municipal affairs lawyer to see if he should declare a conflict on the transit lane vote at Wednesday’s city council meeting.

'I don’t know what gain I’d have when we lease these plates out, whether it’s affected by whether we do or don’t have a transit lane. I’ll leave that to a legal opinion.'- Coun. Lloyd Ferguson

“He gave me a verbal report on it, but I want it in writing because it’s coming up on Wednesday night,” said Ferguson, who’s voted in previous transit lane votes.

“The test for conflict is a pecuniary gain, and I don’t know what gain I’d have when we lease these plates out, whether it’s affected by whether we do or don’t have a transit lane. I’ll leave that to a legal opinion.”

The transit lane is a heated issue at city hall. The pilot project, which was scheduled to run from October 2013 to October 2014, runs from Mary to Dundurn Streets. Its scrutiny was delayed by the Oct. 27 municipal election.

Do transit riders in Hamilton need a union?

Downtown transit lane lives on for now

Councillors voted at last Wednesday's general issues committee on whether to defer the issue until February, keep it with modifications, suspend the lane or scrap it. Every vote failed, although they were all close, with each losing 8-6 or 8-7. Ferguson voted to get rid of the lane.

Coun. Judi Partridge of Ward 15 was away for part of the meeting. Coun. Brenda Johnson of Ward 11 was on bereavement leave. Both are expected to be at Wednesday’s meeting, when Coun. Chad Collins of Ward 5 will bring back the motion on Wednesday to kill the lane.

In response, transit advocates have discussed a coalition and started a petition that has about 560 supporters so far.

City hall watcher Dan Jelly, who likes the bus lane, sent out a media release on Monday calling for Ferguson to declare a conflict of interest.

'If things were status quo, I’d still vote against it because it’s not long enough.'- Coun. Brenda Johnson

Jelly cited a Peterborough example in 2011, when Mayor Daryl Bennet, owner of a taxi company, sat out a final budget vote for a perceived conflict of interest on transit.

“The concerns about Ferguson’s ownership are tied to his votes related to public transit including, but not limited to, eliminating the current bus lane,” Jelly said.

Ferguson said he’d rather listen to legal advice.

“I take the advice of a trained lawyer on this, not necessarily any of the Jellys.”

On Friday, Ferguson's name was dropped from a court case that included him when a cab with one of his leased plates had alleged mechanical defects.

If he abstains from Wednesday's vote, it would add more scrutiny to Johnson’s already key vote. Johnson voted against the transit lane in 2013, saying it should be longer to be effective.

“I said, ‘You’re bottle-necking, and it’s setting it up to fail,’” she said. “That’s why I voted against it the first time.”

She wasn’t sure Monday how she would vote. She’s busy catching up on work from last week, she said.

“If things were status quo, I’d still vote against it because it’s not long enough…If you’re going to put it in, put it in properly. That’s been my stance since day one.”

How they're likely to vote

Mayor Fred Eisenberger: Eisenberger is a transit lane fan. Last week, he voted to improve and suspend the lane, and voted against killing it.

Aidan Johnson, Ward 1: Johnson is a transit user and transit lane fan. Last week, he moved a motion to improve it and voted against suspending or getting rid of it.

Jason Farr, Ward 2: Farr is a fan of the lane and wants to see it modified to run smoother. Last week, he moved a motion to defer the issue until Feb. 6, when transit head Dave Dixon will present a larger transit plan.

Matthew Green, Ward 3: Green is a transit lane fan who voted last week to modify the lane.

Sam Merulla, Ward 4: Merulla is a bus lane fan and voted to improve it.

Chad Collins, Ward 5: Collins has twice introduced motions against the lane — once in December to stop enforcing it, and last week to kill it. The latter failed 8-6, but he'll try again on Wednesday.

Tom Jackson, Ward 6: Jackson voted to get rid of the transit lane.

Scott Duvall, Ward 7: Duvall voted in favour of suspending it and against modifying it.

Terry Whitehead, Ward 8: Whitehead’s stated stance is more nuanced. He introduced a motion last week to suspend the lane to study it more, which was lost 8-6. He voted against killing the lane and also against improving it. Whitehead conducted a poll of his own, which he says found that 40.7 per cent are in favour of keeping it.

Doug Conley, Ward 9: Conley voted to get rid of the transit lane. He also voted to modify it and suspend it. Conley has told CBC Hamilton in interviews that he's not a fan of the lane.

Maria Pearson, Ward 10: A self-professed transit user, Pearson voted in favour of modifying the transit lane last week. She voted against killing it.

Brenda Johnson, Ward 11: Johnson says she's still thinking about it, but is leaning toward getting rid of it because it's not long enough.

Lloyd Ferguson, Ward 12: Ferguson voted to get rid of the transit lane.

Arlene VanderBeek, Ward 13: VanderBeek voted to get rid of the transit lane.

Robert Pasuta, Ward 14: Pasuta voted to get rid of the transit lane.

Judi Partridge, Ward 15: Partridge was missing from three of the four votes last week, but was prepared to second a motion to get rid of it. She voted against modifying it.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/ferguson-gets-legal-advice-on-possible-transit-lane-vote-conflict-1.2918381