League and Williams Lawyers

Author: Darren Williams

Groom-to-be in Serious Condition after Hit and Run

There’s a bride-to-be who was less than 6 weeks away from what was supposed to be her wedding day. This time was supposed to be the start of a new life together – filled with planning and anticipation. This time was supposed to be the time when she should have been imagining the years ahead, of hoping and dreaming about their future together.

This past weekend, their dream turned into a nightmare. While at Sun Peaks, her fiancé was celebrating the upcoming nuptials with close friends. On the walk back to where he was staying, at about 3:00am on July 19, 2015, he was struck by a truck (described as a dark coloured Chevy S10 or similar) and sustained severe injuries.

The bride-to-be is now sitting by her fiancé’s side in a Kamloops hospital room. Praying, pleading for his health; he is in serious condition. The bright future that laid ahead for the couple, just a few days ago – now seems incredibly uncertain. The months ahead will be focused on recovery and healing – coping as best as possible.

The prospect of the future is made even more uncertain as the person responsible for his injuries remains at-large. The driver of the truck that struck him did not remain on the scene and has not come forward – making a tragic and heartbreaking situation an order of magnitude worse.

It is hoped that the damage will be mitigated. That he will recover as best as possible from his injuries. That the person responsible will come forward, or that information will lead to his/her identification and that he/she will be held accountable for the hit and run. The family has posted a $10,000 reward for information that leads to the driver responsible being held accountable.

Anyone with information on this hit and run incident is asked to call League and Williams Law Corporation at 250-888-0002 – information that leads to a criminal or civil conviction of the driver will be considered for a $10,000 reward.

July 22, 2015
Medical Marijuana Users’ Rights to Choose Confirmed by SCC

Many people find that medical marijuana provides relief where other options have failed. However, until June 11, 2015 – medical marijuana users in Canada could only legally consume their marijuana by smoking it. Many faced a choice – smoke; consume marijuana in other forms (edibles, oils and/or as a tea) and break the law; or, forego the relief of often debilitating symptoms.

Given the nature of smoking marijuana, it is understandable why many find doing so an unacceptable option and would seek to consume their medicinal marijuana in other ways. It is hard enough being sick, and even harder, when consuming your medicine means being further stigmatized.

As such, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision brings relief to users of medical marijuana who prefer to consume their marijuana by eating or drinking it, rather than by smoking it.

Pain and suffering should not be normalized and the limitation on medical marijuana was found to be an unjustified restriction by the court. The idea that the ruling will “normalize” the use of marijuana is misguided as the users are just as deserving to have access to treatment that works for them as diabetics are deserving of access to insulin. Making insulin more acceptable to those who need it does not lead to abuse – so why assume that making medical marijuana more acceptable to those who need it would lead to abuse?

It should also be noted that costs associated with medical marijuana that is needed in the wake of a personal injury should be included as part of the claim for compensation, as despite the legality, it remains a significant expense for many. League and Williams has experience in getting comprehensive compensation for their client’s personal injuries, including getting compensation for the costs associated with their client’s use of medical marijuana. If you are in need of an experienced, compassionate personal injury lawyer to handle your injury claim – contact us at 250-888-0002 or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

June 13, 2015
Boat Builders Beware: “Construction” of Foreign Vessels & Maritime Liens

Canadian boat builders beware! If you are involved in the construction of a foreign vessel in Canada, you do not have the protection of maritime liens for the unpaid value of your goods and services. In 2012, the Federal Court of Canada released the decision in Comfact Corporation v. Hull 717, and clarified that amendments made to the Marine Liability Act in 2010 do not include protection for the value of goods and services rendered in constructing the vessel.

“Hull 717”

The background facts in the Hull 717 decision are not rare in the industry. Davie Yards Inc., a Quebec shipyard, was contracted by a Norwegian company to build Hull 717. Davie Yards sub-contracted the welding work on Hull 717 to Comfact Corporation. Comfact undertook the welding work, but before Comfact was fully paid, Davie Yards became insolvent and its assets, including Hull 717, were sold to unrelated parties. The Export Development Canada bank held a mortgage on the vessel and claimed that its mortgage ranked ahead of the money owed to Comfact. Because the proceeds of the vessel sale were less than the total amount of the mortgage and Comfact’s claim, the court had to determine which claim had priority to the proceeds of the vessel.

What makes the Hull 717 decision important is that it is the first Canadian decision to consider how the law relating to maritime liens for construction work done on foreign vessels in Canada has changed in recent years, and it confirms that boat builders are not given the protection they might like.

Why are Maritime Liens Useful?

Why are maritime liens beneficial to a Canadian boat builder? Canadian maritime law provides a right to sue a vessel (as though it were a person) if the owner of the vessel is also personally liable for the claim. This right to sue the vessel is called a statutory right in rem. The statutory right in rem is useful because if the owner is insolvent or cannot be found, a claimant can sue, arrest and sell the vessel to satisfy its claim. The claimant must show, however, that there was some behavior or attitude on the part of the owner that they intended to be liable for the goods or services supplied to the vessel. For example, a repairer could not contract with another repairer to take on part of their job without the knowledge of the owner, and then sue the owner and vessel when the other repairer did not pay their invoice. Another limitation of the statutory right in rem is that the claimant loses the right to sue the vessel if ownership changes hands before their claim is filed in court.

While useful, the statutory right in rem is far less powerful than a maritime lien. Unlike a statutory right in rem, the maritime lien is not lost if ownership of the vessel changes hands before a claim is filed in court. A maritime lien claimant also has priority over many other types of creditors, including mortgages.

How the Law Changed in 2010

Prior to 2010, Canadian businesses that supplied goods and services to a vessel may have had a statutory right in rem against the vessel (if the owner was liable for the claim as well), but they did not have a maritime lien for the value of those goods or services. As the court stated, “the enactment of section 139 of the Marine Liability Act in 2010 changed Canadian Maritime Law. It created a maritime lien where none existed before”.

That Canadian businesses did not have a maritime lien for their goods and services prior to 2010 was seen as unfair because, for example, under American maritime law the same type of claimant was given a maritime lien, which was recognized in Canadian courts. As a result, if a vessel came into Canada having had work completed in the U.S. and then had work done in Canada, the claim by the American business would outrank the claim by the Canadian business because the former was a maritime lien and the latter was not. This was the mischief that the 2010 amendment to the Marine Liability Act sought to correct.

S.139 provides that a person carrying on business in Canada, has a maritime lien for “goods, materials, or services” wherever supplied to “foreign vessel” for its “operation or maintenance” including “stevedoring or lighterage” and for work relating to the “repair or equipping” of the vessel. As an aside, although an outdated term, readers may know that lighterage is the fee for moving cargo within a port, such as from ship to dock by barge. Immediate logic may have it that goods and services supplied to construct a vessel would be included in the protection offered by s.139 as they are goods or services supplied for the maintenance or equipping. Confact, who supplied welding services to Hull 717 argued such, but the court disagreed.

Why Section 139 Does Not Apply to Vessel Construction

The Hull 717 decision is important because in it, the court concludes that the value of the welding work completed on the hull did not fall within s.139. In arguing its claim was a maritime lien under s.139, Comfact maintained its services were for the “operation, maintenance, repair or equipping” of Hull 717, terms used in s.139. The bank replied the services were by way of vessel “construction” and there was a distinction between work related to the construction of a vessel, and work related to operating, repairing, maintaining or equipping”.

The court noted its jurisdiction to adjudicate claims arising out of contracts for the “construction” of vessels was specifically described in section 22 of the Federal Courts Act, and further noted the absence of the same term in the Marine Liability Act. The court stated: “in my opinion, the answer to this case lies in the insertion of the word “construction” in section 22(2)(n) of the Federal Courts Act and its exclusion in section 139(2)(b) of the Marine Liability Act”. In essence, the court found that if parliament had wanted to provide claim for construction under s.139, they would have used the word “construction”. The court went on to say: “I cannot accept that the failure to mention “building” or “construction” in s.139(2)(b) of the Marine Liability Act was a slip. Parliament could not have intended to grant maritime liens to those engaged in the construction of a ship, such as the plaintiff in this case”.

Assuming the court’s conclusion is correct, there are a variety of reasons parliament may have not intended to afford Canadian boat builders the protection offered by s.139. Two reasons raised by counsel in Hull 717 decision are that builders can retain title of the vessel until they are paid, or they can retain possession of the vessel. Alternatively, another partial reason is that given the intent of s.139 was to afford the same protection to Canadian suppliers as is given to their American counter-parts, a claim by a Canadian builder (as opposed to a repairer of a vessel built years previous) is less likely to face a competing claim by an American supplier, if the vessel was under construction in Canada and therefore had never left Canada. Undoubtedly, more cases will follow which further define the limits of protection given by this important section of the Marine Liability Act.

Originally published in 2012 in Western Mariner.

If you have a question about this topic or another legal issue, contact us for a legal consultation. Reach us at 250-888-0002, or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

June 7, 2015
Criminal Negligence in the Workplace: Marine Employment Lessons

For the first time in B.C. history, the government has charged an employer with criminal negligence causing the death of an employee. Although the facts of the case do not involve the death of a mariner, this article should be of interest to marine employers and the families of deceased mariners because the same legal principles apply across all industries.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that 22-year-old Kelsey Anne Christian started work at the Stave Lake Quarries in Mission B.C. in 2007 and was killed on her second day on the job when the truck she was operating flipped over, pinning her underneath. A government investigation concluded that she had not been provided adequate training on the operation of the quarry truck before she was required to operate it. In April 2015, eight years after the accident, the employer and two other employees were charged with criminal negligence.

This is not the first case where an employee has been charged with criminal negligence causing death. Readers will recall the navigation officer of the Queen of the North was convicted of two charges of criminal negligence causing death and sentenced to four years in prison. It is, however, the first time an employer in B.C. has been charged under the criminal negligence sections of the Criminal Code.

(Mis)Understanding the Law

In reading news articles about this tragic story, my attention was caught by a disturbing quote that the President of the B.C. Federation of Labour made in response to the charges being laid: “we have long held the view that employers who are negligent and cause serious injury or death of workers should be criminally prosecuted” [source: CBC]. My first impression was that the President had been misquoted, but the article went on to provide a further quote: “in every one of those cases, we have said there should be charges and if indeed employers are found to be negligent – then they should face serious penalties including jail time”.

The reason these quotes should be of concern to employers is that they demonstrate a serious, but common, misunderstanding of the law of criminal negligence. Negligence by an employer causing the injury of an employee is a very common occurrence, indeed it happens every day in B.C. An employer may forget to change a light bulb and a worker falls down a dark staircase. An employer delays in replacing a broken wooden ladder, or a malfunctioning power tool, and a worker is injured using it. These are common occurrences of negligence by an employer. One of the fundamental purposes of workers compensation (WorkSafeBC) is to protect employers from injuries (and financial loss) suffered by their employees because of the employer’s negligence.

Distinguishing then between common negligence and criminal negligence is of utmost importance, involving complex analysis that a personal injury lawyer in Victoria can help with.

Common/Simple Negligence versus Criminal Negligence

Common negligence is simply the failure to take reasonably adequate care to prevent harm to others that is foreseeable. In industrial settings, employees and employers cannot be sued by an injured worker for common negligence because the workers compensation system prohibits such lawsuits; in exchange for giving up this right to sue, the injured worker has a right to workers compensation benefits even if they are at fault for their own injuries.

Just as an employer cannot be sued civilly by an employee for the employer’s common negligence, an employer cannot be liable for criminal charges for common negligence either. The Federation of Labour’s statement that “employers who are negligent and cause serious injury or death of workers should be criminally prosecuted” is ironically a dangerous statement as it would mean almost every employer in the province would at some time be exposed to a criminal prosecution. Practically speaking, the government regulation of employer’s negligence is managed by the workplace safety arm of WorkSafeBC, which can levy substantial fines against employers for maintaining unsafe work places.

Criminal negligence on the other hand, the form of negligence alleged in the death of Ms. Christian, is a much more serious form of negligence, and hence the penal sanctions associated with a conviction for criminal negligence. If convicted of criminal negligence, for example, a person can be liable to imprisonment for life. The average sentencing for criminal negligence causing death currently appears to be in the range of 2 to 4 years.

There have been many court cases that discuss the definition of criminal negligence but it can be concisely defined as having two requirements: (1) a substantial departure from reasonable care and (2) a wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others.

A substantial departure from ordinary care is significantly different than the degree of error required to find somebody liable for common negligence. A person can be liable for common negligence for even the slightest departure from what a reasonably prudent person would do in similar circumstances. Criminal negligence on the other hand, and its requirement that there be a substantial departure, means the court will look to not only what a reasonably prudent person would do, but also assume a significant margin of error in their judgment. Only if a person’s conduct falls well outside of that ordinary margin of error has the person committed a substantial departure. It can be a difficult concept to understand until it is applied to the facts of the case, and every case is different. In the case of Ms. Christian’s death, the court will need to be convinced that what Ms. Christian’s employer did or failed to do was far removed from what a reasonably prudent employer would have done, and even then, the court will have to be satisfied the second requirement for criminal negligence is also met.

The second requirement for criminal negligence is a wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others. Wanton or reckless disregard means that a person contemplated the risk of their acts or omissions harming someone and chose to disregard that risk. It is the “yeah, that could happen, but I don’t care” mentality. One reason that criminal negligence charges are rarely brought at all, and particularly against employers, is because this level of disregard for safety is fortunately rare, but more importantly, difficult to prove in court. Although the accused may deny ever considering the risk (and hence cannot be found to have considered it and disregarded it), the court will look at the surrounding facts of the case and conclude whether a reasonable person should have considered the risk and therefore, whether the accused should have considered the risk (whether he denies doing so or not). For example, in the Queen of the North sinking, the navigating officer maintained he did not consider striking Gil Island was a risk. Ultimately, the court did not accept that evidence, and found that either he must have considered the risk, but chose to disregard it, or that he didn’t consider it when he clearly should have.

In closing, the test for criminal negligence causing injury or death is a high one and employers should not be concerned that they will be criminally prosecuted for simple negligence causing injury to their employees. That said, employers can be heavily sanctioned by authorities such as WorkSafeBC for simple negligence, and so should always maintain safe workplace practices.

Darren Williams is a lawyer and partner at League and Williams in Victoria B.C. and can be reached for question or comment locally 250-888-0002, by emergency cell phone at 250-589-2174, or by email at info@leaguelaw.com.

May 29, 2015
Navigating Mariner Severance Pay – Tips for Mariners

“When is a mariner entitled to notice of termination of their employment, or to be paid out for the time instead, often called severance pay?” Unfortunately this is an all too common question. In some cases, a mariner is left with no right to severance, but in many others, the mariner may overlook significant entitlements because they do not understand their rights—something that could be avoided with the help of an experienced marine lawyer.

There are, of course, at least two sides to every story, so in the next Legal Net I will outline the steps a prudent employer should take to terminate an unwanted employee, but for now, a mariner who faces the dismal view of being fired themselves should ask the following questions.

Question 1: Am I unionized? Unionized employees’ rights to dispute termination or seek severance pay are limited by the terms of the collective bargaining agreements (“CBA”) between their unions and their employers. These CBAs represent a trade-off where the employee assumes certain protections offered by the agreement (such as wage rates, benefits, seniority entitlements, pension, a grievance process, etc.), in exchange for giving up other rights. A unionized employee must dispute their termination through the grievance process under the CBA and cannot pursue severance pay against the employer in any of the processes discussed below.

Question 2: Am I an employee, a contractor, or a dependent contractor? If you are not a unionized employee, the second question to ask yourself is: am I a true employee, a contractor, or a mix of these types of workers, some might call a dependent contractor? This is important because, in the absence of a contract saying otherwise, only an employee and a dependent contractor are entitled to severance. A true contractor has no entitlement to notice of their termination outside of what is stated in their contract, if anything. Employees and dependent contractors, on the other hand, are entitled to reasonable notice of termination if their contract is silent on this issue. Employees and dependent contractors are people defined by several different legal criteria but both rely primarily on a single employer for work and tend to be under a greater degree of employer control than independent contractors.

Question 3: Was I fired for just cause? Regardless of whether you are an employee, a contractor or a dependent contractor, if you are fired for just cause you are not entitled to severance pay (unless a written contract says otherwise, which would be very unusual). The law says that a mariner can only be fired for just cause if their conduct fundamentally undermined the employment relationship. The threshold for just cause can be high. Significant dishonesty, theft, and gross negligence are examples of such behavior. Mere mistakes, irregular lateness, minor insubordination, and so on can only be just cause for termination if the employer provides clear written warnings in advance that such behavior will result in termination. The employer bears the burden of proving they had just cause to fire an employee.

Question 4: Are my rights limited by an employment contract? An employee and a dependent contractor can have their rights to reasonable notice of termination limited by terms of a written employment contract. Such written agreements are relatively rare in the marine industries. Unless the court finds the employer has conducted themselves in such an egregious way as to disentitle them from relying on the written agreement, terms in the contract that restrict the employee from claiming severance beyond the minimum discussed below are enforceable and the mariner cannot claim more than what they provide.

Question 5: If there is no contract, or it is not enforceable, what law governs? In the absence of a contract, the entitlement to severance comes from two possible sources: (1) legislation such as the B.C. Employment Standards Act (“ESA”) or the federal Labour Code, and (2) judge-made law, called common law.

Regarding legislation governing severance, the majority of marine jobs on the West Coast will be subject to the provisions of the ESA as opposed to the Labour Code, regardless of the jobs involving navigation and shipping, because the work is often related to local voyages as opposed to international voyages. This distinction is somewhat academic because the protections offered to employees under both the ESA and the Labour Code are largely similar. These laws provide for a minimum severance entitlement, which is roughly equivalent to 1 week for every year of service up to a maximum of 8 weeks. Employment contracts that limit the employee’s right to severance cannot provide for less than what is stated in the ESA and the Labour Code. Common law on the other hand, which is pursued in a court such as the B.C. Provincial Court or Supreme Court, is often more generous and can generally award one month per year of service depending on the factors discussed below.

Question 6: Should I choose Employment Standards/Labour Code, or a Judge? Awards for severance are typically much higher (often by a factor of 2 to 4 times) for long-term employees who seek a severance award in the courts under common law, as opposed to awards given under the ESA or Labour Code. This is because judges are not limited to awarding the amounts set by the ESA and the Labour Code. The maximum severance awarded by a judge can be about 24 to 26 months of pay in lieu of notice, as opposed to 8 weeks under the ESA. A judge awards severance based on factors that relate to how difficult it will be for the employee to replace their position and income, such as: age, seniority, education, specialization, years of service, and labour market conditions.

People are often attracted to pursuing their severance claims under the simplified processes provided for by the ESA or Labour Code, but they often give up significant awards by not pursuing their claims in front of a judge. While some employees are concerned about the costs of hiring legal counsel to pursue their claims in court, employees should know that some established lawyers in Victoria, B.C. pursue such claims on contingency (a no cure, no fee basis).

Question 7: The employer will not pay my severance, now what? Mariners hold a uniquely powerful position in their claims for severance because severance claims give rise to a maritime lien. A maritime lien is a special legal right that allows the mariner to claim a priority for his severance pay over other debts that the employer owes in respect of the vessel. In other words, mariners owed severance pay can sue the employer and the vessel, arrest the vessel, require the owner to post bail (money) in the amount of the mariner’s severance claim before the vessel can be released from arrest, and where there are multiple creditors pursuing the employer, the maritime lien entitles the mariner to be paid in priority to other creditors including prior registered mortgage holders. This is an unusual and powerful right that terminated employees in most other (non-marine) occupations do not have. It must be used carefully but should not be overlooked.

Facing job loss is challenging and can be tricky waters for any mariner (or maritime employer) to navigate. Consulting with an experienced marine lawyer can ensure that the mariner is treated fairly by their employer and gets access to the full amount of mariner severance pay that they are entitled to. Darren Williams, at League and Williams will provide a free consultation and has a reputation for helping his clients navigate marine law and employment law matters. He may be contacted at 250-888-0002 or by email at dw@marinelaw.ca or dwilliams@leaguelaw.com.

May 27, 2015
Practical Advice on Wills and Estates Planning for Blended Families
Many Canadian families do not follow the traditional family structure and are often formed by two people who have children from previous relationships. The 2011 census provides that these “blended families” now comprise 12.6% of Canada’s 3.7 million families.

The question is: how should estate matters be handled differently for blended families? Standard wills typically distribute all assets to the surviving spouse on the death of other, and on the death of the remaining spouse, to the couple’s shared children. But in the case of a blended family, this distribution may exclude the children of the spouse that dies first. Below are two ways to resolve wills and estates conflicts for blended families:
- Stating the children’s inheritance outright on the will – One solution is to benefit the children and spouse under the will, rather than solely the spouse, with any assets being held in trust for any minor children until their age of majority.
- Preparing a mutual will – Alternatively, mutual wills are written with the consent of both parties and cannot be changed unless there is mutual agreement. This means that when one spouse dies, the other cannot revise the will to deprive the other’s children of their inheritance.
Planning Estates Pro-Actively

People with blended families should pro-actively plan the distribution of their estate. It is important to consult an estate planning lawyer to ensure that your will accurately reflects your wishes.

Disputing an Unfair Estate

Sometimes as a result of failing to pro-actively plan for the specific needs of blended families, children or step-children may be treated unfairly and may be deprived of their fair share of the estate of their parent. When a child or step-child is excluded from the estate, they should discuss their situation with an lawyer who is familiar with BC Estate Law and can take action to ask the court to change the will in order to treat all rightful beneficiaries fairly. Lawyers at League and Williams offer free consultations on estate disputes and may be contacted at 250-888-0002 or by email at info@leaguelaw.com.

Source: Stepfamilies make up 12.6% of Canadian families, CBC News

Source: Blended Families, BC Local News
May 25, 2015
Top Victoria Crash Hotspots Identified
Crashes occur in almost every intersection and interchange on Vancouver Island. In fact, between 2013 and 2017, ICBC has recorded an average of 11,000 accidents per year. To help municipalities determine the spots that need a safety upgrade, ICBC and certain research entities release road collision statistics each year. Here is a summary of 2017’s top 10 crash intersections on Vancouver Island:

As reported in the years between 2005 and 2010, the top ten Victoria crash hotspots along with the number of recorded collisions were identified as:
1. Hillside Avenue and Shelbourne Street, 312 collisions
2. Burnside Road E, Douglas Street and Turning Lane, 250 collisions
3. Douglas Street and Finlayson Street, 250 collisions
4. Douglas Street, Burnside Road E, Hillside Ave and Turning Lane, 237 collisions
5. Blanchard Street and Hillside Avenue, 232 collisions
6. Bay Street and Blanchard Street, 192 collisions
7. Blanchard Street and Finlayson Street, 184 collisions
8. Hillside Street and Quadra Street, 158 collisions
9. Cook Street and Hillside Street, 157 collisions
10. Bay Street and Quadra Street, 148 collisions
An official from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) traffic services blames sheer volume as the main cause, given that the interchanges were designed some 50 years ago when traffic was low. Impatient motorists tend to speed, and not leave enough room for the driver ahead. Should the latter make an abrupt stop, rear-end collisions follow. In addition, many motorists engage in distracted driving, paying attention to a wide variety of things, including smartphones instead of the road. Police have reportedly written about 10,000 tickets in the past year for high-risk driving, including distracted driving.

When you’re involved in a crash on Vancouver Island, here are some important notes from local injury lawyers:
1. Get help. Call 9-1-1 if anybody is hurt. Note that immediately after the accident many people disregard minor pain as a result of adrenaline (“the accident rush”), however, many people find themselves in significant pain days after the accident and some have serious conditions arise as a result of the accident that are only identified later. Do not dismiss minor pain, seek medical attention and do not declare that you have been unharmed by the accident until you can be certain that is the case.
1. Gather accident details. Get contact info, take photos and write down details such as the date, time, location, license numbers, witnesses, the road signs, conditions, weather, speed limits, what you were doing when the accident occurred and vehicular positioning.
1. Make note of all costs and inconveniences experienced due to the accident including towing costs, transportation, medical diagnosis and expenses, time spent off work due to pains and discomfort and how it impedes your normal functioning.
Consult with experienced BC injury lawyers skilled in handling ICBC injury claims, such as those at League and Williams, to ensure that your rights are protected and that you receive the compensation you deserve. You will need an experienced and effective lawyer if you need to pursue a claim for personal injuries. League and Williams offers free consultations, actively works to enable their clients to recover from their injuries, and does not get paid until the client does. League and Williams may be contacted at 250-888-0002 or by email at info@leaguelaw.com.

Source: Accident-prone Metro home to all top 10 crash sites, The Vancouver Sun

Source: Top 10 crash intersections in Metro Vancouver, VanCityBuzz.com
May 22, 2015
Compensation for Sports Injuries in Canada

Hockey has long been one of Canada’s national sports and players at the top of their game take to the ice with the intent to win games, often aggressively playing, leading to bitter scuffles and hard slams, which, despite the ample protection, can trigger serious long-term injuries. Until recently, seriously injured players bore the brunt of their sports injuries personally with their careers cut short and their capacity for alternate employment off the rink or field limited. However, recent stories of lawsuits being leveled at the Canadian Hockey League and National Hockey League teams indicate that injured players may be entitled to compensation. One such claim is the one that has been filed by a former goalie, John Chartrand, who played for the Barrie Colts in Ontario in the Canadian Hockey League. Mr. Chartrand is seeking $12 million in compensation for injuries sustained while playing, injuries that ultimately ended his hockey career.

(more…)

May 20, 2015
Unfair Wills in British Columbia, What are the remedies?

In British Columbia, the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (“WESA”) regulates estate distribution and planning. Among other things, WESA allows a court to examine a will and to change the provisions of the will to benefit certain family members that were excluded or treated unfairly in the will. Making an application to vary or change a will is often not easy, but Darren Williams, a lawyer and founding partner with League and Williams, can effectively assist in undertaking the process to ask the court to have unfair wills in British Columbia changed.

The Clock is Ticking

The first critical step in an action to have an unfair will changed in British Columbia is to ensure that the action is timely. An action to vary a will must be started within 180 days of probate being granted by the court. If probate was granted more than 180 days ago, an action to have the will changed will likely be denied as the limitation period will have expired. It should be noted that in British Columbia, all spouses and children of the deceased have the right to look at a will, even if they are not a named beneficiary of the will. As such, the first thing a lawyer will do in a potential wills dispute action is to check when probate was granted and to examine the will in question.

The Process to Ask the Court to Change the Will

Assuming less than 6 months has passed since probate was granted, the next step would be to talk to a lawyer who knows BC estate law and the nuances of the BC Wills, Estates and Succession Act. Lawyers at League and Williams are willing to consult with people who feel they have been treated unfairly in a British Columbia will and can advise on whether or not the legal process to have the will changed should be pursued and can advise on the risks and benefits of asking the court to have a will changed. If it is decided that it is worthwhile to ask the court to have the will changed, the lawyer will draft the claim ensuring that all of the necessary details are included, the person (and their counsel) responsible for administering the estate (the executor) will respond, evidence will be gathered, an examination for discovery may be undertaken, settlement negotiations will be had, and ultimately if a satisfactory resolution cannot be negotiated, the lawyer will take the case to court, present the evidence and have the court decide on how the will needs to be changed in order to be fair to those who are entitled to proceeds from the estate.

Expert Advice Proves Invaluable

Just because a will has been drafted by a person of sound mind over the age of 16, witnessed appropriately and registered, does not mean that it cannot be challenged or that it is in compliance with the BC Wills, Estates and Succession Act. The courts have held that there are certain rights spouses and children have with respect to the proceeds of an estate, and if a will fails to respect those rights and treats rightful beneficiaries unfairly, those beneficiaries may have recourse through the courts. Due to the limited time frame, rightful beneficiaries have to dispute a will and the legal complexity and potential to strain relationships – the best advice is to seek good counsel from experienced litigators who know British Columbia estate law and who can obtain a fair result on behalf of those who have been treated unfairly.

When disputing or challenging unfair wills, getting good counsel proves invaluable and can prevent an unfair will from haunting the family for years after the death of the testator. If you are the spouse or child of a deceased who was treated unfairly in a will, you may be able to dispute the estate, contact us at 250-888-0002 or via email at info@leaguelaw.com – we will discuss your unfair will case, advise you on your options under your circumstances and do what is needed to be done to obtain a fair result for you and your family.

May 15, 2015
Distracted Driving a Problem for Young Drivers in BC

In British Columbia, about 6.6% of drivers are aged between 16 and 20 years old, however, they account for 14% of drivers involved in a crash. Research has shown that those who are in the beginner stage of the Graduated Licensing Program (GLP) – “N” drivers are 45% more likely to get into an accident than experienced drivers. Further, the crashes young drivers are involved in tend to be severe, with 1 in 4 accidents involving a young driver resulting in a serious injury or fatality, perhaps because of less seat belt use or a tendency to drive faster. A significant share of the accidents involving young drivers are the result of distracted driving.

Due to the growing number of young drivers involved in car accidents as a result of distracted driving in British Columbia and the far reaching consequences these crashes have on the lives of young people and their families, the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia (TLABC) is supporting a program to directly address the issue. The goal of the program is to reduce distracted driving among young drivers and to ultimately spare young drivers from life changing injuries and death that result from distracted driving accidents.

The TLABC program is an outreach initiative that will give presentations to students at BC high schools on the dangers and impacts of distracted driving. It highlights the reality of increased risk that comes with taking attention away from the road for even just two seconds. It also highlights that distracted driving is not limited to just cellphone use behind the wheel but also includes smoking, eating, drinking, adjusting the radio, and using a digital map. The risk of injury is amplified by the fact that younger drivers tend to use seat belts less and to drive at higher speeds. The program aims to reduce the frequency of these incidents by educating high school students about safety from distracted driving and the legal consequences related to negligence.

It is important to note that, under British Columbia’s GLP, new drivers are not permitted to use any electronic devices, even if they are hands-free due to the distraction the use of these devices pose. Use of these devices by a driver with either a “L” or an “N” license can result in a violation ticket being issued and will also come with 3 penalty points that will trigger a review by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. If a “L” or an “N” driver is issued a suspension (is prohibited from driving for a period of time), the 24 month “N” driving period starts over when the prohibition ends and the driver gets re-licensed.

League and Williams are pleased to support the TLABC End Distracted Driving program and share that associate Karina Carson will be actively contributing to this program aimed at saving young lives.

If a distracted driver has injured you or a loved one, it is important to take the necessary measures to recover from the accident and to keep a record of what happened (keep photographs and a diary) and the information from those who witnessed the accident (contact information and witness statements). Recovering fair compensation for the damages from a BC accident is easier when working with an experienced BC personal injury lawyer, such as Darren Williams. It is best to speak with a lawyer shortly after an accident has happened to protect your interests. Lawyers at League and Williams may be reached through (250) 888-0002 or our website’s contact form. You may also email us at info@leaguelaw.com.

May 14, 2015