League and Williams Lawyers

Category: Info Articles

  • Common Driver Mistakes: The Unmarked Crosswalk

    Common Driver Mistakes: The Unmarked Crosswalk

    Perhaps one of the most common mistakes drivers make is not understanding what is a crosswalk and who has the right of way at a crosswalk.

    As noted in our blog “What is a “Crosswalk”? The Answer Might Surprise You”, a crosswalk includes an unmarked area if it is at an intersection and within imaginary lines drawn from opposite sides of the highway (road), or within imaginary lines on one side of the highway (such as across the base of a “T” at a T-intersection). This means that a crosswalk exists whether the intersection is controlled by a stop sign or a stoplight, and whether or not there are distinct pedestrian markings.

    The definition of crosswalk is important because the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act states the following about the right of way between a vehicle and a pedestrian at a crosswalk:

    179  (1) Subject to section 180, the driver of a vehicle must yield the right of way to a pedestrian where traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation when the pedestrian is crossing the highway in a crosswalk and the pedestrian is on the half of the highway on which the vehicle is travelling, or is approaching so closely from the other half of the highway that he or she is in danger.

    (2) A pedestrian must not leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way.

    (3) If a vehicle is slowing down or stopped at a crosswalk or at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the highway, the driver of a vehicle approaching from the rear must not overtake and pass the vehicle that is slowing down or stopped.

    This means that, while a pedestrian may not step off a curb at an unmarked crosswalk when it is dangerous to do so (section 179 (2)), the pedestrian does have the right of way over a vehicle at an unmarked crosswalk (an uncontrolled or controlled intersection) where they are approaching the road on the same side of the road as the passing vehicle or so closely from the other side of the road that they would be in danger if the vehicle did not stop.

    Unfortunately, many pedestrians are injured, or at least very frustrated, because motorists do not understand the rights of pedestrians. At LaW, we care about pedestrian rights and fight to make sure your rights are protected. For a free consultation, call 250-888-0002.

  • Distracted Driving – BC’s Leading Cause of Road Fatalities

    Distracted Driving – BC’s Leading Cause of Road Fatalities

    In British Columbia, distracted driving kills more people every year than any other motor vehicle related cause of death, including impaired driving. Despite the potentially devastating consequences, many British Columbians continue to engage in risky and distracting behaviour while driving.

    Recently, several videos were released in which people are captured driving while doing things that require concentration and dexterity. A woman on Vancouver Island was recently caught curling her hair while driving on the highway at about 90 km/h, and in another shocking situation, a woman is captured playing the guitar while driving on the highway. Of course, most distracted behaviour is not quite as overt or surprising. Cellphone usage comes to mind first to most of us when we think of distracted driving.

    Notwithstanding the fact that in 2014, the B.C. Government increased the penalty for the use of hand-held electronic devices while driving to a $167 fine and three penalty points, B.C. currently has the second most lenient penalties for distracted driving in Canada. Penalties for distracted driving vary greatly throughout Canada. In Ontario, for example, the maximum fine for distracted driving is $1,000, with a minimum penalty of $300, and in Nova Scotia, the fine is $579.

    A public consultation to determine whether penalties for distracted driving should be increased has been undertaken recently by the Minister of Justice of British Columbia. Some of the specific questions asked are: Should drivers be fined higher for texting while driving, given the associated risks? Should new drivers, or repeat offenders, face different sanctions than other drivers?

    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.

  • Google self-driving cars – futuristic fix for unsafe driving?

    Google self-driving cars – futuristic fix for unsafe driving?

    Human beings are terrible drivers. We are easily distracted, second guess our decisions, have slow reflexes, take unnecessary risks, and suffer with exhaustion and fatigue – human beings are incredibly prone to unsafe driving. Google’s self-driving cars have been celebrated by some as a way to reduce the 1.4 million deaths worldwide per year and the many, many more injuries caused by car accidents due to unsafe driving.  But is the celebration premature?

    The Google cars use 3D laser mapping, GPS, and radar to anticipate and track hundreds of external objects, in all directions, at once. The self-driving cars are currently being tested by Google and are driving about 10,000 miles per year, which amounts to what a typical North American might drive in a full year. These Google cars have been involved in 14 collisions since the start of the project in 2009, with all 14 of those collisions being caused by human error, typically the errors of other drivers on the road.

    Although the technology is impressive, the cars are not quite ready for general use. The cars still struggle with rain, for example, as the lasers bounce of shiny surfaces. However, once the first drop of rain hits the car, a warning announces that auto-drive will soon disengage. The cars also can’t follow hand signals or hear traffic whistles. Google insists that these are simply minor glitches that will soon be resolved.

    Critics of the cars insist that, as computers, self-driving cars do not possess discretion, a trait essential to safe driving. For example, although crossing a double yellow line is prohibited, to avoid causing a collision it may be the safest course of action. Good judgment may legitimately compel us to break the law to reduce harm, but could driver-less cars exercise such dynamic judgment?

    If you are injured in a motor vehicle accident, where a driver-less car is involved or otherwise, contact experienced personal injury lawyers at League and Williams Law Corporation.  We may be contacted at 250-888-0002 or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

  • “A Very Stupid Thing” – A Mariner’s Limit of Liability and How it Can be Broken

    “A Very Stupid Thing” – A Mariner’s Limit of Liability and How it Can be Broken

    “[He] is a good man; a decent man; an honest man – a fisherman. However he did a very stupid thing. He cut the plaintiffs’ submarine fibre optic cable in two. It cost them almost $1,000,000 to repair it”.

    So begins the judgment in the recent Federal Court of Canada decision, Peracomo Inc v. TELUS Communications Co. (2014). This case is significant to mariners because it provides an important opportunity to understand limits of liability under marine law, and how these limits protect us. Mariners are wise to appreciate the protections offered by these limits of liability, as well as their liability insurance, and how both of these comforts can be lost resulting in financial disaster.

    The Peracomo Cable Cutting Case

    In Peracomo, Telus maintained a fibre optic cable that had been lawfully laid across the bed of the St. Lawrence River in 1999. The 44 gross tonne fishing vessel Realise, a snow crab long-liner, was owned by Peracomo Inc. and her master (as sole shareholder of Peracomo Inc.). In June of 2006, an anchor on one end of the Realise’s longline became caught on the fibre optic cable, and with much effort was pulled to the surface by the master who then used an electric saw to cut the cable free of the anchor. A few days later, the Realise’s longline anchor became caught on the same cable, and the master again cut the cable.

    Telus sued the vessel, the owner Peracomo Inc. and the master for the cost of repairing the cable, which was approximately $980,000. The master testified he believed the cable was not in use, despite the cable being marked on current charts. The vessel owner and master argued the cable should have been buried, but if they were at fault for the damage they were entitled to limit their liability to $500,000 under Canadian maritime law. Telus argued the owner and master had lost their right to limit their liability because the damage was intentionally caused. The vessel owner claimed on its liability insurance, and their insurer denied coverage maintaining the insurance did not cover damage due to the insured’s “willful misconduct”, as this was excluded under the Marine Insurance Act.

    The trial judge found the master had intentionally cut the cable, and the defendants were not entitled to limit their liability to $500,000 or require their insurer to cover the loss, because the damage was intentional. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed. The Peracomo case is important because it is the first Canadian case where the limitation of liability in a marine accident has been broken.

    What is a Limit of Liability, and Why?

    Aside from the Canada Shipping Act 2001, Canada’s core marine legislation is the Marine Liability Act (“MLA”). The MLA gives the force of law in Canada to various international conventions, including the International Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (the “Liability Convention”). The Liability Convention is important because it puts a cap, or limit, on what can be claimed for a marine loss such as damage to property, or injury or death of a person.

    People entitled to limit liability under the Liability Convention are vessel owners, charterers, managers and operators (masters) and any person with an interest in the ship, as well the ship itself. The limitation covers accidents involving not just seagoing commercial vessels, but inland and recreational vessels as well. In the case of damage to property, the limit of liability is $500,000 for loss caused by a vessel under 300 gross tonnes. For vessels between 300 and 2,000 gross tonnes, the limit is currently CDN$1,493,000. For vessels between 2,001 and 30,000 tonnes the limit is CDN$1,493,000 plus $600 for every tonne over 2,000. The Canadian dollar value of the limit floats based on an International Monetary Fund unit called a Standard Drawing Right or SDR; the values provided are current as of September 4, 2012.

    There are various reasons these limits of liability exist, but one of the foremost reasons is to encourage marine enterprise. By establishing limits on liability, mariners are encouraged to engage in more business adventure and risk. Marine insurers, knowing that the liability of their customers is limited, can offer lower insurance premiums, making those adventures more economical for marine businesses to pursue. Clearly, if limitations of liability did not exist, the insurance premiums we pay would be significantly higher, as would our exposure to financial ruin in the event of a significant accident.

    How Can the Limit be Broken?

    Importantly, the Convention provides that the protection of the limitation of liability can be lost or broken, if the loss was caused by a personal act or omission (a failure to act) either “with the intent to cause such loss” or “recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result”.  The limitation has historically been referred  to as an “unbreakable limit” for at least two reasons. Firstly, the loss must result from the “personal act or omission” of owners, charterers, managers and operators. Of course, many marine accidents occur because of the acts of an employee of the owner, in which case it is the not the personal act or omission of the owner or operator that caused the loss. In the Peracomo case, it was the owner and operator’s personal act that caused the loss when he cut the cable. The second reason the limitation has been difficult to break is the requirement that the loss be caused intentionally or recklessly with knowledge of the probable result.

    Intent is an obvious concept and needs no explanation. In the Peracomo case, the court found the master intended to damage the cable by cutting it to free his anchor. Although the master lost his right to limit his liability on that basis alone, the test for breaking the limitation being intent to cause damages “or” recklessly and with knowledge, so the court went on to discuss whether the master acted recklessly and with knowledge. What is reckless is not as clear as what is intentional. In Peracomo, the court held that recklessness meant an attitude or indifference to the existence of a risk, essentially “turning a blind eye to a risk”, and found that because the master had turned a blind eye to current charts that showed the location of the cable, so he was “reckless in the extreme”.

    Fortunately, cases where a mariner loses their ability to limit their liability are rare. However, we should not take the limitation for granted and assume it is “unbreakable” as it is often called. In Peracomo, the court reminded us the limitation of liability provided under the MLA and the Liability Convention are a “privilege”. While most marine accidents occur as a result of an innocent mistake (simple negligence), anyone can have a bad day and do “a very stupid thing”.

    Originally published in 2012.

    Darren Williams is a marine lawyer with League and Williams in Victoria BC.  He may be contacted at 250-888-0002 or via email at info@leaguelaw.com

  • Medical Marijuana Users’ Rights to Choose Confirmed by SCC

    Medical Marijuana Users’ Rights to Choose Confirmed by SCC

    medical-marijuana

    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.

  • Criminal Negligence in the Workplace: Marine Employment Lessons

    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.

  • Navigating Mariner Severance Pay – Tips for Mariners

    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.

  • Practical Advice on Wills and Estates Planning for Blended Families

    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

  • Top Victoria Crash Hotspots Identified

    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

  • Legal Stretch: Bringing Yoga to Vic West Park for a Good Cause

    Legal Stretch: Bringing Yoga to Vic West Park for a Good Cause

    Helena Mitchell is part of the League and Williams team working as a legal assistant with our lawyers.  At work she brings a can-do attitude, an attention to detail, and a commitment to client satisfaction.  She is a talented legal assistant who cares about her colleagues and our clients.  She is also a talented yoga instructor who, when she’s not supporting our lawyers to reach legal goals, is teaching others to reach fitness goals through yoga.  So as she was passing by Victoria West Park on her way to work one day, as the cherry blossoms were blooming and the Victoria weather was getting pleasant, her mind turned to summer and wandered to how nice it would be to do yoga in the park.

    Helena was pondering how close the park was to our office and how yoga has a number of physical and psychological health benefits, when the idea of benefiting a local resource that supports many of our clients, through yoga came to mind.  The firm decided to formally support Helena’s initiative.  Knowing the profound impact an acquired brain injury has on lives, and in particular on many of the lives of the clients of League and Williams, Helena reached out to the Victoria Brain Injury Society with her idea.

    The Victoria Brain Injury Society (Twitter: @VicBrainInjury) is an organization that provides support, education and advocacy to people with acquired brain injuries on Vancouver Island.  They provide a range of services and programs to their members and work to raise awareness of acquired brain injuries in British Columbia.  As a registered charity – the Victoria Brain Injury Society depends on donations to provide funding for the programs and services it offers to those it serves.  Consequently, when Helena reached out to the Victoria Brain Injury Society with her idea to lead a series of yoga classes in the park, they welcomed the opportunity to raise awareness about brain injuries in the community and to have funds raised for the programs and services they provide.

    League and Williams is proud to announce and support “Yoga in the Park – with Helena”, a series of yoga classes on Tuesday afternoons from noon to 1:00pm starting June 2, 2015 and continuing through August 25, 2015 (weather permitting) in Victoria West Park.  The classes are lead by our legal assistant and trained yoga instructor, Helena Mitchell.  Participation is by donation with the proceeds of the events going to the Victoria Brain Injury Society – just bring your mat and a donation and enjoy!

    League and Williams (Twitter: @law_in_victoria) is a Victoria, BC law firm that provides legal services and expertise in the areas of personal injury law, estates disputes, and marine law.  We may be contacted at 250-888-0002 or at info@leaguelaw.com – we offer free consultations and handle each file with the care it needs to achieve the best result possible for the person we represent.