Category: Info Articles

  • Distracted Driving a Problem for Young Drivers in BC

    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.

  • Canadian Medical Assistance Teams Help Nepal Quake Relief

    Canadian Medical Assistance Teams Help Nepal Quake Relief

    The morning of May 12, 2015, we awoke to news that a second quake, measuring a magnitude of 7.4, had struck Nepal, a country that has been devastated by the Gorkha earthquake that occurred April 25, 2015, killing more than 8,000 people and injuring more than 18,000. The news has hit close to home as one our firm’s legal assistants, Heather, is married to a paramedic, Josh Henshaw, who is in the region after volunteering to help with the Canadian Medical Assistance Teams (CMAT) Nepal Quake Relief efforts.

    Josh is a Victoria, BC paramedic who received an urgent email from a doctor last week asking if he would be willing to fly out the next day to Nepal to assist with the recovery efforts in Nepal. Josh has prior search and rescue experience, an adventurous spirit and knew that his skills would be desperately needed and that he could make a meaningful difference to the recovery efforts. Josh did not hesitate to accept the offer to help, and joined 14 other Canadian volunteers including doctors, nurses and other paramedics on a flight to Kathmandu the day after receiving the email.

    The CMAT team Josh was on arrived in Kathmandu after dark, but even so – the destruction of the quake was apparent. The following day, Josh and the CMAT team traveled roughly 8 hours by bus to the region of Gorkha, very near to the epicentre of the quake and established a CMAT camp and field clinic in the village of Baluwa.

    The field clinic Josh worked at was providing services to Baluwa as well as dozens of neighbouring villages. In the first days of operation, the CMAT field clinic treated 170 patients a day, a large majority of whom were suffering from acute quake related injuries. As some people who need medical care are located in outlying villages and are unable to travel to the field clinic in Baluwa, the CMAT team Josh was on had been sending small groups of medical personnel hiking (sometimes up to 7 hours) to get to outlying villages to treat patients.

    The numbers of patients treated at the field clinic had been gradually subsiding (as of May 13, 2015, the clinic was treating between 60 and 100 patients a day), however an increasing number of patients presented to the clinic had a need for basic medical care. As a result of the quake, much of the primary healthcare infrastructure, including the birthing centre in the region was destroyed. Further, a lack of sanitation, housing and adequate nutrition (also due to the quake) and a looming monsoon season were increasing the need for primary healthcare services in the region. As a result, it was anticipated that the CMAT team Josh was on and the primary medical services they provide would continue to be in high demand in the region.

    Nerves continued to be frayed, with even the sound of thunder causing a great deal of fear and aftershocks continuing on a daily basis. Most of the locals in the village of Baluwa and the surrounding villages were sleeping under tarps – many homes were no longer structurally sound and another big quake would cause them to crumble.

    The road back to the way things once were is likely to be long, however, the indomitable spirit of those living in Nepal leaves little doubt that they will eventually recover from the quake. In a recent impromptu game of soccer between the Canadian medics and the Bulawi village children, the children claimed an easy victory. The still smiling faces of many of the villagers demonstrates an admirable resiliency and hope that the recovery efforts will minimize any further quake related tragedy.

    In support of Josh’s efforts in Nepal, LaW has made a donation to the Canadian Medical Assistance Teams and is encouraging others to do the same. The Canadian Medical Assistance Teams is a Canadian-run grassroots disaster relief organization, that is operated entirely by volunteers and exclusively sponsored by donations. For more information or to donate, please visit: http://www.canadianmedicalteams.org/

  • Reasons to dispute a will in British Columbia: four grounds to make a claim

    Reasons to dispute a will in British Columbia: four grounds to make a claim

    Every year in British Columbia slightly more than 30,000 people die, many of whom have some assets and debts (“an estate”) and a variety of personal and business affairs that they leave behind.  How the assets and debts are administered and how the proceeds of the estate are divided will depend on whether or not there was a will in place and whether or not the will conforms to the requirements of the law – more specifically the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (“WESA”) – which was recently updated with the new Act coming into force March 31, 2014.  If there is no will in place, the deceased is said to have died intestate and the estate is divided according to the provisions of the WESA that govern intestate estates.

    When a will is properly crafted and adheres to BC Law, the costs and time needed to administer the estate are minimized.  A well crafted will ensures that the final wishes of the deceased can be honoured, that all of the deceased’s business/personal affairs and possessions are accounted for and that all of those who are entitled to benefit from the estate are considered fairly and benefit accordingly.  Further, a will gives guardians of minor children a say in who becomes responsible for those children in the event of their passing.  While there are kits that may be used to craft a will, it is generally advised that people get the advice and guidance of a lawyer with experience in drafting wills to assist them in making a will that is considered legal and unlikely to result in a dispute.  If you need a referral to an appropriate lawyer to help you draft a will for your estate, we would be happy to assist, just contact us.

    Unfortunately, some British Columbians die without a will (intestate) or with a will that fails to conform to the WESA.  When there is no will, or when there are grounds to dispute a will, most beneficiaries need to talk to a lawyer who can advise them on their right to benefit from the estate and how to make a claim to get their fair share of the proceeds from the estate.

    Here are four reasons that often give a person grounds to dispute a will in British Columbia:

    1. Next-of-kin were left out of the will (either intentionally or unintentionally) – If a person who should be a next-of-kin beneficiary (generally spouses and children) of an estate is left out (either intentionally or unintentionally), those persons may have grounds to dispute the will.

    2. Similarly positioned beneficiaries of the will were given significantly different shares of the proceeds of the will – If a next-of-kin beneficiary was left a significantly different share of the estate, without good reasons, that person may have grounds to dispute the will.  For example, if one brother got 90 percent of the estate and the other brother was left with 10 percent of the estate for reasons that are either unclear and/or unfair, the disadvantaged brother may have grounds to dispute the will.

    3. Joint property was left to another beneficiary by the deceased – Joint home ownership or joint accounts automatically become the property of the surviving owners as they have a “right of survivorship”.  As such, joint property that is bequeathed in a will to another beneficiary gives the surviving joint property owner a ground to dispute the will.

    4. A will changes the beneficiary of a life insurance policy – Life insurance policies have their own designated beneficiaries and BC wills respect that.  If a person is aware that they are the designated beneficiary of the deceased’s life insurance policy, however a will that was made subsequent to the policy indicates a different recipient of the policy’s benefits, the designated beneficiary has a ground to dispute the will.

    It is important to note that a will is often just one part of an overall estate plan as there are other ways a person can transfer property in the wake of their death that falls outside of the purview of a will.  Prior to making any claims on an estate or disputing an existing will in British Columbia, it is best to consult a lawyer with expertise and experience in British Columbia estate law who can advise on whether or not you have grounds for making a claim under the specific circumstances faced and best enable a person to get their fair share of an estate.

    If a will doesn’t exist, the assets will be distributed according to the WESA.

    WESA has specific rules for dividing the property of a person who died without leaving a will.  If you find yourself eased out of the distribution when you should be part of it under the WESA, let an experienced lawyer help you make a claim.

    For more information on estate disputes, visit https://league.dojogakure.com/our-services/bc-estate-law/unfair-wills-and-estate-disputes/.

    Have a question about this topic or a different legal topic? Contact us for a free consultation. Reach us via phone at 250-888-0002, or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

    Sources:

    BC Vital Statistics Agency

    Making a Will and Estate Planning, The Canadian Bar Association

    Wills, Estates and Succession Act

  • When a bus crashes, can passengers claim compensation?

    When a bus crashes, can passengers claim compensation?

    Bus crashes in British Columbia are rare occurrences.  Passengers who choose to ride the bus tend to have peace of mind about the qualifications of the person entrusted to drive the bus and the road worthiness of the bus they are riding in.  Given the consequences of a bus accident, should it happen, it is imperative that bus operators minimize the risk by ensuring drivers and equipment are appropriate for the trip at hand as failure to do so results in the potential to significantly injure or kill many people.  Bus operators and drivers are often held to a higher standard than other drivers on the road and face significant liability when bus accidents occur.

    When bus crashes happen, they can be nothing short of horrific.  For example, in December 2012, a tour bus en route to Vancouver, BC from Las Vegas, Nevada was traveling in icy conditions in Oregon when it crashed into a guardrail and tumbled 100 feet (30 metres) down an embankment.  Thirty-eight passengers were injured in the accident and 9 passengers died.  The victims included several residents of British Columbia.

    Many victims of the Oregon bus accident suffered multiple injuries including broken bones, soft tissue injuries, collapsed lungs, psychological injuries and probable brain injuries.  The injuries sustained by victims of the accident caused significant amounts of pain, the need for ongoing medical treatment, and a loss of capacity to earn incomes and enjoy life.

    Unsurprisingly, many passengers of the Oregon crash filed lawsuits against the driver, Haeng-Kyu Hwang, and the tour bus company, Mi Joo Tour and Travel, as well as the Oregon state government and its Transportation Department to claim compensation for the injuries and damages sustained in the accident.  The damages sought by those injured in the accident and some of the estates of those who perished could total more than $700 million USD.  As of April 8, 2015 the case is still ongoing.

    Bus Accident Claims

    Making an accident claim after a bus accident (or any accident that involves personal injuries) can be complex.  Details of the accident, the injuries sustained, the medical treatments needed, the impact of the injuries going forward, the insurance coverage available and the laws that apply to the circumstance are all critical to being able to make a claim for fair compensation.  The process can be overwhelming, particularly at a time when the focus needs to be on undergoing treatment for and recovering from the injuries that were sustained in the accident.  It can also be frustrating as sometimes the parties responsible for the accident deny responsibility or fail to provide for the costs of treatment for the injuries sustained – delaying recovery and causing the victim financial hardship.

    Contacting a lawyer who knows about the law where the accident happened and who cares about your recovery can make the process of making an accident claim less overwhelming and can ensure that fair compensation for the injuries sustained is realized.  A good lawyer has the attention to detail needed to enable accident victims to focus on their recovery.

    The team at League and Williams, specializes in personal injury law in BC and are committed to meeting the needs of their clients by providing exceptional legal services that enable injured victims to focus on their recoveries. We may be contacted via phone at 250-888-0002 or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

  • Experienced Injury Lawyers Help You Obtain the Compensation You Deserve

    Experienced Injury Lawyers Help You Obtain the Compensation You Deserve

    If you were injured in a motor vehicle accident and qualify for Part 7 benefits with ICBC (“no-fault benefits”), you may be entitled to the following:

    1.  Medical Benefits

    Section 88(1) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulations (the “Regulations”) requires ICBC to pay “all reasonable expenses incurred by the insured as a result of the injury for necessary medical, surgical, dental, hospital, ambulance or professional nursing services, or for necessary physical therapy, chiropractic treatment, occupational therapy or speech therapy or for prosthesis or orthosis”.

    Although section 88(1) is seemingly broad, ICBC has established policies that limit the payment of such medical benefits. Typically, ICBC will only pay for treatments immediately following the accident, and will only pay for a limited number of treatments. ICBC will not generally pay the “user fee” charged by most treatment providers, which typically amounts to $30 per treatment. Alternative medicine expenses, such as acupuncture and naturopathic remedies will not usually be paid.

    2.  Rehabilitation Benefits

    Section 88(2) of the Regulations requires ICBC, where provision is likely to promote the rehabilitation of the insured, to provide or pay for a variety of treatments or items.

    These items include at-home care by a nurse or attendant, wheelchairs, braces, where someone is rendered reliant on a wheelchair or is unable to maneuver around their home, alterations to a home, and, where a person is unable to use public transport, the purchase of a motor vehicle. Despite the broad language used in the Regulations, ICBC generally interprets the provision very narrowly and in practice, is not likely to pay out for these expenses in most circumstances.

    3.  Wage Loss Benefits

    Section 80 of the Regulations requires ICBC to pay wage loss benefits if an injury prevents a person from working because they are “totally disabled”. Total Disability Benefits (“TTDs”) are payable where a person was employed at the time of the accident or had worked 50% of the year before the accident. TTDs are not payable where EI benefits are available – EI benefits must be exhausted for TTDs to be payable.

    ICBC will pay up to $300 per week (unless the optional additional Part 7 coverage was purchased), and is calculated at 75% of the person’s average weekly earnings in the year before the accident.

    An injured person who is unable to do their job is entitled to receive TTDs for up to two years following the accident, after which, they are entitled to receive TTDs only if they are unable to do any job that would be suitable based on their age, education and experience, and are only payable until age 65.

    4.  Homemaker Benefits

    Section 84 of the Regulations provides benefits to a homemaker who is not able to perform most of their household tasks. The benefits will pay for the expense of someone, who is not a family member, to do the housework for a period up to 104 consecutive weeks. The maximum coverage available is $145 per week.

    Experienced injury lawyers, such as those from League & Williams, can provide you with the quality legal advice and representation you need to help you recover from any injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident.

    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.

    Sources:

    Making a Personal Injury Claim. Cbabc.org.

    Should I hire a personal injury lawyer to help with my ICBC claim? Icbcclaiminfo.com

  • Lawyers in Victoria, BC: Hire a Lawyer before Making an ICBC Claim

    Lawyers in Victoria, BC: Hire a Lawyer before Making an ICBC Claim

    If you are injured in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia, even where you are found wholly at fault for the accident, you may be entitled to Part 7 benefits with ICBC (“no-fault benefits”). No-fault benefits include wage loss for total disability, loss of homemaking capacity, and medical and rehabilitation benefits. No-fault benefits are typically available to anyone injured or killed in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia, and can be accessed by making an ICBC claim.

    To qualify for no-fault benefits, you must be an “insured”, which is defined as any of the following:

    1. An owner of a vehicle insured with ICBC;
    2. A member of the vehicle owner’s household;
    3. An occupant of a vehicle licensed in BC, or an occupant of a vehicle not required to be licensed in BC but driven by a person with a BC driver’s license;
    4. A cyclist or pedestrian who collides with a vehicle described in an owner’s certificate;
    5. A resident of BC who is entitled to bring an action for injury or death under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act for either hit and run collisions or pursuant to the uninsured motorist provisions;
    6. The personal representative of a deceased insured; or,
    7. A resident of BC who holds a valid driver’s certificate and members of his or her household.

    If you satisfy the above definition of an insured and were injured in a motor vehicle accident, you should apply for no-fault benefits with ICBC. To apply for no-fault benefits you must:

    1. Promptly notify ICBC of the accident;
    2. Provide written notice of the particulars of the accident and resulting injuries within 30 days of the collision; and,
    3. Complete an ICBC form called a “CL22 – Insurance Claim Form” within 30 days of the accident.

    Where ICBC fails to pay no-fault benefits, an action against ICBC must be commenced within 2 years of:  (1) the date of the accident, (2) the date of the last benefit payment, where some benefits have been paid, or (3) the date ICBC received notice in the prescribed form of your intention to commence an action for no-fault benefits (providing the notice was sent within 2 years of the accident).

    Hire a lawyer before talking with ICBC. A lawyer will provide you with professional advice and advise you of any missteps that may later be prejudicial to your claim. Count on experienced trial lawyers in Victoria, BC, like those from League & Williams, to help you receive full settlement and to maximize your recovery.

    Have a question about this topic or a different legal topic? Contact us for a free consultation. Reach us via phone at 250-888-0002, or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

    Sources:

    Making a Personal Injury Claim. Cbabc.org.

    Steps of your claim. Icbc.com

  • There’s a Will, but it Could be an Invalid Will

    There’s a Will, but it Could be an Invalid Will

    Being left out of the will of a close family member can be a shocking experience and may leave a person who was expecting an inheritance feeling betrayed.  Family relationships between beneficiaries of the will and those left disinherited can be incredibly strained.  Sometimes the revelations of a will come as a complete surprise and sometimes there are good reasons for the confusion and bewilderment – after all, just because a will exists, does not mean that it is valid or that it reflects the true wishes of the deceased.  What circumstances in British Columbia would make for an invalid will?  When should beneficiaries question the validity of a will and how can they contest it?

    In order for a will to be considered valid and binding, there are a number of factors that must be satisfied to meet the requirements of BC Estate Law and the Wills, Estates and Succession Act that came into effect March 31, 2014.  If these factors are not satisfied, the validity of the will may be contested in court, and there is a good chance the will would be declared an invalid will.

    Who Can Make a Will?

    Under British Columbia law, there are two factors that the person making the will (the testator) or having a will written on their behalf must meet in order for the will to be considered valid.  First, the testator must have been mentally competent during the time the will was made.  If a person is contesting the testator’s mental capacity at the time the will was written, that person will have to provide the court with medical evidence that supports the claim that the testator lacked mental capacity at the time that the will was made.

    Second, in British Columbia, the testator must be 16 years of age or older at the time the will was made.

    Who has to Witness a Will?

    If the testator is of sound mind and of legal age and makes a will, that will must be signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses who must meet specific requirements.  The witnesses must sign the will as proof of their presences, and neither witness can be a beneficiary of the will, nor be a spouse of a named beneficiary of the will.  If a will is not appropriately witnessed, it may be declared invalid by the court.

    How does a person get a will declared invalid by the court?

    If a person has a legitimate reason to believe that the will that was left is invalid, it is important to seek legal advice.  A lawyer who is experienced in BC Estate Law can help identify legal problems with a will, effectively guide the client through the process of contesting the document in court and enable the client to get the share of the estate that they are entitled to. Contact us via phone at 250-888-0002 or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

  • Recording Details of Accident Scenes are Valuable in Proving Injury Claims

    Recording Details of Accident Scenes are Valuable in Proving Injury Claims

    As reported in Global News, a man from Vancouver Island crashed his car into a power pole at 60km/h in the wee hours of the morning on January 11, 2015. The man, Andrew MacDonald, was trapped in his car until firefighters arrived at the scene. Despite his injuries, MacDonald was able to keep calm, and remarkably recorded his rescue with his mobile phone.

    A car accident, whether involving another vehicle or not, is a shocking and stressful experience. The fact that MacDonald was able to keep calm and record his rescue is an outlier.

    In the event that you find yourself involved in a car accident, try to remain calm and collected, and be aware of as much of your surroundings as possible, as MacDonald was. Experienced personal injury lawyers will tell you that having a good recollection of the details of the accident could turn out to be invaluable to the injury claims process afterwards. For your own welfare, as well as to aid your accident claim, try to make note of the following after an accident:

    Check for Injuries

    Quickly check yourself and any passengers in your car for injuries. Once you deem that everyone is alright, check the driver and passengers of the other vehicle. If anyone has been injured, immediately call 911 and request medical assistance.

    It is important to monitor yourself for a few days after the accident as some injuries may not manifest for a few days after the accident.

    Gather Contact Information

    If you can, get the names and contact information of the other drivers who may have been involved in the accident, and the information of those who witnessed the accident.

    Record Details Including Taking Pictures or Videos

    Take photos (or videos) of the scene, and even of your injuries. Keep a diary of how you feel and the treatments you undergo as you recover from your injuries. Having a reliable record is important to support your claims from ICBC or other insurance companies later on.

    Report the Accident

    Whether or not the accident was your fault, you should call ICBC and report the accident. Their line is open 24-hours a day, 7 days a week. A representative will ask you for information, such as when and where the accident occurred, license plate numbers, and insurance details, so be sure to have them ready when you make the call.

    Once you are done with these steps, it’s time to look for a trusted personal injury lawyer in Victoria like one from League & Williams. Ideally, you should speak to a lawyer before you provide any statements to ICBC. This way, you can protect your rights and ensure you are able to maximize the coverage you are entitled to. This is especially important if you sustained an injury from the accident, or are seeking claims to cover repair costs.

    Have a question about this topic or a different legal topic? Contact us for a free consultation. Reach us via phone at 250-888-0002, or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

    (Source: B.C. man films his own rescue following car crash; Global News; February 25, 2015)

  • Understanding Marine Collision Regulations: More like Guidelines, than Actual Rules

    Understanding Marine Collision Regulations: More like Guidelines, than Actual Rules

    Clearly the Collision Regulations (“ColRegs”) under the Canada Shipping Act 2001 serve an important purpose in promoting the safe navigation of vessels on coastal and non-coastal waters. Like laws governing motor vehicles on land, these rules of the road reduce the risk of damage through collision by requiring predictable behaviour. Mariners expect other mariners to follow the ColRegs, and these expectations, if met, lead to fewer collisions and greater efficiency in shipping. That much is obvious.

    What is not obvious, however, is the extent to which a breach of the ColRegs may lead to a finding of legal liability for an accident. More than a few mariners have expressed frustrations like, “he broke Rule 15, he must be completely responsible for the accident!  He has to pay for the damage!” only to find an insurance company, an employer, or a court disagree. In this situation, trust that experienced Victoria, B.C. lawyers can help.

    While safety at sea is never a topic to be taken lightly, the title to this article comes, tongue-in-cheek, from the excuse given by Captain Hector Barbossa (a villain in Pirates of the Caribbean) as to why a pirate’s code of conduct did not apply to him. Captain Barbossa said “the code is more what you call guidelines, than actual rules”. I do not want to appear to compare the seriousness of the ColRegs to something as fantastical as a pirate’s code of conduct, however, a modern court would say that if Captain Barbossa’s coy remark had been made in reference to the ColRegs, he would not be far off the mark.

    Before referring to two recent court decisions on this point, it is important to note some differences between civil claims and criminal proceedings, given that the ColRegs arise in each of these types of court cases. Civil claims are lawsuits between private parties for compensation, for example, for personal injury or property damage arising from a collision. These claims are common, and if not pursued directly by the person harmed, are often pursued by their insurer to recover the loss paid to their insured. Such civil claims are distinct from criminal proceedings under the Criminal Code or the Canada Shipping Act 2001, where it is the Crown seeking to punish a person in part to deter other members of society from committing similar wrongs. Importantly, as can be seen in cases such as the sinking of the Queen of the North, a single act or omission by a mariner can lead to both civil claims for compensation by those harmed, as well as criminal proceedings for punishment by the Crown.

    On the criminal side, a breach of a ColRegs Rule could potentially lead to the Crown seeking a conviction for that particular breach of the regulation, however, prosecutions for single Rule breaches are rare. Rather, often the breach of a Rule leads to a more serious event, and then the breach of the Rule is brought as evidence in support of a more serious charge under the Criminal Code, such as dangerous operation of a vessel, or as in the case of the Queen of the North, criminal negligence causing death. As such, the breach of a ColReg Rule does not typically result in a criminal conviction, rather, the ColRegs act as guidelines which are used by the criminal court to measure the reasonableness of the mariner’s conduct in assessing guilt under the Criminal Code.

    An example of this principle playing out in criminal court came when the B.C. Court of Appeal on December 16, 2014 released its decision in R. v. Lilgert. After the Queen of the North officer had been found guilty of criminal negligence causing death and sentenced to four years in prison, his legal team appealed the conviction. One of the arguments (of several) advanced was that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that the proper legal test they were to apply was that any breach of the ColRegs was a substantial departure from the practice of a reasonably prudent mariner. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s argument in this way: “as to the contention that the Collision Regulations were [incorrectly] treated as rigid rules rather than guidelines, this complaint cannot be supported when the evidence review of the judge is examined… In my view, the jury would not have taken from [the judge’s instructions] that any breach of the Collision Regulations would establish wanton or reckless disregard or a marked and substantial departure from the norm. In other words, the Court of Appeal dismissed the argument the judge had incorrectly treated the ColRegs as strict rules rather than guidelines.

    In civil cases, there is no Crown seeking to convict a mariner for a breach of the Criminal Code or a regulation under the Shipping Act 2001. Instead, private parties are suing one another for compensation for property damage or injury. Typically, the claimant will allege the defendant was negligent in the navigation of a vessel. In considering whether someone is negligent, the court must determine what the appropriate standard of care is in the circumstances, whether the mariner’s conduct fell below that standard, and if so, did the failure to meet that standard cause the accident.  In doing so, the court will often refer to the ColRegs as the appropriate standard of care for a mariner. In other words, the court will use the ColRegs as a guideline for what a reasonably prudent mariner should do in the circumstances.

    An example of this principle playing out in civil court came in a 2014 decision of the B.C. Supreme Court that involved the collision of the two pleasure craft on Okanagan Lake. In that case, a vessel underway collided with a water ski boat that had stopped to disentangle a towline from its leg. The stopped vessel alleged it had the right of way as a vessel not under command, or otherwise towing (several people were waiting on an inner-tube tied to the end of the tangled tow line). The vessel underway alleged the stopped vessel had a duty to avoid the collision and maintain an adequate watch, including using its horn to warn the vessel underway of its presence. Each party alleged the other was negligent in causing the collision. The court said the following: “The test of negligence under maritime law is determined by the actions of the ordinary seaman, rather than the ordinary man”. The court went on to say:  “An allegation of negligence because of a violation of the Collision Regulations must be considered in light of the principle that a mere breach of a statute, standard or rule is not equivalent to a finding of liability. Standards and rules help to inform the Court of the standard of care and what accords with those standards”. In other words, a breach of a ColReg does not lead to the immediate conclusion that the mariner’s conduct was negligent.

    All this being said, readers ought not interpret these observations to mean the ColRegs should not be treated as “rules” in the traditional sense of the word: directions to be respected and followed. Clearly, adherence to the ColRegs is immensely important to maintaining safety at sea. The point to take from this article however, is: do not assume that just because you have breached a ColReg that you will be found responsible in a civil or criminal court, and similarly, simply because someone else has breached a ColReg does not mean they will necessarily be responsible to you for your resulting damages. The focus of the legal inquiry will typically come down to this question: to what extent does the breach of the ColReg demonstrate a sufficient departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent mariner in the circumstances to warrant responsibility?  As leading Victoria lawyers would always say, the answer will always differ in every case.

    Darren Williams is a lawyer and founding partner at League and Williams LaW in Victoria B.C. with expertise in Marine Law, Estate Law and Personal Injury Law in BC and can be reached for question or comment at 250-888-0002, or at dwilliams@leaguelaw.com.

  • Repairer’s Liens – BC Primer for Marine Repairers & Customers

    Repairer’s Liens – BC Primer for Marine Repairers & Customers

    Repairer’s lien are very powerful, but often misunderstood legal tools available to repairers of vessels and marine machinery.  The vast majority of repairers do not, in my experience, understand and implement their lien rights effectively, and as a result lose many of the advantages the law intended them to have.  One of these rights, for example, is the ability to seize and sell a vessel or machinery, without court involvement, in order to satisfy the repairer’s bill.  In this Legal Net, we will refresh marine repairers on the law of liens under the B.C. Repairers Lien Act, and explain the most common mistakes that lead to repairers watching their customer’s ship sail (or machinery leave their yard) without their bill being paid.  On the flip side, of course, owners of vessels and machinery are well advised to appreciate the content of this article in order to protect their respective interests.

    Before the B.C. Repairers Lien Act existed, marine repairers could rely on their maritime law rights as possessory lienholders.  A possessory lien is, among other things, the right of a repairer to keep possession of the item they worked on until they are paid.  The claim of a repairer with a possessory lien has priority to payment over most other people who are owed money by the owner.  Importantly, this priority was lost if the repairer gave up possession of the item (unless possession was lost due to theft or fraud).  The difficulty with keeping possession of the vessel or machinery, of course, was that it often made it difficult for the owner to generate the money necessary to pay the bill.  Standoffs were not uncommon: a repairer would hold the vessel/machinery until the bill was paid, and the owner could not pay the bill without use of his property.  Generally, this type of dilemma was bad for everyone’s business, including the repairer’s goodwill amongst other customers to whom the owner complained.

    The B.C. Repairers Lien Act provides a solution to this dilemma by giving special legislated rights to repairers to keep the priority their possessory lien gave them, while giving up possession of the vessel, if specific procedures are followed.  If the procedures are not followed closely, the right to a repairer’s lien, and the right to seize and sell without court involvement, is lost.  The must-knows of this procedure are as follows.

    Obtain a Signed Acknowledgment of the Bill (the most common oversight by repairers) – The repairer may give up possession of the vessel/machinery without (any or all of) the bill being paid, and not lose their lien, provided the owner signs an “invoice or other statement of account” acknowledging they are aware of the outstanding amount.  The owner does not have to agree the amount claimed is actually owed, only acknowledge the repairer claims that it is owed.  For example, the owner may argue the bill is too high, or the work was not done correctly or as directed; this dispute need not be resolved before possession is given up, but an acknowledgment of the demand must be signed.   If the owner wishes, the acknowledgement may be signed with a written statement that the bill is “disputed” or “under protest”, but the acknowledgement is still valid for the purposes of preserving the repairer’s lien.  The Act requires the acknowledgment be “signed”, so an email, text, voicemail or verbal acknowledgment will likely not suffice. The bottom line is: get a signed acknowledgement of the bill, or do not give up possession, even if the owner says: “I’ll send a cheque in the mail” or “I’ll call you later today with my credit card number”.  Prudent vessel/machinery owners would ask the repairer to give up possession of their property without signing such an acknowledgment; because if they do, the repairer’s lien would be lost.

    Register the Lien Within 21 days of Giving Up Possession – After the owner provides acknowledgment of the debt and the repairer gives up possession of the vessel/machinery, the repairer’s lien continues to exist for 21 days.  Before the 21 days expires, the repairer must register the lien in the Personal Property Registry (unless the bill has been paid), which is a public registry of debts secured against personal property (that is, any property other than land).  If the lien is not registered within 21 days, it is lost.  The lien is best registered by a lawyer, or other person trained in registering liens, because mistakes in the lien particulars can result in the lien being invalid.  The cost of registering a lien in most cases should be less than $300.  While the lien can be registered without such information, the birth date of the debtor and the serial number of the vessel/machinery can help ensure the lien registration is valid (repairers should obtain this information when the owner signs the acknowledgment of the bill before giving up possession).

    Seize within 180 Days of Registration, and Sell – provided the repairer has obtained a signed acknowledgment of their bill, registered their lien, and at least 90 days has passed since payment on the bill was due, the repairer can (without suing in court) seize and sell the vessel to recover their debt.  If the repairer has not released the property from their possession, there is, of course, no need to seize it, and the repairer can proceed with advertising (the Act provides the procedure for advertising) and an auction.  If the repairer does not have possession, the seizure occurs by the repairer contacting a court bailiff licensed by the B.C. Attorney General; authorized bailiffs can be found on the internet.  The bailiff should ask for proof of registration of the lien.  The bailiff will seize the vessel/machinery and advertise and conduct an auction of the property in order to pay the repairer’s bill and the seizure expenses.  The bailiff will typically require a deposit for their fees.  In some circumstances, the value of the vessel/machinery sold will not cover the repairer’s bill and seizure/sale expenses, in which case, the repairer is best off not releasing the property in the first place (in other words, if the bill is close to the total value of the property, resist giving up possession without being paid at least most of the bill).  If the sale proceeds exceed the amount of the repairer’s bill and the seizure/bailiff expenses, the excess must be returned to the owner.

    Storage Costs – One additional point that is often overlooked by both repairers and owners is that once a repairer asserts a lien, they may not include in the amount of the lien the cost of storing the property.  If a repairer includes these charges and sells the property (although the owner proposes to pay all of the bill except for the storage costs), the repairer may expose themselves to a penalty assessed by the court for a wrongful sale.  The exception to the rule that storage costs may not be included in a repairers lien claim is if there is a written contract between the repairer and owner that allows such costs to be part of the lien.  Prudent repairers will include such a term in their work order form.

    Seizure under a Repairer’s Lien v. Arrest – Lastly, I am often asked what the difference is between an arrest, and a lien as described above.  The arrest of a vessel is merely a procedural right (in a court action) to prevent the owner of a vessel from moving the vessel.  It does not give the repairer’s claim any special rights or priority like a possessory/repairer’s lien does.  An arrest does not allow the repairer to sell the vessel without a court order (whereas a repairer’s lien does).  While an arrest does not stop the owner from selling their vessel, practically speaking, no buyer will buy a vessel they cannot move.  The arrest ensures the vessel remains in one place so that when the repairer sues the owner and obtains a judgment, the vessel is available to sell.  However, simply because the repairer can ask the court to sell the vessel does not mean they are first in the line of creditors (there may be other claimants with higher priority, such as salvage liens, port authorities, or other repairers with prior registered liens).  Importantly, if a repairer arrests a vessel that is in their possession, it destroys their lien and therefore their priority – so, never arrest a vessel you already have possession of.

    Darren Williams is a founding partner of League and Williams and practices in the areas of Marine Law, Personal Injury and Estates Disputes serving clients from across British Columbia.  Darren can be reached for question or comment at dwilliams@leaguelaw.com or 250-888-0002.