This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: The Strange Cargo Edition
Every so often the news cycle delivers a run of stories that all seem to circle the same idea, and this past month gave us a good one. The theme is cargo. Specifically, the kind of cargo people are not supposed to be moving, on the kind of conveyance they probably should not be using to move it. We have a horse, a deceased alligator, and 22 Buddhist monks with 242 pounds of explanation to do at customs. None of these people were thinking about Canadian law when they did what they did, but each story is a useful reminder of how Canadian law would have treated them if they had tried any of this here.
This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: More people taking the bus
We are always told it would be better if we took the bus. More of us should take the bus. Some people take that advice to heart and then take the bus a little too far. This week is about the folks who climbed aboard and ended up in a heap of trouble.
This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Absurd lawsuit edition
Welcome to another lawsuit edition of Weird and Wacky Wednesdays. When it comes to absurd and ridiculous legal cases, the United States is like a nonstop factory. It might not always be a reliable trading partner, but it consistently serves up bizarre lawsuits. This week we bring you three real cases with a legal twist. These made it into court, even if nobody should have taken them that seriously.
A recent decision by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia in R. v. Dancho, 2025 BCCA 258, has granted leave to appeal in a case challenging a traffic ticket. This case raises important issues that affect applications to withdraw guilty pleas in traffic ticket cases.
The Court of Appeal Grants Leave in a Traffic Ticket Case
In Mr. Dancho’s case, the BC Supreme Court dismissed his application to extend time for filing a notice of appeal of his traffic ticket guilty plea. This came after Mr. Dancho realized the ticket had penalty points only after receiving an invoice for the Driver Risk Premium in the mail. Mr. Dancho had pled guilty in order to request a fine reduction because he had a limited income.
The Court of Appeal granted leave because Mr. Dancho raised arguable issues that the BC Supreme Court judge misapprehended applicable legal standards, leading to errors of law. Specifically, he raised concerns about the BC Supreme Court judge’s assessment of setting aside the guilty plea. These included that she had applied an incorrect legal standard.
This week on Driving Law, hosts Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko delve into a trio of complex and thought-provoking legal issues that shed light on the evolving landscape of criminal and administrative law in Canada. From questions of professional conduct and judicial remedies to the impact of Charter rights on sentencing, this episode offers sharp analysis and real-world context that speaks to both legal professionals and curious listeners alike.
Being charged with a DUI (Driving Under the Influence) for the first time can feel overwhelming, but it’s not always as dire as it seems. While the penalties for a DUI are severe, there are scenarios where you can significantly reduce the impact of the charge.
Let’s break down what the best-case scenario looks like for a first-time DUI and how hiring a lawyer can help you achieve it.
It’s often said that wisdom comes with experience, but sometimes, one can’t help but wonder: what were they thinking? From a disgraced prosecutor trying to bend reality to justify her baseless charges, to a beer worker’s unsavory moment going viral, all the way to a driver thinking a creepy clown could count as a passenger — here’s a round-up of people who either thought they could outsmart everyone else, or simply should’ve known better. Grab your popcorn, because these tales are sure to leave you shaking your head in disbelief.
A video, presented by a member of the ICBC Road Saftey department, claims that having your phone loose on the seat beside you is illegal, but Vancouver lawyer Kyla Lee says this is not an accurate representation of what the province’s cellphone usage while driving law states.
“ICBC has, since the law was brought in, taken the position that the law prohibits more than it actually does,” she states.
Because of this inaccurate information, numerous tickets have been issued by law enforcement officers for drivers who have their cellphone loose in the vehicle. Lee herself challenged the decision and it went to the BC Supreme Court in 2019.
In the case of R. v Partridge, 2019 BCSC 360 (CanLII), the Crown reportedly conceded that it is indeed lawful to have your phone in the cupholder or on the seat next to you so long as you are not using it.
“We asked for a reported judgment to try to make the law clear as a bell. To my dismay, the misinformation about what is and is not legal with a cell phone continues.”
Kyla Lee on Vancouver Is Awesome
Lee concedes that the distracted driving law may not be clear, but she believes that spreading inaccurate information by ICBC and government agencies is making the lack of clarity worse. Lee also asserts that this misinformation leads to confusion among the public and police officers, resulting in more improper tickets being issued. She has publicly criticized ICBC through social media for their actions.
This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, we look at the case of someone who is taking the “make it Lego” fad a little too far. Like, way too far. Then, we look at what happens when you make the wrong inquiries about using wifi. Lastly, we examine the case of a very explosive toilet visit.
Follow the jump to learn more about this week’s weirdest and wackiest legal cases from around the globe!
