Kyla Lee

This week on the Driving Law podcast, I am joined by Paul Doroshenko of Acumen Law Corporation. We discuss the announcement of new regulations for safety training, to be completed federally, in the aftermath of the Humboldt Broncos Bus Crash. Is this constitutionally valid? Will anyone challenge it? We also get into the case of a drug-sniffing dog that failed to sit down in a vehicle search, and how the use o fone’s vehicle weighed heavily in the Charter analysis that excluded 27,500 fentanyl pills.

I’m also pleased to announce that the Driving Law podcast is now part of the Cannabis Media Collective!

You can listen online on SoundCloud, PlayerFM, or subscribe on iTunes!

This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, we explore why dining and dashing can have disastrous results… and not for the perpetrators of that crime. Then, we look into how a failure to recycle led to the discovery of evidence that solved a decades-old murder. Finally, we look at another crazy trademark case involving a burger chain.

Read on for this week’s roundup of weird and wacky legal cases from around the globe!

This week on the Driving Law podcast, I am joined by Thomas Harding of the Trial Lawyers Advocacy Group. We discuss the so-called “meat-chart” used by ICBC to assess injury claims, and the new policy that involved revoking all previous offers and replacing them with lower, one-time-only offers. This will likely have serious consequences for ICBC, as Mr. Harding explains.

I’m also pleased to announce that the Driving Law podcast is now part of the Cannabis Media Collective!

You can listen online on SoundCloud, PlayerFM, or subscribe on iTunes!

This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, we look at the case of an attempted mugging that went way wrong. Then, we being to ponder why Taiwan appears to take yogurt super seriously. Finally, we learn what the consequences are of giving away free cheesecake. What could go wrong? A lot, apparently.

Read on to find out more about this week’s weirdest and wackiest legal stories from around the globe!

This week on the Driving Law podcast, I am joined by Paul Doroshenko of Acumen Law Corporation. We discuss the surprise guilty plea in the Humboldt Broncos bus crash case, as well as the news that broke this week about how police can charge you with impaired driving for being over the legal limit two hours after you have finished driving, even if it is due to alcohol consumed after you stopped driving a vehicle.

I’m also pleased to announce that the Driving Law podcast is now part of the Cannabis Media Collective!

You can listen online on SoundCloud, PlayerFM, or subscribe on iTunes!

In the week leading up to this week’s edition of Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, I have been very interested in what is happening in fast food restaurants. A lot of strange legal stories seem to take place there, and I have found three of the most interesting cases out there. First, we look at how a Florida law requiring customers to ask for a plastic straw led to a commotion in a McDonald’s. Then, we see just how far (too far) a man was willing to go to get some hot sauce at a Taco Bell. And finally, we examine a 1960s case involving competing claims to the Burger King name.

Read on to find out how fun and interesting the law can be, even in a fast food restaurant.

Several years ago, RoadSafetyBC had a problem with lengthy and indefinite extensions in rendering IRP review decisions. They cleared the backlog, for the most part, and cases are now generally decided within the twenty-one day timeframe. This is the time limit mandated under the Motor Vehicle Act.

However, there are still some occasions where the cases cannot be decided in this time period. In such occasions, the Superintendent may take an extension of the time to render a decision. The Superintendent may also release the vehicle and reinstate the driver’s license until such a time as a decision is rendered.

Until recently, the practice was that if the extension was short, typically a week or so, the vehicle would not be released and the license would remain prohibited. However, if the extension were longer then the Superintendent would reinstate the license. After all, the courts have repeatedly confirmed that these matters are meant to be dealt with expeditiously. And it renders the whole review process moot if the consequences are served in full or in large part before a decision is rendered.

I say until recently because this has now changed. And it is, in my opinion, totally wrong.