This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Sex Toy Legal Madness
Welcome to another edition of Weird and Wacky Wednesdays. The United States has no shortage of strange and ridiculous legal cases. This week’s selection focuses on sex toys. From a defamation case over a child’s toy to sports fans turning games into a spectacle to a multi-million dollar patent judgment, these stories show how bizarre the legal system can get.
Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation discusses a case involving a denied adjournment request in the context of mental and physical health. During a real estate dispute, a buyer asked the court to delay a summary trial due to health-related limitations. The adjournment was denied, and the trial proceeded. The buyer lost and was ordered to pay over $150,000. On appeal and in a leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada, they argued that Canada needs a clearer, more consistent framework for health-related adjournment requests. The Court declined to hear the case—missing a critical opportunity to address fairness and access to justice for individuals with disabilities.
This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko dissect three important developments in driving law and public accountability in BC.
They begin with a major delay in the ICBC double billing class action, where a technical objection from the provincial government—challenging the scope of the claim based on how “medical practitioners” was defined—has thrown the case off course. Kyla and Paul criticize the government’s interference, noting how procedural nitpicking is undermining access to justice and stalling compensation for affected individuals.
Next, breaking news hits mid-recording: the BC Court of Appeal has released a decision upholding an acquittal in a red-light fatality case involving a dangerous driving charge. Paul and Kyla unpack how the Court’s ruling reaffirms that a momentary lapse in attention—without more—is not enough to meet the legal standard for dangerous driving. The decision marks an important pushback against the expanding scope of criminal liability in driving cases.
Finally, the Ridiculous Driver of the Week is a junk removal employee caught on camera illegally dumping hazardous waste in the woods—a repeat offence in the Lower Mainland. While the company has since fired the employee, Paul and Kyla reflect on what this says about trust, accountability, and regulation in private services.
This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Mascot Mayhem and the Battles They Lost
Welcome to another edition of Weird and Wacky Wednesdays. Mascots are supposed to be fun. They entertain crowds, pose for photos, and sell merchandise. But sometimes they end up in the middle of courtroom drama. This week we look at three cases where a mascot’s copyright or trademark owner tried to take down a competitor and failed.
A 24-hour driving suspension in British Columbia is typically issued for suspected impaired driving or unsafe driving behaviour that causes an officer to believe on reasonable grounds that the driver’s ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired by either a drug or by alcohol.
While this suspension may seem like a temporary inconvenience, it’s important to understand its potential impact on your driving record and how it could affect you moving forward.
Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation breaks down a surprising contract case involving the use of a thumbs-up emoji. A buyer sent contract terms for the sale of flax, and the seller responded with a thumbs-up emoji. The buyer believed this created a binding agreement. The seller disagreed and refused to deliver the flax. The court found that the emoji did indicate agreement and upheld the contract. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case, leaving unresolved questions about how modern digital communication fits into established legal principles.
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.
In British Columbia, one of the most significant consequences for multiple DUI offences or prohibitions is the installation of an Ignition Interlock in your vehicle.
If you’ve been convicted of a DUI, particularly for a second or third offence, you may be required to have this device installed for a specified period. In addition, multiple alcohol or drug-related suspensions on your license in a five-year period, even without a criminal conviction, can still trigger these referrals.
But how many DUIs do you need to get a breathalyzer in your car?
