Welcome back to another edition of Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, where we look at some of the most unusual intersections of law and life. This week, we’re exploring cases where animals found themselves in legal disputes, The long arm of the law sometimes reaches into the animal kingdom.
…Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Episode 338 Read More »
Today, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation examines a religious tax exemption case involving a Taoist Society and its property tax dispute, raising key concerns about how non-traditional religious practices are assessed under Canadian tax law.
…
Did the anti-immigrant protest in St. Albert, Alberta last month constitutes a “hate crime”? This is VANCOLOUR host Mo Amir asks Kyla Lee (Acumen Law) to explain what is – and isn’t – a “hate crime”, legally speaking. And, it’s complicated.
…This is VANCOLOUR – Kyla’s Court: Is the “Elon salute” a hate crime?Read More »
This is VANCOLOUR – Kyla’s Court: Is the “Elon salute” a hate crime? Read More »
A B.C. small business owner with stores in Vancouver and Toronto says she no longer reports crimes to the police and is relying solely on social media to hold criminals accountable.
Security cameras at CityLux Boutique in downtown Vancouver have captured repeated smashed windows, shoplifting and even a brazen daylight couch theft during the COVID-19 pandemic.
…
In the tumultuous theater of global politics, coup attempts are one of the more dramatic bids for power. Some succeed and others fail, leading to legal repercussions that may be intriguing as the plots themselves. As we observe the Musk coup d’état unfold in the U.S., it got me thinking that we should consider some failed coups, each marked by peculiarities and legal entanglements that underscore the unpredictable nature of political power plays. It’s not lost on me that this discussion further normalizes the unlawful overthrow of government, but my small voice here is meaningless compared to how Trump has normalized a coup as a method of changing government. Let’s dig in.
For more on the unpredictable world of political power plays, including Trump’s influence on modern political tactics, check out our coverage of Trump’s legal battles and their wider implications. Donald Trump found guilty of all 34 charges in hush money trial
…Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Episode 337 Read More »
This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, we’re diving into the world of people who thought they could ignore a judge’s ruling—only to find out the hard way that the law doesn’t take kindly to being ignored. While this might seem like a legal technicality, the reality is that court orders exist for a reason. If even a single individual can disregard them without consequence, it undermines the entire system. Unfortunately, history has shown that when those in power decide that court orders don’t apply to them, the results can be catastrophic.
Let’s take a look at three bizarre cases where people ignored court orders—and paid the price.
In 2019, a New York landlord named Joseph Amoroso learned that ignoring a judge’s order can come with a hefty cost. Amoroso had been ordered by the court to repair multiple dangerous violations in his apartment building—things like broken windows, severe mold, and rat infestations. Instead of making the necessary fixes, he decided to double down and evict tenants who dared to complain.
The court wasn’t amused. After multiple warnings, the judge issued a bench warrant, and Amoroso found himself locked up in Rikers Island until he agreed to comply. Even then, it took a $500,000 fine and an additional lawsuit before the city forced him to clean up his act. Turns out, being a slumlord doesn’t pay—especially when you try to ignore the law.
In 2017, a Michigan mother named Rebecca Bredow made headlines when she refused to comply with a court order requiring her to vaccinate her son. The case started as a dispute with her ex-husband, who wanted their child immunized. A judge ruled in favor of the father and ordered Bredow to get the vaccinations done.
Rather than comply, she stood her ground—claiming it was her “parental right” to refuse. The judge disagreed. Bredow was sentenced to seven days in jail for contempt of court and, in a brutal twist, her son was vaccinated anyway while she was locked up.
Ignoring court orders doesn’t make you a hero—it just makes you a cautionary tale.
If there’s one group of people who love ignoring court orders, it’s sovereign citizens. In 2015, a Florida man named Julio Garcia decided that the law didn’t apply to him. When he was evicted from his home for failing to pay his mortgage, he simply moved back in and declared himself the “rightful owner.”
A judge issued a restraining order, barring him from returning, but Garcia wasn’t about to let a silly piece of paper get in the way. He changed the locks and even rented the house out to new tenants, claiming it was now his property under some obscure, made-up legal principle.
His luck ran out when the police arrived and charged him with trespassing, fraud, and burglary. Instead of living rent-free, he ended up in jail—without even a house to return to.
The Big Picture
These cases might seem amusing, but they illustrate a serious point: the moment a government, individual, or organization decides that court orders are optional, the rule of law collapses. Whether it’s a landlord ignoring safety regulations, a parent refusing a custody ruling, or a political figure refusing to follow a judge’s orders, the results are the same—chaos, consequences, and, often, jail time.
As we’ve seen in recent weeks, ignoring court rulings isn’t just a personal risk—it’s a warning sign of something much worse. When those in power decide that laws don’t apply to them, history has shown that it doesn’t take long before the rest of the legal system follows suit.
That’s it for Weird and Wacky Wednesdays! Tune in next time for more bizarre legal tales that make you wonder how people thought they could get away with it.
Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Episode 336 Read More »
In December 2022, Conservative Party of Canada Leader Pierre Poilievre wrote in a National Post op-ed, “People struggling with addiction belong in treatment, not prison.” Last week, he unashamedly called for many of those same people to be imprisoned for life.
It was a stunning culmination of Poilievre’s opposition to drug decriminalization and harm reduction policies, including supervised consumption sites (which Poilievre referred to as “drug dens”) and prescribed alternative drug programs.
…Kyla Lee in The Tyee: Pierre Poilievre’s Pipe Dream: Imprison Drug Users for LifeRead More »
Kyla Lee in The Tyee: Pierre Poilievre’s Pipe Dream: Imprison Drug Users for Life Read More »
Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
Today, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation discusses a significant case involving testimonial accommodations and hearsay exceptions, raising concerns about the right to cross-examination in criminal trials.
…
Imagine a situation where police stop a car, and things escalate from there, leading to a big legal battle over whether the evidence they found can even be used in court. That’s essentially what happened in the case of R. v. Anwyll, a case that highlights how important it is for the police to follow the rules under the Charter.
This case demonstrates the intersection of driving law and Charter rights, specifically concerning the legality of vehicle stops for prohibited driving and subsequent police actions.
This case is particularly relevant for driving law, as it highlights the limitations of police authority under the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) and the consequences of exceeding those limits.
…When Traffic Stops Become Charter Breaches Read More »
Traffic court can be confusing and overwhelming. Discussions with officers in the hallway outside court can persuade self-represented accused person who believe they have a defence to plead guilty. They are told that their defence may be taken into account on sentencing. For most people, they think this will help with the points. But the power of the court on a guilty plea in traffic court can be limited.
The recent British Columbia Supreme Court case of R. v. Hessabi, 2024 BCSC 1572, sheds light on some of these complexities in traffic court proceedings, particularly when a defendant attempts to argue that their actions were justified by necessity.
This case, which involved an appeal of a guilty plea to a charge of changing lanes unsafely, demonstrates the importance of understanding legal defences and the court process.
…Navigating Traffic Court: Guilty Pleas, Defences, and AppealsRead More »
Navigating Traffic Court: Guilty Pleas, Defences, and Appeals Read More »
CALL ME NOW