A fatal accident occurred on March 10, 2006 at approximately 12:45 p.m. on Knight Street near 37^th Avenue in Vancouver.  The Crown led evidence at trial with a view to establishing that three vehicles were involved in a race heading northbound on the bridge.  Two of the vehicles, a Mercedes and a Honda, were observed by witnesses weaving in and out of the traffic at speeds exceeding the speed limit.  Ultimately, the Honda, which at that time was travelling behind the Mercedes, passed over the centre line and clipped the rear driver’s side of a Mercury Mystique travelling southbound in the centre lane.  This caused the Mercury to spin out of control into the middle northbound lane where it was struck by a Ford Crown Victoria and, from there, collided with a fence on the east side of Knight Street.  The front seat passenger in that car was fatally injured and the other three passengers sustained numerous injuries. 

When a TikTok Goes Viral and a Lawyer Gets Investigated: What Happened at a Canadian Law Firm?

The Story That Went Public

In late July 2025, a woman posted a series of TikTok videos that quickly went viral. In those videos, she accused a lawyer at a major Canadian law firm of sending her an explicit photo without her consent. She claimed they had briefly met over a decade ago but hadn’t stayed in touch.

She didn’t just make accusations—she backed them up with screenshots. She also shared a message from the lawyer’s spouse and an email from the law firm confirming it had launched a formal investigation.

Catastrophic injuries are severe damage or impairments to your body, bones, person, or life. Go out. Support the injured. Keep insurers accountable. Fight for your rights. Lower car insurance costs. And, let’s limit ICBC’s unjust and unfair monopoly.

WHY CHANGE YOUR ICBC INJURY LAWYER:

1. The lawyer is not responsive to their client’s phone calls and/or emails.

2. The lawyer takes too long to conclude an injured victim’s file whether settlement or trial.

3. The lawyer is not willing to go to Trial and/or is inexperienced in it.

4. The lawyer undervalues an injured victim’s claim (e.g. asking the client to settle for much less than deserved).

In this heart-wrenching legal case, a family's grief over the loss of their daughter, a young RCMP officer, erupted into a fierce courtroom battle over $300,000. The officer’s parents, who had provided the funds to help her purchase her first home, claimed it was a loan. But her spouse insisted it was a gift, a crucial distinction that would determine whether the widow or the parents would keep the money.

"The Court’s reference to awarding the plaintiff their “entire annual income for one or more years” has, unfortunately, sometimes been read as if it allows a court to arbitrarily assign an amount for the plaintiff’s loss. At trial, the defendant’s suggestion that an award of a year or two years’ salary would be appropriate appears to me to stem from a misunderstanding of Pallos. While a court can quantify the plaintiff’s damages for loss of future earning capacity in that way, it is required to carefully consider the evidence, and come to a fair assessment of the plaintiff’s loss."

OBJECTION: PREJUDICIAL

Evidence may be excluded where its prejudicial impact outweighs its probative value. Prejudicial here does not mean simply that it is damaging to a party’s case. Evidence may be excluded on this ground where it appears the evidence may:

When a will is drafted, an executor of the estate is appointed in the will. The executor is essentially assigned to help manage the deceased’s affairs/estate after he or she passes away. The executor may be your lawyer, or alternatively your children, among others. Sometimes, a will-maker appoints co-executors - e.g. two siblings - to determine how the will-maker’s estate ought to be handled. Unfortunately, this can lead to significant challenges once the will-maker passes because the co-executors disagree in how to manage the deceased will-maker’s estate.

It is best to appoint 1 or 3 executors which permits unilateral or majority decision making when it comes to management of the deceased’s Estate.

Google review: NOTHING WAS SUGGESTED in regards of a ‘different approach.’ The only advice I rejected of Peterson’s, is when I took Dr. Valniceks suggestion making one implant 30cc bigger, again I am so thankful I did not take Peterson's misguided advice or my breasts would still not be symmetrical like they are today….

Also I have spoken to a number of people with similar experiences after my review went viral. Peterson constantly tries to take down my review and publicly bully me. I’d suggest taking note of the ‘5-star’ reviews all similar praise with Peterson being their own review. Why is it there is not one negative? If you write any other word then breast he has leverage to take down your post. Awareness. Don’t learn the painful way. My website has detailed pictures of his work.

A Mediation, for example, is an expensive process. Mediators regularly charge approximately $500.00 per hour which does not include the cost of the room rental, and transcribers/court reporters. Despite this, ICBC attends meretriciously: with no intentions of settling. At the same time, one must ask: why wouldn’t they abuse the system like this? They have, quite honestly, just hit the lottery with the inception of no fault insurance which promises them years and years of profits north of a billion dollars. And, as we all know, they are the only game in town; they have zero competition. Must be nice, right?

They dictate and take as they please.

The recent case of Putman v Putman, 2021 BCSC 1700, discussed the Power of Attorney Act and Representation Agreement Act and the applicable law to the aforementioned legal instruments. In this case, the petitioner, David Putman, and the respondent, Linda Putman, were brother and sister; they were jointly appointed as attorneys pursuant to an enduring power of attorney granted by their mother, Margaret Putman. The respondent has also been appointed as Margaret’s representative pursuant to a representation agreement made pursuant to s. 9 of the Representation Agreement Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 405 (the “RA Act”). The two siblings were unable to agree as to the appropriate medical treatment for their mother and likely more so, how best to deal with valuable real estate owned by their mother; alas, another case where finances get in the middle of sibling relationships.

In short, the main ingredient she required for her health - GS - was not contained in the ingredients. She, in sum, was taking the supplement for no reason. As such, a class action was brought forward.

Ultimately, the defendants settled the lawsuit for the sum of $600,000, among other things. In the above case, a class action was certified which then led to settlement negotiations.