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.

In March 2020, the world ground to a halt as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Offices were shuttered, schools were closed, and in person meetings and gatherings were only permitted for essential purposes. Marilyn Bishop cancelled her appointment at her lawyer’s office to execute her new will. She had given her instructions, reviewed the draft, and made a few minor clarifications. All that remained was to have the will signed and witnessed. Ms. Bishop passed away before she could do so.

Three reasons why young families require a Will:

1. Who will take care of your child/children?

2. Who will manage your wealth, long-term and to the benefit of your child/children?

3. Who will manage your estate, short-term, on behalf of your infant children?

As of November 2018, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (“ICBC”) ICBC was prepared to defend the action on the basis of a global admission of liability. The insurer subsequently changed its approach, and decided to globally deny liability. The admission of liability on behalf of Mr. Nijjar was not a mistake of fact, but rather the result of a breakdown of communication between ICBC and defence counsel. ICBC and defence counsel then failed to bring their mistake to the attention of the plaintiff’s counsel in a timely manner.

There has been growing community pressure for additional school capacity in Burke Mountain, which currently has a population of about 15,000 people. This will eventually grow to 50,000 residents when the neighbourhood is fully built out.

It may be that in a bygone era, a legal claim to privacy could be seen as an unnecessary concession to those who were reclusive or overly sensitive to publicity, though I doubt that that was ever an accurate reflection of reality. Today, personal data has assumed a critical role in people’s lives, and a failure to recognize at least some limited tort of breach of privacy may be seen by some to be anachronistic.

For that reason, this Court may well wish to reconsider (to the extent that its existing jurisprudence has already ruled upon) the issue of whether a common law tort of breach of privacy exists in British Columbia.

The interesting question of whether the law needs to be rethought will have to await a different appeal.

Denise, who is the oldest and lives in Ontario, is the child of Mr. Phillip’s first relationship.

Patricia and Jason, who live in B.C., are the children of his second relationship.

Avar, who lives in Trinidad, is the child of his third relationship.

Renee, who lives in B.C., is the child of his fourth relationship,

In rare but difficult circumstances, a lawyer may be ethically required to terminate a retainer agreement with a client. This may arise when issues arise where the lawyer reasonably believes that a client’s comments, wishes, demands, instructions, or otherwise conflict with the lawyer’s professional responsibilities and the appropriate Law Society’s Code of Ethics. In this Province, the Law Society of BC and its Code of Professional Conduct governs the ethical obligations of a lawyer.

On May 1, 2021, as you may know, ICBC’s new insurance regime came into force and effect. Concurrently, you may have received a $250.00 cheque in the mail and a 5%-15% reduction in your insurance costs.

A bribe, some may suggest.

Unsurprisingly, society tends to permit self-interest to dictate decisions. One example of this is no-fault. We as BC residents/citizens have had opportunities to fight against no-fault. However, most of BC was enticed, perhaps blinded, by the allure of lower insurance costs. As such, no-fault took force and effect.

For 3 individuals, the costs of no-fault have been crippling. These are their stories. This is the ugly truth of no-fault.

It is trite law that the solicitor-client relationship is characterized as a fiduciary relationship: Hodgkinson; Galambos v. Perez, 2009 SCC 48 at para. 36. The nature of fiduciary relationships is summarized in Hodgkinson at 405:

… it is only by having regard to the often subtle differences between these causes of action that civil liability will be commensurate with civil responsibility. For instance, the fiduciary duty is different in important respects from the ordinary duty of care … the presence of loyalty, trust, and confidence distinguishes the fiduciary relationship from a relationship that simply gives rise to tortious liability. Thus, while a fiduciary obligation carries with it a duty of skill and competence, the special elements of trust, loyalty, and confidentiality that obtain in a fiduciary relationship give rise to a corresponding duty of loyalty.

This Court is able to determine the enforceability of a settlement agreement summarily, unless the Court is satisfied that there is a genuine issue as to whether a settlement agreement has been reached under the law of contract: Carlton v. Carlton, 2017 BCSC 603 at paras. 20-23 and 44.

The test to determine if parties have reached a settlement agreement is whether parties have agreed on all essential terms. Determining whether the parties have agreed on all essential terms is separate from determining whether the parties have agreed on a form of release incorporating the essential terms agreed upon. A term requiring furnishing of a release and a consent dismissal is implied when a settlement agreement is reached: see Fieguth v. Acklands Ltd., 1989 CanLII 2744 (B.C.C.A.) at para. 35.

TRI-CITY LEGAL regularly discusses Wills and Estate Litigation, often referred to as Wills’ Variation law. One facet of this law includes contesting whether a Will is valid or not. A number of factors come into play when a Will is contested. It is never easy, nor is it simple, to contest a Will’s validity. Typically, it involves obscure laws, legalese, and the testator’s (aka the will-maker’s) mental capacity.

At times, it may involve suspicious circumstances, which was discussed in one of our previous articles.