A timeline of events in an RCMP investigation at the B.C. legislature

A timeline of events surrounding an investigation by the RCMP into staff at the B.C. legislature:

January: Alan Mullen is hired by Speaker Darryl Plecas as a special adviser to work on issues of concern to him, which included an investigation of senior legislature staff.

August: Mullen provides information he has gathered to the RCMP.

Sept. 28: The RCMP privately asks the assistant deputy attorney general for the appointment of a special prosecutor to provide assistance in an investigation.

Oct. 1: Two special prosecutors are appointed, but their appointments are not made public.

Monday, Nov. 19: A request from Plecas to appoint Mullen as acting sergeant-at-arms is rejected by the legislature’s three party house leaders at a meeting to discuss placing sergeant-at-arms Gary Lenz and clerk of the house Craig James on administrative leave pending an investigation.

Tuesday, Nov. 20: The legislature votes unanimously to place the James and Lenz on administrative leave pending an investigation.

_ Later that day, the RCMP issues a statement saying it is aware of “the activities that took place” on Tuesday at the legislature. The statement continues: “The RCMP has an active investigation underway, with respect to allegations pertaining to their administrative duties, and we are not in a position to provide any other details or specifics. A thorough investigation is underway and will take the time necessary.”

_ The B.C. Prosecution Service also issues a statement announcing the appointment of the two special prosecutors to provide advice to the RCMP “in relation to an investigation being conducted into the activities of senior staff at the British Columbia legislature.”

Thursday, Nov. 22: Liberal house leader Mary Polak releases a sworn affidavit that makes public for the first time Plecas’s plan to appoint Mullen as acting sergeant-at-arms. Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson says the public should be told more details about what happened this week.

How Cannabis Legalization Impacts Your Insurance Coverage

Source: the co-operators

The Cannabis Act, also known as Bill C-45, came into effect Oct. 17, legalizing recreational marijuana. Here’s how this landmark decision affects your Home, Auto and Life insurance.

Home insurance

In all provinces except Manitoba and Quebec, you can legally grow up to four cannabis plants on your property for personal use. These four plants are treated the same as any other legal plant on your property and are covered under your Home insurance policy. If you illegally exceed the number of plants allowed in your province or territory, your claim may be denied entirely.

Household members who smoke cannabis aren’t eligible for our non-smoker discount.

Auto insurance

Legislation introduced by the federal government improves roadside screening and implements new charges for driving while impaired by drugs, including cannabis. Driving while under the in fluence of cannabis is illegal and can result in increased auto insurance premiums. Learn more about the dangers of cannabis impaired driving.

Life insurance

If you use cannabis for medicinal purposes, you may be asked about your medical condition during the life insurance application process. While recreational cannabis use won’t impact your rates, heavy use could cause higher premiums or a declined application.

What else you need to know about cannabis

While it’s legal for adults to use cannabis in Canada, each province and territory has different rules. It’s your responsibility to know what’s legal and what isn’t in the province or territory where you live or visit, including:

  • The legal age
  • Where you can buy and use cannabis
  • How much cannabis you can possess

For more information on the cannabis laws, visit the federal government’s Cannabis in Canada website.

$55,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic But Not Disabling Neck and Shoulder Injury

Source: BC Injury Law and ICBC Claims Blog

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic soft tissue injuries sustained in a collision.

In today’s case (Young v. Shao) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2013 rear-end collision.  The Defendant admitted fault.  The crash resulted in chronic but non-disabling soft tissue injuries with a poor prognosis for full recovery.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $55,000 Madam Justice Adair provided the following reasons:

[81]        Based on my findings above, Ms. Young will continue to have chronic pain symptoms, particularly in her neck and shoulder. As a result of the injuries she sustained, her ability to participate in her most favourite past-time – dancing – was curtailed altogether for several months. When Ms. Young’s injuries had sufficiently healed to allow her to resume dancing, she could not engage in the activity to the same extent as before the accident. Dancing has always been a very important part of Ms. Young’s lifestyle. The effects of her injuries have also made Ms. Young’s ability to work – something else that is important to her and gives meaning to her life – more difficult. Although she has never missed work, she has had to work with pain, and will have to do so indefinitely.

[82]        On the other hand, I had no evidence that, as a result of the injuries, there was any impairment in Ms. Young’s family or social relationships. Indeed, only Ms. Young testified about how her life was affected. I did not hear from any friends, family members or co-workers. This was a significant feature of at least two of the cases cited by Mr. Vondette, which is not present here.

[83]        In view of my findings above, and taking into account the factors mentioned in Stapley (including Ms. Young’s age and stage of life) and the cases cited to me in argument, I conclude that a fair and reasonable award of non-pecuniary damages is $55,000.

Young Canadians face heightened crash risk after consuming cannabis, new study finds

Young Canadians are more at risk of a vehicle crash even five hours after inhaling cannabis, according to results of a clinical trial conducted at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (RI-MUHC) and McGill University, and funded by the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA).

The research found that performance declined significantly, in key areas such as reaction time, even five hours after inhaling the equivalent of less than one typical joint. The participants’ driving performance, which was tested in a driving simulator, deteriorated as soon as they were exposed to the kinds of distractions common on the road.

The peer-reviewed study is published online today at 6:00 a.m. EST at CMAJ Open, an online sister journal to CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal).

The trial examined the impact of cannabis on the driving ability of 18 to 24 year old occasional users. CAA polling has found that a significant number of young Canadians – one in five – believe they are as good or better drivers stoned as they are sober.

“This new trial provides important Canadian evidence that cannabis can affect the skills needed to drive safely even five hours after consuming,” said Jeff Walker, CAA chief strategy officer. “The message is simple. If you consume, don’t drive. Find another way home or stay where you are.”

“This rigorous experimental trial adds to a growing body of scientific literature on cannabis use and driving,” said study co-author Isabelle Gélinas, a researcher in McGill’s School of Physical and Occupational Therapy. “The findings provide new evidence on the extent to which driving-related performance is compromised following a typical dose of inhaled cannabis, even at five hours after use.”

Under controlled conditions, researchers tested driving-related performance of young Canadians in a simulated environment, at intervals up to five hours after they had consumed cannabis. Participants were also tested with no cannabis in their system to set a baseline.

While the participants showed no significant effects when there were no distractions, as soon as conditions became more realistic, driving-related performance reduced significantly. In addition, a large percentage of the young drivers reported they did not feel as safe to drive after consuming cannabis, even five hours after use.

“When you feel you are not safe to drive you are right – you are not!” Walker said.

“CAA is committed to doing its part in furthering this important road safety issue, but governments must step up too,” Walker added. “We need funding earmarked specifically to study the effects of cannabis on driving – research that covers the spectrum from basic research to on-road safety initiatives.”

About the study

The CAA-funded study was conducted by a multidisciplinary research team at the Centre for Innovative Medicine (CIM) of the RI-MUHC, under the supervision of Drs. Nicol Korner-Bitensky and Isabelle Gélinas, leading driving researchers, and Dr. Mark Ware, a leading cannabis researcher. The driving simulator used in the study was supplied by Virage Simulation, a Montreal-based company. The lead author, Dr. Tatiana Ogourtsova, is a post-doctoral fellow. Ms. Maja Kalaba, a junior epidemiologist at the MUHC, was project coordinator. (As of July 1, 2018, Dr. Ware became an employee of Canopy Growth Corporation, a Canadian licensed producer of medical cannabis; as of that date, he had no further involvement in analysis of the data for the study.)

Participants in this randomized clinical trial were between the ages of 18 and 24 years old and recreational users of cannabis (i.e. used cannabis at least once in the past three months, but not more than four times per week). The trial tested their driving related performance on four different days using a state-of-the-art driving simulator and a Useful Field of View test. Testing was randomized to occur 1 hour, 3 hours and 5 hours after they had consumed cannabis. They used a medical grade vaporizer to consume a dose of 100 mg dried cannabis flowers containing 13% THC over several inhalations. A typical joint is 300-500 mg of dried cannabis. Full details of the study are available here as of 6 am ET on Oct. 15.

SOURCE Canadian Automobile Association

http://www.caa.ca

Court Allows Video Surveillance Evidence Despite Defence Failing to List Document

Source: Erik Magraken BC Injury and ICBC Claims Blog

Reasons for judgement were released May 30, 2018 by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, allowing the introduction of video surveillance evidence despite counsel failing to disclose this evidence on their list of documents.

In today’s case (Karpowicz v. Glessing) the Plaintiff was involved in a collision and sued for damages.  The Defendant “retained a private investigator and, on June 27, 2016, filmed a short video of the plaintiff at the Vancouver International Airport accompanied by his wife and children.”  Plaintiff’s counsel was provided the video ahead of a mediation but the document was never listed on the Defendant’s formal list of documents.  The Plaintiff objected to the video’s introduction at trial but the Court ruled the evidence was admissible as there was a lack of prejudice from the failed disclosure.  In reaching this conclusion Madam Justice MacNaughton provided the following reasons:

[34]         I have concluded that the video evidence should be admitted. While I agree that the defendant had a clear obligation under Rule 7‑1(9) to list the video as a document as soon as it came into his possession, I accept defence counsel’s representation that the failure to list the video was not for a tactical advantage at trial. Counsel frankly acknowledged that it was an oversight on her part, and as soon as the plaintiff raised the issue, the video was listed in the supplementary list of documents. The late listing of the video has not caused the plaintiff prejudice.

[35]         If it had been listed in the summer of 2016, presumably it would have been done so as a privileged document. The plaintiff would have known of its existence, but not its content, as the video was not required to be disclosed until the defendant determined to rely on it at trial. On that determination, the video was disclosed to the plaintiff. The disclosure was in advance of the deadline for disclosure in Rule 12‑5(10).

[36]         The plaintiff has had time to consider the video and to prepare to address it in his evidence at trial. The defendant had the right to investigate the plaintiff’s claims and the video is relevant to the issues the plaintiff has put before the court.

[37]         As to the issue of privacy, the video was taken at Vancouver International Airport at the passenger pickup area. The plaintiff and his family had no reasonable expectation of privacy while at the airport. The video focuses on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s spouse and the children are incidental to that focus or in the background of the video. Counsel for the defendant has obscured the faces of the children so that they are not identifiable.

[38]         In all these circumstances, I conclude that the video ought to be admitted.

ICBC speakers connecting with Southern Interior youth this grad season

ICBC’s road safety speaker, Kevin Brooks, is touring the Southern Interior to share his personal, heart-wrenching story with local high school students during graduation season to remind them of the importance of making smart driving decisions.

From his wheelchair, Kevin tells the story of how he lost his friend one Saturday night while driving drunk. He has inspired tens of thousands of young people who follow him and his story on his blog and social media channels.

Emergency room physician, Dr. Graham Dodd, will also be touring the region speaking about his first-hand experience to help youth understand the real, devastating effects of crashes.

During graduation season from April to June in the Southern Interior, on average, 1,000 crashes occur involving young drivers and 254 youth are injured.*

“Young drivers tend to be inexperienced, over-confident and take more risks behind the wheel,” said John Nepomuceno, ICBC road safety program manager. “Our speakers share their stories to get teens reflecting on the dangers of taking risks behind the wheel and help them make safer choices.”

ICBC is committed to supporting youth in developing strong decision-making skills on the road to help prevent crashes and save lives. Over the past two decades, ICBC’s road safety speakers have been sharing their stories with approximately 50,000 B.C. high school students every year.

You can find video clips of the speakers and more details on their presentations on icbc.com. ICBC also invests in various road safety programs for students including K-10 school curriculum and B.C.’s graduated licensing program.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from ILSTV

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest