November 2, 2017

Accelerated Depreciation

Someone collided with your car and caused damage.  ICBC found the other party to be at fault and paid for the repairs.  Later, when it comes time for you to sell it or trade it in, you find that the buyer is low-balling you.  The buyer says he’s only going to offer you so much, less than market value, because of the prior damage.  You negotiate, you say that the repairs actually should raise the value because the vehicle now has updated parts but it’s to no avail. You end up selling the vehicle for less than comparable vehicles that weren’t in an accident.

You’ve experienced what ICBC and we lawyers call “accelerated depreciation”.

Most vehicles do depreciate as time passes. But yours, damaged in an accident, has depreciated at an accelerated rate compared to comparable vehicles.

So, will ICBC compensate you for accelerated depreciation?

Under your own policy of insurance, the answer is no.

However, the at-fault motorist who struck you usually has insurance.  Will that insurance cover accelerated depreciation?

The answer is yes.

But you have to prove it and convince ICBC that you’ll win in court on this issue.

That’s where you will probably need the help of an experienced lawyer to assemble the evidence and legal precedents, to show ICBC that you have suffered accelerated depreciation and you need to be compensated.  That evidence will likely be in the form of a report from a qualified vehicle appraiser, to establish that a loss has occurred and to put a dollar value on that loss.

Unfortunately, many people sell their repaired vehicle before the appraiser can examine it.  This reduces the value of the report. Best practice is to have the appraiser examine the vehicle just before you sell it.  We lawyers know that “preserving the evidence” increases your chance of winning an insurance dispute.

Consult with a lawyer with experience in ICBC matters before you sell your vehicle after a collision. That way, all your losses, including accelerated depreciation, will be compensated.


If you have been in a motor vehicle accident and have questions about your claim, contact Paul Seale of CBM Lawyers to arrange a free no obligation consultation.

September 8, 2017

No Fault Benefits – What are they?

Most people are aware that they are entitled to compensation if they have been injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by the fault of someone else. However, many people don’t know that, even if they are at fault for an accident, they are entitled to some benefits under their motor vehicle insurance plan. Furthermore, many people are unaware that they are entitled to benefits even if they do not have a policy of motor vehicle insurance. For example, if you are riding a bicycle and get hit by a car, you may still be entitled to no fault benefits. The key is that your injury was caused by an accident that arose out of the use or operation of a vehicle.

The question becomes: What are no fault benefits?

No-fault benefits, also known as “Part 7 benefits”, provide for some basic coverage with respect to treatment, medication, wage loss, and, in the event of death, payment of funeral expenses and loss of support benefits. Part 7 simply refers to Part 7 of the Regulations to the Insurance Vehicle Act which sets out what benefits ICBC must pay (some benefits are mandatory and some are discretionary). The name no fault means that they are payable regardless of whether or not you are at fault for the accident.

A brief summary of the available no fault benefits under Part 7 are as follows:

  • Medical and Rehabilitation Benefits: these benefits cover expenses such as: physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment, massage therapy, travel to and from medical appointments, the costs of medications and other items to assist with daily living such as wheelchairs and aids for communication, dressing, eating, grooming and hygiene. Rehabilitation expenses include vocational training.
  • Disability/Wage Loss Benefits: if you become disabled from employment as a result of a motor vehicle accident, you may be entitled to 75% of your average weekly pre-accident earnings up to a maximum of $300 per week in disability/wage loss benefits. If you are a homemaker, you may be entitled to a maximum of $145 per week.
  • Funeral Expenses: funeral expenses up to a maximum of $2,500 for death as a result of a motor vehicle accident.
  • Death Benefits: if a person dies as a result of a motor vehicle accident, the surviving spouse and or dependants may be entitled to prescribed death benefits. The amount will vary depending on both the age and status of the deceased and the survivor(s).

In order to receive your no fault benefits, you must apply to ICBC.  Those benefits are not automatically paid to you. There is a specified form and a number of required steps that you must take within a specified time period. If you fail to follow the proper procedure, you run the risk of  forfeiting your entitlement to your no fault coverage.  Frequently, these benefits only cover part of your actual expenses. Any amount that is not covered under Part 7 must be claimed against the other at fault party or parties.

What should be a simple process can be quite complicated. If you have been in a motor vehicle accident and have questions about your claim, contact Murray Ross at CBM Lawyers LLP to arrange a free no obligation consultation.

August 18, 2017

Why Do I Need a Will?

According to a recent poll by a large financial institution, roughly half of all Canadians don’t have a Will.  Research suggests that in the next 20 years an estimated $1 trillion is expected to be inherited by the next generation in Canada. This means that a large portion of this amount may end up being distributed by the court according to the Wills Estates and Succession Act, and not by the express wishes of Canadians.

In addition, even Canadians who have Wills may not have taken the time to consider whether or not they are up to date. For example, your personal circumstances might have changed since you had your Will prepared or your assets may have changed such that they will no longer be distributed in the way that you planned.


Big Challenges for Your Loved Ones

If you don’t have a Will or your Will is out of date then your passing could bring serious challenges to your loved ones.  In British Columbia, if you pass without a Will you are said to have died “intestate”.  This means, among other things, that you haven’t named any beneficiaries, decided who will administer your estate, or set out who will act as guardian of your minor children. In short, instead of you deciding how your estate is handled, the court might be deciding for you.  Depending on the nature of your estate this can create some major hurdles for those you have left behind.  Not having a Will can be both costly and time consuming. Finally, many people are unaware that these costs will be taken out of your estate thus leaving less to be divided amongst your beneficiaries.


Tax Benefits

If you have a Will in place, you can exercise some control over financial planning to minimize taxes and maximize the benefit you leave to your loved ones.


I don’t own much, do I even need a Will?

Some people feel that they don’t own enough to warrant creating a Will, but consider this: a Will does more than just outline wealth distribution.  It makes it easier on your loved ones to finalize your estate.  They have an understanding of your wishes and this can save them time, cost and red tape later.  Finally, you might be overlooking what is possibly the most valuable asset you have: minor children. If you have minor children it is very important to have a Will since in the absence of a Will you won’t be able to control who makes financial decisions for your minor children or who will raise them.

We encourage anyone, regardless of how big or small their estate is, to consider making a legal Will for the sake of easing the burden on those you leave behind.


I have a Will, but I had it made 20 years ago – is it still good?

If you have a Will but haven’t looked at it in a while then there’s a chance it might be outdated. For example, if you’ve bought or sold major property, married or divorced, had a child, your children have moved from dependent to independent, or if your executor has moved away, become ill or passed away, then these are just a few of the reasons why you may need to review and update your Will.

If you aren’t sure if your Will needs to be updated, give us a call and we’d be happy to assist you in reviewing it for free.


But isn’t it a lot of work to make a Will?

Making a Will is not as daunting a task as most people think. We’re happy to walk you through the process and make it as straight forward as possible. While you might not like the idea of thinking about your death, you might be surprised by how much better you will feel when you know that you have your affairs in order. If you think you’d like to talk to a lawyer about whether you need a Will, we encourage you to call us. Someone from our Wills & Estates department would be happy to walk you through the process.

No one likes to think about their death, but a Will is a relatively inexpensive and painless gift you can give to your loved ones to make their lives just a bit easier when you pass.

Contact Steve Burton of our firm to learn more or visit the Wills & Estate section of our website.  To make an appointment, call us at 604.533.3821.

July 21, 2017

Shared Ownership and Joint Tenancy

When doing estate planning people often consider sharing ownership of financial assets with adult family members or friends. There are a number of different reasons for sharing ownership of these assets, which may include assistance with financial management or the desire to give the other party a gift of survivorship rights to the assets. While shared ownership can apply to such things as bank accounts, houses or motor vehicles, it is important to understand the legal implications of the various forms of shared ownership before making a decision as to how you want to share the assets or have them managed. Two of the most common forms of shared ownership of houses are tenancy in common and joint tenancy.

Tenancy in Common

If you transfer ownership in your house to another person as a tenant in common, each person holds a separate interest in the property, which may not necessarily be in equal shares. You may, for instance, give a gift of a 1/3 share in the house to one of your children. When you die, your share of the tenancy in common then gets transferred to your estate and distributed to your beneficiaries, and if the other tenant in common dies before you do, their share gets transferred to their own estate.

Joint Tenancy

If, on the other hand, you are the owner of the house and you add one person as a joint tenant the result is that you transfer ownership in an equal portion to that other person, who then becomes a ½ owner of the property. In this situation, the other joint tenant is presumed to have the same legal rights to the house as you do. If you die before the other joint tenant, then your legal interests may be automatically transferred to the other joint tenant by right of survivorship. As such, the ½ interest you had in your house may not pass to your estate and, if that occurs, your beneficiaries will not receive a share of the value of house.

Legal Issues in Joint Tenancies

In my experience, two of the most common problems in joint ownership arise from severing title in joint tenancies and challenges to the “beneficial interest” in the property.

Severing Title in a Joint Tenancy

After you create a joint tenancy with one or more people, the joint title can be broken or severed in a number of ways, including mutual consent of the parties or by the unilateral action of a joint tenant. Indeed, they can sever the joint tenancy without your knowledge or consent. They can do this by transferring their share of the joint tenancy to themselves or another person, without even notifying you beforehand. When this is done they in effect create a tenancy in common with you and you lose the right of survivorship in their share of the property. As such, if they die before you do then their interest in the property would pass to their estate and would be divided among their beneficiaries.

Legal Title vs. Beneficial Interest

It is important to keep in mind that even after a joint tenancy is created, there is a difference between beneficial interest and legal title in the property. People who have a beneficial interest in property may claim ownership to some or all of the property because it was properly given to them as a gift, or because of contributions they made to the property at the time of its purchase or afterwards. People who make such contributions and claim beneficial ownership may not be registered as having legal title to the property.

On the other hand, in some situations people who have legal title to property may only hold title for other people who have beneficial interest in the property. This type of situation can arise when the owner of property transfers legal title to another person, thereby creating a joint tenancy, only for the purpose of avoiding probate or to manage an estate, but with no intention to give the other person any beneficial or “real” ownership in the property. This is illustrated in a trial I conducted in which I successfully argued that a mother’s transfer of title to her Vancouver house into a joint tenancy with one of her daughters was only done for estate planning purposes, with no intention to give the daughter a survivorship right to ownership of the house. The trial judge found that after the mother’s death the daughter did not have a survivorship right to the house, but held title to it in trust for the mother’s estate and therefore, the proceeds of the sale of the house were distributed among all of her children as beneficiaries of her estate. You can read the judgment here and the Court of Appeal’s decision upholding the judgment here.

Ways of Avoiding Legal Problems in Joint Tenancies

In order to avoid costly legal problems, it is important to have properly prepared documents confirming the owner’s intention in creating shared property arrangements. For example, if the owner of a house creates a joint tenancy with another person only for the purpose of managing the house or avoiding probate then this should be confirmed in a document that both parties sign. This document may then be used to reverse the severance of a joint title if the new joint tenant attempts to do that unilaterally.

If the owner of a house intends to give another person both legal and beneficial ownership of the house it would be prudent to sign a deed of gift that clearly sets out the owner’s purpose for the transfer. This deed of gift could then be used as evidence against claims that the new joint tenant is only holding legal title in trust for other parties.


Gene Fraser is a lawyer with CBM Lawyers. To learn more about estate planning or to schedule a consult with Gene or someone else from our team, please contact us at 604-533-3821.

July 7, 2017

Sued for Having Sex (Transmitting STDs)

With summer coming, your dating life may soon ‘pick up’. And, when dating someone, there is a lot to discuss, such as family, work, and future goals. But, how about whether or not you have any sexually transmitted diseases/infections (STDs)?

While not a fun topic, it should be on the radar (as there can be legal consequences). STDs are very common (more common than you might think). Gonorrhea is the most common bacterial STD worldwide and chlamydia is the most common bacterial STD in Canada. Approximately 16% of adults are infected with genital herpes. An estimated 75% of Canadians will be infected with human papillomavirus in their lives and 10-30% are infected at any one time. And approximately 75,000 Canadians are living with HIV.

Imagine this: you start dating someone and, before engaging in sexual activity, you ask them whether or not they have an STD. They tell you they don’t and you engage in sexual relationship. After some time, you develop rashes/sores/whatever, which is later diagnosed as an STD. Your partner then confesses that they have the STD, but were too afraid to tell you.

 So, what happens next?

Well, many things, including a big argument. But, in addition to that, it is possible that the ‘perpetrator’ (defendant) could be found liable (i.e. has to pay money). This may sound strange, but think of it like any other personal injury matter: a person suffers loss/harm as a result of another person’s negligent, fraudulent, or malicious conduct (and is, of course, entitled to compensation for that loss/harm).

So, what is the loss/harm in this type of case? Well, to start, the ‘victim’ (plaintiff) could require medical treatment, such as medication and/or psychological treatment. There may also be expenses related to pregnancy management (to ensure that the STD is not passed to the child). The plaintiff may also suffer severe emotional distress and, depending on the STD, they may also require time off work (resulting in lost income).

Don’t think these lawsuits actually happen? Well, they do (but not often).  In 2003, in a highly publicized case, Michael Vick, former Atlanta Falcons quarterback, had a sexual relationship with a 26-year-old health care worker, knowing that he had herpes and failed to disclose it. Afterwards, the woman commenced a lawsuit against Vick, which was later settled out of court.

For a case closer to home, consider this Quebec case: L. (J.) v. N. (A.), 2007 QCCS 3226.  In this case, a woman questioned her new partner on his sexual history and was told that he did not have an STD. The man did not, however, disclose that he had not been tested in some time.  Relying on that information, the woman agreed to engage in unprotected sex. Later, she began experiencing burning sensations, which was later found to be herpes (transmitted from her partner). The woman then commenced a lawsuit for losses that she suffered.

At trial, the Court found that the man had deceptively driven the woman to engage in unprotected sex and was found liable for the woman’s medical costs and emotional distress. But, with that said, the Court also found that the woman accepted the risks and took the man at his word. As a result, some of her claim was denied.

Civil claims like this are rare.  It may be because these cases can be hard to prove. For instance, it can be hard to prove that the plaintiff did not know about the STD (prior to sexual contact) or that the plaintiff actually contracted the STD from that particular defendant. It may also be because losses can be small/trivial, such as for a bacterial STD that can be easily treated, making a lawsuit ‘not worth it’. It may also be because people are not aware that this type of recourse exists.

Civil claims aside, it should also be noted that not disclosing sexual health could lead to criminal charges.  Since the landmark case of R. v. Cuerrier, [1998] S.C.J. No. 64, there have been numerous cases in which people, who have failed to disclose their HIV status, have been charged and convicted with Criminal Code offences, ranging from aggravated assault to murder.

So, here’s the bottom-line: be honest, have safe sex, and don’t get sued.


Jeff Zilkowsky is a lawyer with CBM Lawyers.  To learn more about family law or to schedule a consult with Jeff or someone else from our family team, please contact us at 604.533.3821.

June 23, 2017

The Ly Decision: Dismissing Probationary Employees in British Columbia

A landmark decision released earlier this year carries significant implications for employers in British Columbia who place their new hires on probation periods.

In Ly v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority), 2017 BCSC 42, the plaintiff was hired by Interior Health into a senior management position. The employment contract included a probation clause permitting the employer to dismiss the plaintiff without any severance pay within his first six months of employment.

Unfortunately, the plaintiff had difficulty with his new position from the very beginning. The employees under his supervision chafed at his management style and criticized him behind his back. The situation deteriorated to the point where two of the employees the plaintiff was managing threatened to quit.

To address these difficulties, the plaintiff reached out to his own supervisor in a genuine effort to improve his performance. In an email that proved decisive to the case as a whole, the plaintiff requested a meeting to discuss his progress, receive constructive feedback and create a plan for improving his job performance. After seemingly ignoring this email for a number of weeks, the plaintiff’s supervisor eventually responded by setting up a meeting with the plaintiff, as requested. However, instead of opening a dialogue or discussing the issues outlined in the plaintiff’s email, the supervisor simply dismissed him. The plaintiff had only been on the job for two months.

The plaintiff decided to challenge the employer’s actions in court, claiming unjust dismissal. Interior Health argued that the plaintiff had been let go because he was unsuitable for the position. Because he was dismissed for unsuitably during the six-month probation period, so the argument went, the plaintiff was not entitled to any severance pay.

The BC Supreme Court disagreed with Interior Health. In doing so, the Court clarified the law relating to probation periods in British Columbia. A significant portion of the decision was dedicated to pinning down exactly what “unsuitability” is for the purposes of a probation period.

First, the Court confirmed that “unsuitability” is an entirely different standard than “just cause”. Just cause, which entitles an employer to terminate an employee without severance during the regular course of an employment relationship, constitutes quite a high bar to meet. Although the exact meaning of just cause could easily fill another blog post, suffice it to say that it requires a fundamental breakdown in the relationship between employer and employee.

“Unsuitability”, on the other hand, is not so rigorous a standard. It can be evaluated on the basis of more intangible factors such as “fit” and attitude of an employee. For example, imagine you have a new hire. He is fully qualified for the position, picks up the required skills on the job quite quickly and has a great work ethic. However, this employee does not fit well with the company’s culture and does not get along with his co-workers. Surprising as it may seem, this alone could be grounds for unsuitability during a probation period, although it would almost certainly not qualify as just cause for dismissal.

Unsuitability, then, is a somewhat nebulous concept that is a far cry from just cause. Nevertheless, the Ly decision also confirms that the test of unsuitability in no way provides employers the power to dismiss their employees arbitrarily. In fact, Ly affirms that there are significant procedural components an employer must meet before letting an employee go for unsuitability. In short, the employer must approach the task of assessing suitability in good faith and with some measure of transparency.

More specifically, Ly states that an employer’s conduct in dismissing an employee for unsuitability during a probation period will be scrutinized for various factors, including:

  1. whether the probationary employee was made aware of the basis for the employer’s assessment of suitability before, or at the commencement of, employment;
  2. whether the employer acted fairly and with reasonable diligence in assessing suitability;
  3. whether the employee was given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate his suitability for the position; and,
  4. whether the employer’s decision was based on an honest, fair and reasonable assessment of the suitability of the employee, including not only job skills and performance but also character, judgment, compatibility, and reliability.

It is clear, then, that the result in Ly likely would have been very different, and much more favourable to the employer, if the employer had communicated its expectations and standards to the plaintiff and given him an opportunity to meet these standards. Instead, the employer could not rely on the probation period clause and was ordered to pay three months’ severance to the plaintiff. This is a significant payout in light of the fact that the plaintiff had only worked at Interior Health for a total of two months.

So what are the practical implications for employers?

One of the major implications of the Ly decision is that implementing probation periods may be of little use to employers. The Ly case demonstrates the dangers of engaging in a probationary period where the parameters are not clearly communicated and not properly developed in the employment contract. To avoid large severance awards such as that awarded in Ly, it is likely simpler and safer to restrict severance payments to the minimums required by the Employment Standards Act.  For example, under the Employment Standards Act, one week’s severance pay is required after three months of employment. Probation periods are required to comply with these statutory minimums, and if they fail to do so, such clauses are null and void, leading to the possibility of even greater severance awards. It may be better to avoid these risks altogether.

However, for employers who continue to use probation periods, the Ly decision underscores the need for employers to prepare a clear, written statement as to their expectations of new employees and to communicate such expectations to the employee at the commencement of the employment relationship. Moreover, employees must be given a fair chance to demonstrate that they are suitable.

Regardless of which method employers use to limit their liability for severance pay, a carefully considered and well drafted employment contract is essential to avoiding the legal pitfalls exposed by the Ly decision. Ultimately, a strong employment contract used at the beginning of the employment relationship can help employers avoid countless legal and financial headaches once that relationship comes to an end.

Scott Payne is a lawyer with CBM Lawyers. To learn more about employment law or to schedule a consult with Scott, please contact us at 604.533.3821.

June 9, 2017

Begging for Money

In 2013, I was a guest speaker on CKNW radio, talking about panhandling and the laws around it.  In 2015, I was on CBC radio, speaking about the same topic: Panhandling is illegal in Langley. With summer coming up and the frequency of pedestrian traffic soon to increase, I thought I would share some of that research with you, again.

To start, there are actually a lot of laws that attempt to regulate how people can panhandle.  In 2004, the provincial government created the Safe Streets Act. It was an attempt to make a bunch of different types of panhandling illegal.  The prime motivating factor behind this law was that a lot of businesses were complaining about panhandlers harassing their customers.  Also, tourists were being “put off”, especially in Vancouver.

So, the new laws made it illegal to ask for money in an “aggressive” way. Now, what does that mean?

Well, it means that panhandlers can’t follow someone for money, they can’t use threatening or rude gestures, they can’t block someone’s path, and they can’t repeatedly ask someone for money. If someone violates these rules, then they can receive a $115.00 fine.

The new laws also made it illegal to panhandle in certain places, basically creating “no go” zones for panhandlers. So basically, panhandlers can’t ask for money within 5 metres of a bus stop, a public toilet, a pay phone, or an ATM. It basically made it illegal for panhandlers to ask a person for money if that person is standing in a place and is being held ‘captive’, not being able to walk away (because they are waiting for the ATM or whatever else). There is an $86.00 fine for this offence.

Now, the provincial government didn’t REALLY have to pass these laws – this is because a lot of municipalities already have very similar laws. Cities, such as Kelowna, Kamloops and Vancouver have laws that outlaw nearly the same type of panhandling. In fact, the municipalities’ laws are often ‘tougher’ on panhandlers. For instance, Kamloops, Kelowna and West Kelowna make it illegal to ask for money within 10 METRES (rather than 5 metres) of an ATM or bus stop.

But, really, what’s the point of giving a fine to someone who is panhandling? If you thought this, you’re exactly right.

The typical ways that are used to get money from people (who owe fines or debts) don’t really apply to people who are begging for money. After all, if they had assets to collect or wages to garnish, they probably wouldn’t be panhandling in the first place…  So, what do authorities do? Well, let’s not forget the Criminal Code, which arguably has more ‘teeth’.  The Criminal Code makes it illegal to threaten someone or disrupt someone’s right to enjoy their property (while panhandling).  And, make no mistake: the Criminal Code is used against panhandlers. For instance, in Victoria in 2012, a man was arrested and charged with mischief (a Criminal Code offence) for repeatedly entering into businesses and asking customers for money.  Clearly, there are a lot of laws that surround panhandling.

And, as a ‘final thought’, let’s not paint all panhandlers with the same brush. Sure, some people will act aggressively but, others are simply down on their luck and don’t deserve to be treated with disrespect. So, be nice.

And now you know.


Jeff Zilkowsky is a family lawyer with CBM Lawyers.  To learn more about the services we offer please contact us at 604.533.3821.

May 26, 2017

How Can a Family Mediator Help Me?

Family disputes are a reality of life, and some require outside assistance to resolve.  When those issues relate to the dissolution of a family and the parties can’t negotiate an agreement between themselves (the “kitchen table” style agreement), it can feel like a court action is the only solution.  But what if you don’t want to go to court?  Family mediation can be a strong option, and there is a type of mediator that’s specifically trained to deal with family-related disputes.

Certified Family Mediator

A “Certified Family Mediator” has special knowledge of family law, and received training in the dynamics of families.  Often, family mediators are or have been practicing family law lawyers.  This means that they’ve spent years helping families through the grief cycle of separation and have drafted hundreds of family-related agreements.  They have a clear understanding of the many issues that can arise within the family context, a broad perspective of the options, and a pretty good idea of what tends to work, and what doesn’t.  This helps to ensure that any settlement reached by the parties is fair and realistic.

Disadvantages of Court as an Option

The main alternative to the parties resolving a dispute themselves or using a mediator is to go to court.  Normally when going to court, both sides would engage legal counsel.   Costs include fees for your counsel as well as court filing fees, potential expert witness fees, travel costs, evidence preparation costs… the list goes on.   It’s likely you’ll need to wait at least four to six months before you can actually get into a court room where the judge has the authority to make an interim decision and a year or more for a trial.  Once finally there, parties must abide by the decisions and solutions of the judge.  There is no room for negotiation.   In summary, court can be time-consuming, expensive, acrimonious and even the “winner” isn’t always happy with the details of the decision.

Cost and length of Mediation

On the other hand, family mediation can occur more quickly and can cost much less than going to court.   A mediation can happen once a mediator is mutually agreed on by the parties, often within a week or two.   The time required for an actual mediation differs according to each case and whether lawyers accompany the parties or not.  Sometimes it can be done in as little as single long day; other times it is best to break it up into a few two or three hour sessions spaced a week or so apart.  The cost for the mediation would include the mediator’s hourly rate for the time used, including any preparation time or pre-mediation meetings.  Parties have the option of meeting with the mediator themselves or being accompanied by their lawyer (which would of course affect costs).  The parties would split the cost of the mediator (and pay for their own counsel).

Benefits of Family Mediation

Mediation enables all parties to voice their perspectives, and to negotiate their own agreements and settlements.  This gives them far more control over the outcome.  But most importantly, family mediation can help with the establishment of a workable relationship between the parties.  A separation or divorce agreement might result in a complete severing of the relationship; but there are some family disputes that require that the parties maintain an ongoing relationship.  For example, they might need to continue to raise their children together, or they may need to continue to manage joint property.  As parties in a family mediation have worked together to create a solution, it can increase the chances of a workable ongoing relationship if that is required.

If you have a family matter that you want to resolve, but don’t want to go to court, consider engaging a family law mediator to help you.  It can be a faster, less expensive and less adversarial than many of the alternatives.


Tarel Swansky is a certified family mediator with ten years’ experience as a family law lawyer.  She can be reached at [email protected] or 604 533-3821.

May 19, 2017

Toking Resistance: Minimizing Marijuana in the Workplace

Like it or not, recreational marijuana will be legal in Canada in little more than a year. To many British Columbians, the impending legalization of marijuana may appear to be little more than a mere formality. After all, it’s difficult to walk a block or two in Vancouver without running into one of its completely illegal (yet fully operational) marijuana dispensaries. Nevertheless, the proposed Cannabis Act will indeed cause a significant change in the legal landscape of cannabis use.

Employers should be prepared well ahead of time to meet the legal challenges presented by the legalization, and increased accessibility, of marijuana.

Under the proposed Cannabis Act, recreational marijuana will become legal on July 1, 2018. The Cannabis Act will permit Canadians who are 18 years or older to:

  • possess up to 30 grams of cannabis;
  • share up to 30 grams with other adults;
  • purchase dried or fresh cannabis from a provincially licensed retailer;
  • grow up to 4 cannabis plants; and
  • make cannabis-infused food and drinks.

Although these provisions may be tweaked in the run-up to July 2018, what is clear is that legalization is coming very soon and will provide employees in all industries with much easier access to marijuana.

Recreational Marijuana

First of all, it should be of some comfort to employers that the distinction between recreational and medical marijuana will remain a meaningful one. Even though an employee will be entitled to enjoy recreational marijuana in his or her spare time, the proposed legislation in no way permits impairment in the workplace. As an employer, you are still required by law to maintain a safe work environment. This obligation extends to drug use in the workplace.

Regulation 4.20 (a very aptly numbered provision) of the British Columbia’s Occupational Health and Safety Regulation states:

The employer must not knowingly permit a person to remain at any workplace while the person’s ability to work is affected by alcohol, a drug or substance so as to endanger the person or anyone else.

 In this sense, recreational marijuana will be akin to alcohol. As you already know, it is perfectly legal for anybody to have a drink or two on their own time and in their own home. However, as an employer, this doesn’t mean you would start letting your employees do shots on their coffee break. The same approach extends to impairment caused by marijuana.

It’s important to realize that employers are not merely permitted to prevent workplace impairment, but are legally obligated to do so. In fact, an employer’s failure to provide a safe workplace may lead to criminal charges. Section 217.1 of the Criminal Code states:

Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task

The liability to the employer will often vary depending on the nature of the workplace. After all, from a safety perspective, an impaired crane operator is likely to be a greater concern than an impaired accountant. Nevertheless, all employers in British Columbia must be aware of their duty to prevent impaired employees from endangering themselves or others in the workplace.

Medical Marijuana

Despite the importance of maintaining a safe work environment, employers must at the same time be wary of adopting an overly heavy-handed or rigid approach to preventing impairment. Otherwise, employers run the risk of inviting a complaint under British Columbia’s Human Rights Code.

The risk stems from the fact that employees are entitled to use marijuana for legitimate medical purposes. Under the Human Rights Code, mental and physical disability is a prohibited ground of discrimination. As a result, if an employer were to dismiss or otherwise adversely treat an employee because of that employee’s use of medical marijuana, this could be grounds for a claim in discrimination.

Consequently, employers must step very carefully where medical marijuana is involved. If there is indeed an underlying medical condition for which marijuana has been prescribed by a doctor, the employer has a duty to accommodate that employee’s use of medical marijuana as they would any other prescription drug. This duty to accommodate must be met in good faith. For example, even if an employer determines that an employee’s use of medical marijuana makes them ineligible to continue their safety-sensitive position, the employer should consider whether there are alternative positions for that employee for which safety is less of a concern.

At the same time, a prescription for medical marijuana does not give an employee license to smoke in the workplace, arrive to work late without permission or compromise the safety of the workplace. The employer must take care to balance their own legal responsibilities with the right of the employee to use medical marijuana.

Finding a Balance

From a legal perspective, the impending legalization of recreational marijuana does not relieve employers from the need to perform a difficult balancing act. On the one hand, employers must ensure that they are maintaining a safe work environment. On the other hand, they must avoid infringing the rights of employees who consume marijuana for legitimate medical reasons. The right approach will often depend on the nature of the individual workplace and to what degree safety is a concern.

As an employer, what practical steps can you take in order to strike the right balance?


1. Create a written policy

It is crucial to have clear, written policy that is effectively communicated and consistently enforced. You should prepare written policies and ensure that managers and regular employees are familiar with its terms.


2. Spell out the consequences

Everyone in the workplace should understand that you are dedicated to maintaining a safe workplace. As a result, it should be clear to each employee what will happen if he or she is unacceptably impaired in the workplace. The consequences could include progressive discipline or perhaps even termination.


3. Require proof of a medical prescription

You should insist that any prescription relied on by the employee is provided by a recognized and legitimate healthcare professional in accordance with the existing laws. After all, if an employee is alleging that he or she is using medical marijuana, he or she is required to disclose the nature of the disability as well as the medical authorization to use marijuana.


4. Train your staff

A policy is little use to anyone if it is not enforced properly. You should ensure that their managers and supervisors fully understand the policy. Moreover, they must know how to recognize and address marijuana-related impairment in the workplace.


Scott Payne is a lawyer with CBM Lawyers. To learn more about employment law or to schedule a consult with Scott, please contact us at 604.533.3821.

May 12, 2017

Arbitration – What is it and will it work?

No corporation enjoys legal disputes. Many people assume that a dispute will involve lawyers, great expense, great delay, unwanted publicity, frustration, and a real sense that they simply “won’t be heard”.

You can choose to go to trial, but you should always consider arbitration. The process will still be somewhat expensive, and it will still involve lawyers, but it will happen a lot more quickly than a trial, you will be a lot less frustrated, and you will be heard, because the “judge” will know your industry!


What is an arbitrator?

An arbitrator is a lawyer who has been trained to act as an arbitrator. In a sense, she or he is a judge. The advantages are that an arbitrator will be selected by the parties, and the lawyers   invariably pick someone who is well familiar with the issues at hand. Conversely, many judges are generalists, and for good and valid reasons may not be familiar with your particular type of industry, or the issue to be dealt with.


How do I get into arbitration?

It is important to engage in arbitration at the earliest possible time. Your supply contracts and the customer contract should all provide for arbitration. If there is no written agreement to submit to arbitration, both parties have to consent and you may find someone is not willing to do so.


What happens when arbitration starts?

You should hire a lawyer, and your lawyer should contact the lawyer for the other side. The arbitration clause should be engaged then you and your lawyer should review a list of possible arbitrators. Arbitrators are available through BC AMI or a number of other service providers. Since you are choosing your own “judge” your lawyer should take some time to select the best possible arbitrator; one who knows the nature of the industry, who is reasonably inexpensive, and one who is available as soon as it is possible to start the process.


What happens next?

The arbitrator will ask for a retainer “up-front” and she or he will arrange a pre-arbitration meeting. At the pre-arbitration meeting, everyone will agree as to how the arbitration will be conducted, who will be called to give evidence, how documents will be handled, and how any preliminary objections might be resolved.


The hearing

On the date set, which will likely be within six months of the arbitration being initiated, everybody goes to a particular room, the arbitration commences, documents are filed and people are sworn to give evidence – this means they will give oral testimony in response to their lawyer’s questions and will be cross-examined by the other side’s lawyer. The arbitrator may also ask questions.

Shortly after the hearing concludes, the arbitrator will make her or his “award” which is basically who wins, and sets out the reasons why the arbitrator’s decision has been made. The arbitrator will then render an account.


What happens afterwards?

Typically, the parties simply comply with the arbitrator’s award. If one party is reluctant to do so, an application can be made to court for a court order to enforce the arbitrator’s award.


Give me an example

Our firm was involved on behalf of a company that supplied industrial material. (This example is a composite of several cases, to protect confidentiality.)  After completing an extensive industrial site, they were having trouble getting paid and the owner of the property alleged that the work had not been properly completed. After several heated email exchanges, it also became apparent that the person who drew up the blueprints at the architect’s office may have made some errors. Everybody went to see their lawyers and it became obvious that a very lengthy trial might result which would likely cost each party $100,000 and take many years to resolve. This was going to be complicated. If the dispute became public – such as it would in the event of a court filing  –  a number of people were going to be embarrassed and probably unnecessarily so.

Fortunately, the supply contract provided for arbitration. As well, the three parties and their lawyers were fairly practical in their approach. An initial meeting was held between the lawyers only, and an arbitrator was chosen in downtown Vancouver. A preliminary meeting was held between the parties, including the insurance company for the architect, and an arbitration date was set to start in 180 days. A second preliminary meeting was held to narrow down the documents and to discuss whether expert witnesses were to be used.

The arbitration commenced, and the proceedings took four days. The arbitrator was an experienced commercial litigator who had in the past acted for both contractors and owners and who had experience with almost exactly the same sort of dispute. Everybody spoke the same language. The hearing was held in complete confidence. After 14 days, the arbitrator handed down her ruling. To no one’s surprise, not everybody got everything they wanted, but everyone was surprised about the knowledge that the arbitrator brought to the dispute and her very practical rulings. The parties agreed with the arbitrator’s decision and within 12 months of the dispute arising, the matter was completely resolved and everybody went back to work.


Interested? Call Jon Goheen at our firm if a dispute is pending. Call Scott Johnston of our firm to have an arbitration clause put into your standard contracts.