This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:
Two fathers with children and family members that have pre-existing medical conditions were unsuccessful in an application for an interim injunction to require British Columbia schools to implement additional COVID-19 protections such as social distancing, and mandatory mask-wearing in classrooms.
The judge on the application was not prepared to rely on media reports concerning the number of exposures in schools.
In addition, the judge concluded that the fathers had failed to clearly identify the specific government decision they were seeking to have judicially reviewed.
Because the fathers both believed they were acting in the public interest by bringing the application, no cost award was made against them.
Also discussed is a British Columbia Supreme Court decision upholding a conviction for using an electronic device while driving.
The electronic device in question was an iPhone with a dead battery. The “use” was the “holding” of the device by wearing earbuds that were plugged into the dead iPhone. The judge concluded that the “holding” could include holding the earbuds in the driver’s ears.
The driver left the earbuds in his ears to drown out some of the highway noise. He was not touching the iPhone at all.
The underlying issue is that the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with distracted driving by the use of electronic devices are so broadly drafted that they capture activity that wouldn’t actually be distracting.
How judges are to interpret provisions like this is discussed.
Ultimately, it’s a legislative responsibility to ensure that legislation isn’t overly broad.
Finally, a Court of Appeal case involving the withdrawal of a guilty plea is discussed. The unfortunate fact pattern in the case involved a senior criminal lawyer who gave bad advice to his client concerning the guilty plea, after filing to reading a relevant decision that would have impacted the case, and then sending a junior associate to deal with the matter.
This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:
Two fathers with children and family members that have pre-existing medical conditions were unsuccessful in an application for an interim injunction to require British Columbia schools to implement additional COVID-19 protections such as social distancing, and mandatory mask-wearing in classrooms.
The judge on the application was not prepared to rely on media reports concerning the number of exposures in schools.
In addition, the judge concluded that the fathers had failed to clearly identify the specific government decision they were seeking to have judicially reviewed.
Because the fathers both believed they were acting in the public interest by bringing the application, no cost award was made against them.
Also discussed is a British Columbia Supreme Court decision upholding a conviction for using an electronic device while driving.
The electronic device in question was an iPhone with a dead battery. The “use” was the “holding” of the device by wearing earbuds that were plugged into the dead iPhone. The judge concluded that the “holding” could include holding the earbuds in the driver’s ears.
The driver left the earbuds in his ears to drown out some of the highway noise. He was not touching the iPhone at all.
The underlying issue is that the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with distracted driving by the use of electronic devices are so broadly drafted that they capture activity that wouldn’t actually be distracting.
How judges are to interpret provisions like this is discussed.
Ultimately, it’s a legislative responsibility to ensure that legislation isn’t overly broad.
Finally, a Court of Appeal case involving the withdrawal of a guilty plea is discussed. The unfortunate fact pattern in the case involved a senior criminal lawyer who gave bad advice to his client concerning the guilty plea, after filing to reading a relevant decision that would have impacted the case, and then sending a junior associate to deal with the matter.