Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan
Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan
How To Lose A Job In 10 Words Or Less
A single sentence can change a career. We open with a real-world case: a shuttle driver on SFU property tells a flagger she’s “unbelievably beautiful” and suggests modelling. Security documents the exchange, the university issues a campus ban, and the employer fires him. He then pushes for the complainant’s identity under FOIPPA, arguing that the decision-makers needed complete, accurate information. We walk through why FOIPPA binds public bodies but not private companies, how section 28 actually works, and why the court said disclosure wasn’t required when the driver admitted the key facts. Plus, we flag the sting in the tail: special costs when you sue the wrong parties.
From there, the stakes rise. Mid-trial in Vancouver, a mother asks to relocate her eight-year-old to Thailand. The judge says no on best-interests grounds. She leaves anyway, hides her location, and starts a case abroad. We explain how habitual residence anchors jurisdiction, why the Hague Convention exists to stop jurisdiction shopping, and how credibility findings—false affidavits, financial misstatements—reshape custody, support, and costs. The practical takeaway is stark: unilateral moves during active proceedings invite severe legal consequences and can fracture future parenting arrangements.
We close with the Lytton wildfire class action. Plaintiffs allege a passing train ignited the fire; the defendants point to onboard video, sensors, and clean inspection data. The court certifies the case, clarifying that the standard is some basis in fact, not proof. Timing, location near the tracks, tinderbox conditions, and a supportive expert opinion clear the threshold. Certification doesn’t decide liability—it ensures a fair, efficient path to test common issues, expert evidence, and causation at trial.
If you value clear, no-spin explanations of how law affects real people—from campus discipline and privacy to cross-border parenting and community-scale claims—follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review telling us which case challenged your assumptions.
Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.
Well that's the sign of the times, isn't it?
Adam Stirling:I don't know if there's more, I think, but I don't know.
Michael Mulligan:There's not a lot about there's some legally more to it. But the the background, this is from 2024. Uh, and the fellow involved in this thing was a shuttle bus driver. And he was a shuttle bus driver. He didn't work directly for Simon Fraser University. He worked for a uh company that uh I guess was hired to do shuttle bus driving uh at or for Simon Fraser University. Uh and on the fateful day back in April of 2024, uh this fellow was driving his shuttle bus uh on the Simon Fraser University property, uh, and he spotted uh rainy day, he spotted uh a flagger who was a woman, and he stopped his shuttle bus, opened the door, and turt told her words to the effect that she was unbelievably beautiful and that she should consider having photographs taken and doing modeling. And uh he indicated she smiled in response to that, and he drove away in his shuttle bus. Well, that wasn't the end of it. Uh the flagger uh made a complaint uh about uh the comment made by the shuttle bus driver, uh, and that prompted I must say there's uh uh lots of security at Cyber Fraser University, apparently, because uh security staff were dispatched to the scene of the uh unbelievably beautiful comment uh and arrived there within half an hour of the incident, took a statement from her, and then even took information from another witness uh about what transpired. Um I must say it's uh be hard to imagine perhaps uh that kind of a uh a legal response or investigation for perhaps some matters going on in the city of Victoria. Um and the security staff then produced a report to the Simon Fraser University about this uh comment. Uh, and uh that led to uh Simon Fraser contacting the bus company. Uh, and the uh net result of all of that uh was uh eventually Simon Fraser University banned him from coming on the campus. The bus company uh ultimately wound up firing him. Uh and so uh so much for the uh bus driver. Uh and he uh then brought uh various applications. First thing he tried to do was he made uh application to try to get information about who was this person, who did she work for, uh, to I guess more information about what the nature of the complaint was that led to his eventual termination. Uh and that wasn't provided. Simon Fraser University refused to provide the information about uh the identity of the person or her employer. Uh and that led eventually to this case that just got decided, which was as that which was an application for a judicial review uh of the uh decision not to tell him uh who the person was that made the complaint. Uh and the he had made several arguments in his uh court application here, unfortunately for him, but it's clear that he he didn't get legal advice, uh and uh he furthermore uh ignored some of the sort of preliminary advice he got from lawyers acting for some of the various people that he was suing. Uh and uh one of the challenges was in addition to bringing this uh claim against Simon Fraser University under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and in particular, uh there's a uh section in that, section twenty-eight, uh, that uh requires where there an individual's personal information is in the custody or control of a public body, and that's important, uh, and the personal information is to be uh used in decision making that affects that individual, the public body must make every reasonable effort to ensure that the personal information is accurate and complete. Okay? Uh and so his argument was, well, hold on, uh I should have been told who this person was in more details so that I could make sure that the information was complete when making decisions about banning him from Simon Fraser University, ultimately leading to his firing. Now, one of the challenges he had in this uh court application, uh, and this is I think understandable, and the judge to in some to some degree understood the challenge here. In addition to bringing this claim about that, he also named various individuals personally who worked at Simon Fraser University, uh, who had made that decision not to provide the information. And that part I think the judge found to be sort of understandable in the sense that uh there was a letter written to Simon Fraser University saying these are the individuals who made this decision. And so he thought, I guess, well, I better include those in my list of people that I'm suing here. Uh but he also went on to make a claim against the bus company, uh asking, uh indicating that uh uh they had some obligation to do these things. Now, the problem with that, and people should listeners should know this, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies only to public bodies. It does not apply to either individuals or um like private companies, right? The the bus company doesn't have any obligation to comply with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Uh and that was pointed out to the former bus driver by the lawyers who were acting for the bus company, uh, but he just didn't take that uh, I guess, seriously and didn't follow their advice that he should get some legal advice about whether he should continue a claim against the bus company, uh, alleging a breach of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That then, in this case, led to not only that claim against the bus company being dismissed, but also led to an award of special costs against the bus driver on the basis that he was reckless uh to the and indifferent to the deficiencies of what he was asking for. Uh and so that's going to produce a bill for this uh fellow. Uh then with respect to the uh substance of it, uh the court, uh, given the nature of what was being claimed here, didn't have the authority to address, for example, the firing, right, um, or the reasonableness of any of that. It found that really the only thing it could properly deal with was whether the the university was in compliance with that section twenty-eight of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. And in that regard, at least, uh the court concluded that at the end of the day, uh the information about who the flaggers name or what company she worked for really wasn't uh there wasn't really a substantive problem or issue because the bus driver basically agreed that what was alleged occurred. Um he it was clear that he said she from his perspective, he says he told her that she was beautiful and should be taking pictures or or or bottling. Uh he said that he thought he did nothing wrong saying those things, and then in fact in his interview he said, This is not Russia, I have a right to free speech and can say whatever he wanted. And so it wasn't a circumstance where there was a disagreement about what was said, right? That that may have produced a different result. But he said, Look, you know, this person's claim is completely wrong. I didn't tell her she was beautiful, I told her she was doing a great job flagging or something, right? Then, you know, maybe there would have been more traction to the issue. Look, I need to know who she is, I need to correct this, I'm getting banned and fired over something who didn't happen. Uh and so uh as a result of all that, he was uh unsuccessful uh in his uh application, both on the basis that he was bringing it against people that didn't have to do what he was asking, and for the university uh on the uh basis that um, you know, it didn't really make a difference here. There really wasn't a disagreement about what he said. Uh and so that's the latest out of the DC Supreme Court on the uh how the freedom of information and protection of privacy hack works, and I suppose a cautionary tale for uh uh people that might uh be making this sort of a comment, you know, you uh certainly would have a right to free speech, uh, but you might also find yourself banned or fired uh in 2024 or 2025 for saying those things, despite his uh explanation saying, look, I have a right to say these things, and I was trying to just brighten her days, and she seemed to smile and not be unhappy about it. But they resulted in a complaint and the security services over there and a report, and uh uh that was the end of them. So that's the uh uh that's the background on the uh former uh bus driver that uh used to work at Simon Fraser University. Uh no more.
Adam Stirling:All right, we think Michael Morgan from OG Defense will continue right after this. Michael Morgan from all the defense. Michael Maggie with an eight-year-old child in the middle of a family court trial is not a good strategy. What happened?
Michael Mulligan:Well, the the the uh case involved an eight-year-old child that was a product of a relationship between a couple who lived in uh Vancouver, um, and uh the their relationship ultimately uh broke down. Uh and uh the mother of the uh child was bringing a family court uh case several years after the relationship broke down, asking for a whole bunch of things, including back child support, child support going forward, uh division of property, uh, and uh then also uh as part of this trial, which went on much longer than it had been uh estimated uh to take, uh, she made an application to move to Thailand with the child. Um and the trial was not going to conclude and would have to be adjourned over the uh summer uh to finish. Uh and the judge uh considered this uh interim application to allow her to move to Thailand and denied it. Um and ultimately those are of course tough decisions in terms of one party wanting to move somewhere. Uh the assessment is always at the end of the day the best interests of the child, right? Uh and uh she had wanted to move there, I think, to commence a new relationship with somebody else, uh, but the judge concluded uh that it just wasn't in the child's interest to do that. He was already missing school and so on, and uh not a not a wise idea. Uh so that was the order, which she then just promptly ignored uh and uh left with the child, contrary to the court order, uh, and is in Thailand uh and refusing to uh indicate uh where in Thailand, uh, and then only allowing brief contacts with the father by telephone uh and uh wrote to the court, I guess, saying I'm not coming back, uh, and uh also started uh a parallel court application in Thailand, right? She was not, I guess, not doing well in Vancouver. Um and so there are several things bound up in that. Uh the the first thing to be aware of is that there are some uh international conventions uh that some countries have signed on to dealing with uh this sort of thing, you know, one parent or taking a child to another jurisdiction. Uh and there's a thing referred to as the Hague Convention. Uh and uh hopefully this will be of some assistance to the father because Thailand happens to be a signatory to the Hague Convention and has passed domestic legislation in Thailand to implement it. Uh and one of the core principles there is that uh it's not appropriate uh without permission to be taking a child away from where they are, quote, habitually resident. Um and that also deals with the issue of sort of well where, you know, what court should be making these decisions, right? You can't just be halfway through your family court trial in Vancouver and and Oh sorry, oh good, my bad.
Adam Stirling:I hit the wrong job.
Michael Mulligan:You you can't be halfway through your family court trial in Vancouver, realize, you know, that it's not looking too good for you, and and indeed it wasn't uh for the uh mother here. The judge found that she had uh on multiple occasions filed false affidavits, had provided misleading information about her financial circumstances, had uh made false false claims of being uh physically assaulted, all of which the judge rejected as uh not true, and so things were going badly for her. You can't just pick up, run off to another jurisdiction and try again there. Okay? Uh and so uh when the woman took off, um that uh no doubt ended the relationship with the lawyer who was representing her, uh, and uh uh eventually the uh trial concluded absent the child and the mother. Uh and the uh judge in the case effectively found on all counts against the mother, found that uh she was incredible, didn't accept what she had to say, found the child's best interest would be to have the father with sole custody, uh, found that her claim for back child support had no merit, uh, that she was not deserving of child support going forward on the basis of her conduct and what she had done, that the child's best interest was being uh put in the back uh seat as a result of what had occurred, uh, and uh so on all respects uh has uh found against the mother uh and ordered that the child be returned to the father uh to uh reside in Vancouver where the child had been habitually resident the child's entire life. Uh what we will now have to wait and see, of course, is what happens. Uh, because uh the uh mother has made this parallel application, like started up in Thailand, uh, and uh the uh father, in addition to having spent$150,000 on legal expenses here, has now went to some$40,000 in legal expenses in Thailand. Um now the judge here has ordered uh costs on a basis of her actual his actual costs awarded against the mother, but what we'll now have to wait and see is whether the uh court in Thailand does what you would expect under the Hague Convention, uh, which would be to find that this child was habitually resident uh in Vancouver, not in Thailand, uh, and uh refuse uh jurisdiction and order the child be returned. Uh so uh it's uh not over, but uh certainly uh a serious problem for the father having uh lost all contact with the child other than these brief telephone conversations. Uh and so that's the Hague Convention and why it's a very, very bad idea to uh engage in some self-help remedy of taking off to another country halfway through your trial uh and trying again there. That did not work out, uh at least in the legal persp from a legal perspective, and left away to see what Thailand does uh with that order.
Adam Stirling:All right. Four minutes remain. It's that your Lytton wildfire class action certification against a company on the basis that there is quote, some basis, in fact, closed quote. What's the story?
Michael Mulligan:So this is uh an application to certify a class action uh to do with that terrible fire in in uh Lytton a few years ago, right? Uh destroyed the entire town.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
Michael Mulligan:Um and the class action alleges that the fire may have been started by a train passing through the town. Um and the uh when you're applying to certify a class action, you first of all have some representative plaintiffs, you would sort of set out what the basis of your claim is. But one of the tests for whether a judge is to certify a class action is exactly that language. Is there some basis in fact uh for the claim that you are making? And as we've talked about before, much of the litigation surrounding class actions involves fighting over whether the case should get certified as a class action, right? Uh and uh great effort is often made uh by defendants uh who are being sued to prevent that from happening. Uh and so that language, some basis in fact, has been the subject of lots of litigation. Well, what does that mean? How clear does that have to be? What kind of evidence do you need to have? Um and the judge in this case uh was trying to provide some clarity about what exactly does that mean? How well you know how clear does the evidence have to be? Um and the uh judge in that respect, and this is another reason why this is, I think, an intr an interesting decision, at least as I read it, um many court decisions you read will be completely text, right? You'll have sort of descriptions of things, par numbered paragraphs and so on. Uh but in this case, and this is also an interesting thing to know about, it it's clear that um the train companies uh involved have all kinds of things like videos and sensors and pictures and things on their trains. Um and so here uh there were a whole bunch of things like sort of maps and live pictures of like uh this was a train carrying coal, basically, right? Um and the judge has included many of those in the reasons for judgment on this certification uh decision, which I think is a positive thing, right? It makes it sort of clear to somebody rather than describing, you know, what the picture of the uh train uh looked like, just well, there it is, just paste it into the judgment. Uh and so we've got interestingly all of these pictures taken right at the time and in the city and what it all looked like. Uh and the basis for the uh suggestion that the fire might have been caused by the train rested uh on uh I guess a couple of things. One would be timing. It it seems like common ground that this train went through the town um you know about ten minutes or so prior to anyone noticing like smoke and the fire starting, right? Uh and the fire was uh certainly near the train tracks, right? That was that seems clear as well. That's when the sp that's where it was first uh noted. But on the other hand, when you look at these pictures, well, there's no fire, right? There's no sparks, no fire, and there's a bunch of other information that the uh train company obviously keeps as well. Um including things like they have sensors to determine is something dragging from the train. There was not. Um and uh there's also things like careful temperature records. There's must say it's one of the hottest days ever recorded, if you recall the background of this bad fire. You know, a couple of days before there was forty-six degrees, forty six point one degrees breaking all records the next day, the day before the fire, it was forty-nine point six degrees with humidity dropped to eight percent. And so it was just a tinderbox when the train went through the town. Uh but again, when you look at the pictures and video and so on, it does not show any signs of fire, smoke, obstructions on the track, or anything else unusual as the train rolls through. You you just do have the fact that the fire was on uh either side of the train track, and it was only a few minutes after the train went through. That's also true. Um the train data included things like when the brakes are applied, and there were no unusual braking, no acceleration or deceleration. Uh there was uh no other uh nothing else unusual, no defects on the train, it's all been inspected. It's just that, right? And so you had in the course of the certification application, uh evidence from experts on both sides. One per one expert suggesting that it could have been the train that started the fire, the other expert suggesting no, no, that don't they don't think that's what would have happened here on the basis of you know that data about you know the pictures and the train, all those things, right?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah.
Michael Mulligan:Uh and so you had this sort of battle of experts about whether that caused the fire or not. But ultimately. And the judge was trying to point out that look, there should be some effort to expedite these things, so there's not quite so much time spent litigating whether a thing should be classified, uh, certified to go as a class action. And pointed out that some basis in fact does not mean certainly, right? It just means that there's a basis, you know, that's why we have trials, right? To have those experts testify and be cross-examined and look at it, and uh, you know, a judge will have to make a decision about whether that's been proven on a balance of probabilities. Some basis, in fact, is made out by, you know, that circumstantial evidence. There's an expert that says that could have been the cause of it, right? And that's enough to go forward. And so uh the uh net result is that has been certified, and uh we will have eventually a trial about whether it's proven the train caused it. So that's the latest from uh class actions and the uh that terrible fire.
Adam Stirling:All right, we're all out of time. We have to run legally speaking on C Fax 1070 during the second half of our second hour every Thursday. We'll be right back.