Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan
Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan
Why Victoria Sees So Many Out Of Province Warrants
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Someone can’t outrun the Criminal Code by crossing a provincial line, so why does it sometimes feel that way in Victoria? We dig into the real mechanics of out-of-province warrants in British Columbia, including when a warrant applies Canada-wide and when it needs a local endorsement under section 528 of the Criminal Code. Then we get honest about the part nobody likes saying out loud: the decision to return a person often turns into a budget question about flights, officers, and whether the originating province is willing to pay.
We also unpack BC’s fugitive return program, the memorandum of understanding behind it, and the numbers that show how small the program is compared with what police are seeing on the ground. If Victoria Police are dealing with dozens of people wanted elsewhere in a matter of months, what does that mean for local resources, public safety, and the basic promise that the rule of law is applied consistently across Canada?
From there, we shift to a striking BC Supreme Court case that proves accountability does not stop with a criminal conviction. A neighbour shooting leads to a civil lawsuit, a trial conducted from prison over Microsoft Teams, and substantial damages for both the person who was shot and the spouse who witnessed it and develops PTSD. We walk through how civil damages work, why assets like a home matter for collection, and what the court can do to preserve property while judgment enforcement ramps up.
If you find this kind of practical legal breakdown useful, subscribe, share the episode with a friend in BC, and leave a review so more Canadians can find the show. What part of this system would you change first?
Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.
Why Victoria Draws Out Of Town Warrants
Adam StirlingHow does that work, especially here in Victoria?
Michael MulliganWell, it's an issue I think here in Victoria, perhaps more than other places, because of course this is a nice place to be, right? If you're going to be a fugitive, you might pick here. And to give some idea of the sort of scope and scale of the issue, the Victoria Police dealt with uh 80 people in the first six months of this year who had outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions. Um and so far it would appear that few of those people of Amy have actually been removed. And so I thought it would be useful to just provide some context in terms of the legal process involved, uh, the system that's in place, and what uh might be done to improve that uh uh how that's operating.
When A Warrant Works Nationwide
Michael MulliganUm so, first of all, it's important to know that in Canada, the criminal code, of course, is the criminal code of Canada, right? It's the same criminal law all across the country. Uh and so uh it's not like the uh Dukes of Hazard where you can kind of jump into the next county and escape uh uh the operation of the law in Canada, but uh it's slightly more complicated to execute a warrant outside of the province in which it was issued. Um and the way that works, it depends on the type of warrant that might be outstanding for somebody. Some types of warrants, like for indictable offenses and warrants issued by superior courts when, for example, somebody doesn't show up for their uh trial, um, uh, are warrants issued under section 597 of the criminal code, and those are just good all across the country, for other types of warrants that which would be more common, and you can have warrants for somebody's arrest issued by a court uh for a variety of reasons, like a warrant of first instance to compel the person to show up uh uh for a charge or other failings to appear in court, whatever it might be. With those, the more common type when they're issued, in order to make the warrant effective in another province, you need to have a judge or a judicial justice endorse the warrant, and that's done under section 528 of the criminal code. And essentially the it's uh not really an exercise of discretion, it's the justice or judge determining that the original warrant is like valid, properly signed from that other jurisdiction, and then they would endorse it or sign it, and then that's effective in British Columbia, for example, right? If you had a warrant from uh Alberta or something, um a judge here, a justice could look at that and say, yep, this appears to be a valid warrant issued out of there, initial it or sign it, and then it can be executed in BC. Now, the uh practical reality, there are there are other practical realities which explain why it is, even though there's a uh process clearly in place in the criminal code to uh arrest people and uh have them returned uh to uh face uh trial in the jurisdiction where they're alleged to have
The Price Tag Of Returning Fugitives
Michael Mulligancommitted an offense, there's a practical reality. And the practical reality involves uh really an assessment of the cost of doing that. Um and the starting point would be that the uh the jurisdiction that the person has fled from would ordinarily be asked if the when the person's arrested by the police, if the police do arrest them, do you want this person back? Right? And and really the question being asked there is a economic one. Do you want to pay for two police officers and three plane tickets? Two of them return one one way to get the person back there. Exactly. And so when you ask that question, you know, if it's murder, the answer's gonna be yeah. If it's uh yes, if the it's not murder, if something else, the answer may well be no thanks, you can keep him. Now, you can imagine that that economic analysis may be a different economic analysis for that original jurisdiction as opposed to, for example, Victoria.
unknownYeah.
Michael MulliganRight? Because let's say you've got somebody who's uh you know, uh if it would not be uncommon if you had somebody who's left other jurisdiction with an outstanding warrant and is now living out at BC BC, it's easy to imagine how that person might be engaged in perhaps other allegations or other activity here or other resources being consumed dealing with um you know mental health or dealing with addictions issues or dealing with other criminal conduct that might be a crack here. And so the and the from the perspective, conversely, from the original jurisdiction, when somebody's phoning up uh Crown in Manitoba saying, hey, do you want this person back? You might well imagine no would be an appealing answer for many people. No, we don't really want the guy with five shoplifting warrants uh returned to Manitoba, thank so much. Effectively, by virtue of the having escaped Manitoba, they might be quite satisfied with effectively banishment to British Columbia. Exactly. And so that's pretty appealing. Now here
BC’s Fugitive Return Program Basics
Michael Mulliganare the numbers, right? And I should say there's a background to it. In in Victoria, if you go back a number of years, it used to be that the downtown business uh community was paying to do these transfers. Uh and they were paying either cash or donating air miles to fly these people back to other jurisdictions. And the that kind of informal process, uh such as it was, was uh formalized uh back in 2012 into this thing which was a the provincial fugitive return program, and there's this thing which is a memorandum of understanding between various police departments and the RCMP uh in terms of sort of uh returning people, and there was some funding provided to that program through the um civil forfeiture scheme. So they provide, I think, a few hundred thousand dollars a year to that program uh to pay for the plane tickets. Now, of those 80 people the police had uh dealt with uh in the first six months, that's just in Victoria, the first six months of this year, thirty-one of them met the criteria which are set out in this memorandum of understanding. Uh, and so, for example, when you look at that, the memorandum of understanding makes the person can be considered for the program, it's not mandatory, but if they're dealing either with, broadly speaking, violent crimes, uh, and it's described as things like violence beyond simple assault or beyond threats, and so that could include sexual assault or robbery, things like that, or uh where there were serious and sensitive crimes involving undermining the administration of justice, like obstructing justice, or a significant number, whatever that is, of failing to appear charges. And if you meet those, if you're in those criteria, then the they may choose to expend their the money that they have flying you back, but they don't have to, and it sounds like not a lot are, to give a to give some stats, right?
Program Numbers And What They Miss
Michael MulliganThere was a report on that program back in 2019, and it was looking at an eight-year period between 2012 and that fugitive return program, which is administered by the RCMP under this memorandum of understanding, uh, that uh over the eight-year period they had returned 207 people, uh, which is 25.8 per year on average. And there's some stats that were provided that back in 2019 about where the people were from, like 96 from Alberta, 51 from Ontario, 23 Manitoba, 16 Saskatchewan, 14 Quebec, 4 Nova Scotia, to the Yukon, and one to the Northwest Territories. And so that program uh is uh uh causing that number on average per year, that's for all of British Columbia, to be returned to those other jurisdictions. And in contrast, the you know, Victoria City Police alone dealt with 80 people uh during the first six months who had outstanding warrants from other provinces. And so the that program uh uh only deals with a small fraction of the number of people who are in British Columbia from elsewhere that have outstanding warrants, who, from a legal perspective, are subject to being arrested and uh and returned. Uh and so if there was additional funding available to do that, uh they could simply be returned, and again, that funding assessment, I I suspect, uh is likely to be different from British Columbia's perspective, certainly a local uh area like Victoria's perspective, right? Uh as opposed to how it looks to the Crown Council in Saskatchewan
Funding Fixes And Rule Of Law
Michael Mulliganor Quebec or wherever it might be. And so looking at all of this, and I I should say I guess one of the lenses I would look at this through is sort of the uh respect for the rule of law, right? Yeah. And we don't live in some Dukes a hazard fantasy where you should be able to get across a line and suddenly nothing happens to you. Um and uh so uh you know, I I don't think it's unreasonable that uh the law be sort of uniformly enforced and if somebody is uh has an outstanding warrant, the starting point uh should be that they should uh be required to deal with their uh criminal allegation uh and not be able to avoid that simply because some other province doesn't want to spend the money to have the person brought back there. Um and so uh perhaps given the stats in terms of the number of people that in fact are uh uh uh sent back to the other provinces under that fugitive return program, it's a very small number, and that's the whole province. Um it does seem to me that there should be consideration given to uh funding that. And I'm sure if there was some analysis done of you know the amount of uh public resources that are expended on, you know, you can probably look at those 80 people, right? You've got 80 people who are identified the police dealt with just in Victoria. I'm supposed I'm sure there could be some uh economic analysis done to what is the cost of having the these 80 people here? My expect my my guess would be there's a fair bit of public resources going into managing even those 80 people, and that's only in the city of Victoria. Um and so you may well have a very good economic case uh for uh expending money beyond uh what the limited criteria and limited budget of that fugitive return program that's in place uh would allow for. Um and so uh that's the state of affairs, so people should know there's clear legal authority to do it. The people with these outstanding words are clearly identified, um, and the issue would simply be an issue of uh the funding uh to do the uh transport. And uh perhaps it is the case if the government simply isn't willing to uh resource that uh program. Maybe it is the case where there has to be some local um funding uh for that. So that's what's going on. Those are the numbers, and that's what the uh legal scheme is that's in place that would uh allow for people to be returned if there was uh money set aside to do just that.
Civil Damages After A Criminal Conviction
Adam StirlingAfter the defendant was convicted of criminal offenses and jailed for the same thing.
Michael MulliganThat's exactly right. And you know, listeners will recall, of course, O.J. Simpson, right, who was both uh was acquitted criminally but uh sued successfully civilly uh for the same uh murder allegation. Um and this was a circumstance where the uh person here who was uh convicted of a uh number of firearms uh offenses. It was an offense that occurred out in uh souk uh originally back in 2022. And it sounds like the fact pattern was that this fellow, for reasons unknown, went over to a neighbor's house, got into some kind of uh scuffle uh with the homeowner, but he was carrying a loaded uh 22 caliber rifle that he was not uh licensed to possess, unsurprisingly, um, and uh it was uh jammed in the stomach of the neighbor and uh the neighbor was shot. Um and the man was convicted by a jury of a number of uh offenses relating uh to that, including aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, and uh possessing a firearm he was not licensed to uh have. Uh and so he was convicted uh by the jury and he was sentenced to seven years in prison. Uh but that didn't end the matter because the uh person who was shot and interestingly
Running A Trial From Prison
Michael Mulliganhis wife who witnessed the shooting, both decided to sue him for uh compensation for their uh injuries, physical and psychological. Now, the the first thing, of course, well not the first thing, of course, but the first thing that caused me to think about was well, what's the point of all this? Um it is not usually the case that uh suing somebody who is serving a seven-year jail sentence is going to produce any actual money. Uh, but here it uh the explanation for that uh is you can tease it out of the uh the reasons for judgment. It appears this man owns a home, uh, and uh he was wanting to sell the home in order to hire counsel to help him with this case, uh uh, but that hadn't occurred, and he hadn't made any steps to uh to do that. And so it sounds like there is an asset here, which explains why the civil case uh would have uh proceeded, because it doesn't make much sense to litigate uh against somebody who has no money. Uh and so uh that's the case against him, and interestingly, he's still in jail serving his sentence at uh Pacific Institution, which hilariously, if you look it up on Google, only got two stars. People did not like the food. They gotta work on that if they wanna if they want to get their online rating back up, right? So that's where he is. Uh and so one of the things that uh at the beginning of this trial, the judge had to deal with was that the man, Pacific Institution with the two-star food, wanted it adjourned, the trial, because he's, of course, in prison. And the the judge considered that and denied the application to adjourn it on the basis that uh it had already been adjourned once, waiting for the criminal trial to finish, and that it wouldn't be just making the uh people wait here, I guess, seven years for him to finish a sentence and no longer be there. And so the trial was to proceed. Uh and he was unrepresented. Uh and uh the judge uh asked the man whether he thought it necessary that he be attending the trial in person, uh, and he declined that. The trial's in Victoria. Uh but he said no, and so the way the trial proceeded is this this man, the accused or the convicted fellow shooter, uh conducted the trial in person, well i himself, but from Pacific Institution via Microsoft Teams. And so the man from prison had this civil trial uh that went on for several days, January
Pain Suffering And Lost Income Damages
Michael Mulligan5th to 9th, um, again here in Victoria. And so uh the man, interestingly, first of all, didn't uh admit that he until the very end of the trial that he did shoot the person. He just admitted that he had been shot. I I don't know whether there was some disagreement about you know why the gun went off or what caused that, uh whatever. Anyways, he wouldn't admit that until the very end, he acknowledged that he shot him. Um his position was that they had to share responsibility. It sounds like maybe some claim about what caused the gun to go off, but nonetheless, you know, when you're suing somebody civilly, unlike in a criminal case, it's not a mens rea thing. It's sort of uh, hey, you shot the person, the very least, in terms of an assessment of negligence. If you're wandering around with a loaded rifle uh having some confrontation with your neighbor, it's overwhelmingly likely if you shoot them that you're gonna be on the hook at least civilly for that uh uh action. And so uh while the trial proceeded and the man didn't admit that, the judge at the end of the day didn't have any trouble uh concluding that uh the man was liable uh for torts of assault, battery, and negligence. Uh and as you mentioned, awarded some total of $767,000 in change, broken down into various things, like the as civil judgments are. Like there's a head of damages for what are called non-pecuniary damages, like pain and suffering, but then other elements like lost wages and capacity to earn wages in the future and future care because getting shot in the stomach does not do good things for you, and he was going to have uh all ongoing issues in terms of like his bowels and how his things are functioning. They never got the bullet out, it's lodged somewhere in him. And this caused him to have to give up his job. He worked uh successfully doing, I think, um uh carpet or carpentry or siding installation work, but he couldn't
PTSD Damages For The Witness Spouse
Michael Mulligancontinue to do the physical work, so he had to leave that job. And I think he got a job at BC Ferries, but it pays less. And so he was entitled to compensation for that difference in terms of what he would have made and what he will be making. The other interesting thing about the case is that in addition to the man that got shot suing, his wife also sued. And she sued on the basis of uh sort of it described as intentional infliction of mental distress, with the idea being that he shot the man in full view of his wife in his own home, which was, as you might imagine, rather traumatic for her. Um and so she also has PTSD, it's significant psychological impacts on her. Uh and so in addition to the award to the man shot in the stomach, uh, the uh wife who witnessed all that wound up with an award of $279,000, comprised of non-pecuniary damages as well as future care and some uh smaller amount of wage loss, I guess, time off, given the trauma of seeing all of that. Uh and so they have this judgment, and uh it'll now be up to them to uh collect on it. And uh again, having looked at this more carefully, unlike many of these things, which are just would be an exercise in futile wheel spinning, um, the uh it looks like there is actually a piece of property the man owned who's the neighbor, after all, so I guess it won't be hard to find the house. Uh he owned a home. Uh and so there was a earlier on in the proceedings, there's actually, you can tell, there was a uh order made to preserve that uh asset, uh to prevent it, I guess, from uh all the money being transferred or spent or something of that sort. Uh and the judge uh uh after finding liability here and setting those amounts, also provided uh that the order preserving the asset, that is to say the home, uh, would be kept in place for 120 days following the judgment uh to allow uh further process now to uh no doubt execute on the judgment, uh likely getting in order to have the house sold in order to uh pay off the amount due.
Collecting The Judgment And Wrap Up
Michael MulliganSo interesting case on a number of levels, including doing it remotely from prison, the fact that you can sue somebody uh for something where there's also a criminal conviction, uh, and the liability that can flow not only for the physical harm uh that uh somebody uh suffers as a result of being shot, but the psychological harm by uh somebody who witnessed the shooting. Uh and so uh that's the latest uh from the uh BC Supreme Court here in Victoria, and uh to wait and see uh if they're successful uh uh executing on the judgment and collecting the money.
Adam StirlingMichael Mulligan with Mulligan Advanced Lawyers, legally speaking, the second half of our second hour every Thursday. Michael, thank you so much. Pleasure as always. Thanks so much. Always great to be here.