Years ago, there was a dry cleaner in Cook Street Village in Victoria, on the corner of Cook and McKenzie. It may (or may not) have had a big neon sign like the picture above. Today, the dry cleaner is gone, but the plume of contamination that it left behind is still being cleaned up.
For proceedings in the British Columbia Supreme Court, examinations for discovery typically happen somewhere in B.C. That’s not a requirement though – if the parties agree, an examination can be conducted just about anywhere in the world. But what happens when the person who has to be examined doesn’t live in B.C. and doesn’t necessarily want to travel to B.C. to be examined?
Earlier this year
, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (the FBI) asked a federal court in the United States for an order requiring Apple Inc. to “assist” the FBI in hacking the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernadino shooters.
In essence, the FBI was asking Apple to build what is often called a “backdoor” so that law enforcement agencies can bypass the standard security features on an electronic device and directly access its contents.
You may recall that last November, the BC Supreme Court ruled in favour of my client, New Nadina Explorations Limited, in a case that involved the interpretation of the phrase “land under cultivation.” Following that decision, the landowner appealed, and this week the BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Earlier this week, Mr. Justice McEwan of the British Columbia Supreme Court released his decision in the case of Community Association of New Yaletown v. Vancouver (City), a case involving a rezoning application, a public hearing, and a land swap deal between the City of Vancouver and Brenhill Developments.
The result of the case is striking: two bylaws quashed, a development permit revoked, and new public hearings ordered. On the ground, there is an active construction site that no longer has a valid development permit, and as for the agreement between Brenhill and the City? That’s a separate (and probably even more complicated) topic for another day.
In June, I found myself in Court in Kamloops, arguing in response to a Judicial Review Petition involving a 2013 order of the Surface Rights Board. Last week, the B.C. Supreme Court decided in favour of my client, New Nadina Explorations Limited.
I will be in Kamloops on November 13, 2014 to give not one, but two talks at the Thompson Rivers University Faculty of Law. The first will be part of a first-year Property Law lecture on surface rights and mineral tenures, and the second will be a more general discussion about the “Business of Law.” TRU has built a great law school and I am grateful to be invited to speak to the students and faculty about the kinds of cases that I handle
, and the way that I have set up my new law office.
As I mentioned a few weeks ago
, Jeff Frame and I gave a talk at the BC Expropriation Association’s annual conference, on the (hot?) topic of positive covenants. The paper discusses the (well established) legal principles that apply to restrictive covenants, then considers whether positive obligations can be “expropriated” from a landowner by an expropriating authority.
You can download the paper by clicking here.
The vast majority of civil cases settle before trial. Most lawyers estimate the number to be higher than 90%. That is consistent with my own experience, which is that most cases settle through a process of negotiation (sometimes involving mediators, sometimes not) that occurs several months before trial. 2 or 3 times per year, I prepare for trial and the case settles a few days before the trial begins – sometimes the night before. Once or twice a year, I find myself wearing my robes on a Monday morning, starting a trial.
