Bill C-21 unintended consequences, no fault and a highway blockade injury and a search warrant quashed
b'
This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:
Bill C-21 proposes various amendments to the Criminal Code and Firearms Act to restrict gun ownership.
One part of the legislation is a proposal to freeze the sale or transfer of handguns. This has already had the unintended consequence of causing handgun sales to skyrocket in anticipation of the possibility of sales being stopped.
As currently drafted Bill C-21 includes other provisions that would have unintended consequences. These include various automatic and mandatory provisions that would prohibit people from possessing firearms if there are ever subject to a protection order or engage in an \\u201cact of domestic violence\\u201d.
Protection orders can take many forms. Some protection orders can be obtained \\u201cex parte\\u201d. This means that the person against whom the order applies was not present for the application and did not have an opportunity to make submissions to a judge about it.
Automatically prohibiting someone from continuing to possess firearms without affording an opportunity to attend a hearing or challenge the decision is not procedurally fair and would almost certainly have intended consequences.
The proposal to impose automatic prohibitions on firearms ownership based on a person engaging in an \\u201cact of domestic violence\\u201d is also problematic. This term is not defined in the legislation. Pursuant to the Family Law Act in British Columbia, family violence has been defined to include things inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of violence.
Pursuant to the Family Law Act, family violence includes \\u201cunreasonable restrictions on, or prevention of, a family member's financial or personal autonomy\\u201d and \\u201cintentional damage to property\\u201d.
If the undefined term in the legislation was interpreted in a way consistent with the Family Law Act, automatic firearms prohibitions could flow from someone causing some minor damage to property or unreasonably restricting the \\u201cfinancial autonomy\\u201d of a spouse.
Much like with mandatory minimum sentences, while automatic and mandatory provisions are politically catchy, they fail to consider endlessly variable human affairs. Discretion and judgment are required to prevent unintended consequences.
Also on the show, the impact of the ICBC no-fault motor vehicle insurance scheme on the case of a protester who was injured when the ladder he was sitting on collapsed is discussed.
The ladder in question was attached to a trailer that was positioned on a highway to block access to a ferry terminal. A person who was stuck in the resulting traffic jam removed a piece of wood that was attached to a rope that was attached to the ladder. A few minutes later the protester, who remained at the top of the ladder to make it more difficult to remove the trailer from the road, fell to the ground when the ladder buckled and collapsed.
A foundation of the no-fault insurance scheme in British Columbia is a provision in the Insurance (Vehicle) Act that prohibits people from suing for injuries they suffer that is \\u201ccaused by a vehicle arising out of an accident\\u201d.
The term \\u201cvehicle\\u201d is defined to include a trailer.
As a result, the injuries sustained by the protester may therefore have arisen out of an accident caused by a vehicle: the trailer with a tall ladder affixed to it.
The flip side of this is that the injured protester may be able to claim no-fault accident benefits from ICBC.
Finally, on the show, a Court of Appeal decision concerning the quashing of a search warrant for video surveillance footage from a Hells Angels clubhouse is discussed.
Follow this link and a transcript of the show and links to the cases and legislation discussed.\\xa0