BROADCASTS.com

b'

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

Two men charged with criminal contempt for breaching an injunction prohibiting interference with the construction of the Trans Mountain Pipeline plead guilty and were sentenced.

Neither man had a previous criminal record.

The first man was a 69-yead old, retired university professor. He had climbed a tree and used a bicycle lock around his neck, and cables, to secure himself to the tree in order to slow construction of the pipeline. The police used a cherry picker to remote him.

The second man was 21 yeas old. He provided no details of his personal circumstances. He attempted to use a \\u201csleeping dragon\\u201d that was buried beside him to secure himself to the ground. He failed to properly secure himself within the device and so the RCMP were able to easily remove his hands and arrest him.

Aggravating sentencing considerations included the fact that the injunction had been in place for some time, that the men had breached the injunction in a public way, including by the conduct of media interviews.\\xa0 Mitigating factors included that they neither man had a previous record and both plead guilty.

The judge pointed out that sentences for criminal contempt generally increase over time until compliance is achieved.

The 69-year-old man was sentenced to 21 days in jail, while the 21-year-old received 14 days in jail. Distinguishing factors included the time and effort to remove them and the degree to which they had publicised their breached the court order.\\xa0

Also on the show, the BC Court of Appeal overturned an award of punitive damages against an insurance company that denied a travel insurance claim and then managed to pay the hospital involved less than ordinarily billed by not telling them that that the claim had, eventually, been allowed.

The incident involved a man who purchased travel insurance before a trip to Reno. He experienced a loss of consciousness (known as a \\u201csyncope\\u201d) while drinking at a bar and fell hitting his neck. He was hospitalized for 12 days and had a pacemaker installed. The hospital bill was $293,127.60.

For two years, and with little investigation, the insurance company denied the claim alleging that it was caused by drinking alcohol, despite medical evidence to the contrary. Eventually the insurance company relented, once a court case had been commenced, and agreed to cover the claim. Without telling the hospital that they had agreed to cover the claim, the insurance company got the hospital to agree to apply an \\u201cuninsured discount\\u201d and settled with them for $47,000.

This was upsetting to the man because of the excellent care he had received from the hospital.

Insurance contracts require the insurance company, and the insured, to act in good faith. This means, amongst other things, that the insurance company must act fairly and reasonably. They must give as much consideration to the interests of the insured as their own interested.

The trial judge concluded that the insurance company had not done this and awarded $100,000 in punitive damages against the insurance company.

The BC Court of Appeal overturned this award on the basis that the insurance company eventually agreed to pay the claim and because the duty to act in good faith applies only to the insured person and not, for example, the hospital which may have been misled when it agreed to reduce its bill.

Finally, on the show, the Crime Victim Assistance Act, and how it relates to civil claims for injuries caused by criminal activity, is also discussed.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.\\xa0