Suing a municipality for poor snow clearing and a finding of "Family Violence" against a father for opposing hormone treatment for child with gender dysphoria overturned
b'
Two new British Columbia Court of Appeal decisions are discussed on the show this week.\\xa0
When can you sue a municipality for an injury caused by poorly cleared snow?\\xa0
The Court of Appeal provided some clarity in a recent case against the City of Nelson. The plaintiff suffered a serious leg injury after stepping into a snowbank trying to get from an angled parking spot to the sidewalk.
While a municipality is not liable for injuries caused by policy decisions, such as whether to clear the snow or not, they can be liable when a policy decision is poorly implemented, and this causes a hazard. The legal distinction is between \\u201cpolicy\\u201d and \\u201coperation\\u201d.
The second case discussed involved a 14-year-old who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and wished to undertake hormone therapy following a social transition from female to male at age 12.\\xa0
The child\\u2019s parents had been separated for several years and, while the child\\u2019s mother supported the treatment, the father opposed it.
Various court application ensued and an order was made against the father declaring that his references to the child as a girl, whether directly or to third parties, was a form of \\u201cfamily violence\\u201d pursuant a definition of this term in the Family Law Act that includes things like \\u201cpsychological or emotional abuse of a family member.\\u201d
The father was ordered not to attempt to persuade the child to abandon the treatment, not to refer to the child by his birth name, and not to refer to the child as a girl or with female pronouns to the child, or any third parties.
The unfortunate language used in the Family Law Act, which defines \\u201cpsychological or emotional abuse\\u201d as \\u201cviolence\\u201d seems to have made this dispute worse, as the language is inconsistent with any ordinary meaning of the term \\u201cviolence\\u201d.
While the conduct of the father, in refusing to accept the child\\u2019s chosen gender, and to refuse to address him by the name he had chosen was found to be disrespectful and hurtful, the Court of Appeal found that, despite the incongruent definition in the Family Law Act, this should not have been characterized as family violence.
The Court of Appeal also modified the lower court order which prohibited the father from discussing the matter with the child or expressing his opinion to the friends or family members.
The hormone therapy continued, without the approval of the father, because section 17 of the Infants Act permits minors to consent to their own medical treatment.
Legally Speaking with Victoria Lawyer Michael Mulligan is live on CFAX 1070 every Thursday at 10:30 am.
Links to the cases discussed, and a transcript of the show can be found here.\\xa0