When in a car, I prefer to drive. I am not sure why, but I do.

But, now and then, I am a passenger in a vehicle. My friends and family members are good drivers, but they can make mistakes… And, if they did make a mistake and caused a crash that resulted in me suffering some injuries, I MIGHT sue them.

I know, I know… I sound like a horrible friend. But, I’m really not (at least I don’t think I am).

I’m willing to bet that most people wouldn’t ever consider suing their friend, husband, father, daughter or other loved one who was driving a vehicle when a crash occurred, resulting in injuries. The reality, though, is that it should be seriously considered.

Photo: Contributed

Imagine this: you are a passenger in your father’s vehicle and he is driving. You are going to see a movie together. On the way to the movie, your father changes lanes without signaling and without looking in his blind spot. Sadly, he hits a truck that was in his blind spot and a crash occurs. As a result of the crash, you suffer injuries to your neck and back and start getting regular headaches. From the crash injuries, you lose some time at work, you start to incur medical expenses, and you aren’t able to exercise or sleep restfully.

Should you just “eat” your losses? My answer: no.

You father buys insurance for this reason, specifically.

In British Columbia, motorists buy two types of insurance:

1. First-party insurance: This type of insurance covers the person who BUYS the insurance in the event of a loss. To illustrate, if you cause a crash, the first-party insurance will cover repairs to your vehicle.
2. Third-party insurance: This type of insurance protects you when you are sued by a third party for losses that you caused. To illustrate, if you cause a crash and hurt someone, then that person (who was hurt) has a legal claim against you (i.e. for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of income). Third-party insurance will ‘cover’ you if this happens.

So, quite frankly, if someone causes a crash that causes you to suffer injuries, why wouldn’t you sue them to recover your losses?

Yes, I appreciate that they are a loved one. But, again, there is insurance coverage for this situation. The insurance company deals with the legal claim (and pays out the losses to the harmed parties). And, for the most part, your loved one won’t typically be involved in the lawsuit.

Family members suing each other in personal injury claims is more common than you might think, too.

I have heard this said before, and it is true: sometimes, you should sue your family members.

**The information contained in this column should not be treated by readers as legal advice and should not be relied on without detailed legal counsel being sought.

Think of some high profile cases and imagine what would have happened if there were no witnesses. Consider:

• Robert Pickton’s case, in which over 120 witnesses were presented;
• Robert Dziekanski’s final video-taped moments at the Vancouver Airport and how the RCMP officers deliberately misrepresented their actions; and
• Geoff Mantler’s kick on Buddy Tavares, which was witnessed and video-recorded by Castanet’s Kelly Hayes.

Photo: Contributed

Witnesses were CRUCIAL in these cases to ensure that the truth was unearthed.

I can appreciate, though, that people can be hesitant to lend a hand... Sometimes, in criminal cases, witnesses can be nervous about retribution. That is an understandable (but often misguided) fear and one that should be discussed with police and Crown Prosecutors.

Sometimes, though, people are hesitant to be witnesses for other reasons, such as selfishness or carelessness. I’ll give you an example…

For some context, witness interviewing and preparation is a big part of my job. My initial witness interviews typically take around 15 minutes to complete. My questions are not hard or technical; I merely ask about someone’s observations or memories of an event, such as a car crash. If someone cannot remember something, then that’s perfectly fine – I don’t want someone “filling in the blanks” with false memories. And I appreciate that people have busy lives, so I often stay late in the office to contact witnesses (after the witness has finished work).

Now, in this example, my client slipped on some ice and suffered some injuries. Immediately after the fall, someone came upon my client to assist. Obviously, this person was a great position to comment on what the ground looked like when my client fell.

So, I call the witness. And, frustration ensued…

I asked, “Was the ground coated with ice or snow?” I asked, “Was the ground difficult to stand on?” After a few moments, the witness said, “This is why people don’t want to help other people”. That was VERY disappointing to hear...

Now, I am confident that the witness was having an “off day”, as they later provided helpful and useful information for my client.

Fortunately, this sort of situation is the exception, rather than the rule. I have conducted hundreds of witness interviews and I struggle to think of more than one or two uncooperative witnesses.

The reason I may sound so frustrated with uncooperative witnesses is because witnesses are CRUCIAL: they MAKE or BREAK cases. Think about it: if witnesses don’t come forward to describe an event, justice can easily be lost.

So, here’s a tip: if you are involved in an altercation, whether it be a landlord/tenant disagreement, a car crash, a fight, or a dispute involving your work, be sure to get the names/contact information of witnesses who can comment on what they saw or heard. It can make the WORLD of a difference...

And, if someone asks you to be a witness for their case, please take the time to help out. If you do, you would have just played a very important and crucial role in someone else’s plight for justice. And, at the very least, it’s good karma.

And now you know.

**The information contained in this column should not be treated by readers as legal advice and should not be relied on without detailed legal counsel being sought.

So, there’s an upcoming election and, if you’re like me, you’ve heard a lot of promises.

But, I haven’t heard much about the funding of B.C.’s justice system, which makes me wonder, “What the heck?!”

Photo: Contributed

Now, I have previously indicated in columns that the courts are HORRENDOUSLY under-funded. You can read that column here: Justice system in crisis.

But, in addition to court budgets, legal aid in B.C. is also under-funded.

You may not have heard much about this topic, but there have been several protests by lawyers about the poor funding of legal aid: BC trial lawyers take stand.

So, what’s the problem? Well, the problem boils down to this: justice in B.C. is unattainable for a lot of people in British Columbia (because of their financial means) and legal aid does not “fill those gaps”.

You may not know a lot about legal aid, so here’s some information...

First of all, “legal aid” is basically government funded legal advice and service.

So, how do you get that government-funded lawyer to work for you?

Well, there are some hurdles that you need to jump over. First, your particular legal issue must be covered by legal aid.

Here are the most common situations when legal aid will be provided:

1. You are charged with a criminal offence that could send you to jail (if convicted);
2. You have a serious family law problem, which generally involves some issues involving a child’s safety or care; and
3. You are facing immigration proceedings that may result in you being removed from Canada.

The next hurdle to jump over is Legal Aid’s financial guidelines. Basically, your net household income must be below a particular amount. Here’s an example: if you live alone, your net income must be equal to or less than $1,480.00/month.

And, you can’t have a lot of assets either. An intake legal assistant at Legal Aid will look at the value of your assets (to determine if you should receive legal aid). They’ll consider things like your cash, RRSPs, home, and car. With some exceptions, assets are considered disposable (i.e. able to be sold).

You may be thinking, “It sounds like legal aid covers a lot of different legal matters.” If you think that, consider this…

Legal aid doesn’t help you if you want to create a Will or Power of Attorney. It doesn’t help you if someone physically hurts you and you want to sue them for your losses. It doesn’t help you if someone refuses to pay you for services/work that you agreed to provide to them. It doesn’t help you if you are charged with a “typical” criminal offence, as the most common criminal offences don’t result in “jail time”.

You get the point: legal aid doesn’t provide assistance to most legal situations.

Then, there are the financial hurdles... A LOT of people make more than $1,480.00 (or approx. $17,700.00 net per year), but cannot reasonably afford a lawyer (or any other unexpected expense for that matter).

For your information, I frequently meet with and provide advice to people who cannot afford a lawyer and who do not qualify for legal aid. And, it can be heart wrenching.

Many of these people have great cases and civil claims (but cannot afford a lawyer to prosecute their claim). And, many of these people who are charged with criminal offences have legitimate defences (but cannot afford a lawyer to argue that defence).

Now, I take on some of these claims on a pro bono basis; but, obviously, I can’t take them all.

So, what do we do? Well, we need to ensure that legal aid is adequately funded, so that JUSTICE is attainable for more people.

Here are some wise words, said by the Right Honourable Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin, P.C.: “Our brains are hardwired for justice. To be required to accept that you can’t have justice is to give up a part of yourself as a human being.”

Something to think about on election day…

**The information contained in this column should not be treated by readers as legal advice and should not be relied on without detailed legal counsel being sought.

I’m angry…

By now, you’ve heard about the tragic death of Rehtaeh Parsons. But, in case you’ve been living under a rock, here’s the tragedy…

Photo: Contributed

Rehtaeh, 17 and from Nova Scotia, was taken off of life support and died on April 7, 2013 following a suicide attempt. Rehtaeh had been allegedly raped by four boys. Apparently, there was even a photograph of the rape. She was also bullied relentlessly.

The rape was reported to police, but APPARENTLY there wasn’t enough evidence to lay charges. So, the bullying continued… until Rehtaeh eventually took steps to end her own life.

I am furious!

Obviously, I am furious at the “boys” who committed the rape.

And, after reading about the tragedy, I am also furious at the police.

Granted, I don’t have the full story; but, I have a REALLY hard time believing that they couldn’t get enough evidence together. I also have a hard time imagining that four boys could commit such a serious crime and completely cover it up, totally escaping criminal liability…

The Nova Scotia government is apparently devoting substantial resources to find out what happened. I hope that they find the individuals who are responsible...

And, I applaud Nova Scotia Justice Minister Ross Landry for taking these steps. But, there is something that he said that just doesn’t make sense….

He said that, in the wake of Rehtaeh’s death, he’s considering NEW LAWS when it comes to sexual assault and distribution of child pornography.

Maybe I am missing something here…

The laws surrounding sexual assault and child pornography aren’t gray or vague. I think we all know that rape and child pornography are illegal. And, there aren’t truck-wide holes in those laws.

So, I fail to see how different laws would have prevented this tragedy.

It seems pretty clear to me: the police couldn’t get enough evidence to lay criminal charges. That’s what they said, right?

Okay, so let’s assume that the police weren’t incompetent in investigating the crime. If they weren’t (and we’ll find this out soon), then obviously they needed further resources.

It makes me angry when politicians say that they are going to create new laws when the existing laws are just fine. The problem isn’t the laws – it’s the ENFORCEMENT of those laws.

So, here’s a better idea: how about devoting more resources to ensure that police are able to effectively investigate crime? Better training, more police, more resources, you name it…

Enough is enough.

**The information contained in this column should not be treated by readers as legal advice and should not be relied on without detailed legal counsel being sought.