Call us at: 1 (250) 480-4040
  • Home
  • Our Firm
  • Criminal Law
    • Top Ten Mistakes
    • Assault FAQ
    • Criminal Appeals FAQ
    • Criminal Law FAQ
    • Driving While Prohibited FAQ
    • Drug Offences FAQ
    • Homicide
    • Impaired Driving FAQ
    • Sexual Assault
    • Spousal Assault
    • Theft & Fraud
    • Vehicle Impoundment FAQ
  • Computer Forensics
    • Computer Forensics Concepts
    • Computer Forensics Overview
    • Legal Issues
    • Our Forensics Training
    • Our Services
  • Legal News
  • Contact Us
  • Menu Menu

Sentencing For Indiginty to Human Remains and Tribunal System Fix

March 12, 2026/in Legal News /by mtp_admin

 

Someone dies, and the person beside them makes a choice that shocks everyone: no call for help, no report, just a body hidden away. We unpack a BC Provincial Court sentencing decision under Criminal Code section 182, the offence of offering an indignity to a dead body or human remains, and why the judge calls the conduct inherently serious even though there’s no finding that the accused caused the death. Along the way, we break down aggravating versus mitigating factors, the role of remorse and an early guilty plea, and how Gladue principles shape the court’s understanding of moral blameworthiness.

We also talk about the realities that don’t fit neatly into legal categories: addiction, fear, and the ripple effects on family and community when a person is treated as “missing” for weeks. The sentencing math matters too, including enhanced credit for time served because of brutal protective custody conditions that resemble solitary confinement, and why the court still concludes that a conditional sentence at home would not meet denunciation and deterrence.

Then the conversation swings to administrative justice and the BC Court of Appeal: a Whole Foods probationary firing that turns into years of litigation through the Workers’ Compensation system, judicial review, and parallel Human Rights Tribunal proceedings. We explain security for costs, why courts sometimes require it when an appeal is virtually without merit, and why overlapping tribunals can create expensive duplication. We close with a clear primer on habeas corpus under Charter section 10(c) and a key limit: when the Court of Appeal can, and cannot, appoint counsel. If you care about Canadian law, access to justice, and how courts balance principle with real life, subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review with the question you want us to tackle next.

 

Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan is live on CFAX 1070 every Thursday at 12:30 p.m. It’s also available on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share by Mail
https://mtplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/mtplaw-logo.svg 0 0 mtp_admin https://mtplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/mtplaw-logo.svg mtp_admin2026-03-12 15:01:142026-03-12 15:01:14Sentencing For Indiginty to Human Remains and Tribunal System Fix

Contact Us

Robert A. Mulligan, K.C.
Michael T. Mulligan
Professional Experience

24 Hour Immediate Confidential Help

#105 – 777 Blanshard Street
Victoria, BC, Canada  V8W 2G9
P  250-480-4040
F  250-480-0004
TF 1-800-664-2785

Subscribe to the Legally Speaking podcast

Get in Touch

#105 – 777 Blanshard St.,
Victoria BC, V8W 2G9.

  • Ph 1 (250) 480-4040
  • Fx 1 (250) 480-0004
  • Tf 1 (800) 664-2785

Mulligan Defence Lawyers

  • Criminal Law
  • Computer Forensics

Our Lawyers

  • Robert A. Mulligan, K.C.
  • Michael T. Mulligan
  • Link to Facebook

© Copyright 2020 Mulligan Defence Lawyers

Link to: When “Not Now” Still Means “Maybe Later” For Private Property and ICBC Hit and Run Requirements Link to: When “Not Now” Still Means “Maybe Later” For Private Property and ICBC Hit and Run Requirements When “Not Now” Still Means “Maybe Later” For Private Property and ICBC...
Scroll to top